Go To Home Page
Messiah

Key: = Posted Today and Yesterday



'Theology Discussion Group'

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

« Forum Guidelines »

Total Messages Loaded: 700
Post New Message


scott lewis -:- Parallels Circumcision/Baptism -:- Tues, Apr 18, 2000 at 22:22:15 (PDT)
_
john hampshire -:- Re: Parallels Circumcision/Baptism -:- Tues, Apr 18, 2000 at 23:22:27 (PDT)

freegrace -:- What about Rebaptism? -:- Tues, Apr 18, 2000 at 10:05:28 (PDT)
_
the_sword_of_the_lord -:- Re: What about Rebaptism? -:- Tues, Apr 18, 2000 at 13:54:39 (PDT)
_ Pilgrim -:-
Re: What about Rebaptism? -:- Tues, Apr 18, 2000 at 12:45:50 (PDT)
__ john hampshire -:-
Re: What about Rebaptism? -:- Tues, Apr 18, 2000 at 22:38:53 (PDT)
_ Darrin -:-
Re: What about Rebaptism? -:- Tues, Apr 18, 2000 at 11:08:32 (PDT)
__ Prestor John -:-
Re: What about Rebaptism?? -:- Tues, Apr 18, 2000 at 20:02:36 (PDT)
___ Darrin -:-
Re: What about Rebaptism? -:- Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 04:18:15 (PDT)
____ Pilgrim -:-
Re: What about Rebaptism???? -:- Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 07:08:58 (PDT)
____ Prestor John -:-
Re: What about Rebaptism? -:- Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 06:18:06 (PDT)
_____ Darrin -:-
Re: What about Rebaptism? -:- Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 07:01:57 (PDT)

freegrace -:- Acts 22:16 .....'Be Baptised'. -:- Mon, Apr 17, 2000 at 20:57:00 (PDT)
_
Prestor John -:- Re: Acts 22:16 .....'Be Baptised'. -:- Tues, Apr 18, 2000 at 21:41:54 (PDT)

freegrace -:- The Washing of Water by the Word -:- Mon, Apr 17, 2000 at 19:40:22 (PDT)
_
Prestor John -:- Re: The Washing of Water by the Word -:- Mon, Apr 17, 2000 at 21:04:07 (PDT)
__ freegrace -:-
Re: The Washing of Water by the Word -:- Tues, Apr 18, 2000 at 09:52:17 (PDT)
___ Prestor John -:-
Re: The Washing of Water by the Word -:- Tues, Apr 18, 2000 at 19:53:34 (PDT)
_ Pilgrim -:-
Re: The Washing of Water by the Word -:- Mon, Apr 17, 2000 at 20:51:38 (PDT)
__ freegrace -:-
Re: The Washing of Water by the Word -:- Tues, Apr 18, 2000 at 09:14:56 (PDT)
___ Pilgrim -:-
Re: The Washing of Water by the Word -:- Tues, Apr 18, 2000 at 12:33:35 (PDT)
_ Prestor John -:-
Re: The Washing of Water by the Word -:- Mon, Apr 17, 2000 at 20:40:02 (PDT)

Rod -:- a principle for us all -:- Sun, Apr 16, 2000 at 10:01:18 (PDT)

PWH -:- Infant Baptism -:- Sat, Apr 15, 2000 at 17:44:22 (PDT)
_
Pilgrim -:- Re: Infant Baptism -:- Sat, Apr 15, 2000 at 17:56:53 (PDT)
__ PWH -:-
Re: Infant Baptism -:- Sun, Apr 16, 2000 at 18:49:16 (PDT)
__ Brother Bret -:-
Article was good reading, thanks! nt -:- Sun, Apr 16, 2000 at 13:59:28 (PDT)
__ Tom -:-
Re: Infant Baptism -:- Sat, Apr 15, 2000 at 22:28:57 (PDT)
___ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Infant Baptism -:- Sun, Apr 16, 2000 at 09:42:51 (PDT)
____ PWH -:-
Re: Infant Baptism -:- Sun, Apr 16, 2000 at 19:03:56 (PDT)
_____ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Infant Baptism -:- Sun, Apr 16, 2000 at 21:05:16 (PDT)
______ scott lewis -:-
Re: Infant Baptism -:- Sun, Apr 16, 2000 at 21:57:00 (PDT)
_______ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Infant Baptism -:- Sun, Apr 16, 2000 at 23:55:37 (PDT)
________ scott lewis -:-
Re: Infant Baptism -:- Tues, Apr 18, 2000 at 22:09:13 (PDT)
________ john hampshire -:-
Re: Infant Baptism -:- Mon, Apr 17, 2000 at 15:52:43 (PDT)
_________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Infant Baptism -:- Tues, Apr 18, 2000 at 09:22:12 (PDT)
____ Tom -:-
Re: Infant Baptism -:- Sun, Apr 16, 2000 at 17:07:27 (PDT)
_____ Prestor John -:-
Re: Infant Baptism -:- Sun, Apr 16, 2000 at 21:36:13 (PDT)
______ Tom -:-
Re: Infant Baptism -:- Sun, Apr 16, 2000 at 22:45:47 (PDT)
_______ Prestor John -:-
Re: Infant Baptism -:- Mon, Apr 17, 2000 at 19:04:43 (PDT)
________ Tom -:-
Re: Infant Baptism -:- Tues, Apr 18, 2000 at 00:08:09 (PDT)
_________ Prestor John -:-
Re: Infant Baptism -:- Tues, Apr 18, 2000 at 19:24:03 (PDT)
__________ Tom -:-
Re: Infant Baptism -:- Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 00:11:07 (PDT)
___________ Prestor John -:-
Re: Infant Baptism -:- Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 06:25:53 (PDT)
_________ freegrace -:-
Re: Infant Baptism -:- Tues, Apr 18, 2000 at 10:35:17 (PDT)
__________ Tom -:-
Re: Infant Baptism -:- Tues, Apr 18, 2000 at 11:22:41 (PDT)
______ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Infant Baptism -:- Sun, Apr 16, 2000 at 21:50:58 (PDT)
_______ Prestor John -:-
Re: Infant Baptism -:- Mon, Apr 17, 2000 at 19:51:41 (PDT)
_______ freegrace -:-
Re: Infant Baptism -:- Mon, Apr 17, 2000 at 19:06:46 (PDT)
________ Prestor John -:-
Re: Infant Baptism -:- Mon, Apr 17, 2000 at 20:46:28 (PDT)
________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Infant Baptism -:- Mon, Apr 17, 2000 at 20:37:56 (PDT)

Brother Bret -:- Day of Crucifixion -:- Sat, Apr 15, 2000 at 07:29:49 (PDT)
_
freegrace -:- Re: Day of Crucifixion..Link -:- Sat, Apr 15, 2000 at 17:17:10 (PDT)
__ john hampshire -:-
Re: Day of Crucifixion..Link -:- Sun, Apr 16, 2000 at 00:14:13 (PDT)
___ den -:-
Re: Day of Crucifixion..Link -:- Sun, Apr 16, 2000 at 10:54:17 (PDT)
_ stan -:-
Re: May or may not be of help -:- Sat, Apr 15, 2000 at 14:27:36 (PDT)
_ den -:-
Re: Day of Crucifixion -:- Sat, Apr 15, 2000 at 09:54:26 (PDT)
_ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: Day of Crucifixion -:- Sat, Apr 15, 2000 at 08:05:14 (PDT)
_ freegrace -:-
Re: Day of Crucifixion -:- Sat, Apr 15, 2000 at 07:43:24 (PDT)
__ Prestor John -:-
Re: Day of Crucifixion -:- Sun, Apr 16, 2000 at 17:12:19 (PDT)
___ freegrace -:-
Re: Day of Crucifixion -:- Sun, Apr 16, 2000 at 19:36:35 (PDT)
___ stan -:-
Re: Or you could ....... -:- Sun, Apr 16, 2000 at 17:46:09 (PDT)
____ Prestor John -:-
Re: Or you could ....... -:- Sun, Apr 16, 2000 at 20:58:28 (PDT)
_____ stan -:-
Re: Or you could ....... -:- Mon, Apr 17, 2000 at 13:40:27 (PDT)

freegrace -:- Once In Adam, Now In Christ -:- Sat, Apr 15, 2000 at 05:56:29 (PDT)

Tom -:- For Laz -:- Fri, Apr 14, 2000 at 23:25:18 (PDT)

Rod -:- Pondering freegrace's statements on -:- Fri, Apr 14, 2000 at 15:18:20 (PDT)
_
freegrace -:- Re: Pondering freegrace's statements on -:- Sat, Apr 15, 2000 at 05:08:50 (PDT)
__ Rod -:-
Re: Pondering freegrace's statements on -:- Sat, Apr 15, 2000 at 10:25:34 (PDT)

Mitchel Vernon -:- Lord Is Not Slack -:- Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 19:37:07 (PDT)
_
Rod -:- God's judgment and its execution -:- Fri, Apr 14, 2000 at 15:03:59 (PDT)
_ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Lord Is Not Slack -:- Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 21:19:29 (PDT)
__ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: Lord Is Not Slack -:- Fri, Apr 14, 2000 at 08:52:19 (PDT)
___ Brother Bret -:-
Re: Lord Is Not Slack -:- Fri, Apr 14, 2000 at 15:42:50 (PDT)
____ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Who is Peter's audience? -:- Fri, Apr 14, 2000 at 17:44:32 (PDT)
_____ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Who is Peter's audience??? -:- Fri, Apr 14, 2000 at 22:37:12 (PDT)
______ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: Who is Peter's audience? -:- Fri, Apr 14, 2000 at 23:39:12 (PDT)
_______ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Who is Peter's audience?? -:- Sat, Apr 15, 2000 at 07:17:59 (PDT)
______ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: Who is Peter's audience? -:- Fri, Apr 14, 2000 at 23:21:10 (PDT)
_______ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Who is Peter's audience? -:- Sat, Apr 15, 2000 at 07:08:21 (PDT)
____ Mitchel Vernon -:-
Re: Lord Is Not Slack -:- Fri, Apr 14, 2000 at 16:35:08 (PDT)
_____ Brother Bret -:-
Re: Lord Is Not Slack -:- Sat, Apr 15, 2000 at 06:57:07 (PDT)
______ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: Lord Is Not Slack -:- Sat, Apr 15, 2000 at 07:47:12 (PDT)
_______ Maz -:-
Re: Lord Is Not Slack -:- Sat, Apr 15, 2000 at 16:13:16 (PDT)
_____ Rod -:-
Re: Lord Is Not Slack -:- Fri, Apr 14, 2000 at 20:03:37 (PDT)
___ freegrace -:-
Re: Lord Is Not Slack -:- Fri, Apr 14, 2000 at 11:27:27 (PDT)
___ den -:-
Re: Lord Is Not Slack -:- Fri, Apr 14, 2000 at 10:52:31 (PDT)

Eric -:- Infants (for Rod and laz) -:- Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 08:32:59 (PDT)
_
laz -:- Re: Infants (for Rod and laz) -:- Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 12:45:31 (PDT)
__ Eric -:-
Perhaps Pilgrim has some insight -:- Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 13:14:53 (PDT)
___ Rod -:-
I'm not Pilgrim, or even close, but... -:- Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 14:28:09 (PDT)
____ Eric -:-
Hi Rod... -:- Fri, Apr 14, 2000 at 08:26:29 (PDT)
_____ Rod -:-
Hi, Eric :> -:- Fri, Apr 14, 2000 at 09:08:38 (PDT)
______ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Hi, Rod :> -:- Fri, Apr 14, 2000 at 13:00:19 (PDT)
_______ Rod -:-
Preach on, brudder!! (n/t) -:- Fri, Apr 14, 2000 at 15:10:21 (PDT)
____ Pilgrim -:-
Re: You're not Pilgrim, but I am! :-) -:- Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 18:13:07 (PDT)
_____ Rod -:-
Re: You're not Pilgrim, but I am! :-) -:- Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 20:23:07 (PDT)
______ Pilgrim -:-
Re: You're not Pilgrim, but I am! :-) -:- Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 20:48:28 (PDT)
___ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Perhaps Pilgrim has some insight -:- Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 13:47:40 (PDT)
____ laz -:-
Re: Perhaps Pilgrim has some insight -:- Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 14:05:29 (PDT)
___ laz -:-
Re: Perhaps Pilgrim has some insight -:- Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 13:27:30 (PDT)
_ Rod -:-
Re: Infants (for Rod and laz) -:- Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 11:50:30 (PDT)
__ Eric -:-
Re: Federal Headship -:- Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 12:50:30 (PDT)
___ Rod -:-
Re: Federal Headship -:- Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 14:38:38 (PDT)
___ laz -:-
Re: Federal Headship -:- Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 13:40:38 (PDT)
____ Rod -:-
laz is kidding, but... -:- Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 14:52:04 (PDT)

PWH -:- Infant Baptism -:- Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 19:39:01 (PDT)
_
Prestor John -:- Re: Infant Baptism -:- Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 22:03:59 (PDT)
_ Prestor John -:-
Re: Infant Baptism -:- Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 21:47:24 (PDT)
_ Five Sola -:-
Re: Infant Baptism -:- Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 20:39:39 (PDT)
__ PWH -:-
Re: Infant Baptism -:- Sat, Apr 15, 2000 at 17:11:56 (PDT)
__ freegrace -:-
Re: Infant Baptism -:- Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 09:02:58 (PDT)
__ Tom -:-
Re: Infant Baptism -:- Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 23:58:11 (PDT)
___ PWH -:-
Re: Infant Baptism -:- Sat, Apr 15, 2000 at 17:22:43 (PDT)
_ freegrace -:-
Re: Infant Baptism -:- Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 20:26:27 (PDT)
__ PWH -:-
Re: Infant Baptism -:- Sat, Apr 15, 2000 at 17:27:27 (PDT)
__ Tom -:-
Re: Infant Baptism -:- Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 00:13:46 (PDT)
___ freegrace -:-
Re: Infant Baptism -:- Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 06:42:24 (PDT)
____ PWH -:-
Re: Infant Baptism -:- Sat, Apr 15, 2000 at 17:30:26 (PDT)
____ Tom -:-
Re: Infant Baptism -:- Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 11:53:53 (PDT)
_____ freegrace -:-
Re: Infant Baptism -:- Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 13:10:18 (PDT)
__ Prestor John -:-
Re: Infant Baptism -:- Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 21:57:54 (PDT)
___ freegrace -:-
Re: Infant Baptism -:- Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 06:27:10 (PDT)
__ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Infant Baptism -:- Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 21:12:15 (PDT)
___ freegrace -:-
Re: Infant Baptism -:- Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 06:19:15 (PDT)
____ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Infant Baptism -:- Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 10:51:41 (PDT)
____ freegrace -:-
correction on the link I posted. -:- Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 06:50:23 (PDT)
__ Rod -:-
No water at all??? -:- Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 21:08:23 (PDT)
___ freegrace -:-
Re: No water at all??? -:- Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 06:55:49 (PDT)
____ Rod -:-
Re: No water at all??? -:- Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 11:11:16 (PDT)
_____ freegrace -:-
Re: No water at all??? -:- Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 13:21:20 (PDT)
______ Rod -:-
Re: No water at all??? -:- Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 14:55:05 (PDT)
_______ freegrace -:-
Re: No water at all??? -:- Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 18:39:37 (PDT)

Eddie33 -:- Books opened in Rev 20:12 -:- Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 09:28:47 (PDT)
_
Rod -:- Re: Books opened in Rev 20:12 -:- Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 21:23:43 (PDT)
_ freegrace -:-
Re: Books opened in Rev 20:12 -:- Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 11:23:19 (PDT)
_ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: Books opened in Rev 20:12 -:- Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 10:44:38 (PDT)

laz -:- Christopher - God Repenting -:- Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 09:22:22 (PDT)
_
Christopher -:- laz, no. -:- Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 15:37:43 (PDT)
_ Christopher -:-
Re: Christopher - God Repenting -:- Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 10:01:39 (PDT)
__ Eric -:-
Is that true? -:- Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 10:19:14 (PDT)
___ Rod -:-
Is that true?--Emphatically! -:- Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 12:45:42 (PDT)
___ monitor -:-
Re: Is that true? -:- Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 12:40:15 (PDT)

freegrace -:- Message to laz -- 'Elect infants' -:- Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 09:02:12 (PDT)
_
laz -:- Re: Message to laz -- 'Elect infants' -:- Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 09:52:55 (PDT)
_ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: Message to laz -- 'Elect infants' -:- Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 09:25:17 (PDT)
__ Rod -:-
Re: Message to laz -- 'Elect infants' -:- Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 12:02:45 (PDT)
___ laz -:-
Re: Message to laz -- 'Elect infants' -:- Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 12:49:19 (PDT)
____ freegrace -:-
Re: Message to laz -- 'Elect infants' -:- Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 13:03:08 (PDT)
____ Rod -:-
Re: Message to laz -- 'Elect infants' -:- Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 12:59:54 (PDT)
_____ laz -:-
Re: Message to laz -- 'Elect infants' -:- Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 13:10:58 (PDT)
___ freegrace -:-
Re: Message to laz -- 'Elect infants' -:- Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 12:43:23 (PDT)
__ Eric -:-
You are exactly right!! : ) -:- Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 10:00:26 (PDT)
___ laz -:-
Re: You are exactly right!! : ) -:- Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 12:56:40 (PDT)
___ Rod -:-
Eric: a fundamental error -:- Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 12:34:08 (PDT)
__ laz -:-
Re: Message to laz -- 'Elect infants' -:- Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 09:59:23 (PDT)
___ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: Message to laz -- 'Elect infants' -:- Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 10:36:38 (PDT)
____ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Message to laz -- 'Elect infants' -:- Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 13:41:10 (PDT)
____ freegrace -:-
Re: Message to laz -- 'Elect infants' -:- Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 11:12:53 (PDT)
_____ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Holy heresy, Batman! -:- Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 12:45:12 (PDT)
______ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: Holy heresy, Batman! -:- Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 12:47:43 (PDT)
_______ Rod -:-
Re: Holy heresy, Batman! -:- Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 12:50:59 (PDT)
________ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: Holy heresy, Batman! -:- Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 13:01:53 (PDT)
_________ Rod -:-
unsound imputation of belief -:- Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 13:20:59 (PDT)
_________ freegrace -:-
Re: Holy heresy, Batman! -:- Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 13:07:22 (PDT)
__________ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: Holy heresy, Batman! -:- Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 16:22:35 (PDT)
____ Eric -:-
Don't forget.... -:- Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 11:08:22 (PDT)
_____ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: Don't forget.... -:- Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 12:51:21 (PDT)
_____ Christopher -:-
question for Eric -:- Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 11:18:33 (PDT)
______ Eric -:-
Did I answer your question? n/t -:- Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 09:09:53 (PDT)
______ laz -:-
Re: question for Eric -:- Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 13:03:46 (PDT)
______ Eric -:-
Re: question for Eric -:- Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 11:41:20 (PDT)
_______ laz -:-
Re: question for Eric -:- Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 13:17:44 (PDT)

Rod -:- Two 32's -:- Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 17:51:08 (PDT)

Gene -:- God changing His mind -:- Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 14:14:09 (PDT)
_
Pilgrim -:- Re: God changing His mind -:- Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 15:43:02 (PDT)
___ clark -:-
Re: Well Pilgrim.... -:- Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 04:46:23 (PDT)
__ laz -:-
Re: God changing His mind -:- Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 16:46:37 (PDT)
___ Gene -:-
Re: God changing His mind -:- Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 18:54:08 (PDT)
____ One of the monitors -:-
Flaming forbidden -:- Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 21:19:56 (PDT)
____ Five Sola -:-
Re: God changing His mind -:- Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 20:58:10 (PDT)
__ Gene -:-
Re: God changing His mind -:- Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 16:21:17 (PDT)
___ Pilgrim -:-
Re: God changing His mind -:- Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 20:29:04 (PDT)
___ laz -:-
Re: God changing His mind -:- Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 16:50:11 (PDT)
_ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Amen -:- Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 15:24:20 (PDT)

freegrace -:- Article--Who accepts Whom? -:- Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 09:18:44 (PDT)
_
laz -:- Re: Article--Who accepts Whom?? -:- Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 10:50:22 (PDT)

laz -:- To Any Freewiller -:- Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 08:01:01 (PDT)
_
james -:- Well Laz.... -:- Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 14:48:13 (PDT)
__ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Well Laz.... -:- Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 15:37:12 (PDT)
___ james -:-
Hey Pilgrim... -:- Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 16:58:47 (PDT)
____ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Hey Pilgrim... -:- Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 20:41:56 (PDT)
_____ Five Sola -:-
Praise God -:- Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 21:11:56 (PDT)
______ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Praise God -:- Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 07:15:23 (PDT)
____ laz -:-
Re: Hey Pilgrim... -:- Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 19:06:19 (PDT)
_ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: To Any Freewiller -:- Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 09:29:57 (PDT)
__ Pilgrim -:-
Re: To Any Freewiller -:- Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 12:04:48 (PDT)
___ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: To Any Freewiller -:- Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 15:06:08 (PDT)
__ Rod -:-
Re: To Any Freewiller -:- Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 10:14:02 (PDT)
___ laz -:-
Re: To Any Freewiller -:- Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 10:40:57 (PDT)
____ Rod -:-
Very good analysis -:- Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 16:53:34 (PDT)
_____ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Very good analysis -:- Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 20:55:55 (PDT)
__ laz -:-
Re: To Any Freewiller -:- Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 10:06:38 (PDT)
_ Eric -:-
Re: To Any Freewiller -:- Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 08:14:11 (PDT)
__ laz -:-
Re: To Any Freewiller -:- Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 10:00:12 (PDT)
___ Eric -:-
I'm not taking the bait :) n/t -:- Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 12:08:31 (PDT)

freegrace -:- Standing on Holy Ground -:- Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 06:35:19 (PDT)
_
james -:- Robbing God of Glory? -:- Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 17:16:16 (PDT)
__ laz -:-
Re: Robbing God of Glory? -:- Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 19:13:41 (PDT)

freegrace -:- Apostates -:- Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 06:02:38 (PDT)
_
the_sword_of_the_lord -:- Re: Apostates -:- Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 06:52:48 (PDT)
__ freegrace -:-
Re: Apostates -:- Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 08:00:26 (PDT)

Eric -:- To mebaser(Regen. from below) -:- Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 07:42:55 (PDT)
_
mebaser -:- Re: To mebaser(Regen. from below) -:- Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 19:00:12 (PDT)
_ Rod -:-
Re: To mebaser(Regen. from below) -:- Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 08:45:11 (PDT)
__ Eric -:-
You missed the point -:- Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 09:09:32 (PDT)
___ Rod -:-
I believe you've missed my point. -:- Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 11:45:52 (PDT)
____ Pilgrim -:-
Re: I believe you've missed my point. -:- Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 12:20:32 (PDT)
_____ Rod -:-
Re: I believe you've missed my point. -:- Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 16:18:50 (PDT)
______ Pilgrim -:-
Re: I believe you've missed my point. -:- Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 16:26:01 (PDT)
_______ Rod -:-
Re: I believe you've missed my point. -:- Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 21:19:59 (PDT)
_____ Eric -:-
Yes -:- Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 13:15:16 (PDT)
______ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Yes -:- Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 16:34:20 (PDT)
_______ Eric -:-
Re: Yes -:- Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 08:08:11 (PDT)
________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Yes -:- Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 11:38:41 (PDT)
_ Pilgrim -:-
Re: To mebaser(Regen. from below) -:- Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 08:21:38 (PDT)

freegrace -:- Jesus is LORD ..! -:- Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 07:28:50 (PDT)
_
laz -:- Re: Jesus is LORD ..! -:- Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 08:43:54 (PDT)

laz -:- Compelled to Stay? -:- Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 21:56:48 (PDT)
_
the_sword_of_the_lord -:- Re: Compelled to Stay? -:- Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 08:59:49 (PDT)
__ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Compelled to Stay? -:- Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 12:30:35 (PDT)
___ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: Compelled to Stay? -:- Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 16:00:19 (PDT)
____ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Compelled to Stay? -:- Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 16:47:11 (PDT)
_____ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: Compelled to Stay? -:- Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 19:36:24 (PDT)
______ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Compelled to Stay? -:- Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 20:38:36 (PDT)
__ laz -:-
Re: Compelled to Stay??? -:- Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 10:34:47 (PDT)
___ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: Compelled to Stay? -:- Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 11:57:17 (PDT)
____ laz -:-
Re: Compelled to Stay? -:- Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 13:04:11 (PDT)
_____ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: Compelled to Stay? -:- Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 16:06:27 (PDT)
______ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Compelled to Stay? -:- Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 17:12:25 (PDT)
_______ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: Compelled to Stay? -:- Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 19:45:15 (PDT)
__ freegrace -:-
Re: Compelled to Stay? -:- Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 10:28:23 (PDT)
___ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: Compelled to Stay? -:- Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 12:08:19 (PDT)
_ freegrace -:-
Re: Compelled to Stay? -:- Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 06:46:45 (PDT)
_ stan -:-
Re: Compelled to Stay? -:- Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 23:27:21 (PDT)

george -:- OPEN THEIST THEOLOGY -:- Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 15:34:01 (PDT)
_
J -:- Re: OPEN THEIST THEOLOGY -:- Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 18:16:55 (PDT)
__ george -:-
thanks N/T -:- Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 18:51:41 (PDT)

PWH -:- Infant Baptism -:- Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 15:25:07 (PDT)
_
the_sword_of_the_lord -:- Re: Infant Baptism -:- Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 18:47:45 (PDT)
__ Prestor John -:-
Re: Infant Baptism -:- Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 19:31:04 (PDT)
___ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: Infant Baptism -:- Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 21:33:07 (PDT)
____ Prestor John -:-
Re: Infant Baptism -:- Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 18:44:55 (PDT)
_____ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: Infant Baptism -:- Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 20:08:59 (PDT)
______ Prestor John -:-
Re: Infant Baptism -:- Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 06:28:52 (PDT)
_______ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Infant Baptism -:- Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 07:10:28 (PDT)
_______ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: Infant Baptism -:- Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 07:05:13 (PDT)
________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Infant Baptism -:- Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 07:58:17 (PDT)
_________ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: Infant Baptism -:- Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 09:45:54 (PDT)
__________ Prestor John -:-
Re: Infant Baptism -:- Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 19:11:05 (PDT)
___________ PWH -:-
Re: Infant Baptism -:- Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 19:35:24 (PDT)
____________ laz -:-
Re: Infant Baptism -:- Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 13:50:23 (PDT)
___________ Christopher -:-
Uh... -:- Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 20:51:39 (PDT)
____________ Prestor John -:-
Re: Uh... -:- Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 06:10:14 (PDT)
_____________ Christopher -:-
Re: Uh... -:- Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 08:15:01 (PDT)
____________ laz -:-
Re: Uh... -:- Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 21:02:58 (PDT)
_____________ Christopher -:-
pagans? -:- Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 08:24:03 (PDT)
______________ laz -:-
Re: pagans? -:- Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 09:02:08 (PDT)
_______________ Christopher -:-
Re: pagans? -:- Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 09:36:57 (PDT)
________________ laz -:-
Re: pagans? -:- Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 10:08:17 (PDT)
_________________ Christopher -:-
Re: pagans? -:- Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 10:16:56 (PDT)
__________________ laz -:-
Re: pagans? -:- Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 13:29:31 (PDT)

Pilgrim -:- God's Sovereignty vs. 'free-will' -:- Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 13:02:02 (PDT)
_
Five Sola -:- 'Free Will' lowers God -:- Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 21:25:54 (PDT)
_ Rod -:-
Re: God's Sovereignty vs. 'free-will' -:- Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 15:32:00 (PDT)
__ FRG -:-
Re: God's Sovereignty vs. 'free-will' -:- Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 18:33:13 (PDT)
___ Pilgrim -:-
Re: God's Sovereignty vs. 'free-will' -:- Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 21:11:59 (PDT)
___ Rod -:-
Re: God's Sovereignty vs. 'free-will' -:- Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 19:29:37 (PDT)
____ frg -:-
not true free-will -:- Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 19:51:56 (PDT)
_____ Rod -:-
Re: not true free-will -:- Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 00:06:16 (PDT)
______ frg -:-
Re: not true free-will -:- Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 05:33:28 (PDT)
_______ Rod -:-
Another false assumption and conclusion -:- Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 07:54:35 (PDT)
___ MONITOR -:-
Re: God's Sovereignty vs. 'free-will' -:- Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 19:15:56 (PDT)
____ FRG -:-
Everything in here is opinion -:- Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 19:22:29 (PDT)
_____ MONITOR -:-
Re: Everything in here is opinion -:- Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 19:24:49 (PDT)
______ FRG -:-
Scriptural Justification -:- Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 19:29:10 (PDT)
_______ monitor -:-
Re: Scriptural Justification -:- Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 20:31:28 (PDT)
________ frg -:-
Re: Scriptural Justification -:- Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 05:29:20 (PDT)
_________ Prestor John -:-
Re: Scriptural Justification -:- Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 06:40:00 (PDT)
__________ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: Scriptural Justification -:- Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 07:38:44 (PDT)
___________ Rod -:-
Re: Scriptural Justification -:- Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 08:14:43 (PDT)
___________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Scriptural Justification -:- Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 08:11:51 (PDT)
___________ freegrace -:-
Re: Scriptural Justification -:- Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 08:00:07 (PDT)
____________ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: Scriptural Justification -:- Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 08:56:24 (PDT)
_____________ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: Scriptural Justification -:- Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 12:12:57 (PDT)
_____________ laz -:-
Re: Scriptural Justification -:- Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 10:44:39 (PDT)
__________ frg -:-
Re: Scriptural Justification -:- Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 07:06:18 (PDT)
___________ Prestor John -:-
Re: Scriptural Justification -:- Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 19:18:16 (PDT)
___________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Scriptural Justification -:- Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 07:28:50 (PDT)
___ george -:-
cookie reasoning.... -:- Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 19:08:10 (PDT)
____ FRG -:-
False assumption -:- Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 19:19:33 (PDT)
_____ monitor -:-
Re: False assumption -:- Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 20:46:40 (PDT)
___ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: God's Sovereignty vs. 'free-will' -:- Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 18:58:05 (PDT)
____ monitor -:-
Re: God's Sovereignty vs. 'free-will' -:- Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 21:24:49 (PDT)
_____ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: God's Sovereignty vs. 'free-will' -:- Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 21:48:23 (PDT)
______ monitor -:-
Re: God's Sovereignty vs. 'free-will' -:- Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 22:15:47 (PDT)
____ Pilgrim -:-
Re: God's Sovereignty vs. 'free-will' -:- Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 21:21:40 (PDT)
_____ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: God's Sovereignty vs. 'free-will' -:- Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 21:55:54 (PDT)
______ Pilgrim -:-
Re: God's Sovereignty vs. 'free-will' -:- Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 07:02:35 (PDT)
____ Rod -:-
Re: God's Sovereignty vs. 'free-will' -:- Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 19:40:55 (PDT)
____ MONITOR -:-
Re: God's Sovereignty vs. 'free-will' -:- Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 19:21:21 (PDT)
_____ FRG -:-
equal treatment -:- Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 19:24:49 (PDT)
______ MONITOR -:-
Re: equal treatment -:- Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 19:27:21 (PDT)

Brother Bret -:- Foreknowledge.Lim.Aton/sword-lord -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 15:40:16 (PDT)
_
the_sword_of_the_lord -:- Re: Foreknowledge.Lim.Aton/sword-lord -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 19:49:30 (PDT)
__ george -:-
John 6:44 -:- Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 07:34:54 (PDT)
__ Brother Bret -:-
Re: Foreknowledge.Lim.Aton/sword-lord -:- Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 00:13:14 (PDT)
___ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: Foreknowledge.Lim.Aton/sword-lord -:- Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 19:21:28 (PDT)
____ Pilgrim -:-
Re: 'Kosmos' in John 3:16 -:- Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 21:36:34 (PDT)
_____ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Pink's Predicament -:- Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 22:03:09 (PDT)
______ monitor -:-
Re: Pink's Predicament -:- Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 22:19:34 (PDT)
_______ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: Pink's Predicament -:- Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 12:24:00 (PDT)
____ Brother Bret -:-
Re: Foreknowledge.Lim.Aton/sword-lord -:- Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 21:05:59 (PDT)
__ mebaser -:-
Arguing against the Bible again -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 23:15:35 (PDT)
___ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: Arguing against the Bible again -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 23:36:47 (PDT)
____ mebaser -:-
The Bible is sure -:- Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 22:52:50 (PDT)
_____ monitor -:-
Re: The Bible is sure -:- Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 06:19:05 (PDT)
______ mebaser -:-
thanks monitor -:- Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 18:36:46 (PDT)
____ monitor -:-
Re: Arguing against the Bible again -:- Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 05:58:55 (PDT)
_ freegrace -:-
Another Amen -- very well written..(NT) -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 19:36:47 (PDT)
_ Rod -:-
Re: Foreknowledge.Lim.Aton/sword-lord -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 16:25:27 (PDT)

freegrace -:- Sin and Evil are not the same. -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 15:29:33 (PDT)
_
J -:- Correct free.... -:- Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 04:02:45 (PDT)
__ freegrace -:-
Re: Correct free.... -:- Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 05:51:09 (PDT)
___ J -:-
Re: Correct free.... -:- Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 06:43:21 (PDT)
____ freegrace -:-
Re: Correct free.... -:- Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 11:01:46 (PDT)
_____ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Correct free.... -:- Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 12:10:27 (PDT)
______ freegrace -:-
Thanks, Pilgrim -:- Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 12:56:20 (PDT)
_ David Teh -:-
Re: Sin and Evil are not the same. -:- Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 02:35:16 (PDT)
__ freegrace -:-
Re: Sin and Evil are not the same. -:- Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 05:55:55 (PDT)
_ george -:-
AMEN! nt -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 18:06:32 (PDT)

Rod -:- Why do men deny God's Word?? -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 14:10:13 (PDT)
_
mebaser -:- Re: Why do men deny God's Word? -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 22:57:45 (PDT)
__ Rod -:-
Re: Why do men deny God's Word? -:- Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 12:48:09 (PDT)
___ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Why do men deny God's Word???? -:- Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 15:55:36 (PDT)

the_sword_of_the_lord -:- Whoa... -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 18:25:56 (PDT)
_
mebaser -:- Re: Whoa... -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 01:18:48 (PDT)
__ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
How convenient. -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 08:12:25 (PDT)
___ mebaser -:-
Re: How convenient. -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 12:15:28 (PDT)
___ Tom -:-
Re: How convenient. -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 09:40:33 (PDT)
_ george -:-
Re: Whoa... -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 19:11:27 (PDT)
__ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: Whoa... -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 08:20:31 (PDT)
___ george -:-
Actually... -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 11:56:41 (PDT)
____ Rod -:-
Prov. 16:4 -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 13:22:15 (PDT)

freegrace -:- Follow A 'Middle Road'..? -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 14:21:16 (PDT)

monitor -:- Sword and 1Tim2:4 -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 13:00:12 (PDT)
_
FRG -:- Flawed logic and Theology -:- Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 19:13:25 (PDT)
__ laz -:-
Re: Flawed logic and Theology -:- Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 08:47:55 (PDT)
__ monitor -:-
Re: Flawed logic and Theology -:- Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 22:37:26 (PDT)
___ freegrace -:-
'Choose Life.'....! -:- Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 08:11:00 (PDT)
___ laz -:-
Re: Flawed logic and Theology -:- Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 06:20:41 (PDT)
_ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
My assessment of the 1 Timothy 2 exegesis -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 14:33:10 (PDT)
__ mebaser -:-
Prayer for others' salvation -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 01:10:28 (PDT)
___ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Oh please. -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 08:05:05 (PDT)
____ Rod -:-
Re: Oh please. -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 13:58:23 (PDT)
____ mebaser -:-
Re: Oh please. -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 11:55:21 (PDT)
_____ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Assumptions -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 19:03:13 (PDT)
______ mebaser -:-
Re: Assumptions -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 22:48:16 (PDT)
_______ monitor -:-
Re: Assumptions -:- Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 06:04:01 (PDT)
________ mebaser -:-
Amen monitor n/t -:- Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 22:59:02 (PDT)
______ freegrace -:-
Re: Assumptions -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 19:33:35 (PDT)
____ laz -:-
Re: Oh please. -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 09:14:42 (PDT)
___ Vernon -:-
Re: Prayer for others' salvation -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 05:41:30 (PDT)
__ george -:-
yes, evil is also included in God's decree's -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 17:55:33 (PDT)
__ Pilgrim -:-
Re: My assessment of the 1 Timothy 2 exegesis -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 17:24:44 (PDT)

lj -:- VERN, UP HERE... -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 18:26:05 (PDT)
_
the_sword_of_the_lord -:- Re: VERN, UP HERE... -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 07:21:55 (PDT)
__ laz -:-
Re: VERN, UP HERE... -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 07:33:36 (PDT)
_ john hampshire -:-
Re: VERN, UP HERE... -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 01:02:45 (PDT)
__ Vernon -:-
Re: John, HERE... -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 05:41:54 (PDT)
__ Vernon -:-
Re: John, HERE... -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 05:53:59 (PDT)
___ MEBASER by LJ -:-
Vern, over here... -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 06:53:08 (PDT)
____ Eric -:-
See repsonse below to mebaser (regen) n/t. -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 08:40:30 (PDT)
_____ mebaser -:-
See repsonse below to Eric from mebaser (regen) n/t. -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 00:58:46 (PDT)
____ Rod -:-
Re: Vern, over here... -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 08:39:20 (PDT)
_____ mebaser -:-
Re: Vern, over here... -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 01:02:30 (PDT)
_____ Vernon -:-
Re: Vern, over here... -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 09:09:29 (PDT)
______ Rod -:-
Re: Vern's unrealized, but true, hypocirsy -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 07:43:03 (PDT)
______ lj -:-
Re: Vern, over here... -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 09:54:51 (PDT)
_______ Vernon -:-
Re: over here...lj -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 04:54:03 (PDT)
________ Tom -:-
Re: over here...lj -:- Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 13:27:13 (PDT)
_________ monitor -:-
Re: over here...lj -:- Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 16:22:26 (PDT)
__________ Tom -:-
Re: over here...lj -:- Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 17:42:07 (PDT)

Eric -:- What is the gospel? -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 10:05:34 (PDT)
_
Pilgrim -:- Re: What is the gospel? -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 13:37:44 (PDT)
_ laz -:-
Re: What is the gospel? -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 12:56:55 (PDT)
__ freegrace -:-
Re: What is the gospel? -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 13:28:06 (PDT)
___ laz -:-
Re: What is the gospel? -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 13:32:34 (PDT)
____ freegrace -:-
Re: What is the gospel? -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 13:38:31 (PDT)
_____ laz -:-
Re: What is the gospel? -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 13:47:13 (PDT)
______ freegrace -:-
Re: What is the gospel? -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 13:52:14 (PDT)
_ Gene -:-
Re: What is the gospel? -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 11:08:57 (PDT)
_ freegrace -:-
Re: What is the gospel? -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 10:29:09 (PDT)
__ Eric -:-
Re: What is the gospel? -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 13:06:11 (PDT)
___ mebaser -:-
regeneration -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 22:58:11 (PDT)
____ Eric -:-
Re: regeneration -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 08:01:20 (PDT)
_____ mebaser -:-
Re: regeneration -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 00:41:09 (PDT)
______ laz -:-
Re: regeneration -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 08:42:12 (PDT)
_______ Tom -:-
Re: regeneration -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 10:04:16 (PDT)
________ laz -:-
Re: regeneration -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 10:30:33 (PDT)
___ lj -:-
Re: What is the gospel? -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 13:10:32 (PDT)

freegrace -:- God is blessing the Arminians?? -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 08:58:09 (PDT)
_
Tom -:- Re: God is blessing the Arminians?? -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 13:20:58 (PDT)
__ freegrace -:-
Re: God is blessing the Arminians?? -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 13:34:01 (PDT)
_ Gene -:-
Re: God is blessing the Arminians?? -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 11:14:29 (PDT)
__ freegrace -:-
Re: God is blessing the Arminians?? -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 11:42:01 (PDT)
___ Gene -:-
Re: God is blessing the Arminians?? -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 12:16:48 (PDT)
____ laz -:-
Re: God is blessing the Arminians?? -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 12:40:49 (PDT)
___ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
The Ninevites weren't content to let God's expressed will to be done -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 11:56:20 (PDT)
____ Rod -:-
God changed His mind? -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 09:13:23 (PDT)
_____ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: God changed His mind? -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 13:45:18 (PDT)
______ Rod -:-
Re: God changed His mind????? -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 08:14:48 (PDT)
_______ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
God's nature does not change, but His mind does -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 08:26:13 (PDT)
________ Rod -:-
Please re-read Mal. 3:6 And Isaiah 46:9-11. -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 13:08:24 (PDT)
____ laz -:-
Re: The Ninevites weren't content to let God's expressed will to be done -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 12:22:28 (PDT)
____ freegrace -:-
Re: The Ninevites weren't content to let God's expressed will to be done -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 12:17:31 (PDT)
_ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: God is blessing the Arminians?? -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 10:55:07 (PDT)
__ freegrace -:-
Re: God is blessing the Arminians?? -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 12:01:00 (PDT)
___ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
I see. -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 17:32:01 (PDT)
____ laz -:-
Re: I see. -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 17:58:27 (PDT)
_____ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
There is a middle road -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 18:21:30 (PDT)
______ Tom -:-
Re: There is a middle road -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 23:53:02 (PDT)
______ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Biblical Foreknowledge -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 20:42:32 (PDT)
_______ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: Biblical Foreknowledge -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 21:33:44 (PDT)
________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Biblical Foreknowledge -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 22:08:12 (PDT)
_________ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: Biblical Foreknowledge -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 23:24:44 (PDT)
__________ monitor -:-
Re: Biblical Foreknowledge -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 07:17:28 (PDT)
___________ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
I appreciate your frankness -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 07:58:15 (PDT)
____________ laz -:-
Re: I appreciate your frankness -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 08:54:10 (PDT)
_____________ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
The problem with rationalizing 'limited atonement' -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 09:28:16 (PDT)
______________ laz -:-
Repeat on 'limited atonement' -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 10:07:05 (PDT)
_______________ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: Repeat on 'limited atonement' -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 13:50:49 (PDT)
________________ laz -:-
Re: Repeat on 'limited atonement' -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 19:53:53 (PDT)
_______________ Eric -:-
Actually laz... -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 10:17:34 (PDT)
________________ laz -:-
Re: Actually laz... -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 12:43:58 (PDT)
__________ Tom -:-
Re: Biblical Foreknowledge -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 00:17:38 (PDT)
___________ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: Biblical Foreknowledge -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 07:27:32 (PDT)
____________ Tom -:-
Re: Biblical Foreknowledge -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 23:49:33 (PDT)
____________ laz -:-
Re: Biblical Foreknowledge -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 07:37:32 (PDT)
_____________ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Paradoxes among Calvinist and Arminian interpretations... -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 13:57:54 (PDT)
______________ laz -:-
Re: Paradoxes among Calvinist and Arminian interpretations... -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 20:04:45 (PDT)
______ laz -:-
Re: There is a middle road -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 18:56:18 (PDT)
_______ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: There is a middle road -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 21:16:01 (PDT)
________ laz -:-
Re: There is a middle road -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 21:30:15 (PDT)
_ Pilgrim -:-
Re: God is blessing the Arminians??s?? -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 09:17:57 (PDT)
__ Eric -:-
Have you ever noticed........ssing the Arminians?? -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 09:36:04 (PDT)
___ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Have you ever noticed........ssing the Arminians?? -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 12:13:24 (PDT)
____ Eric -:-
How sad! -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 12:48:42 (PDT)
_____ Pilgrim -:-
Re: How sad! -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 13:48:11 (PDT)
___ freegrace -:-
Re: Have you ever noticed........ssing the Arminians?? -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 09:54:58 (PDT)
____ clark -:-
Re: Have you ever noticed........ssing the Arminians?? -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 06:04:57 (PDT)
_____ laz -:-
Re: Have you ever noticed........ssing the Arminians?? -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 07:22:00 (PDT)
_ lj -:-
Re: God is blessing the Arminians?? -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 09:03:37 (PDT)

Vernon -:- I remember -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 08:49:53 (PDT)
_
Pilgrim -:- Re: I remember -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 09:08:55 (PDT)
_ lj -:-
Re: I remember -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 08:55:43 (PDT)
__ Vernon -:-
Re: I remember -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 14:22:47 (PDT)
___ lj -:-
Ye MUST believe!!! -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 18:14:32 (PDT)
___ Brother Bret -:-
Re: I remember -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 16:50:04 (PDT)
____ Vernon -:-
Re:Hello Bro Bret -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 06:09:33 (PDT)
_____ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Re:Hello Bro Bret -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 07:17:07 (PDT)
______ laz -:-
Re: Re:Hello Bro Bret -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 07:48:50 (PDT)
_______ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Re:Hello Bro Bret -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 17:55:45 (PDT)

lj -:- CARM's Salvation Message -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 08:40:09 (PDT)
_
freegrace -:- Re: CARM's Salvation Message -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 09:13:26 (PDT)
__ Matt Slick of CARM -:-
No wonder the reformed churches are hurting -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 12:37:42 (PDT)
___ lj -:-
Re: No wonder the reformed churches are hurting -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 13:07:39 (PDT)
____ freegrace -:-
Re: No wonder the reformed churches are hurting -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 13:48:21 (PDT)
__ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Holy cow! -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 11:08:42 (PDT)
___ freegrace -:-
Re: Holy cow....??? -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 11:35:18 (PDT)
____ Matt Slick of CARM -:-
Re: Holy cow....??? -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 12:40:07 (PDT)
_____ kevin -:-
Re: Holy cow....??? -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 12:04:33 (PDT)
______ Tom -:-
Re: Holy cow....??? -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 13:12:29 (PDT)
__ Eric -:-
What! -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 09:31:41 (PDT)
__ laz -:-
Re: CARM's Salvation Message -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 09:25:55 (PDT)
___ freegrace -:-
Re: CARM's Salvation Message -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 09:37:16 (PDT)
____ laz -:-
Re: CARM's Salvation Message -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 09:44:55 (PDT)
_____ MARY -:-
Re: CARM's Salvation Message -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 11:36:49 (PDT)
_____ freegrace -:-
Re: CARM's Salvation Message -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 10:04:14 (PDT)

lj -:- Matt Slick -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 07:01:44 (PDT)
_
Matt Slick of CARM -:- Maybe you are right. -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 12:49:43 (PDT)
_ Eric -:-
Will somebody please... -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 08:33:14 (PDT)
__ Tom -:-
Re: Will somebody please... -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 00:49:42 (PDT)
__ mebaser -:-
Some contradictions -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 19:04:54 (PDT)
___ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
What is with this 'We don't do anything to be saved'? -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 21:49:56 (PDT)
____ freegrace -:-
Re: What is with this 'We don't do anything to be saved'?? -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 09:54:04 (PDT)
_____ lj -:-
Re: What is with this 'We don't do anything to be saved'? -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 09:57:10 (PDT)
____ mebaser -:-
Re: What is with this 'We don't do anything to be saved'?? -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 22:36:24 (PDT)
__ Eric -:-
The silence speaks loudly -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 13:18:33 (PDT)
___ Prestor John -:-
Re: The silence speaks loudly -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 20:03:58 (PDT)
____ Eric -:-
You apparently haven't been reading...Re: The silence speaks loudly -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 08:53:54 (PDT)
_____ mebaser -:-
Re: You apparently haven't been reading...The silence speaks loudly -:- Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 00:47:34 (PDT)

Brother Bret -:- Matt Slick/1Cor.& Tongues -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 20:45:28 (PDT)
_
Matt Slick of CARM -:- great -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 12:53:23 (PDT)

Tom -:- Matt Slick -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 11:50:24 (PDT)

the_sword_of_the_lord -:- Criticisms of Matt Slick -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 10:26:49 (PDT)
_
freegrace -:- Re: Criticisms of Matt Slick -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 11:49:22 (PDT)
__ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
What must I do to be saved? -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 12:02:09 (PDT)
___ laz -:-
Re: What must I do to be saved? -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 12:14:01 (PDT)
____ Matt Slick of CARM -:-
I thought God was sovereign -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 20:00:49 (PDT)
_____ Pilgrim -:-
Re: I thought God was sovereign -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 21:24:25 (PDT)
______ Matt Slick of CARM -:-
Neither -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 12:57:16 (PDT)
____ Eric -:-
Hey laz, -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 12:32:30 (PDT)
____ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: What must I do to be saved? -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 12:27:46 (PDT)
_____ Prestor John -:-
Re: What must I do to be saved? -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 18:10:17 (PDT)
______ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: What must I do to be saved? -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 20:14:33 (PDT)
_______ Prestor John -:-
Re: What must I do to be saved? -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 21:52:11 (PDT)
________ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: What must I do to be saved? -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 22:22:06 (PDT)
_________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: What must I do to be saved?? -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 08:38:59 (PDT)
__________ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Quibbling over words... -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 11:19:08 (PDT)
___________ laz -:-
Re: Quibbling over words... -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 12:35:53 (PDT)
________ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: What must I do to be saved? -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 22:13:47 (PDT)
_________ Prestor John -:-
Re: What must I do to be saved? -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 19:32:28 (PDT)
__________ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
...He doesn't? -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 21:41:31 (PDT)
___________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: ...He doesn't????? -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 21:32:47 (PDT)
___________ laz -:-
Re: ...He doesn't? -:- Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 09:44:04 (PDT)
_____ laz -:-
Eric/Sword -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 12:53:06 (PDT)

freegrace -:- Matt Slick and Arminianism -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 07:51:07 (PDT)
_
Matt Slick of CARM -:- You don't know what you are saying. -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 20:02:47 (PDT)
_ Eric -:-
Re: Matt Slick and Arminianism -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 08:38:39 (PDT)
__ Brother Bret -:-
Re: Matt Slick and Arminianism -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 21:02:41 (PDT)
___ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: Matt Slick and Arminianism -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 21:56:02 (PDT)
____ Prestor John -:-
Re: Matt Slick and Arminianism -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 22:26:13 (PDT)
__ Matt Slick of CARM -:-
Amen brother! -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 20:08:02 (PDT)
___ Brother Bret -:-
Re: Amen brother! -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 21:08:01 (PDT)
____ Matt Slick of CARM -:-
Am I wrong or did God adapt -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 12:59:32 (PDT)
_____ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Am I wrong or did God adapt -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 17:44:14 (PDT)
_____ laz -:-
Re: Am I wrong or did God adapt -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 13:35:55 (PDT)
__ freegrace -:-
Re: Matt Slick and Arminianism -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 09:29:43 (PDT)
___ Matt Slick of CARM -:-
I think you are in serious error. -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 20:13:51 (PDT)
____ Tom -:-
Re: I think you are in serious error. -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 00:36:39 (PDT)
____ Prestor John -:-
Re: I think you are in serious error. -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 22:03:13 (PDT)
_____ Eric -:-
A bit presumptuous, don't you think?Re: I think you are in serious error. -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 09:01:32 (PDT)
______ lj -:-
Re: A bit presumptuous, don't you think?I think you are in serious error. -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 09:40:12 (PDT)
____ mary -:-
Re: I think you are in serious error. -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 21:03:55 (PDT)

Vernon -:- A Jewish View -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 03:05:41 (PDT)
_
Brother Bret -:- Re: A Jewish View -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 14:59:58 (PDT)
__ laz -:-
Re: A Jewish View -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 13:37:46 (PDT)

Vernon -:- Inablity to show Love -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 03:07:07 (PDT)
_
Five Sola -:- define love -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 22:10:54 (PDT)
__ E.V. -:-
Incredible -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 05:22:47 (PDT)
___ Five Sola -:-
Re: apology -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 10:32:05 (PDT)
__ Vernon -:-
Re: define love -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 02:52:44 (PDT)
___ Five Sola -:-
Re:apology -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 10:37:16 (PDT)
_ Joel H -:-
Jesus in the Temple -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 12:54:46 (PDT)
_ freegrace -:-
Re: Inablity to show Love -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 08:22:14 (PDT)

annonymous -:- ???? -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 22:22:31 (PDT)
_
Five Sola -:- Re: ???? -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 19:09:17 (PDT)
_ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: ???? -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 06:36:24 (PDT)
_ Gene -:-
Re: ???? -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 03:57:02 (PDT)
__ Berean7 -:-
Re: ???? -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 04:35:00 (PDT)

ed -:- comment -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 21:41:59 (PDT)

Berean7 -:- Hebrews 10:29? -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 19:55:35 (PDT)
_
Prestor John -:- Re: Hebrews 10:29? -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 20:53:55 (PDT)
_ Preachit -:-
Re: Hebrews 10:29? -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 01:32:53 (PDT)
_ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: Hebrews 10:29? -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 23:25:26 (PDT)
_ laz -:-
Re: Hebrews 10:29? -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 21:29:49 (PDT)
__ Preachit -:-
Re: Hebrews 10:29? -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 01:24:55 (PDT)
___ freegrace -:-
Re: Hebrews 10:29? -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 08:03:24 (PDT)
____ Brother Bret -:-
Re: Hebrews 10:29? -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 20:32:36 (PDT)
____ Berean7 -:-
Re: Hebrews 10:29? -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 16:26:12 (PDT)
_____ freegrace -:-
Re: Hebrews 10:29? -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 20:00:02 (PDT)
______ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Hebrews 10:29? -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 21:25:46 (PDT)
_______ freegrace -:-
Re: Hebrews 10:29? -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 08:06:05 (PDT)

l

az -:- A short bit on Cyril -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 08:41:13 (PDT)
_
monitor -:- Re: A short bit on Cyril -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 09:28:22 (PDT)

C

hristopher -:- Protestant Nestorianism -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 21:32:47 (PDT)
_
Pilgrim -:- Re: Orthodox Tom-foolery -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 21:54:26 (PDT)
__ Christopher -:-
Re: Orthodox Tom-foolery -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 22:46:12 (PDT)
____ eikke -:-
my post too...n/t -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 17:52:00 (PDT)
___ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Orthodox Tom-foolery -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 08:02:10 (PDT)
____ eikke -:-
Them Dang Orthodox Tom-fools -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 20:01:30 (PDT)
___ john hampshire -:-
Re: Orthodox Tom-foolery -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 04:34:37 (PDT)
____ lilybucks -:-
Re: Orthodox Tom-foolery -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 05:55:12 (PDT)
____ Tom -:-
Re: Orthodox Tom-foolery -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 10:37:08 (PDT)
_____ eikke -:-
Tom's-foolery -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 17:13:51 (PDT)
______ Tom -:-
Re: Tom's-foolery -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 23:45:22 (PDT)
_______ eikke -:-
Re: Tom's-foolery -:- Thurs, Apr 06, 2000 at 08:25:03 (PDT)
____ Brother Bret -:-
Re: Orthodox Tom-foolery -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 08:41:01 (PDT)

the_sword_of_the_lord -:- Would Tyre and Sidon have repented? -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 19:24:58 (PDT)
_
laz -:- Re: Would Tyre and Sidon have repented?? -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 22:39:38 (PDT)
__ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: Would Tyre and Sidon have repented? -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 18:20:18 (PDT)
___ laz -:-
Re: Would Tyre and Sidon have repented? -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 20:44:43 (PDT)
____ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: Would Tyre and Sidon have repented? -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 23:14:39 (PDT)
_____ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Would Tyre and Sidon have repented? -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 00:27:13 (PDT)
______ freegrace -:-
Re: Would Tyre and Sidon have repented? -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 08:12:38 (PDT)
______ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: Would Tyre and Sidon have repented? -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 06:19:15 (PDT)
_______ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Would Tyre and Sidon have repented??? -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 08:24:08 (PDT)
________ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: Would Tyre and Sidon have repented? -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 11:11:01 (PDT)
_________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Would Tyre and Sidon have repented??? -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 13:23:12 (PDT)
__________ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: Would Tyre and Sidon have repented? -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 14:16:21 (PDT)
___________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Would Tyre and Sidon have repented???? -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 18:15:26 (PDT)
____________ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: Would Tyre and Sidon have repented? -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 07:17:19 (PDT)
_____________ laz -:-
Re: Would Tyre and Sidon have repented? -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 09:43:56 (PDT)
______________ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: Would Tyre and Sidon have repented? -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 10:03:34 (PDT)
_______________ laz -:-
Re: Would Tyre and Sidon have repented?? -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 12:42:25 (PDT)
________________ Eric -:-
Good post n/t -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 13:13:04 (PDT)
________________ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
What about those who never hear... -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 13:11:08 (PDT)
_________________ laz -:-
Re: What about those who never hear... -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 13:56:01 (PDT)
__________________ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: What about those who never hear... -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 16:24:31 (PDT)
___________________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: What about those who never hear... -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 19:16:18 (PDT)
____________________ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: What about those who never hear... -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 20:41:56 (PDT)
_____________________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: What about those who never hear... -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 21:38:42 (PDT)
___________________ laz -:-
Re: What about those who never hear... -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 17:24:19 (PDT)
____________________ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: What about those who never hear... -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 17:40:02 (PDT)
_____________________ laz -:-
hmmm -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 18:04:00 (PDT)
______________________ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: hmmm -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 20:24:30 (PDT)
_________________ Eric -:-
Re: What about those who never hear... -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 13:45:44 (PDT)
_ Christopher -:-
to any monitor or Pilgrim -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 19:37:26 (PDT)
__ monitor -:-
Re: to any monitor or Pilgrim -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 20:06:19 (PDT)
___ Christopher -:-
Re: to any monitor or Pilgrim -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 20:15:07 (PDT)

Vernon -:- How to become a Christian -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 05:52:17 (PDT)
_
ChosenbyGod -:- Re: How to become a Christian -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 13:00:51 (PDT)
_ Pilgrim -:-
Re: How to become a Christian -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 12:53:31 (PDT)
__ Tom -:-
Re: How to become a Christian -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 14:45:22 (PDT)
___ Vernon -:-
Re: How to become a Christian -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 03:09:06 (PDT)
____ laz -:-
Re: How to become a Christian -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 11:02:43 (PDT)
_____ Vernon -:-
Hey Las, It is all God -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 17:06:56 (PDT)
______ laz -:-
Re: Hey Las, It is all God -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 08:09:05 (PDT)
____ Tom -:-
Re: How to become a Christian -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 10:47:16 (PDT)
___ Pilgrim -:-
Re: How to become a Christian -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 14:53:34 (PDT)
_ lj -:-
Re: How to become a Christian -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 12:01:10 (PDT)
__ Matt Slick of CARM -:-
Thanks for defending me -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 21:07:38 (PDT)
___ john hampshire -:-
Re: Thanks for defending me -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 05:06:16 (PDT)
____ Matt Slick of CARM -:-
Re: Thanks for defending me -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 16:46:54 (PDT)
____ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Thanks for defending me -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 08:20:27 (PDT)
_____ Matt Slick of CARM -:-
Re: Thanks for defending me -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 16:57:44 (PDT)
_____ Tom -:-
Re: Thanks for defending me -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 10:20:13 (PDT)
______ Matt Slick of CARM -:-
You are so right.... -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 17:01:26 (PDT)
_____ Eric -:-
Your kidding, right? -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 09:34:31 (PDT)
______ Vernon -:-
What is this??????? -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 17:36:20 (PDT)
_______ Eric -:-
You misunderstood -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 08:44:50 (PDT)
______ Matt Slick of CARM -:-
I'm a heretic -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 17:04:11 (PDT)
______ monitor -:-
We cannibals now? ? -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 09:43:16 (PDT)
_______ Eric -:-
Re: We cannibals now? -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 10:14:37 (PDT)
________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: We cannibals now? -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 12:39:15 (PDT)
_________ Eric -:-
Pluarlism??? -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 08:58:03 (PDT)
________ monitor -:-
Re: We cannibals now? -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 10:23:43 (PDT)
_____ Brother Bret -:-
Re: Thanks for defending me -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 08:57:07 (PDT)
______ Matt Slick of CARM -:-
Yes, I am a Charismatic Calvinist. -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 18:20:15 (PDT)
_______ Brother Bret -:-
Re: Yes, I am a Charismatic Calvinist. -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 00:53:41 (PDT)
________ Matt Slick of CARM -:-
Re: Yes, I am a Charismatic Calvinist. -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 08:52:33 (PDT)
_________ Brother Bret -:-
Re: Yes, I am a Charismatic Calvinist. -:- Tues, Apr 04, 2000 at 20:27:08 (PDT)
__________ Matt Slick of CARM -:-
Well, let's see... -:- Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 16:48:20 (PDT)
______ Tom -:-
Re: Thanks for defending me -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 11:12:01 (PDT)
______ lj -:-
Re: Thanks for defending me -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 09:07:59 (PDT)
_______ Matt Slick of CARM -:-
but... it is you who is in error: 1 Cor. 1:7. nt -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 19:43:19 (PDT)
___ Vernon -:-
Re: Thanks for defending me -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 03:01:08 (PDT)
____ Matt Slick of CARM -:-
Thanks.... It's nice to have support for a change. nt -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 17:53:55 (PDT)
_____ lj -:-
For Matt Slick50 -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 22:18:22 (PDT)
____ lj -:-
Re: Thanks for defending me -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 06:15:08 (PDT)

Tom -:- Baptism in the Holy Spirit -:- Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 16:13:19 (PST)
_
Pilgrim -:- Re: Baptism in the Holy Spirit -:- Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 20:32:28 (PST)
_ john hampshire -:-
Re: Baptism in the Holy Spirit -:- Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 19:16:33 (PST)
_ Hesed -:-
Re: Baptism in the Holy Spirit -:- Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 19:12:38 (PST)

amonitor -:- Perspective -:- Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 07:02:39 (PST)
_
eikke -:- Re: Perspective -:- Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 14:38:03 (PST)
_ kevin -:-
a resounding amen n/t -:- Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 13:00:53 (PST)

laz -:- Veneration -:- Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 06:18:56 (PST)
_
Christopher -:- Re: Veneration -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 18:40:57 (PDT)
__ laz -:-
Re: Veneration -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 21:36:15 (PDT)
___ Christopher -:-
Re: Veneration -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 21:49:01 (PDT)
____ laz -:-
Re: Veneration -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 23:01:29 (PDT)
_____ eikke -:-
Re: Veneration -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 17:37:20 (PDT)
_____ Christopher -:-
Re: Veneration -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 23:10:10 (PDT)

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)
__ Vernon -:-
Re: Take your Time and read -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 05:43:50 (PDT)
___ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Take your Time and read -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 14:36:49 (PDT)

eikke -:- Early Protestants and the Orthodox -:- Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 03:32:23 (PST)
_
Hesed -:- Re: Early Protestants and the Orthodox -:- Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 19:41:23 (PST)
__ Pilgrim -:-
Re:Balance? -:- Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 20:41:05 (PST)
___ Hesed -:-
Re: Re:Balance? -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 19:28:02 (PDT)

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)
____ Christopher -:-
How utterly sad... -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 17:41:50 (PDT)
_____ monitor -:-
Re: How utterly sad... -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 18:53:15 (PDT)
______ Christopher -:-
sigh -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 19:32:55 (PDT)
_______ monitor -:-
Re: sigh -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 20:24:04 (PDT)
________ Christopher -:-
Re: sigh -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 20:33:05 (PDT)
_________ Pilgrim -:-
I answer the fool! -:- Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 21:51:22 (PDT)
__________ eikke -:-
An admittedly silly question, for you, Pilgrim -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 17:34:34 (PDT)
___________ Pilgrim -:-
A sober reply to you eikke -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 19:43:16 (PDT)
____________ eikke -:-
Re: A sober reply to you eikke -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 20:23:43 (PDT)
_____________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: A sober reply to you eikke -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 22:38:01 (PDT)
_______________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Foolish responses answered! -:- Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 23:49:28 (PDT)


Post New Message


Powerforum Plus+
Paradise Web Enhancements
Copyright 1997,1998



Subject: Parallels Circumcision/Baptism
From: scott lewis
To: My reformed Brothers
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 18, 2000 at 22:22:15 (PDT)
Email Address: navyrdc1@megsinet.net

Message:
I found this interesting post by John Mac. about the relantionship between circumcision (OT) and baptism (NT) 3. Third point, why I reject infant baptism: it is not a replacement sign for the Abrahamic sign of circumcision. Now don’t get too carried away here; this isn’t going to be as complicated as you think. Infant baptism is not a replacement sign for the Abrahamic sign of circumcision. Now, let me give you the bottom line. Infant baptism says this. This is the theology of it: the old covenant sign was a baby circumcised. That introduced them into the covenant. So, we need a parallel. The parallel sign is baby baptism. That’s in the new covenant; that introduces them into the new covenant. Sounds good. In the old covenant, they had a circumcision which introduced them into the covenant community. In the new covenant, we have the baby baptism which introduces the infant into the covenant community. That’s the logic. You know what? Those two things just don’t go together ever in the Bible. It’s a nice thought; just isn’t Biblical. Scripture never makes that connection. There’s not a verse they could point to. There’s not a passage they could point to, either by explicit terms or by implicit. There’s not one place in the Bible where baptism is ever connected to circumcision, period…no place. So, any connection is purely manufactured. So, without Scriptural support, without Scriptural connection, they infer that baby baptism is the new covenant equivalent of old covenant circumcision. Now, let me make a very simple few statements so you’ll understand just exactly what the difference is. It’s true. In the Old Testament, little boys, on the eighth day after their birth, were circumcised. Girls weren’t so that poses a real problem in paralleling the new covenant since girls can come into the new covenant too. But, little boys were circumcised the eighth day. Now, that introduced them—listen carefully—that introduced them into an earthly, temporal community of people. That introduced them into the nation Israel, as it were. It was physical and it was temporal. That’s what it was. In the new covenant, there is no 'physical' community. We don’t have a nation; we don’t have a land. We aren’t a duly constituted people, ruled over…We don’t an order of priests. We don’t have a king. We are a spiritual community. There’s a big, big difference. Circumcision was the sign of ethnic identity. It was the physical participation in the temporal features of the Abrahamic covenant. Listen carefully: it didn’t have any spiritual implications at all. None! Because most of the people who were circumcised—the vast majority of Israelites who were circumcised, went to hell. You understand that? They rejected the true and living God; they worshipped idols. Right? That’s the history of Israel. In the present, most of the Jewish people, who are circumcised, will perish without the knowledge of God. In the future, two-thirds, it says, of the nation Israel, will be purged out and be judged eternally by God and He’ll save a third and bring them into His kingdom. The vast majority of Jews will perish without the knowledge of God. Not all Israel is Israel. What did God say? Circumcise your—hearts. You see, the spiritual promises and realities that God offered Israel didn’t come to them by any right or ceremony or ritual. All circumcision did was mark them out as a part of the nation Israel. They entered into the physical participation, the ethnic identity, the temporal features of the nation Israel that was under blessing, promised by God to Abraham. It was an earthly blessing, not salvation. That’s why Paul said, 'I was circumcised the eighth day and that’s manure. That did nothing for me savingly; I was on my way to hell and I had been circumcised,' Philippians 3. A person born in Israel of Abrahamic seed was physically related to temporal, external privileges; nothing more. Now you come into the New Testament—the new covenant—this is dramatically different. There is no physical participation. There is no temporal, earthly feature attached to this—we don’t have a land, we don’t have a place. Under the old administration, the Abrahamic covenant during the Mosaic era, you entered the earthly, natural, covenantal community by birth, and by circumcision you took the sign of that people. But, there was a small remnant in Israel that really believed, wasn’t there? They entered into the special, spiritual blessings. But, in the new covenant, there are only those who believe, there are only those who have come by repentance and faith. This is not the same at all. There is absolutely no connection. All in the new covenant are believers. All in the new covenant know God. Now, if the early church thought that baptism was a replacement—baby baptism was a replacement for circumcision—why isn’t that in the New Testament? And then, why did the Judaizers who were going around telling everybody they had to be circumcised, why didn’t Paul say to them, 'Hey, you guys, that’s over; baptism has taken it’s place. We don’t circumcise babies, we baptize them.' He could have put an end to the Judaizing deal with just one comment. Now, why would they go into the Jerusalem counsel in Acts 15 and had this big, long debate about what do we do about the circumcision…what do we do? Why didn’t somebody just get up and say, 'Oh…no, no. That’s out and baby baptism has taken its place.' That’s never said. Nobody ever says that. The Abrahamic covenant had a unique feature: circumcision. All that meant was you identified with the nation of Israel. Circumcision had a second benefit: it was physically beneficial. Up until very modern times, Jewish women had the lowest rate of cervical cancer of any people in the world because circumcision does help prevent the passing on of certain diseases. God knew that that would be a preservative in His people and He wanted to preserve His people Israel because of His ultimate purpose for them. Also, it was a sign of how desperately they needed to be cleansed on the inside…it’s symbolic of that. But, the point was it just introduced you into the nation; it didn’t save you. There is no parallel to this in the New Testament. There is nothing that sort of ushers you into some earthly group. There’s just the believers and they’re all in the new covenant. You see, Jeremiah 31:34—Jeremiah in 31, is talking about the new covenant. Listen to what he says; here’s the character of the new covenant, they are very different from Israel under the old. Here’s what he says; this is the most salient feature of the new covenant. Here it is—Jeremiah 31:34, 'They shall all know Me.' That’s the difference. Under the old covenant, they didn’t all know God. They didn’t know Him. Remember when Jesus came, He said, 'If you knew My Father, you’d know Me,' didn’t He? 'You don’t know My Father, you don’t know Me.' In the new covenant, they all know God. You’re not even in the new covenant unless you know God and the only way to know God is through Christ. That means that all those who are members of the new covenant community know God savingly. Membership in the new covenant is limited to those who have been saved. Jeremiah is making a dramatic statement here. He’s saying, 'I know under the old covenant there were lots of folks who had the sign of the covenant, there were lots of folks in the covenant community who didn’t know God. But, in the new covenant, everybody in it is going to know God. That’s distinctive. That’s conclusive. Circumcision was never a spiritual sign of anything. Baptism is a spiritual sign of true inclusion in new covenant salvation by grace through faith.


Subject: Re: Parallels Circumcision/Baptism
From: john hampshire
To: all
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 18, 2000 at 23:22:27 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Did John MacArthur really make such an incredibly ignorant statement as this concerning circumcision: 'Listen carefully: it didn’t have any spiritual implications at all. None!' and 'Circumcision was never a spiritual sign of anything.' Well, why does God bother to explain that He circumcises the heart? I hope we don't have some heart surgery in view. In fact, circumcision pointed to the cutting off of the seed that would come, the shedding of blood, and thus the covenant of salvation brought by Christ as He was cut-off on our behalf. Scripture is just chock full of spiritual meaning, it is too amazing that anyone could say there is no spiritual meaning to an act given by God to represent His covenant. MacArthur seems to indicate there are two different covenants, one that included believers and unbelievers, and today, a covenant that if only for believers. Perhaps someone can explain how this works, who changed the rules, and how OT believers were saved? john


Subject: What about Rebaptism?
From: freegrace
To: All
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 18, 2000 at 10:05:28 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
This week I heard about a lady who is going to be baptised in water at her church (on Easter Sunday) for a second time - to 're-affirm' her faith' ...(You know, like those who are going to say their wedding vows over again to renew their marriage to one another)..etc. If water baptism is a 'witness to the world' (as I have heard it said), then I can see why she wants to be 'baptised over again' a second time. But by doing this, they 'destroy the true picture' do they not?, for regeneration can only occur but once. I am sure this type of thing grieves the Heart of the Holy Spirit who is a divine Person. We are told to 'grieve not the Spirit whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption'. fg


Subject: Re: What about Rebaptism?
From: the_sword_of_the_lord
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 18, 2000 at 13:54:39 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
freegrace - I was recently rebaptized. I had made a profession of faith when I was 9 years old and was baptized upon it, but I had only done it because my parents wanted me to...while I understood the facts of the faith, I didn't yet comprehend
why I needed to be saved, and so my profession had nothing to do with personal conviction. I was saved for real a few years later, when I was finally convicted that I was a sinner and was going to hell unless I repented. That was about 10 years ago, and I never thought it necessary to be rebaptized. But a couple months ago I felt convicted to be baptized again, since it is a symbol of the resurrection of the righteous which at the time I received it, I was not going to partake of. So it had absolutely no meaning when I first received it, I just got wet. So I was was baptized again, and this time it actually meant something, since the resurrection that it symbolized will actually take place. As far as grieving the Holy Spirit...if I did, it was because I received the ordinance before I should have, as I was not a child of God at the time. I do not believe it grieves the Holy Spirit for a saved person to be baptized again if they had previously been baptized while they were lost...because the Holy Spirit did not indwell them the first time they were baptized. In Acts 19, there were certain men who had been baptized in John's baptism of repentance, but not in the name of the Lord Jesus. So Peter ordered them to be rebaptized before they receive the Holy Spirit (note that it is not the baptism itself that results in their receiving the Holy Spirit, but Peter laying his hands on them after they are rebaptized). Also, when the Ethiopian eunuch asked Phillip if he could be baptized, Phillip told him 'If you believe wtih all your heart, you may.' So baptism is conditional on whether or not we truly believe. If someone believed that baptism could be taken by somebody who was not a believer, then would they also say that they could take the Lord's supper before believing? It seems to me that both ordinances are to be taken only by believers...we know that there were certain individuals in the Corinthian church who were sick and dying because they were taking the Lord's supper unworthily.


Subject: Re: What about Rebaptism?
From: Pilgrim
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 18, 2000 at 12:45:50 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
freegrace,

I am more concerned that the so-called 'leaders' of that particular church are condoning and even administering this sacrament to this woman a second time. THAT sir, is most grievous, for it shows a lack of sound biblical teaching on their part. Darrin's response is typical, in that it doesn't matter evidently to him whether or not truth and the proper exercise of it are maintained, but rather 'if it feels good, do it!' is the rigour of the day. How sad! But, I also find that I must again disagree with you brother over yet another issue on this Baptism subject, and that is your own understanding of water baptism itself. Does water baptism, has water baptism EVER symbolized regeneration? Being that I am a Paedobaptist, I hold that baptism, the sign and seal of the redemption in Christ of the New Covenant superseded circumcision, the sign and seal of the redemption in the Christ to come of the Old Covenant. Circumcision, being a shadow and type of Baptism was given to Abraham not as a 'sign' of his regeneration but of his being a recipient of the blessings of the Covenant with God; ie., salvation and more specifically Justification. This is the primary meaning and that symbolized in both circumcision and baptism, NOT regeneration.

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: What about Rebaptism?
From: john hampshire
To: all
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 18, 2000 at 22:38:53 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
If baptism is for believers, and only for those who profess a belief in Christ, then wouldn't it be true that until they have acquired a full assurance of salvation, they should not be baptized. Hasn't baptism becomes a sign of regeneration, a thing done apart from the will of man. We are then left to judge the salvation of each participant. We must have some 'confession of faith' in order to somehow assess that regeneration has occurred. Where in Scripture was their an interview process to determine a candidate for baptism? Who gave a confession judged by the church? Wasn't the process more like: a person understands the covenant of grace, understands that baptism is the sign of this covenant, and the believer is baptized right-away along with all his family. We have even found in Scripture that some who were baptized were not regenerated. Any ideas why the church tries to equate baptism to regeneration, something which is known only by God and cannot be assessed by a church in any reliable way? john


Subject: Re: What about Rebaptism?
From: Darrin
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 18, 2000 at 11:08:32 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
fg, Hey, if she wants to do that and it makes her be more commited to Christ then by all means! :)


Subject: Re: What about Rebaptism?
From: Prestor John
To: Darrin
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 18, 2000 at 20:02:36 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
You're right, and hey if she wants to strip naked and dance all around the sanctuary let let her do that too if it makes her more commited to Christ! OR we could OBEY the WORD OF GOD and HEED to what it teaches and not to what ever 'feels good'. Oh for the doctrine of SOLA SCRIPTURA to become what it was! Prestor John Sola Scrptura, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solus Christus Servabo Fidem


Subject: Re: What about Rebaptism?
From: Darrin
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 04:18:15 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
John, It is about becoming all things to all people so that I might save some. I am sure you would have a problem with Paul and his evangelistic methods. Heck, he even had Timothy circumcised when he himself said circumcision means nothing!


Subject: Re: What about Rebaptism?
From: Pilgrim
To: Darrin
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 07:08:58 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Darrin,

Do you really think the apostle Paul 'bent' the eternal and immutable truths taught him by the Lord Jesus Christ to accommodate the various people he confronted so as to 'possibly save some'? I would rather hold that Paul was a shining example of his Master who taught him all things which He, the Lord Christ did before him and perfectly. And the Lord Christ NEVER even considered allowing his hearers dictate his words or actions, not could He have done so. Perhaps you would benefit from reading the linked article: The Refusal of Christ to Conform to the Wishes of the People.

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: What about Rebaptism?
From: Prestor John
To: Darrin
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 06:18:06 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Darrin, Your missing the point here. Becoming all things to all people doesn't entail becoming un-scriptural. Paul didn't need to participate in bacchanalias just so that he could understand gentiles. In the same manner when you allow the worship of God to go on in a 'feelings' based motif what you promote is false worship. It is no longer the holy and awesome LORD that has told us the proper method of worship based upon His Word, it is a golden calf.


Subject: Re: What about Rebaptism?
From: Darrin
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 07:01:57 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
John, Who said anything about 'worship' to God? I thought this thread was about 'rebaptism.'


Subject: Acts 22:16 .....'Be Baptised'.
From: freegrace
To: All
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 17, 2000 at 20:57:00 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
We better be careful by saying that this verse 'proves' that 'water baptism is for us today'. Acts 22:16 are the words of Ananias
---
'A devout man according to the law' See Acts 22:12! We must watch every word carefully if we want to find truth. At that time in history, I am sure that brother Ananias did not know very much about the doctrines of Sovereign Grace! Please keep in mind that at that time they did not have the complete canon of Scripture.. which the apostle Paul was going to write one/third of the New Testament! freegrace


Subject: Re: Acts 22:16 .....'Be Baptised'.
From: Prestor John
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 18, 2000 at 21:41:54 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
The sad thing is freegrace that you don't see the doctrine sovereign grace in the Old Testament period nor in the early new Testament time. The truth of the matter is that it was GRACE from the fall of ADAM and it will be GRACE until the end (and even then). Ananias knew about Sovereign Grace it what had saved him and Paul. Prestor John Servabo Fidem


Subject: The Washing of Water by the Word
From: freegrace
To: All
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 17, 2000 at 19:40:22 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Scott Lewis posted something very interesting here this week from J.I Packer about baptism: >>>. I. Packer captures this point well when he writes: Christian baptism . . . is a sign from God that signifies inward cleansing and remission of sins (Acts 22:16; 1 Corinthians 6:11; Ephesians 5:25-27), Spirit-wrought regeneration and new life (Titus 3:5), and the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit as God's seal testifying and guaranteeing that one will be kept safe in Christ forever (1 Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians 1:13-14). Baptism carries these meanings because first and fundamentally it signifies union with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection (Romans 6:3-7; Colossians 2:11-12); and this union with Christ is the source of every element in our salvation (1 John 5:11-12). Receiving the sign in faith assures the persons baptized that God's gift of new life in Christ is freely given to them.25 <<< Water baptism is a 'sign (or seal) that one is kept safe in Christ forever'...??? What!? The Spirit baptism alone cannot give one sufficient Witness and enough assurance of an eternal salvation? Most of these verses given (in defense of water baptism) are about the *baptism of the Spirit*, and have nothing to do with 'water'...! 1 Cor. 6:11...'but ye are washed'...etc. please Compare to Epheisans 5:26 where it says we are washed with the *Water of the Word*...! (Not literal water at all here is in mind, but is a spiritual cleaning). How shall a man cleanse his way? By taking heed unto the WORD...it says in the Psalms. freegrace


Subject: Re: The Washing of Water by the Word
From: Prestor John
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 17, 2000 at 21:04:07 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
From Ultra-dispensationalism examined in the light of Scripture by H.A. Ironside Do Baptism and the Lord's Supper Have Any Place in the Present Dispensation of the Grace of God? IT is most distressing to one who has revelled in the grace of God for years, but has recognized on the other hand that grace produces loving obedience in the heart of the believer, to read the puerile and childish diatribes of the ultra-dispensationalists, as they inveigh against the Christian ordinances as though observance of these in some way contravened the liberty of Grace. Insisting that Paul had a new ministry revealed to him after Acts 28, and that this ministry is given only in the so-called prison epistles, they make a great deal of the fact that in these epistles we do not have any distinct instruction as to the baptizing of believers, or the observance of the Lord's Supper. We have already seen, I trust clearly, that Paul himself disavows any new revelation having been given him after his imprisonment, but insists that the mystery was that very message which he had already made known to all nations for the obedience of faith. It was but part of that whole counsel of God which he had declared to the Ephesians long before his arrest. These brethren, by a process of sophistical reasoning, try to prove that baptism belonged only to an earlier dispensation and was in some sense meritorious, as though it had in itself saving virtue, but that since the dispensation of grace has been fully revealed, there is no place for baptism, because of changed conditions for salvation. To state this argument is but to expose its fallacy. Let one point be absolutely clear: No one was ever saved in any dispensation on any other ground than the finished work of Christ. In all the ages before the cross, God justified men by faith; in all the years since, men have been justified in exactly the same way. Adam believed God and was clothed with coats of skin, a picture of one becoming the righteousness of God in Christ. Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness. Nevertheless, afterwards he was circumcised; but that circumcision, the apostle tells us, was simply a seal of the righteousness he had by faith. And throughout all the Old Testament dispensation, however legalistic Jews may have observed the ordinance of circumcision and thought of it as having in itself some saving virtue, it still remained in God's sight, as in the beginning, only a seal, where there was genuine faith, of that righteousness which He imputed. The difficulty with many who reason as these Bullingerites do, is that they cannot seem to understand the difference between the loving loyal obedience of a devoted heart, and a legal obedience which is offered to God as though it were in itself meritorious. No one was ever saved through the sacrifices offered under law, for it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sin. Nevertheless, wherever there was real faith in Israel, the sacrifices were offered because of the instruction given in the Word of God, and in these sacrifices the work of Christ was pictured continually. When John the Baptist came in the way of righteousness, he called on men to confess their sinfulness and their just desert of death by baptism, and so we read that the publicans and sinners 'justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John.' There was no merit in the baptism. It was the divinely appointed way of acknowledging their sinfulness and need of a Saviour. Therefore it is called a baptism 'unto repentance for the remission of sins.' They were like men in debt, giving their notes to the divine creditor. A note does not pay a debt but it is an acknowledgment of indebtedness. Christ's baptism was simply Ms endorsement of all of these notes. When He said to John, who would have hindered Him from being baptized, 'Suffer it to be so now, for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness,' it was as though He said, 'In this way I pledge Myself to meet every righteous demand of the throne of God on behalf of these confessed sinners.' And this is surely what He had in mind when, three years later, He exclaimed, 'I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!' (Luke 12: 50). On the cross He met the claims of righteousness and thus fulfilled the meaning of His baptism. Christian baptism has its beginning in resurrection. It was the risen Christ about to be glorified who commissioned His apostles to go out, not simply to Jews, observe, nor yet to proclaim a second offer of the kingdom, as some say, but to carry the Gospel to men of all nations, baptizing those who professed to believe, in (or, unto) the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. This we see them literally doing throughout the early days of the Church, as recorded in the Book of Acts. Wherever the Gospel is preached, baptism is linked with it, not as part of the Gospel, for Paul distinctly says, 'Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel,' but as an outward expression of faith in the Gospel. It is evident in the Book of Acts that there is a somewhat different presentation of this, according as to whether the message is addressed to Jews in outward covenant relation with God or to Gentiles who are strangers to the covenants of promise. Paul calls these two aspects of the one Gospel, the Gospel of the circumcision and the Gospel of the uncircumcision. The Jew being already a member of a nation which, up to the cross, had been recognized as in covenant relationship with God, was called upon to be baptized to save himself from that untoward generation. That is, to step out, as it were, from the nation, no longer claiming national privilege, nor yet being exposed to national judgment. With the Gentile, it was otherwise. He was simply called upon to believe the Gospel, and believing it, to confess his faith in baptism. And this abides to the end of the age as our Lord Himself clearly declared in the closing verses of Matthew 28. There has never been any change in the order. It has been said that the baptism of the Holy Spirit superseded water baptism, but Scripture teaches the very contrary. Cornelius and his household were baptized with the Holy Spirit when they believed the Word spoken by Peter. But the apostle, turning to his Jewish brethren, immediately asks: 'Who can forbid water that these should not be baptized which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?' And they were at once baptized by authority of the Lord Jesus, which is what the expression 'in the name of' involves. This was not a meritorious act. It was a blessed and precious privilege granted to this Gentile household upon the evidence of their faith in Christ. It has been objected that the apostle Paul himself makes light of baptism and was really glad that he had not baptized many at Corinth. It is surely a most shifty kind of exegesis that would lead any one to make such a statement. In the record in Acts, where we read of Paul's ministry in Corinth, we are told that many of the Corinthians hearing, believed and were baptized. Paul did not himself do the baptizing, save in a few instances, but he certainly saw that it was done, and the Holy Spirit evidently quotes the record with approval. Why then did Paul thank God in First Corinthians 1, that he had baptized so few? The answer is perfectly plain. Because the Corinthians were making much of human leaders and he saw the tendency to glory in man. He knew that if there were many there who had been baptized by him, they would be likely, under the prevailing conditions, to pride themselves upon the fact that he, the apostle to the Gentiles, had been the one who baptized them. But far from making light of baptism, when he chides them for their sectarian spirit, he shows them that the only name worthy of exaltation is the name of the One by whose authority they had been baptized. As to the various disputed scriptures in Romans 6: 3, 4; Colossians 2: 12; Ephesians 4: 5; and Galatians 3: 27, where baptism is mentioned without any definite indication as to whether it is water or Spirit, one thing at least is perfectly clear. Water baptism is necessarily implied, because Spirit baptism is but a figurative expression, and water baptism was the act upon which the figure was based. This comes out in the first mention of Spirit baptism. 'I indeed,' says John, 'baptize you with water' (this then was the actual literal baptism), 'but He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.' It is not literal baptism in the Holy Spirit. It is not literal fire, but figurative. If this be but kept in mind, there would be no confusion. Baptism in water pictures both burial and resurrection. On this Paul bases his instruction in Romans 6 and Colossians 2:12. Thus water baptism marks people out as belonging to Christ by profession, and therefore is the basic thought in Galatians 3: 27, even though it is by the Spirit's baptism that people are actually united to Christ. There has been much disputation regarding the passage in Ephesians 4, but without laying special stress on the importance of water baptism, it is very evident that the passage would have no meaning if water baptism, as well as that of the Spirit, were not in view. Let me try to make this plain. In the opening verses, the apostle calls upon the Ephesian believers, and of course all Christians, to walk worthy of the vocation wherewith they have been called, and he lays stress on the importance of endeavoring to keep the Spirit's unity in the bond of peace. Then he explains this unity as being sevenfold. In verse 4 he emphasizes three special things, one Body, one Spirit, and one hope. Now there can be no question that the Spirit is brought in here as forming the Body, and the Spirit forms the Body by what is called elsewhere the baptism of the Spirit. Then in verse 5 we have another trio, one Lord, one faith, one baptism. Here it seems to me clearly enough we have, not a duplication of what we have already had in verse 4, but something that is more outward. One Lord in whom we believe; one faith that we confess; and one baptism by which we express our allegiance to that Lord and that faith. In verse 6 we have God Himself as the Father of all, the Founder of this blessed unity. Now without going into any disputation as to whether the term 'one baptism,' is to be confined to the baptism of the Spirit, or the baptism of water, it is certainly evident that it at least implies water. No man confesses his faith in Christ by the baptism of the Holy Spirit alone, for millions have been baptized by the Holy Spirit, and yet the world knows nothing of it. On the other hand, of course, many have faith in Christ who have never been baptized in water, but that does not alter the fact that, according to the Lord's own instructions, water baptism should follow confession of Christ. The Lord has never rescinded this order, and for men to attempt to do so is but to substitute human authority for divine. The statement has been made that inasmuch as all carnal ordinances were abolished in the cross, this includes baptism and the Lord's Supper. However, to merely state this is to refute it, inasmuch as Christian baptism was not given until just before the Lord's ascension, and the Lord's Supper was given from heaven to the apostle Paul by special revelation, long after Christ's ascension (1 Cor. 11: 23, 24). To read into such a passage as Hebrews 6: 1, 2 any reference to Christian baptism, is ignorance so colossal that it does not even deserve an answer. The apostle there is definitely referring to Judaism in contrast with Christianity. The 'doctrine of baptisms' is the teaching of washings under law. To the lover of the Lord Jesus Christ there can be nothing legal about baptism. It is simply the glad expression of a grateful heart recognizing its identity with Christ in death, burial, and resurrection. Many of us look back to the moment when we were thus baptized as one of the most precious experiences we have ever known. All ultra-dispensationalists do not reject the Lord's Supper, but those who are rigidly tied up to the prison epistles and have practically no other Bible, set this blessed ordinance aside in the same curt way that they dismiss water baptism. We are told that in a spiritual dispensation there is no place for outward observances. And yet, singularly enough, these brethren meet together for worship and prayer, and that very frequently upon the first day of the week, though they are almost a unit in denying that this is the Lord's Day. They insist, though the Holy Ghost has Himself changed the term; that the Lord's Day is identical with the Day of the Lord; and so the observance of the first day of the week is with them simply gross legality. Think of parting with all the holy privileges of the Lord's Day on the plea that it is a mark of higher spirituality to make this a common day like any other. I know that some quote as authority for this, Paul's words in Romans 14: 5: 'One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.' But an examination of the entire passage in which this verse is found, will make it clear that the apostle is here referring to Jewish distinctions between clean and unclean meats, and holy and common days, and he would have Gentile believers respect even the legal feeling of their Jewish brethren in these matters. The enlightened Christian of course in a very real sense esteems every day alike, that is, every day is devoted to the glory of God, but this does not mean that he fails to differentiate between days on which he participates in the ordinary activities of the world, and the first day of the week, which is largely set aside for spiritual exercises. We have known men to glory in their liberty, as they called it, who could take part in Christian service on Lord's Day morning and spend the afternoon golfing, or in some other more worldly way, and this on pretence of a higher spirituality than that of those who are supposed to be legal, because they use the hours of the entire day either for their own spiritual upbuilding or for the blessing of others. It is strange that many, who insist that there are no ordinances or commandments connected with the dispensation of pure grace, should take up collections in their services and urge people to give as unto the Lord to support their ministry. logically, they should tell people that giving is legal and belongs to the old dispensation, but has no place in the present age, when we simply receive but give nothing in return! The passage already referred to in 1 Corinthians 11 makes it clear that though the apostle Paul did not receive his instruction concerning the observance of the Lord's Supper from the twelve, it was given to him by special revelation from heaven, thus indicating what an important place it has in this age. Surely one is guilty of gross perversion of Scripture who dares to teach that since Paul's imprisonment, the Lord's Supper should no longer be observed, when the Holy Ghost has said, 'As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till He come.' The most sacred hours that many of us have ever known have been those spent with fellow-believers seated at the table of the Lord, recognizing in the broken bread and poured-out wine, the memorials of our Saviour's death, and thus in a new way entering into and appropriating the reality of which the symbols speak. We may be thought legal, because we refuse to surrender such precious privileges at the behest of some of our self-styled expositors of pure grace, but we remember 'that the grace of God salvation bringing for all men, hath appeared, teaching us that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously and godly in this present world, looking for that blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ,' and until He come, by His grace, to remember Him in the way of His own appointment. I would like to add that while I do not hold to dispensational theology I consider this rebutal to be of the highest order. Presto John


Subject: Re: The Washing of Water by the Word
From: freegrace
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 18, 2000 at 09:52:17 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
An interesting study! However, this sounds like a 'private interpretation' to me: >>>As to the various disputed scriptures in Romans 6: 3, 4; Colossians 2: 12; Ephesians 4: 5; and Galatians 3: 27, where baptism is mentioned without any definite indication as to whether it is water or Spirit, one thing at least is perfectly clear. Water baptism is necessarily implied, because Spirit baptism is but a figurative expression, and water baptism was the act upon which the figure was based. This comes out in the first mention of Spirit baptism. 'I indeed,' says John, 'baptize you with water' (this then was the actual literal baptism), 'but He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.' It is not literal baptism in the Holy Spirit. It is not literal fire, but figurative. If this be but kept in mind, there would be no confusion.<<< Water baptism is 'necessarily implied' for such verses as 1 Cor.12:13? I do not think so! Yet J. I Packer includes this verse as a 'defense' for water baptism today. How can the Spirit baptism be a 'figurative expression' of the 'literal water baptism'? 'What Paul really meant to say' was 'water baptism' in these verses? I do not think so. Paul said what he meant to say - By one SPIRIT are we all baptised into one body... 1 Cor. 12:13. It is a *private interpretaion* of these verses to say 'what is figurative, or what is literal'..etc. Everytime we see 'baptism' in the Scriptures, we cannot just automatically think the writer is speaking of water. The word 'drink' is even used in this same verse - but there is *no water* to drink, just the Spirit! (I never said that 'the Lord's Supper should no longer be observed'; besides, we are talking about baptism now). freegrace


Subject: Re: The Washing of Water by the Word
From: Prestor John
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 18, 2000 at 19:53:34 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Private interpretation? Ahh there's the last refuge. I had hoped that someone of your particular style of theology could perhaps clear up some misunderstandings you were having. I see that I was wrong, and instead of re-examing your position your mind is made up, so perhaps it useless to confuse you with the facts. I will state them none the less: Yes it is true we are made members of the Body of Christ by our baptism of the Spirit. But baptism of the Spirit does not negate the ordinance institued by Christ. If you will carefully examine the commision in Matt. 28: 18-20 given to the apostles you will see that greek used there is
ethnos normally used for non-jewish people (gentile). Indeed Acts 10:44-47 is a perfect example of this as they were first baptized by the Spirit and then Peter called for water so that the ordinance of Christ would be fulfilled. Indeed if anything this would prove the opposite that the evidence of the baptism of the Spirit shows the need for the ordinance of water baptism. Prestor John Servabo Fidem


Subject: Re: The Washing of Water by the Word
From: Pilgrim
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 17, 2000 at 20:51:38 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
freegrace,

Let's be consistent now shall we? If what you believe was true, then the Lord's Table should not be administered either, for it too is a proclamation of God's saving grace in Christ Jesus and the cleansing from sins in His blood. [Still continuing with your line of thought] Was not Christ's atoning sacrifice sufficient to remit all the sins of His sheep? If so, then why drink a glass of wine [grape juice for our Fundamentalist brethren] repetitively at the Lord's Table? Is not the communion we have with Christ effected by the indwelling Spirit? Then why partake of the bread at the Lord's Table? Why have communion at all? This same sacrament was instituted before Pentecost and with only Jewish disciples. But perhaps you DO view the Lord's Table as superfluous to the Gentile portion of the Christian Church and was restricted to a by-gone dispensation during the first century among Jewish converts? Is it not sufficient that the Lord Christ COMMANDED both baptism and the Lord's Supper be practiced perpetually among His beloved? Can it be that the entire Christian Church, with all it's disagreements over doctrine, yet in agreement in the perpetuity of these two sacraments/ordinances, were all wrong? As an aside, and not meant to carry any weight of argument, I would love to see you stand face to face with Calvin, or Edwards, or Owen or Spurgeon and tell them that they are in serious error and have misinterpreted the Scriptures in regards to the truth of Baptism. And then open your Bible and show them 'a better way'! :-)

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: The Washing of Water by the Word
From: freegrace
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 18, 2000 at 09:14:56 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
freegrace,

Let's be consistent now shall we? If what you believe was true, then the Lord's Table should not be administered either, for it too is a proclamation of God's saving grace in Christ Jesus and the cleansing from sins in His blood. [Still continuing with your line of thought] Was not Christ's atoning sacrifice sufficient to remit all the sins of His sheep? If so, then why drink a glass of wine [grape juice for our Fundamentalist brethren] repetitively at the Lord's Table? Is not the communion we have with Christ effected by the indwelling Spirit? Then why partake of the bread at the Lord's Table? Why have communion at all? This same sacrament was instituted before Pentecost and with only Jewish disciples. But perhaps you DO view the Lord's Table as superfluous to the Gentile portion of the Christian Church and was restricted to a by-gone dispensation during the first century among Jewish converts? Is it not sufficient that the Lord Christ COMMANDED both baptism and the Lord's Supper be practiced perpetually among His beloved? Can it be that the entire Christian Church, with all it's disagreements over doctrine, yet in agreement in the perpetuity of these two sacraments/ordinances, were all wrong? As an aside, and not meant to carry any weight of argument, I would love to see you stand face to face with Calvin, or Edwards, or Owen or Spurgeon and tell them that they are in serious error and have misinterpreted the Scriptures in regards to the truth of Baptism. And then open your Bible and show them 'a better way'! :-)

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim
---
============== I do not see the problems with observing the Lord's Supper or Communion that there are with practicing a 'water baptism'...be it by sprinking or immersion. Also, we do not have to answer to these great Bible scholars that you mentioned, but only to the Lord Himself whom we will meet face to face. Just because 'we have always done it that way' should not be our reason for keeping or holding on to a certain practice in the church. I did not say that these men were in 'great error'; they served their time very well in all the Light God gave them. freegrace


Subject: Re: The Washing of Water by the Word
From: Pilgrim
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 18, 2000 at 12:33:35 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
freegrace,

Are you serious? 'I did not say that these men were in 'great error'; they served their time very well in all the Light God gave them.' You are clearly saying here that God deliberately has kept the Church, from the days of the Apostles until 'whoever' it was that came up with this idea that water baptism was restricted to an arbitrary time period and only for Jewish converts. Again, with great similarity that within all Christendom there are many differences of dogma, yet Predestination, until the last 150 years, was universally held by the overwhelming majority of denominations and individual Christians, including Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther, between whom there was chasmic disagreement. The same holds true for Baptism. Sure, we may differ as to the mode (immersion, effusion, aspersion). We may indeed differ over who are legitimate recipients (adults only or including infants). We may even differ as to the exact meaning of Baptism. But one thing which has not been disputed is the perpetuity and practice of it within the Christian Church, even in it's broadest meaning. I would encourage you to consider the implications of what you are embracing at this point in your pilgrimage. :-) Secondly, and lastly, again if one wishes to embrace the methodology used to conclude that water Baptism is invalid for the Church, even as early as the time during which the Apostles themselves still lived and taught the truths of God, then the same MUST be true also for the doctrine of the Lord's Table, for they both originated from the very same source, the LORD Christ Himself, and during the exact same time period and to the very same individuals. As I see it, you are forced into a 'both/and' situation from which there is no defense. :-)

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: The Washing of Water by the Word
From: Prestor John
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 17, 2000 at 20:40:02 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Scott Lewis posted something very interesting here this week from J.I Packer about baptism: >>>. I. Packer captures this point well when he writes: Christian baptism . . . is a sign from God that signifies inward cleansing and remission of sins (Acts 22:16; 1 Corinthians 6:11; Ephesians 5:25-27), Spirit-wrought regeneration and new life (Titus 3:5), and the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit as God's seal testifying and guaranteeing that one will be kept safe in Christ forever (1 Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians 1:13-14). Baptism carries these meanings because first and fundamentally it signifies union with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection (Romans 6:3-7; Colossians 2:11-12); and this union with Christ is the source of every element in our salvation (1 John 5:11-12). Receiving the sign in faith assures the persons baptized that God's gift of new life in Christ is freely given to them.25 <<< Water baptism is a 'sign (or seal) that one is kept safe in Christ forever'...??? What!? The Spirit baptism alone cannot give one sufficient Witness and enough assurance of an eternal salvation? Most of these verses given (in defense of water baptism) are about the *baptism of the Spirit*, and have nothing to do with 'water'...! 1 Cor. 6:11...'but ye are washed'...etc. please Compare to Epheisans 5:26 where it says we are washed with the *Water of the Word*...! (Not literal water at all here is in mind, but is a spiritual cleaning). How shall a man cleanse his way? By taking heed unto the WORD...it says in the Psalms. freegrace
---
What!? You would deny the external witness that water baptism brings to the surrounding saints/unbelievers? Plus while you posit that Rom. 16:25-27 is another gospel that was given to Paul and not to the rest of the Apostles (because of your pauline dispensational underpinings) there is nothing in that statement that says water baptism was done away with. In fact church history says quite the opposite. In fact you can not find this teaching either in Scofield who originated this specific style of theology or any of his modern contemporaries such as Ryrie, Walvoord, or Chafer. In fact I believe that the only person who did hold to this was E.W. Bullinger the father of hyper-dispensationalists. Prestor John


Subject: a principle for us all
From: Rod
To: All
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 16, 2000 at 10:01:18 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
To all: I lifted this little paragraph from a post of Pilgrim's directly below. It is so full of significance and import for us all to embrace the principle contained, that I wanted to bring it to prominence: 'IF I even suspected that you or anyone else was becoming a 'yes man' in my regard, I would immediately be burdened with guilt for possibly being a substandard teacher of God's Word and perhaps much worse. If I have succeeded in attracting 'followers' whose eyes are focused upon me rather than the LORD Jesus Christ, then I am at best a miserable failure both to men and before God. May this never be true.' Amen, brother! A late, but still well-known radio Bible teacher relates a story of his very early preaching days when he delivered a message and the last person out of the little country church was a small boy, who shook his hand and exclaimed, 'Ain't Jesus wonderful!' before setting off for home across a cotton field. Vernon McGee claimed that he regarded that as the greatest compliment he ever received for his preaching. The temptation to want to impress people with knowledge and devotion to the Lord is empty and vain. The only preaching/teaching worth doing or listening to is the sharing of a simple and humble heart of devotion and honor for the Lord Jesus Christ. Thank God for those who have such a heart and a heart of devotion to share it.


Subject: Infant Baptism
From: PWH
To: All
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 15, 2000 at 17:44:22 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Thanks for all the responses. They made for interesting reading. I am relatively new to this forum and am still learning how to use it. I have responded to some of your responses. Please check them out. I am still working on some of the verses offered regarding this issue. I am still not convinced that infant baptism is the best Biblical position. PWH


Subject: Re: Infant Baptism
From: Pilgrim
To: PWH
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 15, 2000 at 17:56:53 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
PWH,

Welcome to The Highway's 'Theology Discussion Forum'. If you haven't done so, I would direct you to the 'Guidelines' of the Forum which you can read by clicking the link in the Forum's introductory header. It is important that you understand how this Forum is set up and what rules it operates by. As to your questions concerning Baptism, which seem to be becoming more of a 'challenge' to Paedobaptists rather than an honest inquiry by one who is seriously studying the issue and seeking answers, :-); and since you probably have missed the previous discussions on this topic, I would like to ask you, as one who seems to embrace Credobaptism, if you would be so kind as to give me your brief Definition of what Baptism means. When I asked this question before, it went no where actually, but perhaps you would be willing to engage me at this point by simply doing this? Thanks. In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim PS: There is a very interesting article on The Highway web site which you might avail yourself for the purpose of increasing your knowledge and furthering your 'study': The Means of Grace: Baptism.


Subject: Re: Infant Baptism
From: PWH
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 16, 2000 at 18:49:16 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
In my original post I told my story which included a challenge to paedobaptists. I became a believer when I was about 13 years old. I attended a several baptist churches for the next twenty years. The pastors were all dispensational with two of my former pastors from Dallas Theological Seminary. I always felt there was something wrong w/ dispensational theology but it was the only thing I knew. I stated going to a presbyterian church several years ago and was first introduced to reformed theology. I think that reformed theology is much more Biblical than what I was taught in the baptist churches I attended in earlier years, except at the point of infant baptism. Thus my question for this forum. I did not mean to be secretive about my 'honest inquiries.' My desire to understand the issue is sincere even as I 'challenge' paedobaptists. You seem to say that if I challenges a particular position then the inquiries are not honest and I am not seriously studying the issue. I do have an opinion on the subject which I briefly confessed in my first post but I am willing to admit that I am wrong if sufficient Biblical proof is given. Be assured that the reason I entered this forum was a sincere desire to know God's mind on this issue. My inquiries are honest and I am seriously studying this issue. I read the article, 'The Means of Grace: Baptism' as you advised. I can buy the four-part definition he gives for baptism; 1)it is the chief means God has to witness to a person's conversion, 2)it symbolizes the believer's union w/ Christ 3)it is the door by which the person enters the visible church 4)it has an eschatalogical meaning. I must confess the 4th point was new to me. Anyway, when I am speaking of baptism this is what I am saying. The article listed the chief arguments that paedobaptists used and there is one argument that I do not understand, that being, infants were circumcised in the old covenant, baptism replaces circumcision in the new covenant; therefore, infants should be baptized. The problem I have with this is the very first assertion, 'infants were circumcised in the old covenant.' This is wrong. MALE infants were circumcised in the old covenant. Of course female infants couldn't be circumcised (Do I need to say this?). To me this is a significant point but I have heard very many people address it. Thanks for the note regarding the rules for the forum. I will read them directly. PWH PWH


Subject: Article was good reading, thanks! nt
From: Brother Bret
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 16, 2000 at 13:59:28 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:


Subject: Re: Infant Baptism
From: Tom
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 15, 2000 at 22:28:57 (PDT)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
Pilgrim I was sure that Prestor John gave a pretty good definition of what baptism means. But I may be wrong. I haven't got time at the moment but if he didn't give a definition, and/or he isn't willing to give it again, (since he is much better at it than I am)I will attempt a definition at a later date. OK ;-) Tom P.S Do I ever feel funny that I am somewhat in disagreance with you on this issue. But somehow I don't think you want me to be a yes man.


Subject: Re: Infant Baptism
From: Pilgrim
To: Tom
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 16, 2000 at 09:42:51 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim I was sure that Prestor John gave a pretty good definition of what baptism means. But I may be wrong. I haven't got time at the moment but if he didn't give a definition, and/or he isn't willing to give it again, (since he is much better at it than I am)I will attempt a definition at a later date. OK ;-) Tom P.S Do I ever feel funny that I am somewhat in disagreance with you on this issue. But somehow I don't think you want me to be a yes man.
---
Tom,

First, Prestor John didn't really give a definition as much as he rightly corrected someone else's response that did not define Baptism. This has always been the most difficult thing for Baptists to do, for as I see it, their error in restricting baptism to only 'believing adults' prohibits them from being able to have a definition period. I remember debating John Reisinger on the topic of Baptism publicly over 15 years ago when I was younger and had lots of 'vim and vigor', hehehe. At the conclusion of that debate, which was a 'draw', we embraced as brothers in Christ and realized that we shared far more in common on this issue of Baptism than we differed on. I think that the main reason that the debate was able to be 'spirited' but never harsh, heated or hateful is because there was a solid grasp of the whole of Scripture on both sides. We both realized that neither view had an advantage but rather both views could be plausible. What is actually came down to was how one's view was APPLIED. And if you remember this too was a topic discussed here as well and is more of an issue that divides than the actual doctrine of Baptism itself. And if I may launch a 'dart' at this point at all my Baptist brothers, has anyone ever seen or heard of any church advertise its name as e.g., 'Grace Paedobaptist Church', or 'Whatever City Infant Baptism Community Church', etc.?? I think this speaks volumes in itself and so I'll not make further comment. :-) Tom, brother. . . IF I even suspected that you or anyone else was becoming a 'yes man' in my regard, I would immediately be burdened with guilt for possibly being a substandard teacher of God's Word and perhaps much worse. If I have succeeded in attracting 'followers' whose eyes are focused upon me rather than the LORD Jesus Christ, then I am at best a miserable failure both to men and before God. May this never be true. In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim 'If you find yourself loving any pleasure better than your prayers, any book better than the Bible, any house better than the house of God, any table better than the Lord's table, any person better than Christ, any indulgence better than the hope of heaven - take alarm!' - Thomas Guthrie.


Subject: Re: Infant Baptism
From: PWH
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 16, 2000 at 19:03:56 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
RE: Definition of Baptism It is the very definition of baptism that seems to support believer's baptism. If baptism is the chief means God uses to witness to the conversion of a believer then only believer's should be baptized. If baptism is a picture of a believer's unity w/ Christ then only believer's should be baptized. If baptism signifies the spinkling of Christ's blood over the heart of a believer then only believer's should be baptized. If baptism signifies the dying w/ Christ and being raised again than only believer's should be baptized. I have heard the argument that by baptizing infants we are looking forward to all those things on behalf of the infant rather than looking back to all those things on behalf of the believer. I can't say this is wrong but I don't think it is the best interpretation of what the Bible teaches (cf Mt 28:18-20) PWH PWH


Subject: Re: Infant Baptism
From: Pilgrim
To: PWH
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 16, 2000 at 21:05:16 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
PWH,

Thanks for the reply. The problem here is that not only is the definition you give assent to not supportive of 'Believer's Baptism', it mitigates against it and further it raises insurmountable problems. 1) To be a true definition, what is stated MUST be true absolutely. There can be no conditions and/or qualifications which would make it untrue. Let me illustrate! The 'definition given says that Baptism IS a 'witness,' 'picture,' and a 'sign'. Those things which are witnessed to, pictured and signs of, MUST be true and always occur or Baptism cannot be in fact any of those things defined. Let's take something very simple but true to the point as an example of this fact. Mercedes still manufactures their fine automobiles with a hood ornament. Most people can quickly recognize it when they see it. This hood ornament too is a 'witness'; to the famous reputation that Mercedes has for building automobiles of fine craftsmanship. The design is also a 'picture' that represents something, to which I must admit I haven't a clue what, hahaha. And it is also a 'sign' that points again to the name, factory, and excellence of that automobile. When anyone sees this emblem, this hood ornament on a car, it SIGNIFIES that the automobile IS a Mercedes. If another automobile manufacturer, eg., Chevrolet, put the Mercedes hood ornament; their 'witness,' 'picture,' 'sign' on their cars, they would immediately be sued and made to take it off. Why? Because the thing signified would not be that which the 'sign' pointed to. Again... When you see a Mercedes, it too signifies something.. it is a testimony to itself and all that went into the design and manufacturing of it. As the name 'signifies', it is a Mercedes REGARDLESS of who is driving it, where it is driven or how it is driven. A Mercedes is a Mercedes if I drive it down the street, or if you do or even if a monkey drives it. Why? Because the definition of what a Mercedes IS does NOT depend on a set of 'conditions and or qualifications' to be what it is. This 'definition' of Baptism, which is just a more detailed version of the more popular one, 'Baptism is: The outward sign of an inward reality.'; making reference to the indwelling Spirit signifying the salvation of the one baptized, is NOT a true definition for it cannot stand alone as being consistently true REGARDLESS of circumstances. Why? Well, simply, IF Baptism IS: 'An outward sign of an inward reality', then it MUST also be true, that all those who are the recipients of that 'sign' (Baptism) MUST have the 'reality', i.e., salvation. But immediately, all Baptists without exception jump up and yell, NO....... we do not believe that everyone who is baptized is saved!!! I say, Amen! agreed. But then the definition is not true and must be discarded for it is NOT true. It cannot stand alone and give credence to it's absolute signification regardless of the person subject to it. Again, simply put, this 'definition' which is no definition at all, is only 'true' part of the time. It's verity in signifying those things within its definition are ONLY true IF the person being baptized IS IN FACT A TRUE BELIEVER. The meaning of baptism is dependent NOT upon objective truths, but upon the truthfulness of the subjective testimony of the object of baptism itself. This is like saying a Mercedes is ONLY a Mercedes IF a rich person from Dallas drives it, but any other time, it's an Edsel; hardly an acceptable case for what a definition is supposed to be and is. However, I do believe that there is a biblical definition for baptism which is a true DEFINITION; i.e., it describes what Baptism IS in and of itself under all circumstances and regardless of who it is that is subjected to it. Thus, theoretically, it wouldn't matter WHO is baptized for what Baptism truly means to be true; i.e., it ALWAYS is a TRUE: 'witness,' 'picture,' and 'sign' and much more EVERY SINGLE TIME it is administered. But I've leave that possible for another time. I am more interested in your and other's responses to what I have said here. :-)

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Infant Baptism
From: scott lewis
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 16, 2000 at 21:57:00 (PDT)
Email Address: navyrdc1@megsinet.net

Message:
The article is a very good one, a must read for anyone wondering about the meaning of Baptism, and after reading it and seeing the 4 points I would have to agree with whoever PWH is that according to those definitions infants cant be included at least for the first 3. I will need a little more time to digest his 4th point. Lets take alot at the first 3. 1.First, baptism is one of the primary means God has given us to publicly declare our faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Not sure how an infant can do this, maybe you could explain to us how an infant publicly declare's faith in Jesus Christ? 2.Second, and probably the most fundamental meaning of baptism, is that it signifies a BELIEVERS union with Christ, by grace through faith, and all the benefits that are entailed by that union. You tried to raise the issue of we cant be sure of who the believers are and if an unbeliever is baptized that it destorys the definition of baptism, but for the BELIEVER baptism is a exactly what the definition says it is(A SIGN) For the unbeliver its just a bath. J. I. Packer captures this point well when he writes: Christian baptism . . . is a sign from God that signifies inward cleansing and remission of sins (Acts 22:16; 1 Corinthians 6:11; Ephesians 5:25-27), Spirit-wrought regeneration and new life (Titus 3:5), and the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit as God's seal testifying and guaranteeing that one will be kept safe in Christ forever (1 Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians 1:13-14). Baptism carries these meanings because first and fundamentally it signifies union with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection (Romans 6:3-7; Colossians 2:11-12); and this union with Christ is the source of every element in our salvation (1 John 5:11-12). Receiving the sign in faith assures the persons baptized that God's gift of new life in Christ is freely given to them.25 This statement for me at least completely rules out infants being baptized. Third, baptism very graphically signifies a BELIVERS entrance into the body of Christ, the church. Beasley-Murray bluntly states this reality when he writes: 'Baptism to Christ is baptism to the Church; it cannot be otherwise, for the Church is soma Christou, the Body of Christ. Does an infant become a member of the BODY of Christ when he/she is baptized? As for the 4th point he makes, that one would take alittle more time to think about before commenting any further. I do agree with his last statements'we must never lose sight of what unites us. And what is that? The Gospel. Baptism, though it is important, is not the decisive issue of our day, or any day for that matter' Scott lewis


Subject: Re: Infant Baptism
From: Pilgrim
To: scott lewis
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 16, 2000 at 23:55:37 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Scott,

I too agree with Dr. Packer's remarks concerning baptism. :-) However, you conclude that his understanding of biblical baptism automatically EXCLUDES infants. I find this rather intriguing since Dr. Packer is a Paedobaptist and rejects the idea that baptism = immersion. There is no doubt that one of the reasons for the disparity shown here is that Packer and myself are taking an OBJECTIVE definition of baptism which stands on it's own REGARDLESS of the recipient undergoing the sacrament, and you and most all Baptists are taking a SUBJECTIVE definition of baptism which stands only on the credibility and reality of a profession of faith by the one being baptized. My contention is that no where in Scripture can one show this to be what the Lord Christ nor any of the inspired writers taught. Again, let me try and illustrate, but only this time much more briefly. The definition of the Gospel is OBJECTIVE, in that it states what it IS INHERENTLY; i.e., it's content; the message itself. It makes no difference WHO hears it. The Gospel doesn't change according to the audience being address; albeit the majority of modern professing Christians would loudly disagree. But the Scriptures say differently, that the Gospel is a SET of objective elements which are perpetual and immutable. The Gospel is a compilation of facts concerning God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, sin, death, judgment, atonement, reconciliation, grace, glory, etc. The Gospel isn't defined according to the faith or lack of it of the one who hears it. Likewise, Baptism should be defined according to a set of OBJECTIVE truths which are perpetual and immutable; that do not vary according to the one being baptized. This is why it simply CANNOT be: 'An outward sign of an inward reality'! For most all of us, regardless of our position on this doctrine, will freely admit that there are some, perhaps even many who are not true believers when they are baptized. And it is clear that this is where you are getting you main objection to infant baptism! You say that the definition won't allow an infant to be baptized!! Why? Because how could one be sure that faith is present? And that's exactly my objection... you are making an alleged faith the GROUND of defining what Baptism IS! But in doing so, your objection to paedobaptism falls far harder upon you than me. For how can you, or anyone, GUARANTEE that everyone, anyone, who is baptized INFALLIBLY is a true believer? Simply, you can't!! Therefore if baptism is ONLY for true believers, then it is incumbent upon someone, some body to discern and decree that one is truly saved before they are eligible for baptism. Now I know all the hemming and hawing that goes on at this point and all the excuses why we can't pronounce absolute salvation upon anyone. But this only goes to prove my point exactly. It is IMPOSSIBLE to defend 'Believer's Baptism', unless you are willing to show that true faith can be discerned INFALLIBLY. And I think that many Baptists have wisely dropped this nomenclature and opted for 'Credobaptism' instead. Although the same problems plague them as well after the more acceptable terminology has been adopted! :-) Look forward to your reply.

In His Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Infant Baptism
From: scott lewis
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 18, 2000 at 22:09:13 (PDT)
Email Address: navyrdc1@megsinet.net

Message:
There is no doubt that one of the reasons for the disparity shown here is that Packer and myself are taking an OBJECTIVE definition of baptism which stands on it's own REGARDLESS of the recipient undergoing the sacrament, and you and most all Baptists are taking a SUBJECTIVE definition of baptism which stands only on the credibility and reality of a profession of faith by the one being baptized. My contention is that no where in Scripture can one show this to be what the Lord Christ nor any of the inspired writers taught. I guess if we are taking the subjective view as you call it, then we are just following the Biblical precedent followed thru the Book of Acts. Lets take a look at the so called household conversions that are used to support infant baptism. 1. Cornelius’ house—Acts 10. The gospel was preached by Peter, Cornelius heard it…it says, 'They all heard the Word…they believed it…the Spirit fell…they were all baptized.' All heard, all believed, the Spirit came on all, they were all baptized. 2. In the jailer’s house—Acts 16 is the next one…Philippian jailer. Paul, you remember, gave him the gospel, it says, 'All heard the gospel…all were baptized.' 3. Chapter 18, it was in the house of Crispus, 'All believed…all were baptized.' The other two occur in I Corinthians. The other two are the account of Lydia and Stephanas—Lydia is in the book of Acts. 4. But, in the case of Lydia, it’s the same thing. We must understand the same thing must have occurred—they heard, they believed, they were baptized. 5. Stephanas: They heard, they believed, they were baptized. I mean, it’s all basically the same pattern. They all hear the gospel, they all believe, they all receive the Spirit, they all are baptized. That excludes infants because infants can’t hear and believe. The 'household' then is defined—it is defined as 'those capable of hearing, understanding, believing.' That’s the definition of the 'household.' In Stephanas’ household, which is in I Corinthians, chapter 1, 'All who were baptized,' it says, 'All who were baptized were devoted to the ministry of the saints.' Babies can’t be devoted to the ministry of the saints. It says, 'All who were baptized were helping in the spiritual work of the church.' It’s impossible for infants. In the case of Lydia, in Acts, 'her heart was opened when she heard the gospel. The gospel was preached and her heart was opened,' it says. So, we understood she heard the gospel, she believed…others must have heard the gospel, their hearts were opened, and they believed and they were baptized. By the way, to assume there were children in the house is maybe stretching it since, apparently, she had no husband. She, apparently, was a single person. In John 4, in verse 53, it says about a nobleman—you know, whom Jesus talked with and He healed his son—it says about that man, 'He himself believed and his whole household.' They all believed. Household belief, then household baptism. Where there is no faith, there is no baptism. In Acts 2:38—let me show you this. Turn in your Bible for a minute to Acts 2:38. Here is another Scripture which they use to defend infant baptism. Acts 2:38—Peter is closing the sermon on the day of Pentecost and he says, in verse 38, 'Repent…let each of you be baptized!' So, we see the sequence: repent, be baptized. 'And, you’ll receive forgiveness and you’ll receive the gift of the Holy Spirit…' Then, in verse 39, 'For the promise,' he says, 'is for you and your'—what?—'children.' 'Oh,' they say. 'See, the promise here for the children. This is an important Scripture.' 'Repent and be baptized and the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself.' Now, they see 'your children' as an allusion to the baptism of children. And, of course, that’s a stretch. There’s nothing about baptism of children here whatsoever. If needed we could take a look at all the other examples of where baptism is administered and you will see the pattern followed. So if that makes us take an subjective view to baptism its only because the examples do the same thing. scott lewis ps It seems that your main objection is we cant tell who is saved, so then you take it a step further and say because of that we cant say if the baptism actually means anything to the person who is being baptized. But this seems to be a strawman arguement. For the BELIEVER Baptism is exactly what Packer said it is. Could you please give me your definition of Baptism?


Subject: Re: Infant Baptism
From: john hampshire
To: all
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 17, 2000 at 15:52:43 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
What if Baptism is not about water, but about 'being under the authority of' God. What if it signifies a washing of regeneration, but, it looks to that as a promise given by God in convenant with man. The sign of circumcision meant one would belong to the group of God's chosen people. It too was a sign of 'being under God's authority', that you would live to please God. Only those who actually had their sins cutoff (circumcised) with Christ and were thus eligible for regeneration were capable of truly being members of God's chosen people. But the sign was given for a promise. It remembered the covenant (eternal) of God to save a people for Himself. How is water baptism not also a sign of our bringing ourselves, and our family (and slaves) under God's authority with a mind toward His promise of redemption. It doesn't make one regenerated, it doesn't necessarily mean you have been regenerated, it means you have a mind to keep God's Law, and you repent of your sins. It means you are looking at God's promise to sprinkle clean the sins of His people, to be a God to you and your children, according to His covenant. We don't need to 'prove' someone is a Christian first prior to Baptism, we don't have to get a 'confession' first. If they understand the covenant, which is the gospel, and have that earnest desire to please God, let them be baptised, and their children-- by sprinkling. john


Subject: Re: Infant Baptism
From: Pilgrim
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 18, 2000 at 09:22:12 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
John,

Excellent reply. I think this is where the 'rubber hits the road'; i.e., the acknowledgment and understanding of the ONE Covenant of Grace with its Continuities and Discontinuities. Many of the objections to Paedobaptism by Credobaptists I think can be sufficiently answered in the recognition of the Covenant's New Universality and New Spirituality. The basic structure and intent of the Covenant of Grace hasn't changed from its original inception in the Garden of Eden. But with the coming of the Messiah and the Lord Christ's fulfilling of all its requirements, the Signs and Seals i.e., Baptism and the Lord's Table, were given to show forth the completion of His atoning work where in the Old Economy, all the other 'signs and seals' pointed forward to Him and that work he accomplished for the elect. It is my personal view, that once one understands that Baptism MUST be defined OBJECTIVELY and thus its meaning is universal and perpetual regardless of the spiritual state of the recipient, then discussion of WHY Baptism can and should be administered to infants of professed believers will be far more fruitful.

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Infant Baptism
From: Tom
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 16, 2000 at 17:07:27 (PDT)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
Pilgrim Here is a very brief definition water baptism. Baptism is a picture of our death with Christ-being buried with Him (going under the water) and rising a new creation-rising with Christ (coming up out of the grave, out of the water). 'Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptised into Jesus Christ were baptised into His death?'(Romans 6:3) Pilgrim you said: Tom, brother. . . IF I even suspected that you or anyone else was becoming a 'yes man' in my regard, I would immediately be burdened with guilt for possibly being a substandard teacher of God's Word and perhaps much worse. If I have succeeded in attracting 'followers' whose eyes are focused upon me rather than the LORD Jesus Christ, then I am at best a miserable failure both to men and before God. May this never be true. Amen to that brother! I see you got my point, I would be very disapointed if you didn't feel that way. God has indeed used you and others in growing me in the grace & knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But all the glory has to go to our Lord. Tom


Subject: Re: Infant Baptism
From: Prestor John
To: Tom
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 16, 2000 at 21:36:13 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom, Tom, Tom, don't ya see laddy baptism is so much more than that. (and here's another thing laddy most all of us , except for freegrace there, uses water to baptize. So a better term would be believer's baptism or craedobaptism) Sure its symbolic or our death with Christ and our being created a new creature. But its more than that also. It is also an ordinance given to us by our Lord that we who are believers must do to show that we are in the New Covenant that He has made for us. So when we are baptized God uses this means of graces to be effectual toward our salvation. (Not that baptism itself saves but rather by the blessings of Christ and workings of His Spirit in us). Lets try this one on for size and see if Pilgrim likes this for a definition. It is from the Abstract of Principles of the Southern Baptists.

Baptism is an ordinance of the Lord Jesus, obligatory upon every believer, wherein he is immersed in water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, as a sign of his fellowship with the death and resurrection of Christ, of remission of sins, and of his giving himself up to God, to live and walk in newness of life. It is prerequisite to church fellowship, and to participation in the Lord's Supper

There you go Pilgrim how's that? Definition enough?


Subject: Re: Infant Baptism
From: Tom
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 16, 2000 at 22:45:47 (PDT)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
Prestor I am aware that baptism is more than I put down. That is one of the reasons I only put 'a brief definition'. I could have added more to it, but I find the less words I use the less likely I am to make a mistake in my wording. I like to leave that for bigger guns such as yourself.;-) Personally though, and this is something that I disagree with Baptist tradition over. If someone like Pilgrim came in my Church and I knew that they were believers. I would have no trouble with them having Church fellowship or for that matter participation in the Lord's Supper, or for Church membership if they so desired. In the Church I attend, if someone has not been baptised by immersion, the only thing that we keep them from being is a member of the Church. When the Lord's Supper is happening, our pastor always reads scripture concerning proper participation and then leaves the participation to each individual person. It is not a members issue, it is a believers issue! Like I said before although I believe in believer's baptism, I do think we do the person a disservice when we don't allow them to be members, since it is not a salvation issue. I do however believe that they should only be added as members, after they have been interviewed and found by the interviewers to be Christians and that their reason for not being baptised by immersion is one of conviction. Also they should be asked, if this belief is one where they could stay in fellowship, without causing division. When someone is a member of a body of believers, they are subject to that body of believers. Where as a the non-member, tecnically is not subject to the body of believers, and may not listen to attempts to discipline. Tom


Subject: Re: Infant Baptism
From: Prestor John
To: Tom
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 17, 2000 at 19:04:43 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Fer shame Doc hunting rabbits with an elephant gun. }:^{P I too would have no problem admitting someone like Pilgrim to my church's fellowship. In fact I believe that one of the elders of my church has not been baptized as an adult but was baptized as a child. My problem is with your statement of

'Personally though, and this is something that I disagree with Baptist tradition over. If someone like Pilgrim came in my Church and I knew that they were believers. I would have no trouble with them having Church fellowship or for that matter participation in the Lord's Supper, or for Church membership if they so desired.


Is that your equating membership in the local church/assembly with baptism while I am equating it with the body of Christ. I believe that every person must be baptized period. And I agree with Calvin in that the churches should determine how baptism is to be performed.(Institutes Book 4; 15:19) but I must say that their decision as to the mode of baptism must be based upon scripture. Prestor John Servabo Fidem.


Subject: Re: Infant Baptism
From: Tom
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 18, 2000 at 00:08:09 (PDT)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
Prestor John You said: Is that your equating membership in the local church/assembly with baptism while I am equating it with the body of Christ. In fact I believe that one of the elders of my church has not been baptized as an adult but was baptized as a child. And I agree with Calvin in that the churches should determine how baptism is to be performed.(Institutes Book 4; 15:19) but I must say that their decision as to the mode of baptism must be based upon scripture. If I understand what you are saying, I would agree with you, I do equate baptism with the body of Christ. However, when I said that I was referring to the Baptist practice of refusing membership into the local assembly. You also said: In fact I believe that one of the elders of my church has not been baptized as an adult but was baptized as a child. Was this elder who was baptised as a child, a baby when he was baptised or a young boy who understood what he was doing? The reason I say that is, if you do attend a Baptist church and your assembly made him an elder, when he was a baptised as a baby(sorry I had a little trouble with that last sentence, I hope you got my meaning, lol). Then your assembly has gone against Baptist doctrine. This is a point that my pastor struggles with. Sometimes, he feels his hands are tied when in fact he wants to admitt someone into membership. When the person in question was baptised as a baby. I hope you get my meaning? You also said: I believe that every person must be baptized period. Would that include babies and people who may attend church, but by their lifestyle probably are not Christians? If so, then you too don't agree with Baptist doctrine. Tom


Subject: Re: Infant Baptism
From: Prestor John
To: Tom
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 18, 2000 at 19:24:03 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Well Tom I guess we are going to have to define Baptist as a denomination at this point. However, let me clear things up for you regarding the church that I attend
Beacon Bible is not a Baptist church neither is it affiliated with any of the Baptist denominations. The mode of baptism used at Beacon Bible is immersion. However, there is nothing in the by-laws that state you must be baptized as an adult to be an elder at my church. And the elder that I made reference to came from a paedobaptist church and so was baptized as an infant. I hope that clears that up. When I stated that a every person must be baptized, I was unclear, I meant that in the context of becoming a part of the Body of Christ. You already know my feelings toward infants and the definition of baptism that I posted from the Southern Baptists Abstract of Principles contains this statement 'and of his giving himself up to God, to live and walk in newness of life' so of course I would say that those that attend church but conduct themselves as the unregenerate do should not be baptized, unless they have repented and have truly been born again. Prestor (I can see clearly now the rain is gone) John


Subject: Re: Infant Baptism
From: Tom
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 00:11:07 (PDT)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
Prestor John I am sorry that I misunderstood you, I was obviously under the impression that you were Baptist. I went to your church's web site and found from what I saw it looks like you have a pretty good church. I particularly enjoyed the part about 'Union Gospel Mission'. Isn't there a radio broadcast by that name? By the way, my family and I (Lord willing) are planning on a trip to Spokane this summer, to cycle your excellent bike path. Just maybe, if we are there on a Sunday if we can find your church, we might attent there. Tom


Subject: Re: Infant Baptism
From: Prestor John
To: Tom
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 06:25:53 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom, The mistake is easy to make since I hold to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. I consider myself to be a Reformed Baptist (even though Pilgrim doesn't like that term). However, I have not convinced the ruling elders to adopt that, yet. And give me a week warning will you, so I can get everybody in line so they all look nice and plastic if you meet them. (grin) I mean let me know and I can get you a map. Plus I do believe I've heard on the Christian Radio Stations a Union Gospel Mission report so it could be, it could be. Prestor John


Subject: Re: Infant Baptism
From: freegrace
To: Tom
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 18, 2000 at 10:35:17 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom....You said, >>> I do equate baptism with the body of Christ.<<< I guess you are speaking of a water baptism here. If so, what verses do you have to prove this view is correct? Just wondering. Regards, freegrace


Subject: Re: Infant Baptism
From: Tom
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 18, 2000 at 11:22:41 (PDT)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
Freegrace I am not trying to avoid answering you, but at the moment I don't have time to look up the verses you want. However, off the top of my head(and I hope I am saying this properly)in our public declaration of baptism one of the things we are doing in baptism,is a picture of our death with Christ-being buried with Him (going under the water) and rising a new creation-rising with Christ (coming up out of the grave, out of the water). When we do this we are identifying ourselves as part of the body of Christ. Tom


Subject: Re: Infant Baptism
From: Pilgrim
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 16, 2000 at 21:50:58 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Prestor John,

Hey, that's not bad! well, better than what has been offered to this point. However, the focus is still upon the recipient, which may or may not be a legitimate recipient of the blessings included in it. Of course, this definition states explicitly that Baptism is to be equated ONLY with 'immersion'! If we were to accept this as a true premise 'definition' does this thereby mean that if a person is not immersed, then he has not been truly baptized and is therefore guilty of disobedience to Christ's explicit command to be 'immersed in water'? And if this is true, does this then negate all the blessings indicated?

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Infant Baptism
From: Prestor John
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 17, 2000 at 19:51:41 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim, I'll answer the second part first. Cut me a little slack here this is from the Southern Baptists of course they would insist upon immersion as the only acceptable mode of baptism. I however, will go with Calvin (Institutes Book 4; 15:19) only to add that whatever mode is chosen must be based upon the scriptures. I would without hesitation say that anyone who teaches that unless one is baptized in the proper mode he will not receive the blessings of membership in the covenant is an aberrant teacher

As to your comment about the focus being upon the recipient. This I believe is the core of the difference between credobaptists and paedobaptists. You and I will both agree that in both of our views there are those that are baptized that will not hold true to that baptism. However, while yours would be baptized as an infant and then taught of Christ until they made a good confession, ours would be discipled first and then after their confession baptized. Now sir I would say that this is the command found in Matt. 28:18-20 that teaching first comes and then baptism. That is a better eisogeisis of the scripture.

Prestor John


Subject: Re: Infant Baptism
From: freegrace
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 17, 2000 at 19:06:46 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Prestor John,

Hey, that's not bad! well, better than what has been offered to this point. However, the focus is still upon the recipient, which may or may not be a legitimate recipient of the blessings included in it. Of course, this definition states explicitly that Baptism is to be equated ONLY with 'immersion'! If we were to accept this as a true premise 'definition' does this thereby mean that if a person is not immersed, then he has not been truly baptized and is therefore guilty of disobedience to Christ's explicit command to be 'immersed in water'? And if this is true, does this then negate all the blessings indicated?

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim
---
================ Ephesians 1:3 says that all true beleivers are *already* blessed in heavenly places with Christ! What 'blessings' will a person miss out on if they are not baptised 'with' or 'in' water? Just wondering. Thanks. freegrace


Subject: Re: Infant Baptism
From: Prestor John
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 17, 2000 at 20:46:28 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
See my reply to this question. Prestor John


Subject: Re: Infant Baptism
From: Pilgrim
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 17, 2000 at 20:37:56 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
freegrace, I think you should have directed this question to our Credobaptist brothers and not me, for I asked the same question. :-) Pilgrim


Subject: Day of Crucifixion
From: Brother Bret
To: All
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 15, 2000 at 07:29:49 (PDT)
Email Address: Brother Bret

Message:
Hello Everyone: I know I should check into this myself (and will eventually), but I guess, I'm just being lazy. I would like to know the thoughts and views regarding the day that the Lord Christ actually died on the cross. The word of God does tell us it was on the Preperation Day which is the day before the Sabbath. Then we have the Lord Jesus telling us that just as Jonah was in the belly of a great fish for 3 days and 3 nights, so shall the Son of Man being in the heart of the earth for 3 days and 3 nights. I have been holding to the fact that when Jewish people count days, they count the day that such statement. But what about the 3 nights? Do you agree that our Lord Christ died on Friday? Look forward to the replies....BB


Subject: Re: Day of Crucifixion..Link
From: freegrace
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 15, 2000 at 17:17:10 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Here is the link posted by Stan below. It looks very good to me, and says about the same as in Dake's Bible. Most scholars say Wednesday, as in this website. freegrace Day Christ Died www.i2k.com/~mrdsnts/m10710.htm


Subject: Re: Day of Crucifixion..Link
From: john hampshire
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 16, 2000 at 00:14:13 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Don’t know where the High Sabbath became Wednesday, but the Sabbath is always Saturday. I believe Jesus died on Friday afternoon, rested in the tomb Saturday, and was raised Sunday morning, as the sun began to rise. Christ was indeed three days and nights in the “heart of the earth”, though not in his body. He was in the “heart of the earth” in his Spirit as He underwent the suffering of God’s wrath. Just as Jonah was cut off from mankind and apparently the mercy of God, so Christ was cut off from God. This is the very basis of the atonement. The beginning of the atoning was in the garden on Thursday as drops of sweat like great drops of blood fell from his brow. This was the beginning of the punishment Christ endured at the hand of God for our sins. If we count the days and nights, including parts of days, we have: Thursday 1 Night Friday 1 Day 1 Night Saturday 1 Day 1 Night Sunday 1 Day That's it. john


Subject: Re: Day of Crucifixion..Link
From: den
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 16, 2000 at 10:54:17 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
john -when is the passover(High Sabbath) this year?what day would the preperation be?den


Subject: Re: May or may not be of help
From: stan
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 15, 2000 at 14:27:36 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
http://www.i2k.com/~mrdsnts/m10710.htm


Subject: Re: Day of Crucifixion
From: den
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 15, 2000 at 09:54:26 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
this is part of an email to me-> To follow the precise chronology of Jesus Christ's crucifixion / > > resurrection, we must take note of six points: > > > > 1.) The Feast of the Passover > > 2.) The Day of Preparation > > 3.) The Day Before the HIGH Sabbath > > 4.) Preparation of Sweet Spices > > 5.) Resting on the HIGH Sabbath After Preparing the Sweet Spices > > 6.) End of the REGULAR Sabbath / First Day of the Week > > > > If you follow carefully the order of events that transpire, you will > > clearly > > see that Jesus Christ was crucified on WEDNESDAY - the Day of > Preparation - > > during The Feast of the Passover, before the HIGH Sabbath on THURSADY; > thus, > > nullifying the Roman Catholic Pope's theory of a Friday crucifixion / > > Sunday resurrection. > > > > 1. The Feast of the Passover - > > > > · These verses speak of Pilate releasing one prisoner (Barabbas), at the > time > > of the Feast of the Passover - as was custom. Note that this was the > paschal > > festival, extending from the fourteenth to the twentieth day > > of the month of Nisan. > > > > Matt 27:15 > > 15 Now at that feast the governor was wont to release unto the people a > > prisoner, whom they would. > > (KJV) > > > > Mark 15:6 > > 6 Now at that feast he released unto them one prisoner, whomsoever they > > desired. > > (KJV) > > > > Luke 23:17 > > 17 (For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.) > > (KJV) > > > > John 18:39 > > 39 But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the > passover: > > will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews? > > (KJV) > > > > > > 2. The Day of Preparation - > > > > · This was on WEDNESDAY - the day Jesus was crucified - the day before > the > > HIGH Sabbath. In New Testament times, the Jewish sense of 'The Day of > > Preparation', was a day on which the Jews made the necessary preparation > to > > celebrate a Sabbath or a feast. Remember, there are two Sabbaths during > the > > week of Christ's death: the HIGH Sabbath related to the Feast of the > > Passover, > > and the REGULAR Sabbath which fell on Saturday (i.e. the day before the > first > > day of the week). > > > > Mark 15:42 > > 42 And now when the even was come, because it was the preparation, that > is, > > the day before the sabbath, > > (KJV) > > > > Luke 23:54 > > 54 And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on. > > (KJV) > > > > John 19:31,42 > > 31 The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies > > should > > not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was > an > > high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that > they > > might be taken away. > > 42 There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation > day; for > > the sepulchre was nigh at hand. > > (KJV) > > > > > > 3. The Day Before the HIGH Sabbath - > > > > · This is still WEDNESDAY - the day Jesus Christ was crucified - the day > > before the HIGH Sabbath. THURSDAY being the actual day of the HIGH > Sabbath. > > > > Mark 15:42 > > 42 And now when the even was come, because it was the preparation, that > is, > > the day before the sabbath, > > (KJV) > > > > Luke 23:56 > > 56 And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the > > sabbath day according to the commandment. > > (KJV) > > > > John 19:31 > > 31 The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies > > should > > not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was > an > > high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that > they > > might be taken away. > > (KJV) > > > > > > 4. Preparation of Sweet Spices - > > > > Luke 23:54-56 > > 54 And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on. > > 55 And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed > after, and > > beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid. > > 56 And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the > > sabbath day according to the commandment. > > (KJV) > > > > > > 5. Resting on the HIGH Sabbath After Preparing the Sweet Spices - > > > > · The chief priests and Pharisees ask Pilate to make sure the sepulchre > is > > guarded, and Pilate grants their request. All this happened on the HIGH > > Sabbath, which was THURSDAY !!! Notice also, that the chief priests and > > Pharisees knew how long Christ was going to be in the grave...three > days. > > > > Luke 23:56 > > 56 And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the > > sabbath day according to the commandment. > > (KJV) > > > > Matt 27:62-66 > > 62 Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the > chief > > priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate, > > 63 Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet > alive, > > After three days I will rise again. > > 64 Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third > day, > > lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the > > people, > > He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the > first. > > 65 Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure > as > > ye > > can. > > 66 So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and > setting > > a watch. > > (KJV) > > > > > > 6. End of the REGULAR Sabbath / First Day of the Week - > > > > · This is SUNDAY morning, when Christ was ALREADY OUT OF THE TOMB AFTER > THREE > > DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS. > > > > Matt 28:1 > > 1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day > of the > > week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. > > (KJV) > > > > Mark 16:1 > > 1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of > > James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and > anoint > > him. > > (KJV) > > > > Luke 24:1 > > 1 Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they > came > > unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and > certain > > others with them. > > (KJV) > > > > John 20:1 > > 1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was > yet > > dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the > sepulchre. > > (KJV) > >I have believed this way for many years-den


Subject: Re: Day of Crucifixion
From: the_sword_of_the_lord
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 15, 2000 at 08:05:14 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Gleason Archer gives a solution to this problem in his book 'Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties.' I won't quote all of it here, but the jist of it is that when scripture says that Jesus would be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights, it was not speaking of 24-hour periods of time. He points out 1 Corinthians 15:4, which says that He rose on the third day...Sunday would have been the third day, even though it wasn't literally the end of three 24-hour periods. He also notes that Hebrews reckoned each day as beginning at sundown. 'According to ancient parlance, then, when you wished to refer to three seperate twenty-four-hour days, you said, 'Three days and three nights' - even though only a portion of the first and third days might be involved.'


Subject: Re: Day of Crucifixion
From: freegrace
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 15, 2000 at 07:43:24 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hello Everyone: I know I should check into this myself (and will eventually), but I guess, I'm just being lazy. I would like to know the thoughts and views regarding the day that the Lord Christ actually died on the cross. The word of God does tell us it was on the Preperation Day which is the day before the Sabbath. Then we have the Lord Jesus telling us that just as Jonah was in the belly of a great fish for 3 days and 3 nights, so shall the Son of Man being in the heart of the earth for 3 days and 3 nights. I have been holding to the fact that when Jewish people count days, they count the day that such statement. But what about the 3 nights? Do you agree that our Lord Christ died on Friday? Look forward to the replies....BB
---
================ Greetings! I will try to post something from Dake's Reference Bible later on today, sorry do not have time now. Dake seems to have that all worked out.. I think he says Christ died on Wed. of 'holy week'.. but not sure. fg


Subject: Re: Day of Crucifixion
From: Prestor John
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 16, 2000 at 17:12:19 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Freegrace I don't mean to tell you what Bible you should or should not be using but I seriously think you should read these two articles on the Dakes Bible before you post anything.
Confused Charismatic Theology & the Dake's Bible The Jesus of the Dake Annotated Reference Bible Prestor John


Subject: Re: Day of Crucifixion
From: freegrace
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 16, 2000 at 19:36:35 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Freegrace I don't mean to tell you what Bible you should or should not be using but I seriously think you should read these two articles on the Dakes Bible before you post anything.
Confused Charismatic Theology & the Dake's Bible The Jesus of the Dake Annotated Reference Bible Prestor John
---
Thanks! Yes, I understand that; and thanks for warning others. I only refer to it on certain things where he seems to be best...(I agree with him about Wednesday being the day Christ died.) I knew he was Arminian, and do not follow his doctrinal teachings in the notes. Thanks again! Freegrace


Subject: Re: Or you could .......
From: stan
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 16, 2000 at 17:46:09 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
go to the source and see for yourself ;-) http://www.dake.com/


Subject: Re: Or you could .......
From: Prestor John
To: stan
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 16, 2000 at 20:58:28 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Sorry Stan, been there and see no evidence to the contrary. I don't even see a doctrinal statement. What I have seen is evidence that Finis Dake denies the historic doctrine of the Trinity. Tends to make me discount his every word. Prestor John Servabo Fidem


Subject: Re: Or you could .......
From: stan
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 17, 2000 at 13:40:27 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Wasn't writing to you - just suggested another site. Not disputing your findings!!!!!!! ;-) His personal testimoney is on the site and should make a persons toenails curl ;-) stan


Subject: Once In Adam, Now In Christ
From: freegrace
To: All
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 15, 2000 at 05:56:29 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
(This little tract has been adapted from one of Pilgrim's excellent messages, and may be printed out for future study) ============================== Once in Adam, Now In Christ 1) The GUILT of Adam is 'transferred', i.e., 'Imputed' to all of us. Being that Adam was the Federal Head of the entire human race, he was our representative, so that whatever he did he did not just as an individual, but as one who acted on behalf of all who would follow him. It wasn't as if we were actually and physically there, although there are those who take the 'Seminal' position on this. Doubtless, as Levi was 'in the loins of Abraham', so were we in Adam, for genetically we share his existence as it were. Rather, we were there with Adam as he was our Corporate Head and thus he acted and spoke on our behalf. This 'Corporate Solidarity' is that which all men participate in with Adam, and in which all those who believe share with their HEAD, the LORD Christ. His perfect life and sacrificial death are ours, and they are ours as if we ourselves lived that perfect life of righteousness and suffered the eternal wrath which God poured out upon Him. 2) The CORRUPTION which Adam experienced immediately after his disobedience, which was promised by the LORD God, 'for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.' [ Side Note: I believe that Eve's response to the serpent, 'But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.' (Gen. 3:3), was a true statement. Adam was either told this and relayed it to Eve, or God repeated His prohibition to them both at a subsequent time, or Eve was properly (spiritually) understanding the true import of God's original commandment. (cf. Matt 5:27ff and Jesus' rendering of the Law).] This 'death' was three-fold: 1) physical, 2) spiritual and 3) eternal. The spiritual death is that corruption which came upon Adam and is actually passed on to all his progeny. We INHERIT the corruption of the soul as just punishment for having disobeyed the explicit commandment of God. In this case, we ACTUALLY own the corruption of soul, whereas the GUILT is 'imputed'. In both instances, there is no injustice on God's part in imposing both the GUILT and the CORRUPTION to all mankind. What needs to be maintained is that this CORRUPTION is the just punishment due for the GUILT we all bear. And being guilty before God, we are by nature, 'children of wrath' and subject to the eternal death to come. It is upon THIS basis that all men are condemned to hell/Lake of Fire. No actual sins are necessary for one to be cast into hell, for we are 'conceived in sin' and under the judgment of God by nature. The fact that 'all men die' is testimony to the fact that 'all have sinned'! For the wages of SIN is death. It is an interesting fact, that what the Arminians, Semi-Pelagians, Pelagians and all the cults believe about 'innocence' and this 'externalizing' of sin were true, then Paul's discourse in Romans 9 would be a mute issue and there would have been not one objection, such as, 'Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?' (Rom 9:19). The salvation apprehended in Christ is solely due to the sovereign mercy of God upon those who otherwise would stand guilty before Him in their natural condition. It is only by a predestinating, electing, sovereign God of all mercy and grace that any are saved. Thus in Christ Jesus God is '. . . just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.' (Rom. 3:26). Finally, the faith which is a prerequisite to justification is imparted by Grace at the time of regeneration. Again, to externalize faith is to misunderstand the nature of both regeneration and faith itself. The 'believing' on the Lord Christ unto justification is the 'external' manifestation of the faith which is imparted to the soul. An embryo is incapable of expressing that faith in the same manner as a cognizant adult. And it would be ludicrous to require that it be done so. The same applies to those who, by God's providence, are born with mental disabilities and are also incapable of comprehending and/or expressing what 'normal' adults do. So what hope do we have that infants and those who are mentally incapable of comprehending the necessity of being in Christ or who are incapable of expressing a sure desire to be found in Christ through the outward believing upon Him? We have a sure hope, for 'Salvation is of the LORD!' For not only did the LORD our God provide the 'way of salvation' in Christ, but all the necessary MEANS by which all those whom He has determined to reconcile to Himself in Jesus Christ are also infallibly imparted to each and every one for whom Christ died by the Spirit's working of regeneration in them. We have this treasure (the Holy Spirit) in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us! 2 Cor. 4:7. Thanks be unto God for His unspeakable Gift!


Subject: For Laz
From: Tom
To: Laz
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 14, 2000 at 23:25:18 (PDT)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
Hi Laz Sorry for posting this here, but I was wondering if you recieved an e-mail I sent you yesterday(April 14th)? Tom


Subject: Pondering freegrace's statements on
From: Rod
To: All
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 14, 2000 at 15:18:20 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
water baptism is something I can't avoid. It seems, freegrace, that you equate the early water baptisms recorded in the NT Church as providing, in and of themselves, regeneration. Is this so? If it is so in your view, then I have two questions: 1) What evidence can you offer for it? Are you referring to the old 'baptismal regeneration' refrain that supporters draw incorrectly from Acts 2:38? 2) Since 'by grace, through faith' is the stated and implied method of salvation from the earliest time to the end of the NT, when and why did God 'suspend' that practice in favor of rewarding a work of a sinner to 'get himself saved?' (Hint: He didn't!)


Subject: Re: Pondering freegrace's statements on
From: freegrace
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 15, 2000 at 05:08:50 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
water baptism is something I can't avoid. It seems, freegrace, that you equate the early water baptisms recorded in the NT Church as providing, in and of themselves, regeneration. Is this so? If it is so in your view, then I have two questions: 1) What evidence can you offer for it? Are you referring to the old 'baptismal regeneration' refrain that supporters draw incorrectly from Acts 2:38? 2) Since 'by grace, through faith' is the stated and implied method of salvation from the earliest time to the end of the NT, when and why did God 'suspend' that practice in favor of rewarding a work of a sinner to 'get himself saved?' (Hint: He didn't!)
---
=================== Good questions! I may have to do some more study on this. Right now, it is too early in the day! However, may I say this, regeneration is God's work alone; we do not know how and when God performs this 'secret work' of the sovereign Spirit'. Obedience to the commands given in Scripture 'prove' that those who obey were truly God's elect. Noah obeyed God and built an ark, proving he was truly one of God's elect. See Hebrews chapter 11 for more good examples of what God's elect had to suffer. Some proved they were truly God's own elect *by the death they died* and the way they endured extreme suffering. What God once commanded His people to do in the past does not mean that He will always command us to do the same things today. 'Command *what ye will* and then will what You command' should be our prayer. If God no longer requires water baptism, but says *My baptism of the spirit is enough and ALL you need for salvation*, then should we not obey God in this case also, and give Him all the glory and honor to Him alone for such a Great Salvation? My answer is yes, we should obey God and thank Him for the one baptism of the Spirit that eternally saves the soul. Those who were baptised with water when Peter called for a *national repentance* in Acts 2:38 all proved that they the 'True Israel of God' and God's elect people by their obedience to Peter's great 'pentecostal sermon'. (I never said that water baptism is the 'cause' of one's regeneration)...:-) Please read the book 'Complete in Christ' by Walter Patrick If our circumcision is now spiritual, then why not our baptism also now be spiritual also? If you read 'Paul's commission' to all nations (in Romans 16:25-27), he says 'For the obedience of faith' (alone)..sorry, no water baptism is even mentioned here! Now if he had said, 'For the obedience of faith AND water baptism'...then we should all follow Paul's admonition here, and be baptised in water. (But Paul says there is now only 'one baptism' in Ephesians.) Maybe I am wrong on this, but I say that water baptism has a connection with the nation of Israel, and is earthly - connected with the ministry of Jesus when He was *on this earth*... Paul said 'Be ye follows of me, for I am following the Lord Jesus Christ', the Risen Lord who is now in heaven! Paul received LIGHT FROM HEAVEN...Acts 9:3. Have a good day, free grace, love, and peace.


Subject: Re: Pondering freegrace's statements on
From: Rod
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 15, 2000 at 10:25:34 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
I can't help but note that it was 'too early' to deal with the questions asked, but not too early for a far more detailed than usual answer! Interesting. Your reasoning on this, freegrace is faulty. Here are a couple of examples: You said, 'However, may I say this, regeneration is God's work alone; we do not know how and when God performs this 'secret work' of the sovereign Spirit''. That is avoidance of the basic fact of and reason for revelation, the revelation open to every believer in the Bible. He has told us, outlining in in great detail in 66 books how and when: 'by grace' and 'through faith.' It has not varied from Adam until now and will not. Then you make this statement: 'Obedience to the commands given in Scripture 'prove' that those who obey were truly God's elect.' This is not pertinent to the question(s) at hand. The proof of salvation is not the
process of salvation, what we are considering. One more and I will leave off: 'What God once commanded His people to do in the past does not mean that He will always command us to do the same things today.' There is an element of truth in that. We aren't under the law of Moses today. But, I would remind you of the elementary fact that THE LAW NEVER SAVED ANYONE. People were saved, then as now, by the grace of God which allowed them to come to God in 'faith,' or 'trust,' or 'belief.' The Apostle you've chosen to hitch your 'progressive' star to, when his doctrine was fully developed, delivered one of the greatest revelations on the manner of God's salvation in the Epistle to the Romans. In it, he went to extra lengths to illustrate and prove this very thing, that justification and resultant salvation, were dependent on grace from God which necessarily resulted in faith on the part of the saved individual. He likewise went to great lengths to prove that circumcision was not the 'saving item' (as water baptism has never been), stating this: '...For we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it reckoned? When he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of circumcision, [now notice this next part carefully] a seal of the righteousness of faith which he had yet being uncircumcised, THAT HE MIGHT BE THE FATHER OF ALL THEM THAT BELIEVE, though they be not circumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also' (Rom. 4:9-11). And don't fail, in this connection, to notice the conclusion of verse 15 concerning Abraham and his relation to all who come to God: 'Therefore, it is of faith, that it might be by grace, to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham [all saved people], who is the father of us all." The 'circumcision without hands,' which I seem to recall your stressing before, is that grace and resultant faith which Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, Paul, and every saved person of God receives by His action of grace in taking away the old heart and removing the effect of the the death of the flesh and its desires against God for the believer. It is the replacement of that with a spiritual heart, a heart of life in Christ, the work of God outlined in the verses just cited. You are espousing a damnable doctrine, fg. May God open your mind and heart in deliverance.


Subject: Lord Is Not Slack
From: Mitchel Vernon
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 19:37:07 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hello, Why did you deleate my question to you in relation to 2 Peter 3:9. What is God saying here? You say that God chooses some and denies others based in Predestionation. I say that God desires none to perish, but some do because they choose to disbelieve. If Adam and Eve chose to disobey God, can we? Did God create Adam to sin so He could save Adam? Yes, God knew that Adam would sin, and I really can not explain why God created Adam anyway. I really do not understand the reason why. In Christ Vernon


Subject: God's judgment and its execution
From: Rod
To: Mitchel Vernon
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 14, 2000 at 15:03:59 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Mitchel, Something usually overlooked in all this is what your title stresses: God isn't 'slack,' or loose concerning His word of impending judgment for those mockers and scoffers described in the verses preceding verse 9. His judgment is sure and will be swift upon them when it does fall. But I'm going to refer you to a verse not usually viewed in relation to this passage, Eph.2:4: 'But God, which is rich in mercy, for his great love with which he loved us....' Compare the 'us,' 'we,' 'them,' and 'they' terms of various passages of the NT and you'll see that the distinction is made very clearly between the 'us,' who are the saved, and those who are lost; the two groups are never lumped together. And that for the simple reason that God will not identify Himself with the lost and evil man. God does the things He does based on the mercy and love which He has for the predestinated and elect of his choosing, working to put into full implementation His plan for that group. That is the one and only reason His judgment hasn't yet fallen on the lost. In this connection, it is probably good to ponder the parable of Matthew 13:24-30. Neither can Rom. 9:22-24 be overlooked in relation to the 2 Peter passage. It says the sme thing by another Apostle in a different way. Hope this helps.


Subject: Re: Lord Is Not Slack
From: Pilgrim
To: Mitchel Vernon
Date Posted: Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 21:19:29 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Mitchel,

A 'monitor' informed me that you were mistaken for someone else who is not welcome here.... sorry about your post being deleted! :-) As to your query concerning 2 Peter 3:9, the answer is really quite simple. If you would just go back to 1:1 and read through the Epistle to 3:9 and notice WHO is being addressed and the use of 'we' and 'us', then you will clearly see that the 'usward' etc. in 3:9 does not apply to every man, woman and child who was ever born, now is, or ever will be, but Peter is rather addressing his letter to believers. I think you can take it from there. :-)

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Lord Is Not Slack
From: the_sword_of_the_lord
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 14, 2000 at 08:52:19 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
As I mentioned on this passage earlier, it is impossible for Peter to be addressing this statement to believers only...for if there were some in Peter's audience who had not yet come to repentance (v.9), then it would have been foolish for Peter to assume they were elect.


Subject: Re: Lord Is Not Slack
From: Brother Bret
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 14, 2000 at 15:42:50 (PDT)
Email Address: Lovitz5

Message:
As I mentioned on this passage earlier, it is impossible for Peter to be addressing this statement to believers only...for if there were some in Peter's audience who had not yet come to repentance (v.9), then it would have been foolish for Peter to assume they were elect. Hello Again Sword: You and I also discussed this once before. The context of this passage, once we look back is clearly the return of the Lord Jesus Christ (3:1-8). As Pilgrim already mentioned, it is also clear that Peter is writing to BELIEVERS (1:1) as also seen in 3:1,8,9. Therefore, Peter is trying to encourage BELIEVERS that the Lord is being 'longsuffering' about His return until all the elect/sheep have repented. Some that are alive, no doubt, and perhaps some that have not even been born based on our time. Did Peter believe in election also? Most assuredly: 'Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout...Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father...'(1Pet. 1:1-2). 'Wherefore the rather brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you shall never fall'(2Pet.1:10). But of course, you have heard it all before, right? :^ ) Sword, are you studing the word of God objectively? Or are you just looking to get it to mean what you believe? For the former we must do, along with studying the Word in context, and comparing all Scripture with all Scripture. But I have 2 more questions for you, if you don't mind: 1. How is it the the same holy Spirit that draws ('to drag' according to even Strong's. See also how the same Greek word 'helko' is used in Acts 16:19;James 2:6;Jn.18:10; 21:11,for which the latter ones are translated 'drag' in most other versions) a person to Christ as indwells a person once they have been saved/converted, can be resisted during such drawing but not after we're saved? 2. If the 'false' view of foreknowledge, that God looked down the corridors of time to see whether they would believe or not, and predestinated them accordingly based on that, is adhered to. Those (which is most) people that believe it is 'unfair' for God to have created people that were not of His elect, how is it any different, if they believe the above I just described? Wouldn't it still be unfair (to those who believe like that)for God to create them even after He supposedly checked in the future to see if they would believe? By the way, that view of foreknowledge almost has to be believed to try to explain away Romans, Ephesians, John, Peter, etc. Look forward to your reply :^). Brother Bret


Subject: Who is Peter's audience?
From: the_sword_of_the_lord
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 14, 2000 at 17:44:32 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi Bret - I fail to see how one could justify Peter addressing believers only, for the reason that I just gave. It is clear that whoever the 'you' is that Peter mentions in v. 9, there are some of them who have not yet come to repentance, which makes it impossible to conclude that Peter only has believers in mind at the moment he is writing this letter. 'The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward
you, not wishing for any [of you] to perish but for all [of you] to come to repentance.' Why would Peter have been so foolish as to assume that people who had not yet come to repentance were elect? As for your question about how the same Holy Spirit that draws a person to salvation can be resisted before but not after they are saved, it depends on how strongly God wills His Spirit to draw somebody...it's different for every person. We know that God does not always will His Spirit to draw a person entirely, for Stephen tells the Sanhedrin in Acts 7:51, 'You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did.' These Jews had no problem resisting the Holy Spirit. Granted, God could have willed His Spirit to draw them without enabling them to resist Him, but He evidently did not...He allowed some room for them to resist His Spirit by their own will. I also have a Strong's Concordance, and it's worth noting that while the word 'helko' is used as a synonym for 'drag', this still does not address how far God must drag a person before they can come to Christ. One could still say that God 'drags' a person past their depravity, and leaves them short of coming to Christ. And as for your second question, I myself have maintained that it would not be unfair for God to create people who were not of His elect. I won't sit in judgment on God. So your question isn't really a question for me, but for hyper-Arminians. It's not an issue of what is fair, but what the Bible teaches. While it would be fair for God to only allow certain individuals to be saved, this is irrelevant in my view, because the Bible does not teach that God does such a thing. 'For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies,' declares the Lord God. 'Therefore, repent and live.' (Ezekiel 18:32) Say to them, 'As I live!' declares the Lord God, 'I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways!' (Ezekiel 33:11)


Subject: Re: Who is Peter's audience?
From: Pilgrim
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 14, 2000 at 22:37:12 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
SOL,

You wrote this horrid bit of eisogesis, ' 'The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any [of you] to perish but for all [of you] to come to repentance.'' The INSPIRED TEXT says: 2Pet 3:9 '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. Grammatically it is indisputable that the antecedent of 'any' and 'all' is us-ward. But hey, if you want to add to the Word of God that's fine, for I am willing to go along with your eisogesis just for the sake of argument. So allowing your inserted [you] to be read INTO the text, it still stands grammatically necessary that the two [you's] are referring to us-ward! Thus as I have maintained all along, one must determine by SOUND EXEGESIS who the us-ward refers to. From the very first verse: 'to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:' of the Epistle and throughout its entirety, Peter is addressing BELIEVERS and makes reference to the ELECT which have not yet come to faith. Only someone who is deliberately blind would be unable to see this. There are so many references to believers through 2Peter that they are to numerous to list. The entire purpose of Peter's epistle is to upbuild and encourage believers who are under severe persecution for their faith. You then asked, 'Why would Peter have been so foolish as to assume that people who had not yet come to repentance were elect?' Peter was shown of God that the elect must COME TO repentance and that God Himself would grant the repentance needed (Acts 11:18). So then, how can one be so foolish as to ask such a question? Is it your view that the elect are born inherently repentant? Paul evidently was also 'foolish' in your eyes, for not only did he KNOW that the elect must come to repentance, but that they were in need of regeneration first, being 'dead and trespasses and sins' and were 'by nature children of wrath, even as others' (Eph 2:3). Why would Paul be so foolish to believe that all the elect must COME TO repentance? Because the LORD God told him so (cf Acts 18:9, 10). John the Baptist preached a CALL TO repentance (Matt 3:2) and so did the Lord Christ preach the necessity of repentance (Matt 4:17). The fact that ONLY the 'elect' are given the ability and desire to repent surely proves that ALL THE ELECT must at some point and time COME TO repentance. But, who are the elect? Do they walk around with red dots on their foreheads? Perhaps they have neon signs glued to their backs so that everyone can recognize them? No, the 'elect' are those who DO repent and believe. Therefore the necessity to call ALL MEN to repentance and faith. And it is THROUGH the outward 'call' that the Spirit of God works the 'inward call' and the fruit thereof is REPENTANCE. Is it so very hard to put yourself into the HISTORICAL CONTEXT of those whom Peter is addressing in his inspired epistle 'to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:', 'brethren,' 'beloved,' 'we,' 'us-ward' and so many more phrases which make reference to those who are 'in Christ'! The entire epistle focuses upon THEM and contrasts THEM with 'false prophets,' 'persecutors', 'scoffers,' 'ungodly men', et al, of which all shall perish. The readers were deeply concerned about family, friends etc., who as yet had not COME TO repentance because it seemed that the return of Christ was imminent. And if He should suddenly appear, then the great Judgment would be ushered in and they would surely perish in their sins. But Peter assures them that God's promises are sure and that not 'any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.' So, the issue is whether or not you want to fall into rank UNIVERSALISM, or take the passage in its proper context and accept the fact that Peter is addressing ALL the elect, both present at that time and those who were to come.

Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Who is Peter's audience?
From: the_sword_of_the_lord
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 14, 2000 at 23:39:12 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Also...both the NIV and the NRSV have 'you' instead of 'us-ward'. It seems that the KJV stands alone on this rendering...if you want to claim that the KJV translation is best, that's fine. If you know of any other translations that have something other than 'you', please show me. But you still haven't dealt with my original question, which is why Peter would have assumed certain individuals were elect when they hadn't even come to repentance yet...forget for a moment which translation is best, because it doesn't really matter on this point...
whomever Peter is saying that God does not want to perish, we know that there are some in the group who have not yet come to repentance. Thus, to conclude that Peter was addressing the elect only assumes that Peter knew who the elect were when in fact, he had no basis for knowing this. How can a person know that somebody is elect when they have shown no signs of repentance? And no, my interpretation does not advocate universalism. Peter does not say that God will be so patient with them that He will wait indefinitely for them to come to repentance...there is always a limit on God's patience. Just because God was being patient with Peter's audience at the time he wrote his epistle does not mean that God would be patient indefinitely. So it is possible that there were some in Peter's audience who exhausted God's patience and are in hell today.


Subject: Re: Who is Peter's audience?
From: Pilgrim
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 15, 2000 at 07:17:59 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
SOL, I dealt with your question quite sufficiently already in my previous reply! And I wasn't relying on the KJV but the Greek text of which the KJV faithfully rendered it with 'us-ward', which is a stumbling block to people like you who would have the text say something which it does not and who don't know what CONTEXT is..... !!

A text out of context is nothing more than PRETEXT!

Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Who is Peter's audience?
From: the_sword_of_the_lord
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 14, 2000 at 23:21:10 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I didn't read into the text; my translation just reads differently. I'm using the NASB, and I quoted it word for word (except for the words which I put in brackets, of course).


Subject: Re: Who is Peter's audience?
From: Pilgrim
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 15, 2000 at 07:08:21 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I didn't read into the text; my translation just reads differently. I'm using the NASB, and I quoted it word for word (except for the words which I put in brackets, of course).
---
SOL,

Well, your reply is quite telling... I said little about your translation but critcized your EISOGESIS (interpretation) of that translation. As I showed you, the two [you]'s plainly are inseparably bound to the usward before it. And the fact that the [you]'s are in brackets should also tell you something? or at least I hope it would. As usual you refuse to deal with anyone's rebuttals to your postulations. This happens so often that I can only assume that you can't return a cogent and/or relevant answer and/or you recognize the validity of all these refutations but love error more than the truth. Sooooo, as with nearly every other thread you involve yourself in and play this silly game, I will bow out of this topic for discussion as well, as far as responding to you.


Subject: Re: Lord Is Not Slack
From: Mitchel Vernon
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 14, 2000 at 16:35:08 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi, It is har for me to believe that Peter is talking to the believers here in this passage. You see, Believers do not perish. Amen


Subject: Re: Lord Is Not Slack
From: Brother Bret
To: Mitchel Vernon
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 15, 2000 at 06:57:07 (PDT)
Email Address: Lovitz5@aol.com

Message:
You said: 'It is hard for me to believe that Peter is talking to the believers here in this passage.' Hello MV: The only reason why I can think that it would be hard for a person to believe Peter is talking to believers is to IGNORE SCRIPTURE. Nothing personal folks, but it is right there in black and white. How long are professing Christians going to continue to ignore and twist scripture to try to get it to say what they believe??? 1:1;3:1,8,9 clearly says that he is talking to believers. God is longsuffering to USWARD in regards to His return, until all His sheep hear His voice (Jn. 10:25-29)......Brother Bret


Subject: Re: Lord Is Not Slack
From: the_sword_of_the_lord
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 15, 2000 at 07:47:12 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi Bret - I will assume for the moment that the proper word is 'us-ward'...so Peter is referring to himself along with whomever else is in his audience. You still can't maintain that this group consists only of believers, since in fact
not all of them have yet come to repentance...unless verse 9 is in error.


Subject: Re: Lord Is Not Slack
From: Maz
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 15, 2000 at 16:13:16 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi Bret - I will assume for the moment that the proper word is 'us-ward'...so Peter is referring to himself along with whomever else is in his audience. You still can't maintain that this group consists only of believers, since in fact not all of them have yet come to repentance...unless verse 9 is in error. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Not all of God's elect have come to repentance. Until every one of God's chosen people come to repentance, the appointed day of God's judgement, mentioned in verse 7, will not come to pass.


Subject: Re: Lord Is Not Slack
From: Rod
To: Mitchel Vernon
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 14, 2000 at 20:03:37 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Mitchel, That's precisely why he is talking of believers--they absolutely won't perish, because He isn't willing that they do so, but he is willing that the non-elect perish! A careful and critical reading of the text confirms that.


Subject: Re: Lord Is Not Slack
From: freegrace
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 14, 2000 at 11:27:27 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
As I mentioned on this passage earlier, it is impossible for Peter to be addressing this statement to believers only...for if there were some in Peter's audience who had not yet come to repentance (v.9), then it would have been foolish for Peter to assume they were elect.
---
========= Pilgrim is correct about this..(as most all other topics)! The 'us-ward' that believe are all the elect that God is not willing that any perish! Also see John 10:28-29, and Matt.18:6,14. Try a little Scripture with Scripture, and God will open your eyes to the Truth! God is not willing that *any of these little ones that believe on Christ* shall ever perish, and NONE will ever be lost! This should be a comfort to all of the chosen people of God! You said ...'Peter's audience?' I thought Peter was writing a letter! Now in Acts two, Peter is preaching, and has an 'audience', but not here! Here he is *writing* to beleivers, all of God's elect that shall never perish. My Bible has 'The First Epistle of Peter'..that means letter! .....:-) freegrace


Subject: Re: Lord Is Not Slack
From: den
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 14, 2000 at 10:52:31 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
As I mentioned on this passage earlier, it is impossible for Peter to be addressing this statement to believers only...for if there were some in Peter's audience who had not yet come to repentance (v.9), then it would have been foolish for Peter to assume they were elect.
---
2peter 3:1 ¶ This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: then just who is the beloved?


Subject: Infants (for Rod and laz)
From: Eric
To: All
Date Posted: Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 08:32:59 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Now that my teeth are sparkling white, I can respond. >>>If we are not 'guilty' of any wrong doing until our first crime...why do 'innocent' babies die? >>>How can God condemn someone where there is no law (or knowledge of law)? YET, YET, all die nevertheless? Babies and aborigines are dying for someone's guilt! Why do animals die? Have they sinned? We are subjected to God’s curse placed upon mankind and creation because of Adam’s sin. We often forget, in the grand scheme of things, that this temporal life is insignificant in view of eternity. So the fact that a baby dies, while to an earthly parent, is the worst suffering imaginable, in 1,000 years, it won’t even be thought of, in fact it will be remembered with joy, because then we will know (I think) God’s ultimate purpose for the things that have happened to us.
>>>As Rod said, we are NOT being condemned for Adam's sin, when you really get down to it....for in the eyes of a thrice holy God...WE SINNED IN THE GARDEN...WE WERE THERE WITH ADAM AND IN ADAM. There seems to be some disagreement between you and Rod in regard to your views of Original Sin. Rod states that we sinned vicariously through Adam. You say that it wasn’t vicarious at all, but in fact we participated in it. Now, let me say, that if in fact, Adam was the PERFECT representative of humanity, and that the choice to sin, would have been made by every other human ever conceived, then I really don’t have a problem/disagreement with your view. Because then in actuality, it is not Adam’s sin being imputed to an infant, but it’s own. I don’t know if you can support that scripturally though. Again, remember we are talking about infants/embryo’s being eternally punished in hell. >>>Redemption follows the same line of biblical reasoning with us being IN Christ when He was slain...and this before the foundations of the world. Paul in Romans is so clear on this matter. In all sincerity, I don’t know about this. You seem to be saying that we were actually present with Christ. And therefore, it is not Christ who paid the price for our sins, but ourselves. Which I know you don’t hold to. Maybe you can explain it a little better. Another thing laz, you mentioned that if all aborted fetuses were in heaven, then ultimately, abortion would be a good thing. This line of reasoning is inconsistent, because I assume you believe, that ultimately everything that happens is what God wants to happen, therefore, even though we know that abortion is wrong, we also know that it is part of God’s plan, and therefore we trust in God’s wisdom for allowing it to happen. This does not mean, that we are not to oppose it btw. >>>Second, and definitely related to the first is this: 'Wherefore, as by one man, sin entered into the world, and death by sin [his sin], and so death has passed upon all men for all have sinned' (Rom. 5:12). That verse leaves no doubt that all men have sinned, sinned vicariously in Adam, just as the saved have been vicariously righteous in the Lord Jesus' life. Physical/spiritual death did enter the world because of Adam’s sin, I do not deny this at all. Is it necessary to assume that Paul had in mind embryo’s when he states that all have sinned? Because further on down the passage, Paul states that all have been justified, and neither one of us reads all to mean every human being since the time of creation. Like I repeatedly pointed out in my previous discussion with laz and Pilgrim, which you probably did not see, when you read this passage, as a whole, it is not crystal clear what the meaning is. But, we do know that the Bible teaches that we will be judged eternally and be punished for our own sins, and not that of another. I will quote the verses if you would like. And to reiterate my position: My question that started this discussion initially was, “what sin will an infant/embryo be eternally punished for in hell?” All people suffer temporal punishment due to Adam’s sin, this includes physical and spiritual death. But, we suffer eternal punishment for our own sins, which inevitably flow out of our sinful nature. But it is not our nature that we are punished for, but our actions. For if having a fallen nature is in fact sin, then God purposefully creates/authors sin. My contention, was that infants/embryo’s who die, is a providential act of divine mercy on God’s part. It doesn’t happen by accident. God saves them from themselves, which inevitably would lead to sin, in which they would be judged eternally for. There is nothing in scripture that would indicate that infants who die are suffering in hell, but as you have pointed out Rod, we do have instances in scripture where they are said to be in heaven. Sorry, way to long of a response! God bless.


Subject: Re: Infants (for Rod and laz)
From: laz
To: Eric
Date Posted: Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 12:45:31 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Eric - why do animals die? As you know...
Rom 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. They have Adam to thank! Might Adam also be a type of federal head over all creation? I find it interesting that God ordain that 'innocent' animals be used to 'cover OUR sins'? Again, death passed to animals which are not capable of sinning ... like fetuses. The universe was cursed on account of Adam. God shut something off after Adam sinned. All humanity was pronounced GUILTY...to be conceived in iniquity, and in sin (Ps 51:5)...to be conceived guilty. As for the insignificance of temporal life...I would maintain that even eternity in hell is 'insignificant' relative to God. I fail to see the relevance of your example. Sorry. You said: There seems to be some disagreement between you and Rod in regard to your views of Original Sin. Rod states that we sinned vicariously through Adam. You say that it wasn’t vicarious at all, but in fact we participated in it. As for me and Rod...I don't think we disagree...this matter is somewhat of a mystery...but it's clear to me that Adam's sin is OUR sin. So, in a sense we DID participate in Adam's sin just like in a sense we DID participate in Christ's death, burial and resurrection. Again, I believe Paul in Romans 6 makes this interesting and oft misunderstood case (especially by me until recently). It gets back to this absolutely prevailing idea of being 'IN Christ' and 'WITH Him' and what it means...and THAT from eternity (in a mysterious sort of way)...as when election was decreed. Rom 6 (and Epheshians as well as other places) has this 'reformed' idea of 'already, but not yet' (did I butcher that?) ringing through it. Eschatology is commonly depicted this way. For instance, we will someday be bodily resurrected ... but in a sense, we have ALREADY been resurrected for we are currently IN Christ, who is currently seated at the right hand of the Father (Eph2:6). We are IN Christ NOW! We are NEW CREATURES (NOT becoming new creatures)...by virtue of being IN Christ. As Christians, we START with being IN Christ...and then live out of that heavenly/spiritual existence....adorning that great confession with works ordained for us to walk in from eternity past (Eph 2:10). We crucify our bodies as we undergo regeneration/justification/sanctification, but in another sense, we were crucified along WITH Christ Jesus. Rom 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. We being WITH/IN Christ as He hung on the tree...and this slaying in some mystical sense taking place from the foundations of the world. (Rev 13:8) Again, in a sense we will undergo a bodily resurrection, but in another sense we are already resurrected and made to sit together IN Christ. (Eph2:6-7) When we pray or worship, do we not do it in our closet or in a Church building? Yet, in a sense, we are actually standing before the very throne of grace! (Not being a theologian, but a lowly engr, will someone more articulate and better grounded correct and/or amplify what I'm trying to say, please? hehe) What's the relevance of all this to original sin? Lots. For just like we are IN Christ and partakers of His redemptive works apart from any active doing on our part ... we were all IN Adam and partook of his transgression. Now that I've confused myself and half the planet...I'll go crawl back under my rock... laz


Subject: Perhaps Pilgrim has some insight
From: Eric
To: laz
Date Posted: Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 13:14:53 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Eric - why do animals die? As you know...
Rom 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. They have Adam to thank! Might Adam also be a type of federal head over all creation? I find it interesting that God ordain that 'innocent' animals be used to 'cover OUR sins'? Again, death passed to animals which are not capable of sinning ... like fetuses. The universe was cursed on account of Adam. God shut something off after Adam sinned. All humanity was pronounced GUILTY...to be conceived in iniquity, and in sin (Ps 51:5)...to be conceived guilty. As for the insignificance of temporal life...I would maintain that even eternity in hell is 'insignificant' relative to God. I fail to see the relevance of your example. Sorry. You said: There seems to be some disagreement between you and Rod in regard to your views of Original Sin. Rod states that we sinned vicariously through Adam. You say that it wasn’t vicarious at all, but in fact we participated in it. As for me and Rod...I don't think we disagree...this matter is somewhat of a mystery...but it's clear to me that Adam's sin is OUR sin. So, in a sense we DID participate in Adam's sin just like in a sense we DID participate in Christ's death, burial and resurrection. Again, I believe Paul in Romans 6 makes this interesting and oft misunderstood case (especially by me until recently). It gets back to this absolutely prevailing idea of being 'IN Christ' and 'WITH Him' and what it means...and THAT from eternity (in a mysterious sort of way)...as when election was decreed. Rom 6 (and Epheshians as well as other places) has this 'reformed' idea of 'already, but not yet' (did I butcher that?) ringing through it. Eschatology is commonly depicted this way. For instance, we will someday be bodily resurrected ... but in a sense, we have ALREADY been resurrected for we are currently IN Christ, who is currently seated at the right hand of the Father (Eph2:6). We are IN Christ NOW! We are NEW CREATURES (NOT becoming new creatures)...by virtue of being IN Christ. As Christians, we START with being IN Christ...and then live out of that heavenly/spiritual existence....adorning that great confession with works ordained for us to walk in from eternity past (Eph 2:10). We crucify our bodies as we undergo regeneration/justification/sanctification, but in another sense, we were crucified along WITH Christ Jesus. Rom 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. We being WITH/IN Christ as He hung on the tree...and this slaying in some mystical sense taking place from the foundations of the world. (Rev 13:8) Again, in a sense we will undergo a bodily resurrection, but in another sense we are already resurrected and made to sit together IN Christ. (Eph2:6-7) (Not being a theologian, but a lowly engr, will someone more articulate and better grounded correct and/or amplify what I'm trying to say, please? hehe) What's the relevance of all this to original sin? Lots. For just like we are IN Christ and partakers of His redemptive works apart from any active doing on our part ... we were all IN Adam and partook of his transgression. Now that I've confused myself and half the planet...I'll go crawl back under my rock... laz
---
Hi laz, Before I take out the hook you so skillfully placed in my mouth, I will respond. :) You actually made my point in regard to animals. They die, but they didn't sin. They suffer as a result of Adam's sin, but it is not imputed to them. (But, I am not so sure that they were ever immortal in the first place) In regard to your already/not yet thoughts, I agree for the most part. However, I wonder if our being in Christ, is the same as being in Adam. Perhaps Pilgrim can comment on how we are 'in Christ.' Like you, I have trouble explaining exactly what my understanding is on some of these issues w/o making mistakes in my choice of words, but here goes. From my understanding, Christ's righteousness does not become our own, but it is merely that which we are judged by. I don't think that we participated in Christ's death at that time either, for we did not even exist at that point. We only participate in it through faith in Him, isn't this what baptism is about? Pilgrim has pointed out previously, and I wish that I had read it closer, that we are viewed/judged guilty in Christ. I am open to correction here. God bless.


Subject: I'm not Pilgrim, or even close, but...
From: Rod
To: Eric
Date Posted: Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 14:28:09 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
...I'll take a crack at this because God has pronounced on it. :>) This is your conclusion, which I believe to be in grave error, according to God's Word: 'From my understanding, Christ's righteousness does not become our own, but it is merely that which we are judged by. I don't think that we participated in Christ's death at that time either, for we did not even exist at that point. We only participate in it through faith in Him, isn't this what baptism is about?' To begin with, the Bible speaks of believers, in both OT and NT as 'righteous.' The examples are so numerous they don't require documentation. This is 'imputed righteousness,' which I don't feel, candidly, you really understand. We aren't actually righteous, as is the Lord Jesus, but we attain to, by God's action His actual righteousness. This is a 'positional' thing: positional sanctification indicates being set aside to and for God (what you do see) and a 'personal sanctification,' whereby one is 'conformed [by grace] to the image of the Son' of God (see Rom. 2:29 and carefully cp. Eph. 2:10 for the purpose of God in 'creating us in Christ Jesus'). God has created us in Christ Jesus 'unto good works' and we are 'the body of Christ,' each of us fulfilling a function of the body and that for the purpose of 'edification of the body,' the kind of work [good work] that the Lord Jesus ordains and would do for us if here]. (In this connection, it would be good to spend some time really considering Eph. 4: 10-16.) The gracious
enablement of God not only allows us to come to faith in Christ for a righteous standing, but the same enablement also accomplishes the purpose of God that we do righteous works that 'he hath before ordained that we should walk in them' (Eph. 2:10). The source is God, but the beneficial result is such that we receive and are able to 'put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness' (Eph. 4:24), because of the fact that we now 'walk after the Spirit' (Rom. 8:4), a reference to our actions as empowered by God. As for your statement that we didn't 'participate in Christ's death at any time,' the Bible says you are incorrect: 'For I am crucified with Christ [pretty hard to deny]: 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 [notice it doesn't say 'in the Son of God'--a vast difference], who loved me and gave himself for me' (Gal. 2:20). And it can't be forgotten that it was believers' sins which were the nails which bound him to the cross. It was for the very purpose of the vicarious suffering for believers' sins for which He died: 'he...[was] made to be sin for us, [in order] that we might be made the righteousness of God in him' (2 Cor. 5:21), the word 'made' being the same as the word as in John 1:14 where it is said that: 'the Word was made [actually 'became'] flesh and dwelt among us....' He became sin for us that we might become righteous before God. Was Christ Jesus actually human, Eric? All beleivers say, 'YES! He became flesh.' And He did that to die for 'the unglodly' who would come to believe in Him (Rom. 5:6, where the 'we' are the believers in Christ). If so, then we have to accept God's Word about what He became on the cross and what we actually become in Him. That's why the Bible can proclaim that our assurance is based on this fact: 'Christ in you, the hope ['confidence'] of glory' (Col. 1:27; cp. Rom. 8:30). {I see that Pilgrim and others have answered in the interval in which I composed this--I'm very slow--I'm certain others have done a far better job than I of answering.}


Subject: Hi Rod...
From: Eric
To: Rod
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 14, 2000 at 08:26:29 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Let me say, that your view that I don't understand imputed righteousness, is true to some regard. That is why I asked the question, and I appreciate your response. But, I don't think my view is in serious error, my way of communicating it, might be, but that is why these forums can be very helpful. With that being said, what I was responding to, was my interpretation of what you wrote, was that Christ's righteousness actually becomes our righteousness, not just positonally, but actually. My point was that it the righteousness of Christ is outside of us, and is imputed, and not infused. I think we understand the term vicarious differently. You linked Adam's sin being imputed to us the same way as Christ's righteousness is. However, you also said earlier that Adam's sin really is our sin. But that seems to negate an alien righteousness being imputed, for if it becomes our righteousness, then it is no longer Christ's. I read Pilgrim's post, and he put it much more clearly and accurately then I could. You also misquoted me in regard to participating in Christ's death on the cross. I wrote that we were not there, on the cross, with Him. It was a vicarious atonement for us, which by definition, means we were not present. The way I took your original post, was that we were there, is a sense, and therefore participated in the death on the cross. Maybe it is just a communication problem, or my lack of the understanding of the nuances of technical theological language. Thank you, and God bless.


Subject: Hi, Eric :>)
From: Rod
To: Eric
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 14, 2000 at 09:08:38 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Eric, Paul said, these things in these areas, which I can't ignore and which I believe bear most directly on our understanding of them: (I have noted and cited these verses before.) 'Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men for all have sinned' (Rom.5:12). I take that verse to mean that, just as Levi 'paid tithes in Abraham' (Heb. 7:9), we 'sinned in Adam.' The fact is the simple sentence is that 'Levi paid tithes' and I take that to mean vicariously, but, as I also pointed out before that he, being of and like Abraham,
would have done the same thing had he been in that position as Abraham was, so there is no difference and the imputation is both fair and just. To conclude that he participated is fully justified. Likewise, then, when this verse pronounces that, 'all have sinned,' I don't take it to mean their subsequent sins, but their sin with Adam, their participation in the exact same manner as of Levi paying tithes. Not one person who has come from Adam's line could have avoided doing what he did under the same conditions and circumstances. The second thing I can't get around is this simple statement, the clause upon which one of the great verses of the Bible is built: 'I am crucified with Christ' (Gal. 2:20). It seems glaringly simple that, if that statement is true, then Paul had to be there in some way or manner (and so did all the saved). What manner could that be? Another verse I've practically worn out: 'he..who knew no sin was made to be sin for us' ( 2 Cor. 5:21). Since, in God's eyes we were totally sin in enmity against him (see my post to Pilgrim below), and since all God sees when He sees such a person is a sinner, and since it was our actual sin and resultant guilt before God which He placed on the Son in imputed guilt so that this exact and actual offense of violating God's command(s) might be judged in His Person, I conclude the saved person was with Christ, just as the Apostle declares, when He was crucified. I'll be the first to proclaim that I don't understand it all. And I'll be the first to proclaim that I probably do a poor job of communicating the facts as I understand them, but these things appear to be true and undeniable to me.


Subject: Re: Hi, Rod :>)
From: Pilgrim
To: Rod
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 14, 2000 at 13:00:19 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod,

Sounds good to this old man's ears brother! :-) What is many times either misunderstood by some and denied by others is the two-fold nature of the 'curse' put on Adam for his transgression. 1) The GUILT of Adam is 'transferred', i.e., 'Imputed' to all of us. Being that Adam was the Federal Head of the entire human race, he was our representative, so that whatever he did he did not just as an individual, but as one who acted on behalf of all who would follow him. As you correctly stated, it wasn't as if we were actually and physically there, although there are those who take the 'Seminal' position on this. Doubtless, as Levi was 'in the loins of Abraham', so were we in Adam, for genetically we share his existence as it were. Rather, we were there with Adam as he was our Corporate Head and thus he acted and spoke on our behalf. This 'Corporate Solidarity' is that which all men participate in with Adam, and in which all those who believe share with their HEAD, the LORD Christ. His perfect life and sacrificial death are ours, and they are ours as if we ourselves lived that perfect life of righteousness and suffered the eternal wrath which God poured out upon Him. 2) The CORRUPTION which Adam experienced immediately after his disobedience, which was promised by the LORD God, 'for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.' [ Side Note: I believe that Eve's response to the serpent, 'But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.' (Gen. 3:3), was a true statement. Adam was either told this and relayed it to Eve, or God repeated His prohibition to them both at a subsequent time, or Eve was properly (spiritually) understanding the true import of God's original commandment. (cf. Matt 5:27ff and Jesus' rendering of the Law). This 'death' was three-fold: 1) physical, 2) spiritual and 3) eternal. The spiritual death is that corruption which came upon Adam and is actually passed on to all his progeny. We INHERIT the corruption of the soul as just punishment for having disobeyed the explicit commandment of God. In this case, we ACTUALLY own the corruption of soul, whereas the GUILT is 'imputed'. In both instances, there is no injustice on God's part in imposing both the GUILT and the CORRUPTION to all mankind. What needs to be maintained is that this CORRUPTION is the just punishment due for the GUILT we all bear. And being guilty before God, we are by nature, 'children of wrath' and subject to the eternal death to come. It is upon THIS basis that all men are condemned to hell/Lake of Fire. No actual sins are necessary for one to be cast into hell, for we are 'conceived in sin' and under the judgment of God by nature. The fact that 'all men die' is testimony to the fact that 'all have sinned'! For the wages of SIN is death. It is an interesting fact, that if what Eric, the Arminians, Semi-Pelagians, Pelagians and all the cults believe about 'innocence' and this 'externalizing' of sin were true, then Paul's discourse in Romans 9 would be a mute issue and there would have been not one objection, such as, 'Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?' (Rom 9:19). The salvation apprehended in Christ is solely due to the sovereign mercy of God upon those who otherwise would stand guilty before Him in their natural condition. It is only by a predestinating, electing, sovereign God of all mercy and grace that any are saved. Thus in Christ Jesus God is '. . . just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.' (Rom. 3:26). Finally, the faith which is a prerequisite to justification is imparted by Grace at the time of regeneration. Again, to externalize faith is to misunderstand the nature of both regeneration and faith itself. The 'believing' on the Lord Christ unto justification is the 'external' manifestation of the faith which is imparted to the soul. An embryo is incapable of expressing that faith in the same manner as a cognizant adult. And it would be ludicrous to require that it be done so. The same applies to those who, by God's providence, are born with mental disabilities and are also incapable of comprehending and/or expressing what 'normal' adults do. So what hope do we have that infants and those who are mentally incapable of comprehending the necessity of being in Christ or who are incapable of expressing a sure desire to be found in Christ through the outward believing upon Him? We have a sure hope, for 'Salvation is of the LORD!' For not only did the LORD our God provide the 'way of salvation' in Christ, but all the necessary MEANS by which all those whom He has determined to reconcile to Himself in Jesus Christ are also infallibly imparted to each and every one for whom Christ died by the Spirit's working of regeneration in them.

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: Preach on, brudder!! (n/t)
From: Rod
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 14, 2000 at 15:10:21 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:


Subject: Re: You're not Pilgrim, but I am! :-)
From: Pilgrim
To: Rod
Date Posted: Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 18:13:07 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod,

Your heading of this message was, 'I'm not Pilgrim, or even close, but...'. Does that mean that you have more hair than I do? Well, I surely hope so! :-) I will not presume to know exactly what Eric's views are concerning the doctrine of Justification, but I can surely agree with you. Our righteousness is an 'alien righteousness', although possessed by us through faith, it is not a righteousness that is ours by nature, even after regeneration and our believing upon Christ. This is why Luther was emphatic in his delineation of the doctrine of justification that we are 'simul iustus et peccatore' [simultaneously righteous AND sinner]. In other words, this righteousness is not INFUSED in us. Again, walking carefully upon this razor's edge, we must also affirm, that there is indeed a transformation of our souls, which regeneration is but the first phase. We are henceforth Sanctified, being made to 'partake of the divine nature' (2Pet 1:4); being 'made holy' (Eph 1:4) due to having been 'predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son.' (Rom 8:29). Albeit this transformation is partial and principial, it is nonetheless actual and real. However, this transformation of our newly created natures is NOT the basis of our righteousness, for that transformation is the RESULT of having been DECLARED righteousness on the basis of the Lord Christ's vicarious substitutionary 'active and passive obedience.' Christ's death was sufficient ONLY to 'blot out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;' (Col 2:14). It was his perfection in keeping all the Law of God which secured for us that necessary righteousness which is imputed to us when we trust in HIM (note: not by believing that Jesus died for us! This is part of the assurance of faith; cf. Gal 2:20). The relationship between our Great Redeemer and us as sinners is so intimate that Paul states: 2Cor 5:21 '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. We are no more actually 'made righteousness any more than the Lord Christ was made to be sin; i.e., our sins were vicariously borne by Him so that He suffered the penalty due us in Himself. And we are made to be righteous in that HIS righteousness is IMPUTED to us as if it were our own. It is an incomprehensible act of sheer grace on God's part that we should 'bear' the righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ. Being a 'picky guy', I would like to just comment on one small matter which you said: 'And it can't be forgotten that it was believers' sins which were the nails which bound him to the cross. It was for the very purpose of the vicarious suffering for believers' sins for which He died:' This is surely a true statement, that our sins were object of God's eternal wrath which fell upon the Saviour. However, He didn't die for 'sins', but rather He died for US; us as persons; His beloved sheep. Let me expand just a bit but say that this is NOT directed at you whatsoever...!! What I want to say now is directed at the modern conception and popular belief that 'God hates and punishes SIN, but He loves the sinner!' This is woefully bad language at best. What this concept does is to diminish, if not even deny the deep eternal love of God which He had for those whom He predestinated to be reconciled to Himself through the SUBSTITUTIONARY death of His only begotten Son. The wrath of God did not fall upon 'sin(s)' at that cursed cross, but upon the LORD Christ, who took OUR place. Sin is not something which exists apart from a sinner. Sin exists ONLY because a PERSON has transgressed the Law of God. Sin is the failure to 'love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind and might.' (Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37). And this is the mystery of the ages, that those whom God HATED due to our sin natures which are the root of all the sins committed in the body, He, by the counsel of His own will, from all eternity determined to bless a remnant of Adam's fallen race by offering up His beloved Son in our behalf, in love, having predestinated us. . . to be conformed to the image of His Son. It is there at that cruel cross that the infinite paradox took place; where God's holy hatred toward sinners and God's eternal love for these enemies of God were displayed in their fullest sense. 'Rom 11:33 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!. God didn't punish 'sin', but rather His wrath fell upon ME on that cross. I have been crucified with Christ! And thus that perfect righteousness of Christ is 'put upon' the believer; he is 'clothed' with the righteousness of Christ. (cf. Zech 3:1-5; Rev 3:5; Matt 22:11, 12). That righteousness of Christ given to us is 'external' as was Adam's leaf. Yet it is sufficient to cover ALL our nakedness and thus we are DECLARED righteous and adopted as heirs, being made sons of God 'in Christ'!

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: You're not Pilgrim, but I am! :-)
From: Rod
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 20:23:07 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Pilgrim, (I do still have most of my hair, but not a great intellect or vast knowledge. I wonder which is preferable?) :>) The distinctions you make are very fine, but important. You indicate that you aren't directing your comments at me: 'However, He didn't die for 'sins', but rather He died for US; us as persons; His beloved sheep. Let me expand just a bit but say that this is NOT directed at you whatsoever...!!' I appreciate that. And I agree that, though sins were paid for, the Substitution was for sinners: (as I cited) 'Christ died for the ungodly.' The distinction between the fact of sin and the fact that sinners were atoned for is very important, as you indicate. I think the modern problem lies in the fact that the acts of people or objects involved in the acts are blamed rather than people. We are responsible for our actions. If I ram someone else with my car, it isn't the car's fault; the responsibility is mine. I think that part of the problem is with the concept of the sin nature. People regularly excuse those who sin because, 'They can't help it,' as we so often see stated here. But sin is still sin and wrong is still wrong. People are responsible for their actions. When they could help it vicariously in Adam, who had every incentive to make it without sin, they didn't. Adam didn't avoid sin and neither did any of us. Because of his becoming a spiritually dead man (the core problem) Adam was lost and dead to God, having no other thing to pass on to us. That is not only a fact, but it is God's justice. By unswervingly judging sin and never failing to judge it, the Lord God made 'him who knew no sin to be sin for us.' Now, it seems to me that the judgment was twofold in at least one way: the sin was judged and the judgment was meted out on a Person, just as God requires. In the verse quoted (2 cor. 5:21), the Lord Jesus was equated with sin. That is He 'was made to be ['became'] sin for us.' I don't know about anyone else, but that boggles my mind! It almost seems that instead of a person, God sees sin! I think that possibly is stated so that we are again 'accomodated' by the language of the Bible. The 'ungodly' are consumed by sin, totally devasted and dominated by it. It is, it seems, the essence of what they are in God's sight, a fact reinforced by the verse I quote so often: 'Because the carnal mind
IS enmity against God...' (Rom. 8:7). We often speak of total depravity, but here we have 'total enmity' against God. There is nothing else for man without the Lord Jesus in relation to a holy God. The fact is that God does hate sin. He hates it because it is contrary to His nature and character and because it arises out of enmity against him by the creature. But, as Pilgrim so astutetly points out, His wrath and judgment at directed at the root cause of the sin, the one with whom it originates. That's why the Bible solemnly declares, 'It is appointed unto men [not the generic 'man,' but all men] once to die, but after this, the judgment' (Heb. 9:27). Hence the judgment of the cross and the death of the Lord Jesus in the flesh. That judgment against men was meted out and it took place. God has executed the perfect plan by which His wrath is satisfied ('our God is a consuming fire'--Heb. 12:29--His anger must be appeased) and those who were of God's choice, but nevertheless 'ungodly' have been reconciled to God by the Son. That is what is meant in those most significant words of Rom. 3:27: 'that [God] might be just and the justifier of him who believeth in Jesus.' 'Just' in that His penalty is served and received. And 'the justifier' of helpless men who are unable to meet those demands of God in any other way than vicariously. Don't we all get a sense of the marvelous depth of the complexity of salvation and aren't we awed that we can receive the Word of God revealed so that such a plan becomes at least partially clear to us? Who among us can fail to be moved to deep gratitude by that unparalleled and revealed grace of our great God?


Subject: Rod - Amen!
From: Pilgrim
To: Rod
Date Posted: Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 20:48:28 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:

AMEN!

1Cor 1:23 'But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; 24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.'

In His Marvelous Grace,

Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Perhaps Pilgrim has some insight
From: Pilgrim
To: Eric
Date Posted: Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 13:47:40 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Eric,

Good old Pilgrim is short on free time so I'm going to pass the ball over to Dr. John Murray. Thus I will refer you to probably one of the finest presentations on this subject that I have had the privilege to read, The Imputation of Adam's Sin. I have my doubts that it is online, but perhaps a search might in fact turn it up. Otherwise, it is still available for sale through the publisher, 'Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing'. In this book he deals with all the various views that relate to imputation, e.g., 1) The Sin Contemplated: Pelagian view, Roman Catholic view, Calvin's view and the Classic Protestant view, 2) The Union Involved: Realistic view and Representative view (to which I adhere), 3) The Nature of the Imputation: Mediate, and Immediate (to which I adhere) 4) The Sin Imputed. In the beginning of the book Murray deals with the syntactical problem of the text itself, which is very intriguing and enlightening. Highly Recommended

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Perhaps Pilgrim has some insight
From: laz
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 14:05:29 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Eric,

Good old Pilgrim is short on free time so I'm going to pass the ball over to Dr. John Murray. Thus I will refer you to probably one of the finest presentations on this subject that I have had the privilege to read, The Imputation of Adam's Sin. I have my doubts that it is online, but perhaps a search might in fact turn it up. Otherwise, it is still available for sale through the publisher, 'Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing'. In this book he deals with all the various views that relate to imputation, e.g., 1) The Sin Contemplated: Pelagian view, Roman Catholic view, Calvin's view and the Classic Protestant view, 2) The Union Involved: Realistic view and Representative view (to which I adhere), 3) The Nature of the Imputation: Mediate, and Immediate (to which I adhere) 4) The Sin Imputed. In the beginning of the book Murray deals with the syntactical problem of the text itself, which is very intriguing and enlightening. Highly Recommended

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim
---
______________________
BOOOOOO HIIIIISSSSSSSSS! ....laz


Subject: Re: Perhaps Pilgrim has some insight
From: laz
To: Eric
Date Posted: Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 13:27:30 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Eric the Fish, hehe ...perhaps the animal analogy was bad...since you say it makes YOUR case....eeeek!...nevertheless....the guilt of Adam is ours (again, I believe everything associated with creation/Adam is subject to Adam's sin...a sort of punishment for guilt/condemnation) ....that's my story and I'm stickin' to it! hehe As for the other stuff, I will wait for some bigger fish to chime in as well since I may have easily jumped in over my head. I'm wholly subject to and welcome any correction as well. blessings, laz


Subject: Federal Headship
From: Rod
To: Eric
Date Posted: Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 11:50:30 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Eric, Your response is long and I'm not always certain whom it is that you're addressing. But I do wnat to emphasize and clear up one thing, if I can. You imposed a belief on me in this quote which isn't mine, exactly: '>>>As Rod said, we are NOT being condemned for Adam's sin, when you really get down to it....for in the eyes of a thrice holy God...WE SINNED IN THE GARDEN...WE WERE THERE WITH ADAM AND IN ADAM.' I refer you first of all to the 7th chpater of Hebrews, verses 4-10, where the principle of 'vicarious participation' is explained. The word 'vicarious' derives from 'vicar' or 'substitute.' Abraham was Levi's substitute, but since Levi was of Abraham and
like him in that he descended from him with the same character and nature, both in his physical and [when saved and believing] spiritual life, he, though not an actual participant, did what his father did: he did it in Abraham and it was the right thing to do, the thing any spiritual man of God would have done! I think it's safe to say that there is actually no disagreement between laz and me on this issue. We both ascribe to the principle explained above: 'federal headship,' or representation by another for our actions. When the federal government acts, it acts representatively and for all the citizens of the U.S.. That isn't exactly the same thing as Adam did, but it is illustrative. Adam, being the best human possible, under the best of circumstances and the progenitor of us all was, fairly and honestly, a representation and a substitute for us all. We could have done no better than he and it is thus fitting and fair that he sinned for us and we, in representative form, sinned in him. That is precisely how God views it, as I interpret the Scriptures. Converesly, not in fairness, but in mercy, we were represented and vicariously with the Lord Jesus in His perfect life, by His intent and by His purpose, though we could never have done what He did. We did, in the eyes of God, live with and through Him, because God has chosen to make it so by His life and substitutionary death (see 2 Cor. 5;21 and Gal. 2:20). Because of that, we, who could never be like Him in and of ourselves, are enabled to be like Him and to be elevated to His standing in sanctification: 'Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ...that we should be holy and without blame before him, in love having predestinated us unto the adoption of sons by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, through which he hath MADE US ACCPETED IN THE BELOVED' (Eph. 1:1-6). Both our being in Adam and our [we who are saved] being in Christ is vicarious. But, by imputation of God, both are as if they were actually so and both are just and righteous because He has decreed it. One is fair and just; the other, merciful.


Subject: Re: Federal Headship
From: Eric
To: Rod
Date Posted: Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 12:50:30 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi Rod, That quote which might have misrepresented/portrayed your view was copied from a post by laz. I don't know why I ended up in this discussion again, after I told laz that I wasn't going to take the bait, but it looks like I got a big old hook in my mouth. I will back out of this conversation. Anyway, based upon your view above, do you believe that infants, and souls of babies that have miscarried will be suffering in hell for eternity? And if so, who's sins are they being punished for? God bless. P.S. Thanks for the insight on Hebrews 7, I will look at it closely.


Subject: Re: Federal Headship
From: Rod
To: Eric
Date Posted: Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 14:38:38 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Eric, Somewhere below in the last day or two I've explained my view on infants and mental deficient individuals--it shouldn't be hard to find.


Subject: Re: Federal Headship
From: laz
To: Eric
Date Posted: Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 13:40:38 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi Rod, That quote which might have misrepresented/portrayed your view was copied from a post by laz. I don't know why I ended up in this discussion again, after I told laz that I wasn't going to take the bait, but it looks like I got a big old hook in my mouth. I will back out of this conversation. Anyway, based upon your view above, do you believe that infants, and souls of babies that have miscarried will be suffering in hell for eternity? And if so, who's sins are they being punished for? God bless. P.S. Thanks for the insight on Hebrews 7, I will look at it closely.
---
It's me, the fisher of men...hahaha Rod has already stated that he believes all dogs/babies go to heaven. hehe But even if babies DO go to hell....so what....is God unfair? NO, they were condemed already being 'born dead' in trespasses and sins....being of and in Adam...except for those plucked from the fire. nosey laz


Subject: laz is kidding, but...
From: Rod
To: laz
Date Posted: Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 14:52:04 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
It's so easy to be misunderstood around here that I have to say it. Dogs don't fare well in the Bible--I don't expect to see or pet any in Heaven. Sorry, pet owners, I like dogs (mostly).


Subject: Infant Baptism
From: PWH
To: All
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 19:39:01 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I appreciate all the responses to my original question regarding infant baptism. I have learned a bit about what Augustine said about it. I cannot believe that Augustine believed that baptism in and of itself effects anything. It is but a 'means of grace.' I think SOL has misinterpreted Augustine. I think Prestor John represents Augustine better. What I would REALLY like are Bible verses that support/refute the practice. SOL mentioned that there is not one Bible verse that mentions an infant being baptized. That wouldn't be so bad if there was a verse that taught infant baptism. I have read that one support for IB is that it parallels circumcision. But just because it parallels circumcision does not mean that the rules for circumcision apply ,e.g., we don't limit infant baptism to males. As interesting as it is to read what the church fathers thought I would like for you all to spend more time quoting Scripture. PWH


Subject: Re: Infant Baptism
From: Prestor John
To: PWH
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 22:03:59 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
And I raise Five Sola's Westminister's Confession with the London Baptist Confession of 1689's topic on Baptism :^P 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;(1) of remission of sins;(2) and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.(3) 1. Ro 6:3-5; Col 2:12; Gal 3:27. 2. Mk 1:4; Ac 22:16. 3. Ro 6:4. 2. 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.(4) 4. Mk 16:16; Ac 8:36-37; 2:41; 8:12; 18:8. 3. 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. (5) 5. Mt 28:19-20; Ac 8:38. 4. Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance.(6) 6. Mt 3:16, Jn 3:23. Credoly (is that a word?) yours, Prestor John


Subject: Re: Infant Baptism
From: Prestor John
To: PWH
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 21:47:24 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Now at the risk of offending my good friend Five Sola, Pilgrim, et al let me take a minute to state something that they already know. I do not support paedobaptism. I was defending Augustine from SOL's assertion that he taught baptismal regeneration. Which he did not. However, I can see the paedobaptist's viewpoint, I just disagree with it. I suggest to you the above link and also this one:
A Theological Journey into Believers Baptism a string of pearls unstrung Prestor John PAEDOISM OR CREDOISM? www.jps.net/prbc/PaedoismorCredoism.htm


Subject: Re: Infant Baptism
From: Five Sola
To: PWH
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 20:39:39 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
PWH, I am sorry that I do not have any verses to give you right now (I don't have much time to be online). I will just copy/paste the portions of Westminster Confession of Faith and it's scriptural proofs to get you started. :-) I do want to add though in comment to something SOL said... 'SOL mentioned that there is not one Bible verse that mentions an infant being baptized.' This is the common objection that most Credobaptist (believer's baptism) raise. There are many fallacies with this comment. First, there are many doctrines that do not have a verse that says... 'this is true because...' The doctrine of the Trinity is one that comes to mind. Some doctrines must be seen in the whole of scripture. The Bible is not a systematic Theology. Second, I think that because there is NO scripture that speaks AGAINST Paedobaptism (infant baptism) makes the strongest case that it was true. For most of the epistles were written to jewish communities. And if the new convenant sign (baptism) was initiated and forbidden for the children of Believing parents, then the Jewish community would have questioned, 'why are you forbidding our children to belong to God's covenant? Why must they remain outside His community?' And thus one of the apostles would have dealt with that issue in a passage of scripture somewhere. That's all I have time for now. Here is the qoutes from WCF: WCF 28. V. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ,[11] but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.[12] 11. Acts 2:41; 8:12-13; 16:14-15 12. Gen. 17:7-14; Gal. 3:9, 14; Col. 2:11-12; Acts 2:38-39; Rom. 4:11-12; Matt. 19:13; 28:19; Mark 10:13-16; Luke 8:15-17; I Cor. 7:14 Five Sola


Subject: Re: Infant Baptism
From: PWH
To: Five Sola
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 15, 2000 at 17:11:56 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I will wait for the verse that support your opoinion. Regarding your two comments - I understand that some doctrines we hold dear are implied from Scripture and not explicitly stated in it. We must be careful, though, when we do claim an implied doctrine. The very fact that there is division w/in the church regarding infant baptism implies that the Bible does not imply it clearly. Regarding your second point - How can the lack of Scripture support any position? Just because the epistles were written to Jewish communities, if that is indeed really true, doesn't mean that the lack of teaching on baptism meant that these first century Christians knew exactly what to do. What justification would these Jews have to baptize female infants? I think it suprising that God was so clear about circumsicion that he wouldn't give us clear directions about baptism. It seems to me that there is clear teacing on who is to be baptized - Matt 28:28-20. Jesus teaches that we are to baptize those who believe. And what about Luke and Acts? I think those books were written to Greeks. Wouldn't these books have clear teaching on infant baptism since these folks don't have the Jewish rite of circumcision? It seems to me that Acts demonstrates that only believers were baptized. Thanks for your comments and I await the Scriptural support. PWH PWH


Subject: Re: Infant Baptism
From: freegrace
To: Five Sola
Date Posted: Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 09:02:58 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
May I make a reply here... You stated: >>>Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ,[11] but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.[12] 11. Acts 2:41; 8:12-13; 16:14-15 12. Gen. 17:7-14; Gal. 3:9, 14; Col. 2:11-12; Acts 2:38-39; Rom. 4:11-12; Matt. 19:13; 28:19; Mark 10:13-16; Luke 8:15-17; I Cor. 7:14 <<< As for the verses found in Acts 2:38-39, many today use these very same verses to 'prove' their false doctrine of baptismal regeneration....sad to say. *Peter* is calling for a 'national repentance' here..; the Jews (Israel) had just crucified their Messiah and King. Peter said *Ye men of Israel hear these words*...! Acrs 2:21-22. (There is no cross ref. to be made from Acts 2:39 to Eph. 2:13..!) Please remember that The apostle Paul was not even yet called by God and not even converted at this point in time..( Acts 2:38) The 'afar off' of Peter's message refers to those (Jews) who were at a great distance away - geographically speaking...while the 'far off' of Ephesians refers to *Gentiles* who were at a great distance AWAY FROM GOD (spiritually speaking). God was going to first call and save the apostle Paul, and send HIM to the Gentiles with the message of God's sovereign grace! All we will have is confusion in our churches if we do not see that it is Paul's message that is for us Gentiles today, and he was sent 'not to baptise, but preach the gospel'. Also see Galations 2:7-16 where we learn that Paul is a minister of the *uncircumcision*... Paul said to 'Be ye followers of me and my gospel'..etc. see Eph. 3:1-9. regards, freegrace


Subject: Re: Infant Baptism
From: Tom
To: Five Sola
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 23:58:11 (PDT)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
Five Sola I do not want to make a big deal about this issue, because I do not think it is an issue to divide over. But in the past I have been given Acts 16:14-15 as proof of Paedobaptism. When I went to it, I scratched my head, because if anything it proves immersion(as far as I can tell). For instance if you go back to verse 13, you will notice that they were by a river, I don't think it would be a stretch to say that Lydia was baptised there. Yes, I know, that I am asuming, but I think my asuming here is more logical than the other view. I am not using this scripture for trying to prove immersion, because at least in this passage it is not 100% clear what method of baptism was used. Tom


Subject: Re: Infant Baptism
From: PWH
To: Tom
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 15, 2000 at 17:22:43 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I suppose the reference in Acts 16:14-15 is used to support infant baptism because Lydia's 'household' was baptized as well. I have read that some argue that 'household' necessarily means thatinfants were in the household and therefore were baptized. The arguments are rather technical and I cannot repeat them here. I am not even sure of the source. I suppose it is possible that only adults were in the 'household' and they believed and therefore were baptized. To base a doctrine on this verse is presumption, I think. It is as if a verse is needed to support the doctrine and this one does just fine. May I engage in some heresy. Luke merely states what Paul did. Just because Paul did it does not mean that it is doctrinal. What I want is a didatic statement from scripture supporting infant baptism, not some veiled reference to a practice that perhaps took place. PWH PWH


Subject: Re: Infant Baptism
From: freegrace
To: PWH
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 20:26:27 (PDT)
Email Address: freegracealone@yahoo.com

Message:
I appreciate all the responses to my original question regarding infant baptism. I have learned a bit about what Augustine said about it. I cannot believe that Augustine believed that baptism in and of itself effects anything. It is but a 'means of grace.' I think SOL has misinterpreted Augustine. I think Prestor John represents Augustine better. What I would REALLY like are Bible verses that support/refute the practice. SOL mentioned that there is not one Bible verse that mentions an infant being baptized. That wouldn't be so bad if there was a verse that taught infant baptism. I have read that one support for IB is that it parallels circumcision. But just because it parallels circumcision does not mean that the rules for circumcision apply ,e.g., we don't limit infant baptism to males. As interesting as it is to read what the church fathers thought I would like for you all to spend more time quoting Scripture. PWH
---
============== ..Of course my view on this is not accepted here, but I will post it anyway....:-) I believe that our baptism is now *spiritual* and is made 'without hands' Col. 2:10-12...It is the operation of God alone, by free grace alone. It is the *one baptism* of the Spirit - mentioned in Eph. 4:5. Romans Six is all about the baptism of the Spirit.. (no water baptism is found in Romans Six, as far as I can tell). AS you can see, I have more verses proving my view than they who follow any kind of water baptism. Also see 1 Cor. 1:17. I do not think that water baptism 'replaced circumcision' as many teach, for *both* circumcision and baptism are now the work of God, and the 'operation of God alone'... again, Col. 2:8-23. That should be enough verses!..:-) Ever wonder why there is so much confusion about this? I think it's because we do not want to follow Pauline doctrine completely for this age of *salvation by free grace alone* freegrace


Subject: Re: Infant Baptism
From: PWH
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 15, 2000 at 17:27:27 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Interesting . . . What do you make of the baptism of the Ethiopian enuch by Philip in Acts 8:26ff, or of Paul in Acts 9:18 and of Lydia in Acts 16:15? PWH PWH


Subject: Re: Infant Baptism
From: Tom
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 00:13:46 (PDT)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
freegrace What do you say about Philip baptising the Eunuch. Acts 8:26-40 (notice it was water baptism, not baptism of the Spirit.) Tom


Subject: Re: Infant Baptism
From: freegrace
To: Tom
Date Posted: Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 06:42:24 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
freegrace What do you say about Philip baptising the Eunuch. Acts 8:26-40 (notice it was water baptism, not baptism of the Spirit.) Tom
---
============= Hi Tom, please remember that the Book of Acts is progressive revelation, and the apostle Paul (who was called by God and sent to the Gentiles) was not even converted until Acts chapter nine. His revelation is unique and complete, and he has written over one-third of out New Testament. The gospel was sent to the 'Jew first' ... and in Acts 18:11 we see that Gentiles were also beginning to become saves as well! How surprised they were at this! So we see that Acts is progressive from Jew to Gentile, even though some Jews are still being called by God's sovererign grace today - but mostly, Gentiles are now becoming saved, not Jews. This is why I believe, with the calling of Paul to the Gentiles - that water baptism (as circumcision in the past) has given way to just the Spirit baptism alone- made *without hands*...made by the operation of God alone. 'Forgeting those things which are behind'... Paul said. We are made to be *complete in Him*... The reason Christ was baptised was to fulfill the law for ALL of HIs chosen elect... So why be baptised again if we are *in Christ*, and Christ was baptised for us = in our place, as it were. regards, freegrace


Subject: Re: Infant Baptism
From: PWH
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 15, 2000 at 17:30:26 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
freegrace, Your position is dangerous. One who holds your position could deny anything written before Acts Chap 9. I don't think Paul altered anything taught by those before Acts 9. PWH PWH


Subject: Re: Infant Baptism
From: Tom
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 11:53:53 (PDT)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
freegrace One problem I find with your answer, is that in history I don't see a stop of water baptism. Maybe you can prove otherwise? Salvation Army is the only denomination that I am aware of that doesn't baptise in one form or another. Tom


Subject: Re: Infant Baptism
From: freegrace
To: Tom
Date Posted: Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 13:10:18 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
freegrace One problem I find with your answer, is that in history I don't see a stop of water baptism. Maybe you can prove otherwise? Salvation Army is the only denomination that I am aware of that doesn't baptise in one form or another. Tom
---
============= Thanks, I did not know about the Salvation Army not following water baptism. I see your point. Maybe the visible church just practiced something that was no longer needed or required. Today, we would not think of requiring circumcision or continuing the sacrifices of animals for our atonement, would we? Or would we try to 'build an ark' just because it was once commanded for Noah to do so? I think you see my point..:-) We need to learn to keep verses in their proper context, such as Acts 2:38-39, and not use these verses as a 'plan of salvation' for Gentiles living today (such as the Church of Christ does)..etc. Truth does not 'change', but the times and the seasons do change in God's economy and time table..Acts 1:7. We are to be established in 'present truth' -- 2 Peter 1:12, and make our calling and election sure. regards, freegrace


Subject: Re: Infant Baptism
From: Prestor John
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 21:57:54 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
The problem with the view you espousing is that it is based upon the supposed thought that Paul had a new commission that wasn't given to the original disciples. And because of that the 'Pauline' commission is not based upon the New Covenant. Instead the 'church' is now a covenant-less body that is based upon the so called 'Gospel of the Grace of God' and must be distinguished from the 'Gospel of the kingdom' which contains the New Covenant. Since this thread is about Infant/Believer's Baptism I won't get into that but suffice to say if you are willing to start a new thread on this topic I am more than willing to discuss it. Prestor John Servabo Fidem


Subject: Re: Infant Baptism
From: freegrace
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 06:27:10 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
The problem with the view you espousing is that it is based upon the supposed thought that Paul had a new commission that wasn't given to the original disciples. And because of that the 'Pauline' commission is not based upon the New Covenant. Instead the 'church' is now a covenant-less body that is based upon the so called 'Gospel of the Grace of God' and must be distinguished from the 'Gospel of the kingdom' which contains the New Covenant. Since this thread is about Infant/Believer's Baptism I won't get into that but suffice to say if you are willing to start a new thread on this topic I am more than willing to discuss it. Prestor John Servabo Fidem
---
============== Greetings! Sorry, I do not understand your point here. These grace churches *do* hold to the new covenant, and have communion in their local assemblies... they just are not Calvinistic, and so that is why I do not follow them completely. If I could find one of these churches, I would not attend. I just think that the Spirit baptism is the snswer for all of this confusion that the visible church has had over water baptism, re-baptism, immersion, sprinking, etc. etc... freegrace


Subject: Re: Infant Baptism
From: Pilgrim
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 21:12:15 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
freegrace,

In all the years I have been a Christian and having read literally thousands of books, I must confess that until you stated this view here, i.e., that the New Testament Church is NOT to administer any form of water baptism, I had never come across it. I would be very interested in knowing which writer has influenced you to accept this view? As you must know, this view has not been held by any denomination, at least to my knowledge, in all of Christendom for water baptism has been the practice of the Church from the beginning. Please point me to a writer and if you can a specific work which I can read. I would honestly like to be able to see the presentation and defense for it by perhaps its originator.

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Infant Baptism
From: freegrace
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 06:19:15 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
freegrace,

In all the years I have been a Christian and having read literally thousands of books, I must confess that until you stated this view here, i.e., that the New Testament Church is NOT to administer any form of water baptism, I had never come across it. I would be very interested in knowing which writer has influenced you to accept this view? As you must know, this view has not been held by any denomination, at least to my knowledge, in all of Christendom for water baptism has been the practice of the Church from the beginning. Please point me to a writer and if you can a specific work which I can read. I would honestly like to be able to see the presentation and defense for it by perhaps its originator.

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim
---
=========== Greetings Pilgrim, There are many 'grace' churches now being formed that hold to this view of no water baptism at all, (Only the one baptism of the Spirit is taught, and God is the One that performs this baptism, not man)... I was not going to bring this up again, because they are not sovereign grace churches, sad to say. They publish the 'Berean Searchlight' paper, and have formed the Berean Bible Society. The book I read about it was 'Things that Differ' by C. R. Stam, and they now have a page at: www.bereanbiblesociety.com It is too bad that they are not Calvinistic, but I think that they have made some very interesting points for us to consider...(They say that they are not hyper-dispensational). I enjoy the harmony we have here as reformed believers, and so do not want to cause any kind of division among us over this issue! The topic of our election, predestination, and particular redemption is of far more importance, I think. i can fellowship with both the reformed Baptist or Presbyterian. regards, freegrace


Subject: Re: Infant Baptism
From: Pilgrim
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 10:51:41 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
freegrace, Despite their claim that they are not 'hyper-Dispensational', that is exactly what they are. They are at odds with the entire history and practice of the Church. This doesn't automatically make them wrong in their view, but one would have to weigh heavily this fact in considering their view concerning baptism. The fact that they want to bifurcate Jews and Gentiles, the gospel of Paul from the gospel of Peter, etc. is abhorrent. In His Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: correction on the link I posted.
From: freegrace
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 06:50:23 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Sorry..! The correct link is; http://www.bereanbiblesociety.org/index.shtml corrected link www.bereanbiblesociet


Subject: No water at all???
From: Rod
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 21:08:23 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
fg. I read your post too casually and missed (how I don't know) that you don't believe in any sort of water baptism! My thanks to Pilgrim for bringing me up short on that.


Subject: Re: No water at all???
From: freegrace
To: Rod
Date Posted: Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 06:55:49 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
fg. I read your post too casually and missed (how I don't know) that you don't believe in any sort of water baptism! My thanks to Pilgrim for bringing me up short on that.
---
============ Hi Rod, How could you miss that..!? :-) Yes, no water at all. There will be millions of elect infants (for wxample) in heaven that were *never* baptised with water! Some food for thought. Also, the dying thief is now in heaven with the LORD, and he was never baptised with water! (A picture of the church age that was to come?) Some food for thought... :-) freegrace


Subject: Re: No water at all???
From: Rod
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 11:11:16 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
fg, Since I just read your other posts on this subject above, I have to conclude that it is very dangerous thought, indeed, as it is always dangerous to deviate from what Christians have always held and what the Bible expressly teaches in numerous places. First, though as you point out, there are many divisions over this issue of mode and effect, all Christians have, from the beginning, baptized in water in accordance with the Lord Jesus' command. Second, though the 'one baptism' you cite is I believe correctly identified as the 'baptism of the Holy Spirit,' the placing of the believer in the body of Christ in salvation, the baptism of water is a witness to that fact and done in submission and obedience as a sign and signification of the inner change to the world and the Church. Second, Paul was baptized immediately upon his being visited by the Christian, Ananias Acts 9:18). Then, Paul saw to it that the Philippian jailer was baptized as soon as practically possible after his conversion (Acts.16:30-34). Finally, while Paul says 'I thank God that I baptized none of you' in in Cor. 1:14, it is clear and unmistakeable from the context that they were baptized in the Name the Scriptures commanded. His job was to preach the converting gospel, and others did the baptizing, but they were undoubtedly baptized routinely in the Name of the Lord Jesus, but not in the name of Paul, the distinction he is making: 'I thank God that I baptized none of you,
BUT Chrispus and Gaius, LEST ANY SHOULD SAY THAT I BAPTIZED IN MY OWN NAME, AND I baptized also the household of Stephanas; besides, I know not whether I baptized any other' (verses 15-16). It has to be remembered that all Paul's witnessing and the subsequent baptisms came after what scholars say was a three year period of instruction by the Lord Jesus in Arabia by revelation, corresponding to the three years the other disciples spent with the Lord in His earthly ministry (cp. Gal. 1:17-19). The "progressive revelation" about baptism is that it was consistently and uniformly practiced from the inception of the Christian Church and is both valid and continuing in the life of the body of the Lord Jesus Christ, His Church. Obviously, he believed in and practiced water baptism and your argument won't hold water (pun intended).


Subject: Re: No water at all???
From: freegrace
To: Rod
Date Posted: Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 13:21:20 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi Rod, Yes, I know that water baptism was practiced in the early part of Paul's ministry, but toward the end of his ministry, he could not even perform any miracles...see 2 Tim.4:20. the signs and wonders had ceased! The Jews require a sign, and that is why water baptism was continued for a while. (I liked your 'pun'..) :-) I guess everyone here thinks 'I am all wet' but it's not because of water from the baptismal fount! I read about how John Wesley baptised a lady in her bath tub once! Really sad, if it wasn't soooo funny! LOL freegrace


Subject: Re: No water at all???
From: Rod
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 14:55:05 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Sorry to say, fg, that what's sad is your unwarranted equating of 'miracles' with water baptism. This is totally off base and shockingly so, given some of your insights on other subjects.


Subject: Re: No water at all???
From: freegrace
To: Rod
Date Posted: Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 18:39:37 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Sorry to say, fg, that what's sad is your unwarranted equating of 'miracles' with water baptism. This is totally off base and shockingly so, given some of your insights on other subjects.
---
============= Hi Rod, The Spirit places them together, not me! See Mark 16:16-20. He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved; And these *signs* shall follow them that believe...etc. This is not true for us today. Water baptism does not 'save us'; water baptism will get you wet, but it will not unite you to the Body of Christ! What's sad is when they die from trying to handle a poisonous snake, and they get bitten. Along with their water baptism, they think that God will do 'signs and wonders' for them also today - (as God once did for the nation of Israel). This is the price that many have paid for not 'rightly dividing the Word of truth', as Paul tells us to do in 2 tim 2:15. It's true that the church is the 'Israel of God' spiritually speaking, but the church does not 'replace the nation of Israel' so to speak; but that is another topic! regards, freegrace


Subject: Books opened in Rev 20:12
From: Eddie33
To: All
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 09:28:47 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
We have been studying Revelations in my Sunday bible study class for the last few months. This past week the teacher talked about the different books opened up in Rev 20:12. He said there were 3 and possibly 4 books opened. One was the 'book of life'. As he explained - when we are born we are written in God's book of life (he referenced Ps139:16). He said our name will stay there if we receive Christ, if not our name will be blotted out (ref Ps69:28, Rev 3:5). Another book was the Lamb's book of life. He said when we accept Christ our names are recorded in this book as a double check to the book of life (ref Rev 13:8, Rev 21:27). Is there a difference between the book of life and the Lamb's book of life?


Subject: Re: Books opened in Rev 20:12
From: Rod
To: Eddie33
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 21:23:43 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Eddie, I'm sort of surprised there wasn't more response. Maybe it's because fg pretty well nailed it right off. The best explanation I've seen is that the 'book of life' is a sort of genealogy of those who have lived on the earth. Since the spiritually dead are that, dead, and remain so, never being regenerated and pass into condemnation and the judgment of God, it is as though they never lived and they are dead to Him forever, being 'blotted out.' The 'Lamb's book of life' is entirely different, being a record of the predestinated and elect, the saved of God from Whom there is neither 'condemnation' (Rom. 8:1) nor 'separation' (Rom. 8:39; cp. 31-38). Owing to those circumstances, there is no blotting out of that book of the One 'slain from the foundation of the world' (Rev. 13:8): 'All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out' (John 6:37). A study of the words 'cast' and 'cast out' and the related passages are very revealing. [A friendly tip, Eddie--It's one 'Revelation,' as the book reveals the myriad aspects of the Lord Jesus Christ. One revelation, but many aspects of our Lord. :>)]


Subject: Re: Books opened in Rev 20:12
From: freegrace
To: Eddie33
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 11:23:19 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
We have been studying Revelations in my Sunday bible study class for the last few months. This past week the teacher talked about the different books opened up in Rev 20:12. He said there were 3 and possibly 4 books opened. One was the 'book of life'. As he explained - when we are born we are written in God's book of life (he referenced Ps139:16). He said our name will stay there if we receive Christ, if not our name will be blotted out (ref Ps69:28, Rev 3:5). Another book was the Lamb's book of life. He said when we accept Christ our names are recorded in this book as a double check to the book of life (ref Rev 13:8, Rev 21:27). Is there a difference between the book of life and the Lamb's book of life?
---
============ Hi Eddie, I heard a good sermon on this once. There is a 'Book of the Living' where we can have our names blotted out (when we die here on earth), but the names of the elect are all written in the Lamb's Book of Life -- forever. We are told to 'Rejoice, for your names are written in heaven'. (why 'rejoice' if there is a 'slight chance' that our names will be deleted, and we 'lose our salvation'..?) some food for thought. freegrace


Subject: Re: Books opened in Rev 20:12
From: the_sword_of_the_lord
To: Eddie33
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 10:44:38 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Eddie, I doubt it. I believe they are the same book...but that
every man had his name written in the book of life at the foundation of the world, and only those who die without Christ will be blotted out. Notice that in Psalm 69, David mentions certain unrighteous men who are in the Book of Life, and asks God to blot them out...this begs the question, 'How did unrighteous men get into the book of life to begin with?' It seems to me that all men are put in the book of life, whether they will be saved or not...and it is only the ones who die without Christ who will be blotted out. So God places our names in the Book of Life irrespective of whether or not we will accept Christ.


Subject: Christopher - God Repenting
From: laz
To: All
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 09:22:22 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Christopher - in Eastern thought, does God repent...change His mind? If not, now would you answer Gene/James logically or Biblically? laz


Subject: laz, no.
From: Christopher
To: laz
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 15:37:43 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
laz, No, God doesn't change His mind. Nor does He need to learn anything or be taught anything. My response to what your disagreement with James is that Orthodoxy views predestination, foreknowledge and election not at all like you do. Christopher


Subject: Re: Christopher - God Repenting
From: Christopher
To: laz
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 10:01:39 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
hello again, laz. Frankly, I haven't followed Gene's topic. He could have a Greek mother and a Hebrew father, know both languages and the original Biblical texts inside out, for all I know. What I do know is that he says that Jesus Christ is not God, which makes everything else he says worth, well, not much. So, how I would answer him is by not bothering to answer him on the matter. I would suggest that he become a Christian first. As I mentioned, I haven't followed the thread, so I wouldn't know what to say to James at this point. My initial thought, though, is that this is a Calvinist/Arminian argument which could be cleared up by other means. But, to answer your first question, the answer is that, off the top of my head, I don't know. Christopher


Subject: Is that true?
From: Eric
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 10:19:14 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Does Gene deny the deity of Christ? I always assumed that he was a modalist-a serious error, but not as serious as believing Jesus is not God! Maybe I should pay more attention.


Subject: Is that true?--Emphatically!
From: Rod
To: Eric
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 12:45:42 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
It is true (by his own repeated admissions and assertions) and one of the reasons I try sometimes to answer Gene's ridiculous assertions, though I think most realize where he's coming from.


Subject: Re: Is that true?
From: monitor
To: Eric
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 12:40:15 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Does Gene deny the deity of Christ? I always assumed that he was a modalist-a serious error, but not as serious as believing Jesus is not God! Maybe I should pay more attention.
---
Gene is a 'nice guy'...most of the time...we love to rib him...but sadly, we have had to consign him to the lot of the wicked as he denies: - deity of Christ - Trinity - nature of God's incommunicable attributes - original sin - grace - and who knows what else. ...but his biggest mistake was in messin' with the 'Pil'..our fearless leader. ;-) Poor guy...Gene that is. monitor


Subject: Message to laz -- 'Elect infants'
From: freegrace
To: All
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 09:02:12 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi laz, you wrote in a message: >>>where there is no law, there is no sin....yet, because babies die, it proves that they are being held guilty for SOMEONE's SIN. ... They may not have any real sin of their own...fetuses/embryos don't/can't ...but die anyway because they have been imputed (as has the entire race of humanity) with Adam's sin and his sin nature. They were conceived corrupt and wholly guilty 'in Adam'. <<<< Yes, I agree with you here on this. Maybe the verse 'The sting of death is sin'... will be of some help here...; (the fact that infants do die proves they are sinners). Maybe *the great multitude* that will be placed among the redeemed in heaven will be elect infants - (who died in infancy). This is Sovereign Grace and Mercy indeed! For this reason, the number of the elect may be greater than the number of persons that are lost. When on Prodigy, I once 'debated' a Calvinist who believed this way, and said there will be millions and millions of redeemed in heaven who were chosen by God before the foundation of the world! freegrace


Subject: Re: Message to laz -- 'Elect infants'
From: laz
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 09:52:55 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi laz, you wrote in a message: >>>where there is no law, there is no sin....yet, because babies die, it proves that they are being held guilty for SOMEONE's SIN. ... They may not have any real sin of their own...fetuses/embryos don't/can't ...but die anyway because they have been imputed (as has the entire race of humanity) with Adam's sin and his sin nature. They were conceived corrupt and wholly guilty 'in Adam'. <<<< Yes, I agree with you here on this. Maybe the verse 'The sting of death is sin'... will be of some help here...; (the fact that infants do die proves they are sinners). Maybe *the great multitude* that will be placed among the redeemed in heaven will be elect infants - (who died in infancy). This is Sovereign Grace and Mercy indeed! For this reason, the number of the elect may be greater than the number of persons that are lost. When on Prodigy, I once 'debated' a Calvinist who believed this way, and said there will be millions and millions of redeemed in heaven who were chosen by God before the foundation of the world! freegrace
---
Thanks, frergrace - I never considered that possibility! ;-) Which raises another question...if all are sinners in Adam by imputation, federal headship, original sin, etc...all being doomed at conception, just HOW do infants/fetuses get saved if in God's foreknowledge, there isn't going to be a future whereby God can peer down to see what choices these babies would have made relative to Christ? What will be the basis for their salvation....certainly NOT a 'freewill choice'! laz


Subject: Re: Message to laz -- 'Elect infants'
From: the_sword_of_the_lord
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 09:25:17 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Just a thought... When God told Adam and Eve, 'On the day you eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall die', He couldn't have been referring to physical death, since in fact, Adam and Eve did not die physically on the day they ate of it. God was clearly referring to spiritual death...in that instance. While I agree that physical death entered the human race as a result of Adam's sin, I think that the universality of spiritual and physical death are applied differently. All men will unconditionally die physically as a result of Adam's sin...but I hesitate to say that just because some infants die physically that they are sinners...in other words, I'm not too sure that spiritual death is automatically imputed to the entire human race as a result of Adam's sin, like physical death is. Sin is an action...it is rebellion against God, and seems illogical to say that all die
directly as a result of Adam's sin...that is not to say that we don't die indirectly...there is a difference between sin and a sin nature. We have not inherited Adam's sin, but we have inherited his sin nature, which means that we will inevitably commit sins on our own. I hope I don't start too much of a debate on this, because I sure ain't up for it... :) But it's just a thought.


Subject: Re: Message to laz -- 'Elect infants'
From: Rod
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 12:02:45 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Though many will find this hard to believe, I try to stay out of things (such as discussions like this) which are too deep for the likes of me :>). But, sword, I have to interject two thoughts: First, Adam and Eve began to die physically when they ate. They initiated the aging, wasting process with that act, making physical death inevitable and certain, though not immediate. In human growth and development, there is a 'march of progression' toward death. Even in the youngest infant, the growth and development we so delight in is a sure sign that the aging and decaying have begun. Sobering and sort of depressing, yet true. Second, and definitely related to the first is this: 'Wherefore, as by one man, sin entered into the world,
and death by sin [his sin], and so death has passed upon all men for all have sinned' (Rom. 5:12). That verse leaves no doubt that all men have sinned, sinned vicariously in Adam, just as the saved have been vicariously righteous in the Lord Jesus' life. In the first case, Adam's, we are justly declared 'gulity of sin' (not just of having a sin nature) by God because we, being of Adam, could have done no better than he--and he did it under the best of circumstances and with little requirement (one command) of obedience. Yet he showed the frailty of a human under the best conditions and without the inherent bent to sin we inherited from him. In the second case, joined with the Lord in slavation, we are mercifully acted upon by God in taking away that guilt, not by actuality of our righteousness, nor by our meritorious decisions/actions, but by God's prior provision of a remedy for sin in the Savior. We had actual guilt rightfully and justly imputed to us and we have had righteousness undeservedly and mercifully imputed to us, taking away the guilt because we are actually 'dead' in Christ and risen with Him in newness of life. The net effect of God's action toward us in salvation is that He allows us to have lived righteously and without sin or guilt in Christ. That is possible because our sin was put to death in judgment on the cross with Him (for the saved) and also because, "...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 [not my faith], who loved me and gave himself for me" (Gal. 2:20). Physical death is Adam's inevitable lot and our flesh will die. Spiritually death is that lot too, unless God intervenes on our behalf in salvation from it, removing the guilt and replacing the sin nature (a dual act of grace through faith). The point of all this? Well, I understand it for those of an age and ability to reason, but, though I believe that God saves infants (born and unborn) who die, as well as the mentally incompetent, I don't understand the process where they are concerned. The Bible is relatively quiet about this, causing us all kinds of 'problems' and speculation, but there are enough passages about how God formed us in the womb, how Samson and John the Baptist were marked out for God before birth, how David would 'go to' his infant son at death, implying not only just physical death, but also union, that I have to believe that God has it under control.


Subject: Re: Message to laz -- 'Elect infants'
From: laz
To: Rod
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 12:49:19 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Lovely post, Rod...but as much as I hate to say this, being a huge fan of yours, hehe, I would take exception to your presumptively sentimental feeling (belief) that all infants and mentally challenged go to heaven. As you said, the Bible is 'relatively quiet' and we ought to always resist speculation - the few biblical examples you cited notwithstanding. As I've heard said before, if all infants were heaven bound, then abortion is a good thing in the ultimate sense. Now, don't have a coronary...we just got you out of the hospital brother. ;-) blessings, laz


Subject: Re: Message to laz -- 'Elect infants'
From: freegrace
To: laz
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 13:03:08 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Lovely post, Rod...but as much as I hate to say this, being a huge fan of yours, hehe, I would take exception to your presumptively sentimental feeling (belief) that all infants and mentally challenged go to heaven. As you said, the Bible is 'relatively quiet' and we ought to always resist speculation - the few biblical examples you cited notwithstanding. As I've heard said before, if all infants were heaven bound, then abortion is a good thing in the ultimate sense. Now, don't have a coronary...we just got you out of the hospital brother. ;-) blessings, laz
---
============ hi laz, I agree with you again! I thought that Rod was refering to 'elect infants'....:-) fg


Subject: Re: Message to laz -- 'Elect infants'
From: Rod
To: laz
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 12:59:54 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
laz, No coronary! :> ) I don't regard this as mere sentiment. Actually, I mention four different citations of circumstances in the Bible from OT and NT which support the assertion--pretty strong evidence in numerical terms. Now, let me make it 5 with the addition of: "And should I not spare Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern betweent their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle? That verse seems to indicate that these mentioned on whom God has compassion and mercy are no more discerning in ability than unthinking animals. No, brother laz, I can't rely on sentiment, but on the stated and revealed Word. Candidly, it is 'the way that I want it to be,' but that's not it exclusively. Have you noticed the challenge to sword to exegete Luke 1:44 below? How does the babe, John-to-be-named, leap 'for joy' without the necessary recognition of belief and faith in revelation?


Subject: Re: Message to laz -- 'Elect infants'
From: laz
To: Rod
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 13:10:58 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
laz, No coronary! :> ) I don't regard this as mere sentiment. Actually, I mention four different citations of circumstances in the Bible from OT and NT which support the assertion--pretty strong evidence in numerical terms. Candidly, it is 'the way that I want it to be,' but that's not it exclusively. Have you noticed the challenge to sword to exegete Luke 1:44 below? How does the babe, John-to-be-named, leap 'for joy' without the necessary recognition of belief and faith in revelation?
---
Rod - as to SOL...who insists on 'believing' as the root cause of salvation...whereas the Bible even talks about confessing audibly with our MOUTHS...what's the retarded mute to do then? ;-) Or the person born in a comatose state? But who is to say that God does not 'communicate' with fetuses and to others in 'difficult physiological circumstances'...and doth not impart that saving faith necessary for salvation? In Him, laz


Subject: Re: Message to laz -- 'Elect infants'
From: freegrace
To: Rod
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 12:43:23 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Though many will find this hard to believe, I try to stay out of things (such as discussions like this) which are too deep for the likes of me :>). But, sword, I have to interject two thoughts: First, Adam and Eve began to die physically when they ate. They initiated the aging, wasting process with that act, making physical death inevitable and certain, though not immediate. In human growth and development, there is a 'march of progression' toward death. Even in the youngest infant, the growth and development we so delight in is a sure sign that the aging and decaying have begun. Sobering and sort of depressing, yet true. Second, and definitely related to the first is this: 'Wherefore, as by one man, sin entered into the world,
and death by sin [his sin], and so death has passed upon all men for all have sinned' (Rom. 5:12). That verse leaves no doubt that all men have sinned, sinned vicariously in Adam, just as the saved have been vicariously righteous in the Lord Jesus' life. In the first case, Adam's, we are justly declared 'gulity of sin' (not just of having a sin nature) by God because we, being of Adam, could have done no better than he--and he did it under the best of circumstances and with little requirement (one command) of obedience. Yet he showed the frailty of a human under the best conditions and without the inherent bent to sin we inherited from him. In the second case, joined with the Lord in slavation, we are mercifully acted upon by God in taking away that guilt, not by actuality of our righteousness, nor by our meritorious decisions/actions, but by God's prior provision of a remedy for sin in the Savior. We had actual guilt rightfully and justly imputed to us and we have had righteousness undeservedly and mercifully imputed to us, taking away the guilt because we are actually 'dead' in Christ and risen with Him in newness of life. The net effect of God's action toward us in salvation is that He allows us to have lived righteously and without sin or guilt in Christ. That is possible because our sin was put to death in judgment on the cross with Him (for the saved) and also because, "...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 [not my faith], who loved me and gave himself for me" (Gal. 2:20). Physical death is Adam's inevitable lot and our flesh will die. Spiritually death is that lot too, unless God intervenes on our behalf in salvation from it, removing the guilt and replacing the sin nature (a dual act of grace through faith). The point of all this? Well, I understand it for those of an age and ability to reason, but, though I believe that God saves infants (born and unborn) who die, as well as the mentally incompetent, I don't understand the process where they are concerned. The Bible is relatively quiet about this, causing us all kinds of 'problems' and speculation, but there are enough passages about how God formed us in the womb, how Samson and John the Baptist were marked out for God before birth, how David would 'go to' his infant son at death, implying not only just physical death, but also union, that I have to believe that God has it under control.
---
============ Amen..! That means that those who are justified in Christ are found to be *not guilty* in the sight of God! Amen! freegrace


Subject: You are exactly right!! : )
From: Eric
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 10:00:26 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
SWOL, I think you are correct in your view. I just debated this issue with the board about 2 weeks ago, and had them begging for mercy by the time I was finished proving my point. :) I even think Pilgrim was going to copy my posts and link them to his website--just kidding. My point was that throughout all of scripture, we are told on numerous occassions that we will be judged by OUR sins. And in fact, we are told directly that we will not be judged eternally for the sins of another. Hence, we suffer the consequences temporally for the sins of others, but not eternally. You probably don't want to open up that can of worms. God bless.


Subject: Re: You are exactly right!! : )
From: laz
To: Eric
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 12:56:40 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
SWOL, I think you are correct in your view. I just debated this issue with the board about 2 weeks ago, and had them begging for mercy by the time I was finished proving my point. :) I even think Pilgrim was going to copy my posts and link them to his website--just kidding. My point was that throughout all of scripture, we are told on numerous occassions that we will be judged by OUR sins. And in fact, we are told directly that we will not be judged eternally for the sins of another. Hence, we suffer the consequences temporally for the sins of others, but not eternally. You probably don't want to open up that can of worms. God bless.
---
Eric - I hear slithering sounds....WORMS!!!!..... you are sadly mistaken and it's gonna cost you dearly in other aspects of your agreeable theology. ;-) As Rod said, we are NOT being condemned for Adam's sin, when you really get down to it....for in the eyes of a thrice holy God...
WE SINNED IN THE GARDEN...WE WERE THERE WITH ADAM AND IN ADAM. Redemption follows the same line of biblical reasoning with us being IN Christ when He was slain...and this before the foundations of the world. Paul in Romans is so clear on this matter. Please don't make us spank you! hehe Blessings, laz


Subject: Eric: a fundamental error
From: Rod
To: Eric
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 12:34:08 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Eric, You wrote this: 'My point was that throughout all of scripture, we are told on numerous occassions that we will be judged by OUR sins. And in fact, we are told directly that we will not be judged eternally for the sins of another.' I'd ask you to consider my reply to sword above on 'suffering for Adam's sin.' The Bible directly contradicts your conclusion about him and his headship. The Bible makes it clear that is not only possible, but inevitable. The 'sins of another' are those who are, like us, Adam's offspring and, thus, already under the curse of sin. Each of us has a debt of sin to God and owes Him a penalty which must be paid. For the saved it is paid for in Christ; for the lost, in damnation. Also, be aware of this. The individual will suffer the consequences of his own sins, if he is lost, in
the extent of his punishment, not the fact of its inevitabilty. His eternal damnation is already decided, if not rescued by God: '...for we have before proved both Jews and Greeks, that they are all under sin' (Rom. 3:9); and, just prior to that, the Apostle has said that the condemantion by God of such 'is just' (verse 8).


Subject: Re: Message to laz -- 'Elect infants'
From: laz
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 09:59:23 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Just a thought... When God told Adam and Eve, 'On the day you eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall die', He couldn't have been referring to physical death, since in fact, Adam and Eve did not die physically on the day they ate of it. God was clearly referring to spiritual death...in that instance. While I agree that physical death entered the human race as a result of Adam's sin, I think that the universality of spiritual and physical death are applied differently. All men will unconditionally die physically as a result of Adam's sin...but I hesitate to say that just because some infants die physically that they are sinners...in other words, I'm not too sure that spiritual death is automatically imputed to the entire human race as a result of Adam's sin, like physical death is. Sin is an action...it is rebellion against God, and seems illogical to say that all die
directly as a result of Adam's sin...that is not to say that we don't die indirectly...there is a difference between sin and a sin nature. We have not inherited Adam's sin, but we have inherited his sin nature, which means that we will inevitably commit sins on our own. I hope I don't start too much of a debate on this, because I sure ain't up for it... :) But it's just a thought.
---
Forget the 'debate'....just bring
SCRIPTURE (so we can beat you with 'em)...cause we don't take American Express, bubs! hahaha laz p.s. you might want to ask 'Eric' to join ya. hehe Come on Eric....take the bait!! ;-)


Subject: Re: Message to laz -- 'Elect infants'
From: the_sword_of_the_lord
To: laz
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 10:36:38 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
laz - I believe I can support my belief by appealing to basic Christian doctrine...the doctrine that is found in John 3, that every man must believe in Jesus Christ to be saved, without exception. As Jesus says in John 14:6, 'No man may come to the Father except by me.' If infants are
born sinners, and if, as everybody in here agrees there will be infants in heaven, then those sinners will have gotten into heaven without having to believe in Jesus Christ...as an infant has no capacity to do so. But this contradicts one of the most basic doctrines of the faith...that the only way for a lost sinner to be saved is by faith in Jesus Christ. There is no difficulty, however, if the infants were never sinners to begin with. And if anyone in here does believe that sinful infants can get to heaven without having faith in Jesus Christ, then they are tossing the exclusivity of Christ as the way to salvation out the window, and opening the door of opportunity to every cult there is. Who knows...if God would be so merciful as to pardon the sins of an infant despite him/her never having faith in Christ, who's to say that people in the jungle must hear of Jesus Christ in order to be saved? I think that in keeping with this most basic doctrine of the Christian faith, one must conclude that no man is born a sinner, and in fact does not become one until his sin nature causes him to commit a sin.


Subject: Re: Message to laz -- 'Elect infants'
From: Pilgrim
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 13:41:10 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
SOL,

The 'basic problem here' is the externalizing of sin, belief and even righteousness. This is again just another consistent and inevitable result of a man-centered synergistic soteriology, and perhaps a predisposition to externalize much of the Scripture's teachings. When the Holy Spirit regenerates a person, whether that person is 1 second old (conception) or 969 years old, the very NATURE of that individual is radically changed. No longer is that person PREDISPOSED to sin and blind to God and His Christ. There is implanted within that new nature a longing to be reconciled and reunited to the Creator among other things. It is OUT OF THE HEART OF MAN that evil flows; out of the wicked nature of man sin evolves. Sin is NOT 'something' which is tangible, corporeal, substantive. What men witness as sins COMMITTED are the 'fruit' of one's nature. The nature of the natural man is wicked, corrupt, evil. It is inherently at enmity with God and thus the person is under the just condemnation of God NOT for any sins committed, but for being by NATURE a rebel and enemy of God. The sins committed are but 'coals upon the head' and will serve to further justify the eternal damnation of all who have not been justified in the Lord Christ on that terrible day. Likewise, 'belief' is the external expression 'fruit' of a new heart of flesh which was effectively wrought by the Holy Spirit in regeneration. Faith is inherent in the new nature created and thus the outward 'believing upon Christ' along with the 'fruits meet for repentance' [faith without works is dead] will of necessity be expressed by all those who are in fact regenerated. But in the case of an embryo or one severally mentally handicapped, such outward expressions are hardly to be required or necessary before justification in Christ can be apprehended. Since 'Salvation is of the Lord', then there is no reason to doubt that anyone is incapable of being redeemed. On the other hand there is no reason to presume that God WILL redeem any particular person or type of individual, for 'all have sinned' and are 'by nature the children of wrath'. Biblical salvation is a SPIRITUAL thing, of which God ALONE is the Author and Finisher, even of faith itself. The inability of any individual to express outwardly does not excuse one from having faith, nor does it prevent one from obtaining it, since all is from God and His sovereign grace. This I know! Not ONE for whom Christ died will be lost! ALL that the Father has given to the Son WILL come to Him and they ALL WILL be raised up on the last day! This is the Father's promise to the Son and I MUST believe the immutable promise of God, especially one made within the Godhead! As to who and how many, God surely knows. But I do know this, the 'ALL' are but a 'remnant saved by grace'.


Subject: Re: Message to laz -- 'Elect infants'
From: freegrace
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 11:12:53 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
laz - I believe I can support my belief by appealing to basic Christian doctrine...the doctrine that is found in John 3, that every man must believe in Jesus Christ to be saved, without exception. As Jesus says in John 14:6, 'No man may come to the Father except by me.' If infants are
born sinners, and if, as everybody in here agrees there will be infants in heaven, then those sinners will have gotten into heaven without having to believe in Jesus Christ...as an infant has no capacity to do so. But this contradicts one of the most basic doctrines of the faith...that the only way for a lost sinner to be saved is by faith in Jesus Christ. There is no difficulty, however, if the infants were never sinners to begin with. And if anyone in here does believe that sinful infants can get to heaven without having faith in Jesus Christ, then they are tossing the exclusivity of Christ as the way to salvation out the window, and opening the door of opportunity to every cult there is. Who knows...if God would be so merciful as to pardon the sins of an infant despite him/her never having faith in Christ, who's to say that people in the jungle must hear of Jesus Christ in order to be saved? I think that in keeping with this most basic doctrine of the Christian faith, one must conclude that no man is born a sinner, and in fact does not become one until his sin nature causes him to commit a sin.
---
============= SWOL ...Wrong again my friend! Of course there will be elect infants (who die in infancy) in heaven who have NEVER exercized faith in the Lord Jesus Christ! See page 456 of Abraham Kuyper's book on THE WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. He states that 'even idiots may possess this Treasure (the Holy Spirit) and be saved without ever 'believing on Christ for themselves' (due to their low estate in life). BUT, under normal conditions *faith is the rule*... he goes on to say 'Salvation does not depend on the soul's actual experience'..etc. A person may possess the seeds of faith and repentance, without ever exercizing these graces! Another good example of God's Great Mercy and Sovereign Grace freely given to multitudes of perishing lost sinners! freegrace


Subject: Holy heresy, Batman!
From: the_sword_of_the_lord
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 12:45:12 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
So it is possible for somebody who believes not to be saved? ...I won't debate it with you. :)


Subject: Re: Holy heresy, Batman!
From: the_sword_of_the_lord
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 12:47:43 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
So it is possible for somebody who believes not to be saved? ...I won't debate it with you. :)
---
I should clarify my question...is it possible for somebody who 'believes not' to be saved?


Subject: Re: Holy heresy, Batman!
From: Rod
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 12:50:59 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
sword, Since you are the 'sword,' would you exegete Luke 1:44 in context?


Subject: Re: Holy heresy, Batman!
From: the_sword_of_the_lord
To: Rod
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 13:01:53 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod - I am aware that John the Baptist recognized the presence of Jesus while he was still in his mother's womb...and that he was filled with the Holy Spirit before he was born. I think it puts too much strain on the overall message of scripture to take this fact and try to make it universal of all the elect. Keep in mind, there are other examples in scripture of 'special cases' where God allows certain men to exempt what are otherwise universal decrees...for example, how did Enoch and Elijah escape physical death? 'For it is appointed unto a man once to die, then the judgement.' I hardly think that we can make those two examples universal in any way. And what about Lazarus, who was raised from the dead? He died
twice. But again, Lazarus' raising from the dead is a special case and hardly deserves to be thought of as evidence for reincarnation, as some cults suggest. Be careful about taking such special cases in scripture and trying to make them universal.


Subject: unsound imputation of belief
From: Rod
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 13:20:59 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
You have ascribed to me a belief that I don't have and that, if done innocently, is unfair, if deliberately, shameful. No where have I said that all the saved are saved as these babes I've cited in various places. I have said exactly the opposite. Careful reading seems to be called for. The fact is, though, that there are special circumstances in which God acts contrary to the norm. Two men in the OT have been mentioned as 'taken' by God without death: Enoch and Elijah, for one example. Abraham is extolled by God and said to be God's friend, but Melchizedek was 'greater' than Abraham by God's own testimony: 'And without all contradiction the less is blessed by the greater' (Heb. 7:7; cp. Gen. 14:20). Yet Abraham is described in Romans 4:13-25 as 'the father of all' the faithful. I caution you to be careful in handling God's Word.


Subject: Re: Holy heresy, Batman!
From: freegrace
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 13:07:22 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod - I am aware that John the Baptist recognized the presence of Jesus while he was still in his mother's womb...and that he was filled with the Holy Spirit before he was born. I think it puts too much strain on the overall message of scripture to take this fact and try to make it universal of all the elect. Keep in mind, there are other examples in scripture of 'special cases' where God allows certain men to exempt what are otherwise universal decrees...for example, how did Enoch and Elijah escape physical death? 'For it is appointed unto a man once to die, then the judgement.' I hardly think that we can make those two examples universal in any way. And what about Lazarus, who was raised from the dead? He died
twice. But again, Lazarus' raising from the dead is a special case and hardly deserves to be thought of as evidence for reincarnation, as some cults suggest. Be careful about taking such special cases in scripture and trying to make them universal.
---
=========== How can you speak of 'all of the elect' if you do not even believe in the doctrine of election??? Just wondering..:-) fg


Subject: Re: Holy heresy, Batman!
From: the_sword_of_the_lord
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 16:22:35 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
freegrace - The word 'elect' is used in the Bible, so it just wouldn't be appropriate for me to deny it...but that doesn't mean that I have to accept the Calvinist interpretation of how the elect are chosen.


Subject: Don't forget....
From: Eric
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 11:08:22 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Romans 5:18 and surrounding verses. Make sure you ask him where it specifically states that people will suffer in hell for the sins of Adam. Just don't let him pick and choose which portion of that passage he accepts at face value, and which portions he says can not mean what is clearly written. BTW, I think that you must rethink your reasoning of you position on babies being in hell because they cannot profess faith in Christ. Your position rules out salvation for all the OT saints, as well as the deaf/mute/blind, everybody is saved by faith in Christ, the OT saints were saved by looking forward to the promised Messiah who would redeem them, even though they did not know His name. We must rememeber that God normally operates in a given way, such as imputing Christ's righteousness through faith, being outwardly manifested by confession in Jesus, however, He is not limited to do so. In other words, He can impute Christ's righteousness to somebody who is incapable of what we define as 'saving faith.' He would not be unjust to do so, because the purpose of it would be the same, to honor His Son. God bless. P.S. Just a little nibble, laz. :)


Subject: Re: Don't forget....
From: the_sword_of_the_lord
To: Eric
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 12:51:21 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Eric, I am aware that OT saints did not have to profess faith in the name of Christ...but that clearly changed once Jesus came, no?


Subject: question for Eric
From: Christopher
To: Eric
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 11:18:33 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi Eric, Serious question, not being smarty at all, in case it comes across that way. Pilgrim told me once that the doctrine of jutification by faith alone goes hand in hand with total depravity. Assuming you hold to the same doctrine of justification by faith alone as Pilgrim, how do you not hold to total depravity? The two seem to be inseperable (the major Reformers seem to all be in agreement on this one). Imputation of righteousness eliminates the imputation of guilt. If there is no imputation of guilt, then what purpose does the imputation of righeousness serve? Thanks, Christopher


Subject: Did I answer your question? n/t
From: Eric
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 09:09:53 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
...


Subject: Re: question for Eric
From: laz
To: ERIC
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 13:03:46 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi Eric, Serious question, not being smarty at all, in case it comes across that way. Pilgrim told me once that the doctrine of jutification by faith alone goes hand in hand with total depravity. Assuming you hold to the same doctrine of justification by faith alone as Pilgrim, how do you not hold to total depravity? The two seem to be inseperable (the major Reformers seem to all be in agreement on this one). Imputation of righteousness eliminates the imputation of guilt. If there is no imputation of guilt, then what purpose does the imputation of righeousness serve? Thanks, Christopher
---
See Eric, i told you your views would get you in trouble....now you got Christopher outsmartin' ya! hahaha laz


Subject: Re: question for Eric
From: Eric
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 11:41:20 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I don't have much time, but I will give you a quick answer, that will be prone to misunderstanding. Adam was a type of the One to come. The relationship between Adam's sin being imputed to us, the same way Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, is logically defensible, but not scripturally mandated, even forbidden. The biggest difference, is that there is no need for the imputation of Adam's guilt, for we all condemn ourselves by our sins everyday. However, we do need Christ's righteousness, because without Him, we have no hope. Let me also say, that my view of total depravity, is somewhat in process--as I hope all my views are as I continue growing. We have corrupted (sinful)natures, due to Adam's trangression, and it is true that our actions flow out of our nature, but my position, in regard to judgement, is that we are judged by our actions, and not our inherited natures. Gotta go to the dentist (ouch!), hope my post at least shed a little bit of light on the subject. God bless


Subject: Re: question for Eric
From: laz
To: Eric
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 13:17:44 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I don't have much time, but I will give you a quick answer, that will be prone to misunderstanding. Adam was a type of the One to come. The relationship between Adam's sin being imputed to us, the same way Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, is logically defensible, but not scripturally mandated, even forbidden. The biggest difference, is that there is no need for the imputation of Adam's guilt, for we all condemn ourselves by our sins everyday. However, we do need Christ's righteousness, because without Him, we have no hope. Let me also say, that my view of total depravity, is somewhat in process--as I hope all my views are as I continue growing. We have corrupted (sinful)natures, due to Adam's trangression, and it is true that our actions flow out of our nature, but my position, in regard to judgement, is that we are judged by our actions, and not our inherited natures. Gotta go to the dentist (ouch!), hope my post at least shed a little bit of light on the subject. God bless
---
WHOOOAAAA, who cut out the lights??!!!?? hahahaha I don't think you've read Rod's or my post on this subject yet...probably had to run to the dentist. Hope it went well! If we are not 'guilty' of any wrong doing until our first crime...why do 'innocent' babies die? How can God condemn someone where there is no law (or knowledge of law)? YET, YET, all die nevertheless? Babies and aborigines are dying for someone's guilt! Why are we told that we are conceived in sin? laz


Subject: Two 32's
From: Rod
To: All
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 17:51:08 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Below Gene has made a false assumption about Exodus 32. Looking at verse 7 of Ex. 32, we read, 'And the LORD said unto Moses, God get thee down; for
thy people, whom thou broughtest out of Egypt, have corrupted themselves.' It is clear that God is delievering a message about the nature of the people as a whole, in spite of the wonders and signs and demonstrations of God's awe they have seen. This is consistent with the conclusion of the author of the Hebrews about the same people: 'Wherefore, I [God] was grieved with that generation, and said, They do always err in their heart [note the singular use of the noun!], and they have not known my ways' (3:10). Clearly these were a faithless people who had, as the next verse indicates, an 'evil heart of unbelief.' Then, God, in Exodus, recounted their sins and told Moses to 'Let me alone' so that He might make Moses a great nation. We have to ask ourselves, 'Why?' Why would an omnipotent, almighty, ancient of days, omniscient, sovereign God tell a mere man to step aside and not to intercede and interfere with this judgment? Two reasons. First, He was dealing with Moses to show the man his heart of understanding the nature of God, knowing and having foreordained that Moses would intercede. Moses, the meek man, didn't claim that these were 'his' people and didn't ask for a nation for himself. Instead he acknowledged that they were God's people (even if they weren't spiritual; they were His chosen nation on the earth). Second, as Moses pointed out, God had sworn to give the land to the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel. God had no intention of violating that covenant--and even if He had executed the judgment on the nation, He wouldn't have, for Moses was of that line also. But He had made Himself obligated to that seed (faithless or not), and that would be upheld. As in the case of Nineveh, God's mind wasn't changed: His decree and covenant stood. He isn't swayed in His determinations, but deals with men for their benefit and His own glory. When God gets ready to act and judge, He doesn't ask anyone, as rehearsed and outlined in Numbers 32:1-15, where the judgment of falling in the wilderness for all but Joshua and Caleb is remembered. That judgment was executed against the nation without asking Moses to step aside. Indeed, even Moses 'fell' in the wilderness because of a sin of pride, smiting the rock for water instead of speaking to it (cp. Num. 20:8-13). It's clear to anyone reading the whole counsel of God that God does 'all my pleasure' (Is. 44:28 and cp. Phil 2:11) according to His eternal planning and not because he is moved by the whims and desires of man. He determines the actions of men (Ps. 146:9; Prov. 16:9; 21:1; Ez. 6:22); they don't govern His.


Subject: God changing His mind
From: Gene
To: All
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 14:14:09 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Some have indicated that God 'cannot' change His mind. Lets look at Exodus 32:9ff: Exodus 32:9 The LORD said to Moses, 'I have seen this people, and behold, they are an obstinate people. 10 'Now then let Me alone, that My anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them; and I will make of you a great nation.' 11 Then Moses entreated the LORD his God, and said, 'O LORD, why does Your anger burn against Your people whom You have brought out from the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? 12 'Why should the Egyptians speak, saying, 'With evil intent He brought them out to kill them in the mountains and to destroy them from the face of the earth'? Turn from Your burning anger and change Your mind about doing harm to Your people. 13 'Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants to whom You swore by Yourself, and said to them, 'I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heavens, and all this land of which I have spoken I will give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever.'' 14 So the LORD changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people. Moses was able to change God's mind. God said He would destroy the people at the bottom of the mountain. Moses reasoned with Him by saying, 'What will the neighbors say?' It is clear that if Moses did not intercede for Israel the 40 years in the desert would have never happened. Whatever version one quotes, the truth remains that Moses was able to reason with God and influence His final decision.


Subject: Re: God changing His mind
From: Pilgrim
To: Gene
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 15:43:02 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Gene,

Your conclusion is based upon your own faulty presupposition and corrupt reasoning. Why not accept the 'reasoning' of God's own testimony concerning whether or not He can/does repent? Num 23:19 'God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?' It seems more than clear that God does not 'change His mind' but rather He does EXACTLY what He says He will do and what He has decreed that He will do. Personally, I opt for the inspired 'reasoning' of Scripture and concern myself about how to understand such passages as you have quoted knowing what God has definitively spoken concerning Himself! :-)

Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Well Pilgrim....
From: clark
To: james
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 04:46:23 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Could these passages mean that God want US to repent? He states the consequences 'If you eat of this you will die.' 'If you don't follow me you will receive the curse.' The idea is that God wants us to repent, to follow Him and if we are obedient then He is faithful. If we are disobedient the He is also faithful, but with disastorous consequences. So it isn't that God is changing His mind, it is that man is being obedient and repenting.


Subject: Re: God changing His mind
From: laz
To: anyone bored
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 16:46:37 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Might there be a lesson on how God speaks - at times decretively (this a real word?) and at other times covenantally. The former being in immutable absolutes as when He speaks from His high post, from HIS perspective if you will...the latter, in terms relative to our lowly state, from OUR perspective, so that we may understand just how He relates to us redemptively as a visible people of the promise. 'Visible' is key, since in reality, unseen tares exist among us as well. My pastor preaches covenantally in that he presupposes that everyone who has made a confession in the pews is a 'believer' and thus the congregation, as an organic whole, is preached to as if they ARE the Body of Christ. But, clearly tares are present and have always existed within the visible Church, but who ultimately knows this? Only God. I believe this is why there are stern warnings to search ourselves to see if we are truly of the faith, to work out our salvation, etc. But, that doesn't change the fact that the Elect CAN'T be deceived as Jesus Himself says. This is an example of God speaking from two perspectives that SEEM to conflict. Since our ways and thoughts are NOT His thoughts and ways, perhaps this is to be expected to some degree...but in reality, no contradiction exists...just misapplication by folks like SOL who don't understand covenantal language. (Hey, I barely do myself!) We live and move in an earthly existence whereby we don't always have absolutes...like we don't have true believers being baptized or taking communion 100% of the time. BUT, we are to assume as such given we take the proper precautions...make the biblical judgments. My kids are to assumed to be in the covenant...for God has always included the 'household' of the responsible male figure as ALL being partakers of the earthly covenant promises. All folks within a household headed by a believing man, to include his servants (even visitors), were expected to observe the Sabbath. Covenantal language/protocol. Circumcism being a sign/seal of a covenant...with the related women also being included. Children have always been earthly recipients of the blessings included in the things signified by covenantal signs/seals. We have the same thing in the NT with 'households' being baptized and children of believers being considered, 'holy'... thus the term 'covenant children'. None of this means that anyone is saved apart from PERSONAL faith in Christ. I'm trying to convey covenantal ideas here as I understand them. Speaking the way I believe the Bible speaks concerning these things. What does this have to do with God changing His mind...lots. God DOESN'T change His mind (IMPOSSIBLE!)....but does exactly as He has decreed from eternity past...exactly what has existed in His mind forever. God can't learn...or be taught. What seems to be God changing His mind is pure condescending discourse with humans who can't comprehend God's ways, His transcendence and immutable decrees. ramblin' laz


Subject: Re: God changing His mind
From: Gene
To: laz
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 18:54:08 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Laz, CLEAR AS MUD! It appears you are making up words and concepts not found in the scriptures. Why don't you just say you don't know? You couldn't prove that if your life depended on it. The scriptures are clear; God can and does change His mind. Many times he will change His mind based on our reactions (Jer 18:17ff).


Subject: Flaming forbidden
From: One of the monitors
To: Gene
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 21:19:56 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Gene, I have deleted the post you made to Laz entitled 'FOB' for it was nothing more then a flame and character assination and inappropriate behavior at this site. You have been warned to cease acting in this manner and it will not continue. One of the monitors.


Subject: Re: God changing His mind
From: Five Sola
To: Gene
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 20:58:10 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Gene, I am sure your god does change and alter himself to fit his creation. Ultimately making him the puppet of his creation, but of course you are unsaved so the god you serve is of your own making. All you need to do is repent and believe in the Biblical God. Believe on Christ as your LORD(assumes Diety also) and Savior and you will be saved from your sins. Five Sola


Subject: Re: God changing His mind
From: Gene
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 16:21:17 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
My conclusion is based on the scripture I just quoted. And besides, taking your verse the way you understand it then we can conclude Jesus was not God because 'God is not a man.' hmmm?!?!?!?!


Subject: Re: God changing His mind
From: Pilgrim
To: Gene
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 20:29:04 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Gene,

You are walking on egg shells once again my unbelieving antagonist! As to God 'changing His mind', which for Him to do so would negate His deity, does the word 'conditional' mean anything to you? And you blasphemously wrote: 'taking your verse the way you understand it then we can conclude Jesus was not God because 'God is not a man.' hmmm?!?!?!?! Pitifully you are serious in your sarcasm and will pay dearly for it and the plethora of like statements you have already made throughout your life, unless God in His mercy has determined to pluck you out of the miry pit you dwell in for the glory of His holy name. Not to worry Gene, there have been far worse blasphemers than you that God has quickened by His IMMUTABLE grace. However, I wouldn't be presumptuous if I were you. When the Scriptures speak in this manner, 'Num 23:19 'God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?' one must first take into account that this was written before the Incarnation. Secondly, it is so very clear that God is making the point that He is not 'as' a man who being in the bondage of iniquity is born 'speaking lies' (Psa 58:3; Joh 8:44; Rom 3:13; 1Joh 2:22) and constantly breaks his word. Since God has is the Sovereign Lord and has foreordained all things according to the counsel of His own will, there is 'no variableness or shadow of turning' (Jam 1:17) with Him and indeed no need for Him to 'repent' as does man. How about dealing with Numbers 23:19 for us?

Pilgrim


Subject: Re: God changing His mind
From: laz
To: Gene
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 16:50:11 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
My conclusion is based on the scripture I just quoted. And besides, taking your verse the way you understand it then we can conclude Jesus was not God because 'God is not a man.' hmmm?!?!?!?!
---
God is not a chicken either! ...or a door.... Context... ...but what would you know about that? haha laz p.s. oh, I almost forgot...1Cor2:14! LOL!!


Subject: Amen
From: the_sword_of_the_lord
To: Gene
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 15:24:20 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:


Subject: Article--Who accepts Whom?
From: freegrace
To: All
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 09:18:44 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Just thought I would post this for anyone interested. It looks pretty good to me. freegrace Good article here to read www.scionofzion.com/whoawho.htm


Subject: Re: Article--Who accepts Whom?
From: laz
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 10:50:22 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Just thought I would post this for anyone interested. It looks pretty good to me. freegrace
---
FG - This part was particularly insightful...Can 'SOL' comment?
Romans 11:2-7 - '2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, 3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. 4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. 5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. 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.' Note in verse 5 above, that election is according to grace, NOT according to foreknowledge. If it was according to foreknowledge of our acceptance of Christ, it would be according to works and not according to grace. Note also in verse 7 that God blinded the rest. He did not intend for the rest to be saved, only His elect. Does that sound unfair? Remember, 'who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him?' (1 Cor. 2:16) and also 'The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.' (Prov. 16:4). Also, if God were to be fair, everyone would end up in hell. laz


Subject: To Any Freewiller
From: laz
To: All
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 08:01:01 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Dear Freewiller (only those whom embrace 'original sin'/'total depravity', for those that don't can't really call themselves true believers...being heretical/pelagian in their thinking) - The Bible notwithstanding...strictly logically speaking.... tell me why would God be 'UNFAIR' in only electing a few for salvation and allowing the rest of a condemned race to go by the way? Forget, if you can, about the matter of God decreeing the Fall...and the argument about God thus being the cause of sin. Where is the cosmic injustice in sovereign and unconditional election if the entire human race is a condemned race from the get-go - all deservng NOTHING from God (except His wrath) in the first place? laz


Subject: Well Laz....
From: james
To: laz
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 14:48:13 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I don't know if the powers to be will let my post remain, but let me give it a shot. >>The Bible notwithstanding...strictly logically speaking.... tell me why would God be 'UNFAIR' in only electing a few for salvation and allowing the rest of a condemned race to go by the way? Well, logically speaking nothing God does could be called 'unfair' for by what standard could human beings judge His actions wrong/unfair? But the question is; how or if God's own nature restrains His actions. Is God in fact 'just?' And what does that mean? >>Where is the cosmic injustice in sovereign and unconditional election if the entire human race is a condemned race from the get-go - all deservng NOTHING from God (except His wrath) in the first place? Well humanly speaking, would we punish a person for doing that which he couldn't help but do? Like a mentally retarded person? If he was violent we may have to isolate him - but we wouldn't punish him,per-say....


Subject: Re: Well Laz....
From: Pilgrim
To: james
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 15:37:12 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
James, First: Being 'mentally retarded' is hardly a moral issue. Second: Your premise completely disregards the Federal Headship of Adam, who brought destruction upon all his progeny. But we've already heard your Pelagian views on this haven't we! :-) Pilgrim


Subject: Hey Pilgrim...
From: james
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 16:58:47 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
You let me stay - thanks ! >>First: Being 'mentally retarded' is hardly a moral issue. Does not moral culpability revolve around choice? >>Second: Your premise completely disregards the Federal Headship of Adam, who brought destruction upon all his progeny. But we've already heard your Pelagian views on this haven't we! :-) 1.*Sheesh* I thought I was only a semi-pelagian? But name calling does not further the debate - hey I could go around and accuse Calvinists of holding to the heresies of neoplatonism and manicheism - but it does neither side any good. 2.I really believe Pilgrim that you have come to your conclusions through serious bible study and devotion - my only hope is that you would someday realize that many Arminians come to their conclusions in the same manner. 3.As far as the federal headship theory, it may have some merit, but that does not change the fact that God condemns men for doing that which they can't help but to do...


Subject: Re: Hey Pilgrim...
From: Pilgrim
To: james
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 20:41:56 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
James,

Not to worry, you won't be here long.... !! :-) So your appreciation is premature and really unnecessary. You wrote: 'but that does not change the fact that God condemns men for doing that which they can't help but to do... ' You have received sound biblical answers to this numerous times, but to no avail. I see no point in laying this all out for you once again, but to say that men are condemned for what they love to do. Further, all men were 'tried' in Adam according to the infinite and perfect plan of God, therefore, they are born under condemnation and rightly so. In the vernacular, 'The had their chance and blew it!' Their damnation is their just reward.


Subject: Praise God
From: Five Sola
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 21:11:56 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Amen for God's justice! He is a just God. I am even more thankful that He is willing to show Grace to His sheep (those whom He loves), and not just give a mere psuedo-possibility as the Arminians believe. The only thing that still puzzles me is why was a worthless sinner like myself caused to take of the blessing, and given faith and repentance so that I may believe? I guess that will be the first question I ask in heaven. :-) Five Sola


Subject: Re: Praise God
From: Pilgrim
To: Five Sola
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 07:15:23 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Five,

The answer is actually quite simple, yet its depth and wonder are beyond human comprehension:

Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: 5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, 6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. 7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; 8 Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; 9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: 10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: 11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: 12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. 13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, 14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

The glorious redemption that is ours in Christ Jesus our LORD is all to the 'praise of His glory'. We are made to be united with Christ who is inseparably and intimately in union with the Father, of whom Christ is the 'effulgence of His glory; full of grace and truth'. Thus we shine as lights; reflections of that glory of glories being IN HIM by Grace through faith.

In His Glorious Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Hey Pilgrim...
From: laz
To: james
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 19:06:19 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I thought men are condemned for what Adam did? laz


Subject: Re: To Any Freewiller
From: the_sword_of_the_lord
To: laz
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 09:29:57 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
laz - There would be no injustice at all. God can do what He wants. It's not a matter of what God
can do, but what He will do. I don't think it would be injustice for God to not allow certain men to be saved...it's just that the Bible doesn't teach that, in my judgement.


Subject: Re: To Any Freewiller
From: Pilgrim
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 12:04:48 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
SOL,

If your heretical soteriological views weren't bad enough, this is the second time you have effectively assassinated the nature and character of God Himself. Do you have any cognizance of this fact? Do you? You wrote: ' It's not a matter of what God can do, but what He will do.' Below you stated it in much more detail by saying, God can do anything He wants to do. . .' and then you went on to say that God can deny His own sovereignty by sharing it, so to speak with the creature. God CANNOT deny Himself, i.e., His nature/character. For example, He cannot lie or change His mind,

Num 23:19 'God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?'

God cannot 'wink' at sin,

Hab 1:13 'Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity: wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherously, and holdest thy tongue when the wicked devoureth the man that is more righteous than he?'

God cannot do anything which is unjust,

Gen 18:25 '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?'

These are but a token representation of what God CANNOT do, for He CANNOT do anything which is contrary to His nature. This fundamental truth is what makes the salvation of even one sinner incomprehensible to those of us who have been redeemed by His GRACE in Christ Jesus. For the thrice holy LORD God Almighty to save even one sinner it was 'antecedently absolutely necessary' that the Lord Christ die a vicarious and substitutionary death. God could NOT have saved even one single child any other way. His holiness and justice DEMANDED that Christ should die for the ungodly. Secondly, there is no disparity whatsoever between what God CAN do, and what He said He WILL do To even suggest such a horrid thought at best implies that what God DOES DO, is not absolute PERFECT. If there was something else other than what He DOES that could have been done, then this implies that that which He DID DO was not necessarily the 'best' thing He could have done within the realm of His 'ability'. However, the Scriptures testify,

Deut 32:4 'He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.'

Could the LORD God have saved sinners any other way than by Christ Jesus? Could God have created the world in another fashion other than what HE did? If one would answer, 'Yes, God could have done these things and much more differently than what He did.' then, what must one conclude about either/both of these 'choices'? Immediately, the veracity and perfection of God is brought into serious question. I wouldn't doubt at this point that you are raising objections to what I have said, like everything else I have said on this Forum to you. And why do I suspect this to be true? Because the simple fact is that we have totally different concepts concerning who GOD is. And because of this nearly everything that I believe about Christianity will be at variance with what you believe to be true. There are two vastly different doctrines of GOD being espoused between us. One of us is an idolater. One of us has formed for himself a 'Golden Calf' and is worshipping the creature rather than the Creator Who is blessed over all, Amen!

In His Sovereign Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: To Any Freewiller
From: the_sword_of_the_lord
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 15:06:08 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim - I won't attempt to debate anything you've just said, since I don't presume to know the mind of God, or to have become His counselor.


Subject: Re: To Any Freewiller
From: Rod
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 10:14:02 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
sword, (If laz doesn't mind if I jump in.) You're probably unaware of something, judging by this post and your posts taken as a whole. You wrote this: 'I don't think it would be injustice for God to not allow certain men to be saved...it's just that the Bible doesn't teach that, in my judgement.' By implication, you indicate that this belief (that God doesn't 'allow' certain men to be saved) is the consensus of the believers here. Not so, at least as far as I can tell. The prevailing view here could probably be expressed this way: God
enables those of His choosing to be saved by grtace while passing those not of His choice by. And that for reasons of His own which we cannot now understand. There is a vast difference between what you said and what I just said. For one thing, we believe that the offer of salvation is genuinely made to all men. If they could accept it, they would be saved--that is 'fair,' as men judge 'fairness.' But the Bible says, 'There is none that seeketh after God' so that 'fairness' isn't what men need; they need boundless mercy expressed in grace from God. And that is what God provides to those of His choosing, those whom He has predestinated: 'But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love with which he loved us [the elect--us], even when we were dead in sins, hath made us alive together with Christ (by grace ye are saved)' (Eph. 2:4-5). Until and unless these fundamentals are grasped, the Christian is confused and has a faulty view of the sovereignty of God and the role of man in his salvation. The Arminian insists that some seek after God when God declares that no one does or can (Rom 3:9-18). The Arminian view gives the creature something to boast of (his cooperation with God in salvation), while Paul says it is all a 'gift of God (Ephl 2:8) and boasting is excluded. Man does believe; does make a choice, but only after he is acted upon by God in that mercy of election and regeneration--'Ye must be born again'--given a new life and will to desire and to come to God in Christ. That is God's gift. It is because of his love and mercy that he saves us by grace through gifted faith. There is nothing 'fair' about it, thank God. I deserved hell; His mercy has given me salvation and a future in Heaven.


Subject: Re: To Any Freewiller
From: laz
To: Rod
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 10:40:57 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Thank you Rod for that important clarification. I need to remember that! ;-) But Sword has conceded that God does act FIRST...'prevenient grace'... but in the process, man must still make a fully conscience (having the knowledge of good and evil?) CHOICE - he must decide to believe. As you well know, in SOL's model, there is cooperation with God in believing unto salvation - yeah, synergism. All we need is a little help from our Friend. We get by with a little help from our Friend...as the song goes... hehe We (predestinarians) too believe that God acts FIRST (but
ALONE), and that a decision to believe has to be made unto salvation .... the difference is that the Arminian's choice is made out of the 'stuff' inherently within them (denial of original sin/depravity), whereas we believe our choice is purely the result of a new heart of flesh sovereignly transplanted so that a choice CAN be made (and WILL be) in the first place. The distinction is subtle...for in both cases, God is the initiator...but only in the latter (ours) is God working ALONE so that His purpose in ELECTION might stand. In the former....election is rendered nonsensical since the creature can decide to thumb a nose at God's free offer. And I don't want to get into foreknowledge again,....it's clear to me that 'prescience' relative to predestination is not only unbiblical but completely illogical...resulting in POSTdestination if anything. laz


Subject: Very good analysis
From: Rod
To: laz
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 16:53:34 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Yes, you've stated it very well, brudder. The real issue is then, does God need help from the creature or is He really sovereign? Answer, 'But God...hath made us alive together with Christ' (Eph. 2:4). We're not mentioned as 'actors' in the process, though we are invloved and our (new) wills exercise choice. My contention is this: If God has made us alive together with Christ, then that's a pretty apt description of what it means to be saved and a real indication that we're on the road to fulfilling Rom. 8:29, i.e., being 'conformed to the image of his Son. The verse says God did it without help or outside influence. I accept that at face value, not simply because that one verse says it, but because there are many others which reinforce it. All praise to the sovereign God.


Subject: Re: Very good analysis
From: Pilgrim
To: Rod
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 20:55:55 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod, You preach it brother! I stutter! the man said. hehehe One of those 'many other' passages that reinforce this and one of my favorites, as if I can actually choose a favorite from God's Word!? :-) is:

'Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.' (Jas 1:18)

In His Marvelous Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: To Any Freewiller
From: laz
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 10:06:38 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Fair enough, T-S-O-T-L. Thanks. laz


Subject: Re: To Any Freewiller
From: Eric
To: laz
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 08:14:11 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
While not a freewiller, but maybe not a true believer, based upon my previous threads on the eternal fate of infants. :) Most Arminians would say that it is not the justice or fairness of God that is in question in unconditional election, but the goodness and mercy of God, in not applying Christ's benefits to all of humanity, if man can't exercise faith on his own. After all, it is totally just for God to punish sin.


Subject: Re: To Any Freewiller
From: laz
To: Eric
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 10:00:12 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
While not a freewiller, but maybe not a true believer, based upon my previous threads on the eternal fate of infants. :) Most Arminians would say that it is not the justice or fairness of God that is in question in unconditional election, but the goodness and mercy of God, in not applying Christ's benefits to all of humanity, if man can't exercise faith on his own. After all, it is totally just for God to punish sin.
---
Eric, was that YOU arguing that fallacious case about all dogs/babies going to heaven since sin is not imputed where there is no law? hahaha If so, I have given that discussion more thought and have determined that (ooooo, really getting off the subject here....) that while it's true (and clearly biblically stated) that where there is no law, there is no sin....yet, because babies die, it proves that they are being held guilty for SOMEONE's SIN. Gee, now who could that be??? They may not have any real sin of their own...fetuses/embryos don't/can't ...but die anyway because they have been imputed (as has the entire race of humanity) with Adam's sin and his sin nature. They were conceived corrupt and wholly guilty 'in Adam'. OK, back to the subject. So you saying that Arminians say that God is not truly 'good and merciful' if He bypasses anyone without giving them a shot at the title? I would contend that Moslem's take a similar exception believing that our triune God can't be 'good and merciful' either if He sends His innocent Son to die for a bunch of whining, sniveling polytheistic creatures calling themselves 'christian'. hehe Let me get this straight... in the Arminian mindset, those in hell have CHOSEN to be there through unbelief. OK, without regard to scriptures, that seems fair and logical....and obviously not a compromise of God's 'goodness and mercy'. So, God can only be 'good and merciful' if He grants EVERYONE the same equal opportunity? But is God unfair in NOT being a cosmic EEO officer...by discriminating. I'm reminded of the workers who where hired early in the day who felt cheated cause they got the same wages as those picked late in the day....fairness...hmmmmm laz


Subject: I'm not taking the bait :) n/t
From: Eric
To: laz
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 12:08:31 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
...


Subject: Standing on Holy Ground
From: freegrace
To: All
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 06:35:19 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
This message was written by Rod just this past week. It was so good that I would like to post it again and give it a title: 'Standing on Holy Ground'... Here is the message: >>>More and more, I come back to the simple declaration of Rom 8:29. In it, God, through His Apostle says that man is 'predestinated to something' and not 'because of something' (i.e., God's having to learn something about man and his future actions). The direct expression is that certain persons are acted upon by God to do something. It is not that God's actions are predicated on the actions of men, but that the future of the man (so acted upon by God) is determined by that action. Specifically, that person is saved ('conformed to the image of the Son of God') and that God is glorified by that action of His own in that the Son is given 'many brethren' by the action of the Godhead working in concert in His personalities. In the Arminian scheme, God does several things: (1) He limits Himself by allowing man to choose or reject the Son; (2) He, by the alleged action of the first proposition allows others to get glory from their actions; (3) Instead of getting glory for Himself by 'creat[ing] a person in Christ Jesus' to be conformed to His image of perfection and righteous standing before God, the person is alllowed by God to 'create himself' and to actually be elevated above God in and because of the salvation process. ALL THIS IS DIRECTLY CONTRARY TO HOLY WRIT! In the first instance, the concept is unthinkable. God cannot cease to be God. Such would be required for someone else (man/men) to be able to have the ultimate authority and decision-making ability in who becomes a 'son of God' by salvation in Jesus Christ. God cannot 'step down' from His throne and enthrone anyone else. Neither does He desire to! Speaking of man, He said, 'The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked, who can know it?' (Jer. 17:9). God knows it (He said it) and He would not enthrone such a wicked creature in place of Himself. In the second proposition, the idea is equally absurd because God's purpose is to glorify Himself. He declares this from the first book to the last, both directly and indirectly. In Is. 42:8, He declares flatly, 'I am the LORD: that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another....' Clearly, God doesn't intend to give up sovereignty or attributes. All these propositions are inter-related of course, and the third is equally damnably false: 'For we are his [God's] workmanship' is the resounding delcaration of Eph. 2:10. Nowhere is it said that 'we are man's workmanship,' or 'our own workmanship,' but 'we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus....' Now that is the exact same thing stated in Rom 8:29. He conforms us to the image of His Son for salvation for us and glory for God. Our role is to be submissively acknowledging of that fact and eternally grateful, not to steal away God's glory for man with false and unBiblical doctrines. =========================== This is so true! It surely is 'holy ground' when God reveals Himself to us by teaching us about His sovereignty! Did not Moses also 'see God' on the mount, but not His face? But now, in the New Testament, we see the 'Face of God' in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ as we learn about these doctrines of our election and predestination! This is indeed, 'Holy Ground', and we should 'remove our shoes', as it were, and walk very softly and humbly before Him. Let us not (as the Arminians) try to 'rob God' of His glory, and try to take any of it for ourselves! SALVATION IS OF THE LORD! Let us not 'rob God', but let us 'robe God' of all His marvelous attributes! freegrace


Subject: Robbing God of Glory?
From: james
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 17:16:16 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
>>Let us not (as the Arminians) try to 'rob God' of His glory, and try to take any of it for ourselves! 1.How would it be possible for a man to rob God of glory? 2.How is it robbing God of glory to do what He commands? 3.Did God do your repenting and believing for you?


Subject: Re: Robbing God of Glory?
From: laz
To: james
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 19:13:41 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
>>Let us not (as the Arminians) try to 'rob God' of His glory, and try to take any of it for ourselves! 1.How would it be possible for a man to rob God of glory? 2.How is it robbing God of glory to do what He commands? 3.Did God do your repenting and believing for you?
---
3a. Did YOU repent and believe in your natural spiritual blindness, deafness, DEADness? laz


Subject: Apostates
From: freegrace
To: All
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 06:02:38 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
In one message, SOL says that king Solomon was an 'apostate', and then in the next post he said but 'Solomon was a saved man'...etc. How can he be both? When a person rejects the doctrine of election, then they sure can run into alot of problems, I think. What happened to the biblical word 'backslide'..? The apostle Peter surely was no 'apostate', even though he greatly backslide and denied his Lord three times. God works godly sorrow in all His elect and grants to them repentance, as in the case of Peter who 'wept bitterly' for his sin. The Bible says that though we be 'as reprobates' we are not reprobates. freegrace


Subject: Re: Apostates
From: the_sword_of_the_lord
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 06:52:48 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
freegrace - It depends on how you define the word 'apostate'. I guess I use it more loosely than some. The bottom line is that Solomon had his heart turned from God by the idols of his wives (1 Kings 11 actually says 'his heart was turned away from God), and in my judgment that would make him an apostate...but again, my definition may be different from yours. He was still saved, though.


Subject: Re: Apostates
From: freegrace
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 08:00:26 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
freegrace - It depends on how you define the word 'apostate'. I guess I use it more loosely than some. The bottom line is that Solomon had his heart turned from God by the idols of his wives (1 Kings 11 actually says 'his heart was turned away from God), and in my judgment that would make him an apostate...but again, my definition may be different from yours. He was still saved, though.
---
=============== Ok, thanks. I just never heard it said like that before; I am still wondering how you believe, and what you believe! I always thought apostates are those that 'draw back unto perdition', and had only an outward profession of faith - only 'head knowledge without a new heart'.. fg


Subject: To mebaser(Regen. from below)
From: Eric
To: All
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 07:42:55 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Mebaser and others, In regard to regeneration preceeding/and distinct from salvation. (Thank you laz for pointing out my typo--boy what a difference 1 letter can make!) My point, and I think it is very important, is that your view of salvation being instantaneous and equivalent to regeneration, does violence to scripture and to the historic confessions of the church. In essence your position, however unwitingly, denies sola fide. For you have, in essence, stated that our faith is not the vehicle/method of our salvation, but the result of it. Your view of salvation being equivalent to regeneration makes Christ's words to repent of your sins, and believe on Him, meaningless, as well as so many other passages of scripture. In your effort to emphasize election, you have totally removed all of man's responsibility to believe in Christ for salvation. Regeneration is God mercifully giving the elect the ability (a new heart) to respond properly to Christ at some temporal point, and it is that response that saves sinners. Again, I will point out that we are saved by grace through faith. Without faith, double imputation does not happen, and we are still judged guilty in the sight of God, because we have yet to attain Christ's righteousness, nor have we been able to transfer our guilt to the cross.
To quote Pilgrim's website:It is by FAITH that all men are reconciled to God and God reconciled to man. Through the life and death of Christ, God imparts to 'dead' sinners a new nature; He regenerates (makes alive) the dead soul and implants a heart that once again loves God and yearns for true knowledge, wisdom and holiness. After this, a person is able once again to not only apprehend the greatness of God, but also the greatness of his need of the Lord Christ, God's appointed Saviour. By trusting in His righteousness and His substitutionary death, a person receives the remission of his sins, Christ's righteousness is imputed to his account and even more, he is adopted into the family of God and made an heir of a New Heaven and New Earth which is to come. God bless.


Subject: Re: To mebaser(Regen. from below)
From: mebaser
To: Eric
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 19:00:12 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Dear Eric, My view on this issue conforms to the explanation that Pilgrim gives concerning the doctrine of salvation. In Christ, mebaser


Subject: Re: To mebaser(Regen. from below)
From: Rod
To: Eric
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 08:45:11 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Eric, If you have spiritual eyes and ears and a heart open to God's Word, read your words, see the emphasis and then compare the Word of God to see His emphasis: You wrote--'Again, I will point out that we are saved by grace through faith. Without faith, double imputation does not happen, and we are still judged guilty in the sight of God, because we have yet to attain Christ's righteousness, nor have we been able to transfer our guilt to the cross.' First off, you got it right, Paul emphasizes twice in a few verses in Eph. 2 (5 and 8) that it is 'by grace' that we are saved, the second time adding 'by faith.' But you have then immediatley ignored what the Scripture you rely on says: you have emphasized the faith, sacrificing the prededing grace of regeneration. It is not salvation 'by faith' that Paul describing, for he says it is not, 'by faith,' but 'through faith.' The thing which is emphasized is 'grace,' the action of God on behalf of those whom He has chosen. Grace is being described and praised, the grace of God which acts upon people of His choice to produce faith. Hear the word of the same Lord through the same inspired Apostle in Rom. 3: Speaking of the sinners and their salvation, Paul says the same thing, 'Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption which is in Chrsit Jesus' (verse 24). Did you see that, once again, it is 'by grace?' And did you see that the redemption is 'in Jesus Christ,' and not in anything else, such as the individual's decision to have faith? You emphasize what man does to God's diminishing glory. God, through His Apostle, outlines what He has done for man, granting him the new birth (regeneration) in grace which gives him a new will to come to Christ in faith, so that justification is first 'by grace' and, resultantly, 'through faith.' Glorify God and give the praise to Him for wonderful works, not to the creature.


Subject: You missed the point
From: Eric
To: Rod
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 09:09:32 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi Rod, Please read Pilgrim's post, as well as re-reading mine. My faith in Christ is a direct result of God's mercy and grace. If I have not been given a new heart, I cannot come to Christ. And without coming to Christ, I am not saved. That is why I said earlier to mebaser, or freegrace, or somebody, that equating regeneration with salvation makes faith a byproduct of salvation, instead of being a byproduct of regeneration--which is a gift from God. If you still find that you disagree with me after reading my post and Pilgrim's, let's take up the issue, because I would then try and show you the necessity of faith for salvation, but I think you already know this. :) Take care.


Subject: I believe you've missed my point.
From: Rod
To: Eric
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 11:45:52 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Eric, I have no desire to disagree with you or anyone else for disagreement's sake. I had read Pilgrim's post and yours. I come back to your paragraph considered previously and note that your emphasis is on the creature, rather than the Creator. Something I didn't mention in the other post is this, though it too troubled me greatly at the time. It is illustrative of the problem: (I quote the same paragraph as before) 'Again, I will point out that we are saved by grace through faith. Without faith, double imputation does not happen, and we are still judged guilty in the sight of God, because we have yet to attain Christ's righteousness, nor have we been able to transfer our guilt to the cross.' I draw your attention to this statement: '...because we have yet to attain Christ righteousness, not have we been able to transfer our guilt to the cross.' The creature is emphasized. Salvation is a process, as Pilgrim indicated. Once begun, with predestination in eternity past, it will be brought to full fruition. That work is dependent on God--all of it. He is the Actor, man is a reactor to His grace. And, paramount to that realization is this fact: salvation is a 'gift of God' (Eph. 2:8) and man's boasting is totally excluded. All that's left for man is praise, relief, and gratitude! Yet your paragraph under discussion gives a totally different picture. I think it's more than a matter of semantics, but one of perspective. Man acts in salvation, but only after regeneration and a new will are gifted which enable him to receive the faith God gifts him with (cp. Eph. 2:8 and Rom. 10:17). God's process of salvation, described so succinctly and perfectly in Rom. 8:28-39, along with several other notable passages in the Bible, not just the NT, leave no room for the elevation of man your paragraph definitely seems to suggest. As for your assertion that guilt has not yet been transferred, there are two levels to look at that on: God's and man's. Yes, faith must occur, but because the Savior actually bore the sins of the predestinated at the cross, we can safely say that the Bible does teach transference prior to salvation (2 Cor. 5:21). He was 'made to be sin for us' [believers] at that time, not at some future date, a fact later testified to in Gal. 2:20, when Paul said, 'I am crucified
with Christ...' In God's plan, the transference is made in His decisions and actions, but the process is completed in His plan in time, the part we see, the part in which we react to His actions of grace in regeneration. I trust this clarifies and hope we're in agreement.


Subject: Re: I believe you've missed my point.
From: Pilgrim
To: Rod
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 12:20:32 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod/Eric,

Perhaps? We are talking past each other due to a misuse of terms? Eric is using 'salvation' in a narrow sense, while Mebaser, Rod and myself are using it in a more encompassing sense. If Eric were to substitute the term 'Justification' for salvation, I suspect the matter would be resolved. As you Rod rightly pointed out from my first reply, salvation is a 'process' in the sense that there various stages of its development, although it is a sure thing, it having been decree by God from eternity. Redemption was ACCOMPLISHED by the sacrificial substitutionary atonement of our LORD Christ. But the APPLICATION of it in time is apprehended 'through faith' unto JUSTIFICATION. We thereafter continue in this process of 'salvation', that already having been accomplished in SANCTIFICATION. And finally we receive the fullness of the inheritance promised us at GLORIFICATION. Again, using 'salvation' as a synonym for 'Justification' might possibly be the problem here. :-)


Subject: Re: I believe you've missed my point.
From: Rod
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 16:18:50 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Pilgrim, Brother, I agree up to a point, but would like to re-emphasize that Paul makes the case for 'justification by grace' in Rom. 3 (verse 23) prior to 'justification by faith' (verse 28). While both are undoubtedly true, the foundational aspect of God's salvation is His grace, which allows us to marvelously substitute faith for a life lived pleasing to Him. We are allowed to 'live' the life of the Lord Jesus which did and does please the Father God by virtue of our gifted faith, but only because He first gifted us with the grace of regeneration. Then His grace brings us right along in the process unto final glorification in the future. (I know I'm presenting nothing new to you, brother Pilgrim, or to many others, but, in view of the many false views and heresies put forth here lately, I think we need be very careful on this matter and about Who is the Initiator and why man's role is necessarily reative and responsive to those actions of God.)


Subject: Re: I believe you've missed my point.
From: Pilgrim
To: Rod
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 16:26:01 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod,

Point made and taken. :-) We must also guard against the view that holds to an 'eternal justification', which some who have visited here have postulated in the past. Such a view mitigates against the necessity of faith and the real wrath of God which rests even upon the elect temporally until which time faith is placed in Christ immediately after the sinner's regeneration. As Luther tersely put it, 'The doctrine of Justification is like a razor's edge; it is very easy to fall off to either side.'

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: I believe you've missed my point.
From: Rod
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 21:19:59 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Agreed, brother! I know that you are keenly aware of the thrust of Eph. 2:1-3, the reality of which drives us to our knees in gratitude for rescue from damnation resultant from God's wrath. Let us never forget our debt to the great God of the universe expressed in verse 4 by these words, 'But God....' But for that intervention of grace we would have perished also. I've never relished the idea of walking on coals as some heathen do; now you tell me I must walk on a razor! :>)


Subject: Yes
From: Eric
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 13:15:16 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I started out this post by stating that it is very difficult and confusing to try and seperate and isolate the various parts of the the whole process of salvation. Many people use the word salvation to refer to the process of justification/adoption/glorification/etc, but it is my understanding that these terms apply to distinct theological concepts, but yet they all happen in/to a believer, that they can quite properly be used interchangeable in a non-technical discussion. So, what I was trying to point out, was that salvation, being defined as 'being saved from God's wrath', occurs temporally when we exercise faith in Christ. Even though our temporal exercise of faith was absolutely certain to come about, we were still under condemnation from God up to the point that we exercised saving faith, even though it was determined from eternity past that we would be adopted into the Body of Christ. And as you or Pilgrim pointed out, redemption was accomplished at the cross, but is individually applied through faith. However, salvation is a personal matter, we must repent of our sins, and have faith in Christ. Those actions on our part our not worthless man centered actions, for they are extremely important, and should not be trivialized, because they give glory to God. That is why we exist, and it was worth enough to God, that it cost Him the life of His Son. While I reject the man-centerdness of the Arminian theological system, I do think that their relational view of God to man is something that many Calvinists (not you necessarily) miss, or overlook. I assume we are in agreement. God bless.


Subject: Re: Yes
From: Pilgrim
To: Eric
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 16:34:20 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Eric,

I find nothing wrong with your view here in as far as it goes. It certainly sounds biblically sound at this point. However, you did say something that got me thinking. As I replied to Rod, the doctrine of Justification is the 'doctrine on which the church either stands or falls' and thus our choice of terms, words, etc. must be done carefully else we are in danger of either misrepresenting our actual views or bringing dishonor to Christ and the Godhead in this matter of salvation. You wrote: '. . . we must repent of our sins, and have faith in Christ. Those actions on our part our not worthless man centered actions, for they are extremely important, and should not be trivialized,. . .' There is certainly no disputing the truth that repentance and faith are of God and not 'man-centered actions', yet still something which man does as evidence of the Spirit's regeneration. But could you extrapolate a bit for me in regards to this aspect of faith and repentance 'not being worthless? In what sense are the not 'worthless'? Thanks.

In His Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Yes
From: Eric
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 08:08:11 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi Pilgrim, I will elaborate on my view that faith and repentance are not worthless acts. Repentance is an indication of a changed heart consecrated towards God, as I am sure you have experienced, the closer you are to God, and the more you increase in personal holiness, the more you realize how many your sins are, and the more you need to repent. This action on your part, while not meritorious, I believe God finds pleasing. I also believe the key to sanctification is faith. It is only when we have a deep reliance on, and trust in, God's promises, that we can turn away from our sinful desires, and lead holy lives. I also believe that faith pleases God. In fact, I think that it is one of the main reasons that God created the Universe. He delights in meeting the needs of His creatures. The essence of sin is not having faith in God, but having faith in ourselves to determine what is best. Therefore, if God created the Universe, at least in part, in order that His creation has faith in Him, I conclude that the act of a person having faith is of value. In fact, it may even be meritorious, when viewed in light of sanctification, or at least the deeds which spring out from faith are meritorious. However, in regard to justification, faith is not meritorious in the sense that God chooses to justify a sinner because of his faith, it is only the vehicle/medium through which justification occurs. But, I think that God chose faith to be the vehicle of justification for a reason. God bless.


Subject: Re: Yes
From: Pilgrim
To: Eric
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 11:38:41 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Eric,

Thanks for taking the time to reply. Yes, what I was looking for was the 'worth', i.e., the relationship between faith and justification. You wrote: ' But, I think that God chose faith to be the vehicle of justification for a reason.' I believe that indeed had a very good reason for making faith to be the vehicle by which His grace would flow and bring a sinner to apprehend Christ. This reason is that 'faith' is essentially a 'denial of self' and a 'total reliance in the Person and promises of God for salvation in His Anointed Christ.' This being true, it would stand that faith has no inherent value in and of itself and that the ONLY value to be seen is in the Object of one's faith; the LORD Jesus Christ.

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: To mebaser(Regen. from below)
From: Pilgrim
To: Eric
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 08:21:38 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Eric,

I am sure Mebaser is more than capable of answering your objections on his own. But since you chose to quote my words, well, I thought it would be only right to respond as well. It is my opinion that there is simply a miscommunication here and nothing more. Mebaser would never deny the reality and necessity of repentance and faith being prerequisites to justification. As I have understood him, he was simply saying that at the point of regeneration, God was working that eternal salvation temporally in man, and therefore faith and repentance naturally flowed from it. From the perspective of the redemption APPLIED, regeneration was the first phase of salvation merited by Christ for His own. It is in this sense that Mebaser was perhaps saying that the person is 'already saved'. We could say the same thing concerning our present state of salvation. Although true salvation is eternally secured by God's immutable counsel, and we have been truly justified by grace through faith, we still are yet to 'be saved' temporally until after the Judgment. Thus we can say we are saved indeed, but yet we are only experiencing one 'phase' of that salvation at the present day.

J In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: Jesus is LORD ..!
From: freegrace
To: All
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 07:28:50 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Everyone should read and reread this excellent message written recently by Pilgrim: ========================= ...The Word of God given to us in writing says that God creates good and evil (calamities, catastrophes, etc.). He also uses wickedness for the purpose of bringing about a greater good. He also has made all things for His own glory. Further, God is sovereign over ALL things, even the hair that falls from my head; every molecule in the Universe has been created and is being directed by God's government and providence. This truth is promiscuously scattered throughout the Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation. On the other hand, man is held responsible for all his thoughts, words and deeds. God never forces man to do anything against his will. BOTH these truths appear within God's infallible Word. The problem is when people try and 'solve' the tension to their own satisfaction by either diminishing one truth and over emphasizing the other, or by denying one for the other or a combination of both. Since all men are born with the image of Adam in his fallen nature, ie., corruption an depravity are its principle attributes, invariably the absolute sovereignty of the Creator is diminished and/or denied and man is given a 'freedom' which Adam himself was not endowed with nor the angels, nor even GOD Himself possesses such power as is given to fallen mankind. Again, in all seriousness, you have made for yourself a 'Golden Calf'; an Idol where by man has become the Creator God and the Creator has become the creature; being subject to the will of the creature and possessing attributes that are no more than glorified human 'virtue'. Job went through 'hell on earth' before he was privileged to be shown the truth of God's absolute Sovereignty. Nebbuchadnezer was made like unto a ox in his madness before it was graciously revealed to him that the LORD God is a Sovereign Lord. What I wonder is what it would take to bring you to your knees and cause you to bow yourself in the dust of the earth and confess that Jesus is LORD; that the Christian God of the Bible is the ABSOLUTE SOVEREIGN LORD of all things without exception? I hope it isn't death and the Judgment!! wherein EVERY knee shall bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus IS LORD! In His Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Jesus is LORD ..!
From: laz
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 08:43:54 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I agree, it was good! Some things never change... Isa 30:9 That this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the LORD: 10 Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things,
speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits: Jer 6:16 Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.


Subject: Compelled to Stay?
From: laz
To: Arminian guests...
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 21:56:48 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Most Arminians I know believe in the perseverance of the saints, that none of the truly saved are ever lost. This is good. ;-) But if freewill is so sacred to them ....and we use it unto justification...do we lose 'freewill' after we are regenerated? Do we become like robots compelled to love and serve God after regeneration? What of freewill and freely offering our love and adoration to God? Is it really 'love' if we now MUST give it? laz


Subject: Re: Compelled to Stay?
From: the_sword_of_the_lord
To: laz
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 08:59:49 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
laz - I believe that a believer loses his free will to a certain extent after he is saved...although I think it differs with each believer. God sanctifies some believers more than others...we can find both extremes in scripture. On the one hand you have King Solomon the apostate, and on the other you have the Apostle Paul...both men were saved, yet one was sanctified much more than the other.


Subject: Re: Compelled to Stay?
From: Pilgrim
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 12:30:35 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
laz - I believe that a believer loses his free will to a certain extent after he is saved...although I think it differs with each believer. God sanctifies some believers more than others...we can find both extremes in scripture. On the one hand you have King Solomon the apostate, and on the other you have the Apostle Paul...both men were saved, yet one was sanctified much more than the other.
---
SOL,

Hold on there my friend! You can't have it both ways. You have been harping over and over that THE fundamental difference between Calvinists and Arminians (although I think you are totally in error on this point too) is that Calvinists are working on the principle that the emphasis is God saving sinners. On the other hand the Arminians great principle is that God wants man to come to Him freely! Now as a undergirding premise to this it is of necessity that you maintain that the fallen creature is endowed with a 'free-will', albeit it needs a bit of 'enabling grace' to do what is right. What is so contradictory here is that one would have to conclude that if this principle of God wanting man to come to Him freely and without compulsion is so important, then after justification and during sanctification, that 'free-will' which needed 'enabling grace' would grow all the more, having been 'set free in Christ'!! But you said, 'I believe that a believer loses his free will to a certain extent after he is saved...'. What does this mean then? That in Sanctification, MORE 'compulsion' is needed to keep a saint within the narrow path, since his 'free-will' is lost to some extent? Such indefensible anomalies are too numerous to list when one departs from the truth.

In His Preserving Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Compelled to Stay?
From: the_sword_of_the_lord
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 16:00:19 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim - Everything you just told me is just personal opinion. I see no inconsistency in saying that God lets each man decide his own destiny, and if he chooses Christ then God won't let him turn back. If the Bible teaches something, then I'll believe it.


Subject: Re: Compelled to Stay?
From: Pilgrim
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 16:47:11 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
SOL,

Once again your modus operandi in dealing with disputed statements is to simply reply as a child with the senseless retort, NOT!. Don't you have anything more substantive than this? 'If the Bible teaches something, then I'll believe it>' is hardly 'proof' for the veracity of your view. SHOW US where the Bible teaches such things and then I'LL believe it too. If I am in such serious error as you contend and if you have 'found the truth' having once been 'lost in the heresy of Calvinism', then surely you MUST have Scripture to support your new found 'faith' according to your own testimony? Simply saying something is true or that the Bible teaches it doesn't make it so. The vast majority of Protestants in history say you are the one holding to heretical doctrine. It's 'too late' for Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Knox, Bucer, Turretin, Owen, Flavel, Goodwin, Owen, Trail, Edwards, Spurgeon, Warfield, Hodge, Shedd, VanTil, Gerstner etc., etc. to be enlightened to the 'truth' as you claim to hold, for they are dead. But it is NOT too late for me, Sproul, Boice, Chessman, MacArthur, Adams, Nicole, Packer, Ferguson, the people who participate on this Forum nor countless others who hold to the historic doctrines of the Reformation to repent due to your 'enlightened teaching'. PLEASE.... show us the way! :-)

Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Compelled to Stay?
From: the_sword_of_the_lord
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 19:36:24 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim - You seem to be assuming more about my beliefs than I've given you reason to assume. I don't believe that being a Calvinist makes you a heretic. My pastor is a Calvinist, and he's one of my closet friends in the ministry. I believe God will save anyone who has faith in Jesus Christ as the atonement for their sins, believes that God raised Him from the dead, and turns towards Him in repentance; regardless of whether or not they believe God is a respecter of persons. And as far as your accusation...man, where have you been? I have given countless scriptural arguments to support my beliefs, and you have done the same. Anyway...believe what you will, I'm not compelled to discuss this much further, as I think I've made my point.


Subject: Re: Compelled to Stay?
From: Pilgrim
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 20:38:36 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
SOL, You have surely made 'a' point, but I seriously doubt it is one which you intended to make! :-) Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Compelled to Stay?
From: laz
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 10:34:47 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
SOL - I agree with you that the degree of 'faith'(for sanctification?) given each man is according to God's purposes...NO
DECREE!!!! hahaha, you must hate that word.... But what ultimately KEEPS a true believer from going over the edge into total and complete apostasy? How are we kept? It's a given that the Elect, the saved, don't leave the faith. 1Jo 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. So in your mind, what's keeping us...and are we being held 'in Christ' against our freewill? Why can't we change our hearts/mind about this christianity stuff? Wouldn't we be even MORE FREE (our wills that is) in our regenerative state? laz


Subject: Re: Compelled to Stay?
From: the_sword_of_the_lord
To: laz
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 11:57:17 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I believe that God Himself prevents a believer from departing the faith. Yes, I know...that limits a believer's free will, but I am happy to concede that to a point, my free-will has been taken away by God. I wouldn't want to leave the faith, and I'm glad God won't let me. As to your question about regeneration actually increasing free-will, it depends on your perspective. It's worth noting that while I believe an unbeliever is given enough grace at some point in their life to choose to follow God, the fruits that accompany
sanctification cannot be chosen by the unbeliever, since they do not have the spirit of Christ living in them to help them turn from the ways of the world. So in a way, the lost person still has less free-will than the saved person...since the saved person has the power to bear fruit worthy of repentance, while the only thing a lost person can freely choose to do is repent and turn to God...then at that point, God enables them to bear fruit that otherwise their depravity wouldn't have allowed them to choose.


Subject: Re: Compelled to Stay?
From: laz
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 13:04:11 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I believe that God Himself prevents a believer from departing the faith. Yes, I know...that limits a believer's free will, but I am happy to concede that to a point, my free-will has been taken away by God. I wouldn't want to leave the faith, and I'm glad God won't let me. As to your question about regeneration actually increasing free-will, it depends on your perspective. It's worth noting that while I believe an unbeliever is given enough grace at some point in their life to choose to follow God, the fruits that accompany
sanctification cannot be chosen by the unbeliever, since they do not have the spirit of Christ living in them to help them turn from the ways of the world. So in a way, the lost person still has less free-will than the saved person...since the saved person has the power to bear fruit worthy of repentance, while the only thing a lost person can freely choose to do is repent and turn to God...then at that point, God enables them to bear fruit that otherwise their depravity wouldn't have allowed them to choose.
---
******* SOL - I think your post above presents a VERY big problem...especially to your pal 'FRG' who worships at the altar of 'freewill'. hahaha You say God can NOW overide the believer's 'freewill' - and this is Okie-Dokie....but it's not OK for Him to sovereignly change a person 'will/nature' to that of a newborn
spiritual child (which hungers/thirst for righteousness) to arrive at the SAME EXACT END? Again, we must insist on SCRIPTURE for the basis of your entire line of reasoning above!! hehehe Are you serious or just makin' this stuff up as you go along? laz


Subject: Re: Compelled to Stay?
From: the_sword_of_the_lord
To: laz
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 16:06:27 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I believe it would be OK for God to do whatever He wants to do. If God wanted to override a lost person's free will and make him choose Christ, then He can do it. It's not a matter of what God can do, but what He
will do. As for scripture evidence, it's actually rather simple. Romans 8 lists the process that must take place for a person to be glorified, and sanctification comes after justification...so I would argue that a lost person who is standing at the door of justification cannot jump over that step and begin the process of sanctification...he must be justified first.


Subject: Re: Compelled to Stay?
From: Pilgrim
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 17:12:25 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
SOL,

How ironic that you would say this, 'I believe it would be OK for God to do whatever He wants to do. If God wanted to override a lost person's free will and make him choose Christ, then He can do it.' It's 'OK'? for God to violate the will of the creature? Are you serious? As a biblical Calvinist I must adamantly reject any such nonsense as being just that; nonsense. Again you are saying that God is 'all powerful' and that it IS possible that He could make a rock that even HE could not lift. God simply cannot violate His own nature, nor can he violate the will of the creature, for all men are created with the 'imago dei' and thus God cannot violate their wills without destroying that which He originally endowed men with and that which sets apart man from all other creatures. This also goes against the strawman argument which you have fostered against Calvinism that feloniously charges that it teaches God 'forces men' to believe on Christ. Almighty God CANNOT force a man to do ANYTHING which is against his will. Man is not a 'puppet' of which God simply manipulates his strings. This is why regeneration is antecedently necessary for anyone to be able to come to Christ. (Joh 3:3, 5; 5:21; 6:44; Eph 2:1-5; Col 2:13). For in regeneration a new nature is imparted which is wrought by and in God, thus influencing the will, so that men come as naturally and freely to Christ as they once rejected him before regeneration (Job 15:14-16; Jer 13:23; Joh 3:19, 20; Rom 3:10-18; Eph 2:1-5; 4:17-19). What God does is what He has said He will do according to His revealed will. (Isa 46:9, 10; 55:11; Eph 1:4-13; Heb 1:1-3; 6:17-19). Now what exactly has a 'sinner standing at the door of justification and not able to jump over that step into sanctification' have to do with the subject at hand? Justification is the first act of Sanctification. But the subject is the immutability of a man's alleged 'free-will'; that being the foundational principle of Arminianism.

Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Compelled to Stay?
From: the_sword_of_the_lord
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 19:45:15 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
As I said earlier, I'm not gonna debate this further...but I have to ask you, when have I ever said that God can make a stone that even He can't lift? I haven't...because my take on that conundrum is to say yes and no...and let it be. God can do anything He wants, and one thing about being omnipotent is that puny human beings cannot possibly comprehend it...God can do anything, and when people pose questions like that I have to say 'Why are we trying to rationalize God?' It's like trying to fathom how God could have existed from all eternity...we know He has, but how can we possibly comprehend it? And since we can't...who would be so arrogant as to try to? I won't. So could God make a stone that even He can't lift? Yes and no.


Subject: Re: Compelled to Stay?
From: freegrace
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 10:28:23 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
laz - I believe that a believer loses his free will to a certain extent after he is saved...although I think it differs with each believer. God sanctifies some believers more than others...we can find both extremes in scripture. On the one hand you have King Solomon the apostate, and on the other you have the Apostle Paul...both men were saved, yet one was sanctified much more than the other.
---
========== Solomon was an apostate??? That's new to me; I thought Saul was the apostate, such as Judas who (also took his own life)... fg


Subject: Re: Compelled to Stay?
From: the_sword_of_the_lord
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 12:08:19 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Yes, Solomon was for all practical purposes, an apostate. The man had about 700 wives and 300 concubines...his heart was turned aside by the idols that some of his wives worshipped, just as God told him would happen if he took all those wives. Read Ecclesiastes...Solomon never denied himself an earthly pleasure that was in his power to attain. Still, the man was saved. 1 Kings narrates Solomon's descent into apostasy...in particular, read chapter 11.


Subject: Re: Compelled to Stay?
From: freegrace
To: laz
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 06:46:45 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
laz, some good questions that I would like to see answered also! I think that Sword has been reading too much of John R. Rice! His books all teach a 'freewill', a 'universal atonement', 'eternal security', baptism by immersion, etc. etc. when I was an independent Baptist, I remember how they also speak out freely against the truths of Calvinism... The way of truth shall be evil spoken of... freegrace


Subject: Re: Compelled to Stay?
From: stan
To: laz
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 23:27:21 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Let's see - ' Is it really 'love' if we now MUST give it?' - let's ask 'Is it really 'salvation' if we must accept it?' ;-) If there has been a real change is love and adoration something that can be absent when one understands what God has done? Those that teach Lordship salvation would have us believe that love is a 'must give.' I would say it is a natural response to the understanding of the action taken on our behalf - have a good Easter! stan


Subject: OPEN THEIST THEOLOGY
From: george
To: All
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 15:34:01 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
To all, I read a letter to the editor in the current issue of Modern Reformation, saying that the Open Theist was misrepresented in a past article. Is there someone who can explain to me what Open Theist believe? Thanks in advance. I.H.G., george


Subject: Re: OPEN THEIST THEOLOGY
From: J
To: george
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 18:16:55 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hello George, open theist do not believe God has absoulte forknowledge of every future event, but rather only has knowledge of that which He purposes to do. I will link you to a site that contains their biblical arguments. You might want to start with the debate 'A Discussion on the Sovereignty of God and Foreknowledge.' Articles on Omniscience www.revivaltheology.com/cgi-bin/dcarticles/dclinks.cgi?action=view_category&category=Omniscience


Subject: thanks N/T
From: george
To: J
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 18:51:41 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:


Subject: Infant Baptism
From: PWH
To: All
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 15:25:07 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I tried to post this twice but made an error each time. Perhaps I'll get it right this time. I was not raised in a church. When I was 13 a friend invited me to a Southern Baptist church. I heard the gospel and about a year later I put my faith and trust in Christ. I attended Southern Baptist churches for the next several years. I got a lot of good Bible teaching but as I became more versed in Scripture there were several questions that were not adequately answered by SB theology. I started attending a reformed church and was introduced to reformed theology for the first time. After several years in the reformed church I have had several of my questions answered. Still there is one point that I cannot agree with and that is with infant baptism. Several tell me it is because of my SB roots but as I search Scripture I do not see any support for it. The arguments for infant baptism are, in my humble opinion, weak. I realize that this debate has been going on for a long time but it is relatively new to me. So what are the arguments for and against? PWH


Subject: Re: Infant Baptism
From: the_sword_of_the_lord
To: PWH
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 18:47:45 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
PWH - Good question. There is not a single occasion in the New Testament where an infant is baptized. There is no verse in the New Testament where baptism is encouraged for anyone other than believers, and it is always by immersion. From the writings of the church fathers, we see that the first traces of this practice appear in the latter part of the second century. Irenaeus, writing about 180, mentions it in passing. Tertullian, writing about 200, mentions it also and
condemns it. The origins of infant baptism as an official church practice lie in the teachings of Augustine, during the fourth century. Augustine took the position that water baptism washed away original sin, and therefore concluded that if an infant were to die, and had not been baptized to wash away his original sin, then he would go to hell. For some bizarre reason the church accepted Augustine's teaching on this and adopted the practice. But as I mentioned before, there is not a single verse of scripture that advocates baptism of someone other than a believer, and it is always by immersion. Furthermore, Augustine's view of baptism is wholly unfound in scripture; nowhere does scripture indicate that baptism actually imputes grace in any way on the recipient...whether it be the removal of original sin or anything else.


Subject: Re: Infant Baptism
From: Prestor John
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 19:31:04 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
It would be interesting to find this particular teaching of Augustine on baptism. So what do you say SOL can you provide the particular paper? In which of writings of Augustine did he teach this? Hmmm? BTW for the record I am a Reformed Baptist holding to the 1689 London Baptist Confession (which teaches immersion). Prestor John Servabo Fidem


Subject: Re: Infant Baptism
From: the_sword_of_the_lord
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 21:33:07 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Try
De baptismo ...I have part of that writing of Augustine in a book entitled 'Documents of the Christian Church' by Henry Bettenson. Bettenson doesn't include the particular part, whether in De baptismo or another writing of Augustine, where he mentions infant baptism...he only includes Augustine's response to Donatism. I know that Augustine advocated that particular view on infant baptism because one of my professors mentioned it in the lecture a few weeks ago on the origins of infant baptism. I will ask him which writing of Augustine discusses it (if it's not in De baptismo.)


Subject: Re: Infant Baptism
From: Prestor John
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 18:44:55 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Okay I've got De Baptismo in my personal library, let's see what Augustine says: CHAPTER 23 But what is the precise value of the sanctification of the sacrament (which that thief did not receive, not from any want of will on his part, but because it was unavoidably omitted) and what is the effect on a man of its material application, it is not easy to say. Still, had it not been of the greatest value, the Lord would not have received the baptism of a servant. But since we must look at it in itself, without entering upon the question of the salvation of the recipient, which it is intended to work, it shows clearly enough that both in the bad, and in those who renounce the world in word and not in deed, it is itself complete, though they cannot receive salvation unless they amend their lives. But as in the thief, to whom the material administration of the sacrament was necessarily wanting, the salvation was complete, because it was spiritually present through his piety, so, when the sacrament itself is present, salvation is complete, if what the thief possessed be unavoidably wanting. And this is the firm tradition of the universal Church,
in respect of the baptism of infants, who certainly are as yet unable “with the heart to believe unto righteousness, and with the mouth to make confession unto salvation,” as the thief could do; nay, who even, by crying and moaning when the mystery is performed upon them, raise their voices in opposition to the mysterious words, and yet no Christian will say that they are baptized to no purpose. Okay nothing in that part about infant baptism washing away sins and I'm not seeing the imputation of grace either. Let's try the next section: CHAPTER 24 And if any one seek for divine authority in this matter, though what is held by the whole Church, and that not as instituted by Councils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by apostolical authority, still we can form a true conjecture of the value of the sacrament of baptism in the case of infants, from the parallel of circumcision, which was received by God’s earlier people, and before receiving which Abraham was justified, as Cornelius also was enriched with the gift of the Holy Spirit before he was baptized. Yet the apostle says of Abraham himself, that “he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith,” having already believed in his heart, so that “it was counted unto him for righteousness.” Why, therefore, was it commanded him that he should circumcise every male child in order on the eighth day, though it could not yet believe with the heart, that it should be counted unto it for righteousness, because the sacrament in itself was of great avail? And this was made manifest by the message of an angel in the case of Moses’ son; for when he was carried by his mother, being yet uncircumcised, it was required, by manifest present peril, that he should be circumcised, and when this was done, the danger of death was removed. As therefore in Abraham the justification of faith came first, and circumcision was added afterwards as the seal of faith; so in Cornelius the spiritual sanctification came first in the gift of the Holy Spirit, and the sacrament of regeneration was added afterwards in the layer of baptism. And as in Isaac, who was circumcised on the eighth day after his birth, the seal of this righteousness of faith was given first, and afterwards, as he imitated the faith of his father, the righteousness itself followed as he grew up, of which the seal had been given before when he was an infant; so in infants, who are baptized, the sacrament of regeneration is given first, and if they maintain a Christian piety, conversion also in the heart will follow, of which the mysterious sign had gone before in the outward body. And as in the thief the gracious goodness of the Almighty supplied what had been wanting in the sacrament of baptism, because it had been missing not from pride or contempt, but from want of opportunity; so in infants who die baptized, we must believe that the same grace of the Almighty supplies the want, that, not from perversity of will, but from insufficiency of age, they can neither believe with the heart unto righteousness, nor make confession with the mouth unto salvation. Therefore, when others take the vows for them, that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete in their behalf, it is unquestionably of avail for their dedication to God, because they cannot answer for themselves. But if another were to answer for one who could answer for himself, it would not be of the same avail. In accordance with which rule, we find in the gospel what strikes every one as natural when he reads it, “He is of age, he shall speak for himself.” Again I can not see anthing in that particular page that says infant baptism washes away sins or imputes grace. Last but not least: CHAPTER 25 By all these considerations it is proved that the sacrament of baptism is one thing, the conversion of the heart another; but that man’s salvation is made complete through the two together. Nor are we to suppose that, if one of these be wanting, it necessarily follows that the other is wanting also; because the sacrament may exist in the infant without the conversion of the heart; and this was found to be possible without the sacrament in the case of the thief, God in either case filling up what was involuntarily wanting. But when either of these requisites is wanting intentionally, then the man is responsible for the omission. And baptism may exist when the conversion of the heart is wanting; but, with respect to such conversion, it may indeed be found when baptism has not been received, but never when it has been despised. Nor can there be said in any way to be a turning of the heart to God when the sacrament of God is treated with contempt. Therefore we are right in censuring, anathematizing, abhorring, and abominating the perversity of heart shown by heretics; yet it does not follow that they have not the sacrament of the gospel, because they have not what makes it of avail. Wherefore, when they come to the true faith, and by penitence seek remission of their sins, we are not flattering or deceiving them, when we instruct them by heavenly discipline for the kingdom of heaven, correcting and reforming in them their errors and perverseness, to the intent that we may by no means do violence to what is sound in them, nor, because of man’s fault, declare that anything which he may have in him from God is either valueless or faulty. Okay still nothing. Perhaps its in another treatise? Prestor John Servabo Fidem


Subject: Re: Infant Baptism
From: the_sword_of_the_lord
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 20:08:59 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I asked my professor today where I could read about Augustine's views on infant baptism, and he said he'd look it up and bring the information to me tomorrow or Wednesday. But from what I've read of De Baptismo, I see several statements that suggest that Augustine believed that baptism effected grace on the recipient and served to wash away sins. He mentions that if the sacrament is willingly despised, there can be no real turning of the heart to God...i.e. one must be baptized to be saved. I would also like to point out this statement: And this was made manifest by the message of an angel in the case of Moses’ son; for when he was carried by his mother, being yet uncircumcised, it was required, by
manifest present peril, that he should be circumcised, and when this was done, the danger of death was removed. Augustine notes that it is indeed impossible for an infant to cry out to God for salvation...and according to the statement I just copied, seems to suggest that baptism takes the place of such repentance on the part of the infant...notice how he says that Moses' son, before he was circumsed, was 'in danger of death'. Thus, he is effectually saying that baptism washes away the sins of the infant. Granted, the terms 'wash away sins' and 'impute grace' are not found here...but am I drawing unreasonable conclusions in these examples that I've listed? Again, I have asked my professor for complete information on Augustine's beliefs in this matter, and if I find anything else in them then I will let you know.


Subject: Re: Infant Baptism
From: Prestor John
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 06:28:52 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
And it happened by the way, in the inn, that the LORD met him and sought to kill him. And Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and threw it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband you are to me. So He let him go. Then she said, You are a bloody husband, because of the circumcision. Exodus 4:24-26 I believe that Augustine was referring to this passage, and the fact that Zipporah had not allowed their son to be circumcised according to the covenant and was in fact endangering both the life of Moses and their son. (Gen. 17:11-14) In the same way I believe that Augustine is suggesting that we are endangering the life of our covenant children by not bringing them into the covenant. However, I don't see this as imputing grace or washing away the sins of the child. Prestor John Servabo Fidem Post Script:
Hey Pilgrim what amI doing defending infant baptism are you rubbing off on me?!


Subject: Re: Infant Baptism
From: Pilgrim
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 07:10:28 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Prestor John,

Ain't it grand? :-) Now, aside from the issue as to whether or not Augustine believed in 'baptismal regeneration', which I truly believe he did not, especially when one compares ALL that he wrote which are extant to us, let me take this glowing opportunity to turn the guns back upon those who would shoot us Calvinists with one of their favorite items of ammunition, as it were. It is too often charged that Calvinists are empty-headed buffoons who never read the Scriptures for themselves, but only follow the teachings of John Calvin (as if John Calvin is the only man on earth who ever believed the doctrines of sovereign free grace). And John Calvin being likewise an imbecile in mind in regards to the Scriptures, blindly followed the teachings of Augustine of Hippo. Now, if this charge be true, then surely we would expect that John Calvin and all his 'sheep' who blindly followed him would hold to the one and same view as SOL and many other Semi-Pelagian/Arminians suggest. But one would be hard pressed to find any such doctrine of 'baptismal regeneration' in the writings of John Calvin or any other of the Reformers although it might be suggested that Luther came close. But no where in the historic Reformed Confessions will one find 'baptismal regeneration' taught or even implied. This being a matter of historic fact, then if we were to accept this fallacious charge, we are justified in concluding that Augustine taught no such thing. :-) A side note is also in order concerning one of Augustine's more interesting statements. It is clear from Augustine that paedobaptism did NOT originate with him, as is also so often charged. Some even are so bold as to try and discredit paedobaptism by asserting that it originated with the Roman Catholic Church, which being apostate renders it evil by virtue of 'guilt by association'. However, Augustine states clearly that the practice of administering baptism to infants was the 'tradition of all the churches' and that it is consistent with the 'practice of the Apostles themselves'. One may indeed reject paedobaptism according to their own personal convictions, but it cannot be said that paedobaptism is a heretical practice which sprang out of Rome. Even if one is wanting to say that it originated with Augustine, which he himself clearly shows to be a false statement, Augustine was not in and/or a part of the church at Rome during his lifetime. In fact, he often opposed the Bishop of Rome and his attempts to take upon himself the position as a superior authority over the other Bishops of the church at that time. Roman Catholicism was non-existent during the time of Augustine. Let recorded history be the judge in this matter and not the prejudices of men!

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Infant Baptism
From: the_sword_of_the_lord
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 07:05:13 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Prestor - I agree with your interpretation of the Exodus passage, that it was only referring to physical death. But Augustine's use of that passage suggests that he believed it indicated more than physical death for rejecting the commandment of God. Also, look up the meaning of the word 'sacrament' as opposed to 'ordinance'...Augustine refers to baptism as a sacrament. A sacrament is thought to effect grace on the recipient, whereas an ordinance is merely symbolic.


Subject: Re: Infant Baptism
From: Pilgrim
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 07:58:17 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Prestor - I agree with your interpretation of the Exodus passage, that it was only referring to physical death. But Augustine's use of that passage suggests that he believed it indicated more than physical death for rejecting the commandment of God. Also, look up the meaning of the word 'sacrament' as opposed to 'ordinance'...Augustine refers to baptism as a sacrament. A sacrament is thought to effect grace on the recipient, whereas an ordinance is merely symbolic.
---
SOL, Wrong again!! A sacrament doesn't IMPART grace, it is a MEANS of grace. There's a huge difference. Such statements evidently reflect the teaching you have received from those who oppose the biblical doctrines of Calvinism and not from what the Reformed church has ever taught in actuality. Let's at least get the facts straight before disagreeing? Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Infant Baptism
From: the_sword_of_the_lord
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 09:45:54 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim - First of all, this has nothing to do with Calvinism. Secondly, I guess the definition depends on who you ask. Wayne Grudem, in his Systematic Theology text, says that sacraments are thought to 'in themselves actually convey grace to people, without requiring faith from the persons participating in them.' (He is a Calvinist, if that makes you happy). Then again, he also mentions that this how Roman Catholics teach it, and that some Protestant traditions use the word 'sacrament' without adhering to the Roman Catholic view. So again, it depends on who you ask.


Subject: Re: Infant Baptism
From: Prestor John
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 19:11:05 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Sacrament \Sac'ra*ment\, n. [L. sacramentum an oath, a sacred thing, a mystery, a sacrament, fr. sacrare to declare as sacred, sacer sacred: cf. F. sacrement. See Sacred.] 1. The oath of allegiance taken by Roman soldiers; hence, a sacred ceremony used to impress an obligation; a solemn oath-taking; an oath. [Obs.] I'll take the sacrament on't. --Shak. 2. The pledge or token of an oath or solemn covenant; a sacred thing; a mystery. [Obs.] God sometimes sent a light of fire, and pillar of a cloud . . . and the sacrament of a rainbow, to guide his people through their portion of sorrows. --Jer. Taylor. 3. (Theol.) One of the solemn religious ordinances enjoined by Christ, the head of the Christian church, to be observed by his followers; hence, specifically, the eucharist; the Lord's Supper. Syn: Sacrament, Eucharist. Usage: Protestants apply the term sacrament to baptism and the Lord's Supper, especially the latter. The R. Cath. and Greek churches have five other sacraments, viz., confirmation, penance, holy orders, matrimony, and extreme unction. As sacrament denotes an oath or vow, the word has been applied by way of emphasis to the Lord's Supper, where the most sacred vows are renewed by the Christian in commemorating the death of his Redeemer. Eucharist denotes the giving of thanks; and this term also has been applied to the same ordinance, as expressing the grateful remembrance of Christ's sufferings and death. ``Some receive the sacrament as a means to procure great graces and blessings; others as an eucharist and an office of thanksgiving for what they have received.'' --Jer. Taylor. This is from the dictionary you'll notice how they interchange the two terms, ordinance and sacrement, seeing as how they are the same. Second there is a difference in conveying grace and imputing grace. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are means of grace. Here is a section from Keach's Catechism of 1677 (One of the signers of the 1689 London Baptist Confession) Q. 98. How do Baptism and the Lord's Supper become effectual means of salvation? A. Baptism and the Lord's Supper become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them or in him that administers them, but only by the blessing of Christ and the working of His Spirit in them that by faith receive them. (1 Peter 3:21; 1 Cor. 3:6,7; 1 Cor. 12:13) Q. 99. Wherein do Baptism and the Lord's Supper differ from the other ordinances of God? A. Baptism and the Lord's Supper differ from the other ordinances of God in that they were specially instituted by Christ to represent and apply to believers the benefits of the new covenant by visible and outward signs. (Matt. 28:19; Acts 22:16; Matt. 26:26-28; Rom. 6:4) Q. 100. What is Baptism? A. Baptism is an holy ordinance, wherein the washing with water in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, signifies our ingrafting into Christ and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace, and our engagement to be the Lord's. (Matt. 28:19; Rom. 6:3-5; Col. 2:12; Gal. 3:27) As you will see from this Keach also (like Augustine) taught that baptism was a means of grace, and Keach was a baptist! And I also hold to this, that baptism and the Lord's supper is a means of grace. Prestor John


Subject: Re: Infant Baptism
From: PWH
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 19:35:24 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I appreciate all the responses to my original question regarding infant baptism. I have learned a bit about what Augustine said about it. I cannot believe that Augustine believed that baptism in and of itself effects anything. It is but a 'means of grace.' I think SOL has misinterpreted Augustine. I think Prestor John represents Augustine better. What I would REALLY like are Bible verses that support/refute the practice. SOL mentioned that there is not one Bible verse that mentions an infant being baptized. That wouldn't be so bad if there was a verse that taught infant baptism. I have read that one support for IB is that it parallels circumcision. But just because it parallels circumcision does not mean that the rules for circumcision apply ,e.g., we don't limit infant baptism to males. As interesting as it is to read what the church fathers thought I would like for you all to spend more time quoting Scripture. PWH


Subject: Re: Infant Baptism
From: laz
To: PWH
Date Posted: Thurs, Apr 13, 2000 at 13:50:23 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I appreciate all the responses to my original question regarding infant baptism. I have learned a bit about what Augustine said about it. I cannot believe that Augustine believed that baptism in and of itself effects anything. It is but a 'means of grace.' I think SOL has misinterpreted Augustine. I think Prestor John represents Augustine better. What I would REALLY like are Bible verses that support/refute the practice. SOL mentioned that there is not one Bible verse that mentions an infant being baptized. That wouldn't be so bad if there was a verse that taught infant baptism. I have read that one support for IB is that it parallels circumcision. But just because it parallels circumcision does not mean that the rules for circumcision apply ,e.g., we don't limit infant baptism to males. As interesting as it is to read what the church fathers thought I would like for you all to spend more time quoting Scripture. PWH
---
PWH Act 16:15 And when she was baptized, and her household, 1Co 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: God's covenental promises have always extended to FAMILIES/households (babies are NOT part of the household? What about toddlers and young kids?) ...even if tares be present. laz


Subject: Uh...
From: Christopher
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 20:51:39 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I know a couple a Greeks and they might think it strange that someone would use English (certainly a Protestant language, Anglican anyway) to define things for them? FYI-what is commonly called 'Sacrament' in Latin and English is more properly translated 'Mystery' from the Greek (and even Slavonic). If we understand this, then maybe the correlation between what are derogatively referred to as 'sacraments' by Protestants and how St Paul was describing the relationship of Christ to the Church might make a little more sense?


Subject: Re: Uh...
From: Prestor John
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 06:10:14 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
You know bub half of my relatives on my mother's side are Greek Orthodox and the other half are various other church members and you know what? Most of them from the old country would look at it strange to be complaining about English being used in a board that uses English for most of its members. In fact I can remember my grandfather chewing out one of my cousins for speaking greek when there were non-greek speakers present. Point is the common language here is English so deal with it. Prestor John


Subject: Re: Uh...
From: Christopher
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 08:15:01 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Was it not obvious that I was talking about using definitions from the English dictionary to prove doctrinal points as opposed to objecting to using English as a medium of communication? Did I write my post in another language? I haven't talked with you too much before, Prestor John (whom the dictionary says is a 'legendary medieval Christian monk'), but you folks generally get upset with people who disagree with you because they 'don't deal with Scripture.' Further, you Reformation folks place a heavy emphasis on each individual understanding the original languages as a method of knowing revelation better. That being the case, the 'point' is that the Apostle's use of 'mystery' in describing the relationship of Christ to the Church is relevant to the discussion of sacraments (which you neglected to 'deal' with). The 'point' is that if someone who disagreed with a 'member' of this board used a definition from an English dictionary to prove a doctrinal point, they would be run out of town on a rail. And rightly so. Christopher


Subject: Re: Uh...
From: laz
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 11, 2000 at 21:02:58 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Christopher - Like Rome, do you recognize 'sacraments' such as marriage and last rites? And if so, how can these be sacred/mysterious ordinances given by Christ for believers in union with Him if they can apply to pagans as well? laz


Subject: pagans?
From: Christopher
To: laz
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 08:24:03 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
laz, I would be glad to discuss this with you. First, though, please understand that my theological (none of which is formal) background is not Roman Catholic, but Baptist, so I have only a sketchy knowledge (species and host in transubstantion, etc) of what they mean when they use the terms you are referring to. That being the case, you'll have to explain 'if they can apply to pagans as well' to me before I can answer your question. Are you talking about, say, a 'mixed' marriage? If you clarify what you are getting at, I can better express my understanding of these things for you. Thanks, Christopher


Subject: Re: pagans?
From: laz
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 09:02:08 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
laz, I would be glad to discuss this with you. First, though, please understand that my theological (none of which is formal) background is not Roman Catholic, but Baptist, so I have only a sketchy knowledge (species and host in transubstantion, etc) of what they mean when they use the terms you are referring to. That being the case, you'll have to explain 'if they can apply to pagans as well' to me before I can answer your question. Are you talking about, say, a 'mixed' marriage? If you clarify what you are getting at, I can better express my understanding of these things for you. Thanks, Christopher
---
I was trying to understand how you would define a sacrament. What are they in Eastern ORthodoxy? A mixed marriage is a christian taboo...we are not to be unequally yoked...so I'm content with 'proper marriages' and whether such marriage is a sacrament and WHY? What makes a 'rite' a sacrament? In Him, laz p.s. did we talk past each other? ;-)


Subject: Re: pagans?
From: Christopher
To: laz
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 09:36:57 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Yes, it's always possible we talked past each other--an easy thing to do in cyberspace. To understand the Orthodox 'definition' of the sacraments, understanding 'mystery' is crucial. That was my only point to PJ. I wasn't objecting to the term sacrament as an English word, just the fact that the very concept of mystery seems to get completely lost when we try to define everything. I could define the 'number' of sacraments in the Church (seven). I could tell you 'when' they are used. I could tell you some of the reasons why Roman apologists have said that the Orthodox are completely wrong about these things. What I couldn't tell you is 'how' the whole thing works, if that's the sort of definition you're looking for. What makes a rite a sacrament is the uncreated grace of God. I guess that's why I was confused about things 'applying' to pagans. I guess it's what makes marriage a 'sacrament,' too, since that was the context of the Apostle Paul's use of mystery in explaining the relationship of Christ to the Church. Does that help? It seems too simple (to me, anyway), but I haven't found anything that would force me to make it more complicated. Christopher


Subject: Re: pagans?
From: laz
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 10:08:17 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Correct me if I'm wrong...but isn't a sacrament as we protestants define it, an ordinance commanded (and a MEANS of grace on behalf of His people) by Christ Himself for His people ALONE...
identifying us WITH Him and His work? So, we only have two....baptism and the Lord's Supper. Marriage and death apply to all men...pagans...so how can these be sacraments? Not all men/women marry...so do priests miss one of seven...or are they 'married' to the 'church'...an unbiblical concept if true. laz p.s. the Bible is replete with 'mystery'...surely there is more to it than that?


Subject: Re: pagans?
From: Christopher
To: laz
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 10:16:56 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Sorry, laz, I think you lost me and it appears we are talking past each other. It would have to be because of my inexperience and inability to express myself properly, so I'll have to leave it there. Christopher


Subject: Re: pagans?
From: laz
To: Christopher
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 13:29:31 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Sorry, laz, I think you lost me and it appears we are talking past each other. It would have to be because of my inexperience and inability to express myself properly, so I'll have to leave it there. Christopher
---
hang on there chris ole boy...don't give up so soon. Reread my post again, pls. It was simple, I think. What is it about 'mystery' that makes a rite a sacrament? I know marriage, communion, baptism, death, ...are mysterious things...but so what. Why are THESE ALL sacraments and how can you show this biblically? I can't believe you don't understand my first two paragraph...let me repeat it:(not that they're worth repeating...)
Correct me if I'm wrong...but isn't a sacrament as we protestants define it, an ordinance commanded (as well as a MEANS of grace on behalf of God's people) by Christ Himself for His people ALONE?...whereby these sacraments identify us WITH Him and His work? So, we only have two sacaments....baptism and the Lord's Supper. Marriage and death, for example, apply to all men...pagans even...so how can these be sacraments? Also, not all men/women marry...so do Romanist priests miss one of seven sacraments ... or are they considered 'married' to the 'church'. ...well? laz


Subject: God's Sovereignty vs. 'free-will'
From: Pilgrim
To: All
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 13:02:02 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:

It is prognosticated by our Semi-Pelagian/Arminian visitors that God is 'sovereign', yet limited in that fallen man's 'free-will' determines whether of not he is saved. They say that although God has 'sovereignly' decreed a general 'plan of salvation', it is wholly within the ability of fallen men to either 'accept or reject' that plan. Let's take a look at how this premise violates not only Scripture, but common reason and logic. First, it is proposed that God, having 'foreknowledge [prescience]' of all future events, predestinates [misnomer to be sure, being that this determination is after the fact) those who He 'foresees as believing'. This 'believing' flows out of the fallen creature's 'free-will decision' to accept Christ. What is adamantly maintained is that this fallen creature has the ability to exercise his 'free-will' according to his own desires, at any given moment, under any given circumstance. So, let's examine this premise to see if is at all feasible, foregoing the fact that it contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture, and that it is nothing less than a vain philosophical attempt to cling to one's sinful autonomy over God's absolute sovereignty. Okay, so it is said that the fallen creature has a 'free-will'. He/she is able to 'change his/her mind' FREELY. So one must ask how it is that even God can 'foresee' this free-will decision before it is actually made? IF, this man's will is as free as these people would like us to believe it is, then there can be no guarantee that this 'decision' which God allegedly 'foresees' will actually take place. Let me illustrate! God allegedly peers into some 'pre-existent history' [I've shown how this actually denies the Deity of the Godhead below] and witnesses John Smith 'asking Jesus into his heart' on Sunday, April 9, 2000 at exactly 3:00 p.m. PST. Upon this 'vision' God decrees to predestinate John Smith and elects him to be justified in Christ and an heir of salvation. But in reality, in actual history, John Smith at 2:45 p.m. PST on this very day begins to have serious doubts concerning the 'gospel' which was previously presented to him. In fact, he has been wrestling with the verity of Christianity ever since he was exposed to it. The zealous 'soul winner' who is with him tries desperately to convince him that all he needs to do is to 'ask Jesus into his heart' and all his present doubts will eventually fade away. But John Smith isn't convinced and at 2:59:30, he changes his mind! John Smith exercises his free-will and rejects the offer of salvation and at 3:00 he walks away from the disappointed 'soul winner' not different than what he was before; an unbeliever, an enemy of the Most High and a hater of Christ. This scenario is not contrived whatsoever, but in fact it is totally consistent with the definition of free-will as our opponents are so anxious to defend. It is thus impossible that God could 'peer down the corridors of time' and witness a fallen sinner 'make a decision for Christ', for this 'decision' is only tentative at best and subject to change at any time, for it is said to be 'free'! Secondly, let's look at this very same situation from another perspective, namely from the viewpoint of God's 'predestinating' this same individual to salvation based upon his 'free-will decision'. IF, it were even possible, that God could witness an act of faith, which had not even occurred and upon that basis decree/predestinate that this act would infallibly take place, then what of free-will? One is faced with only two possible truths; 1) Either God's decree to predestinate John Smith is infallible and thus this event will surely take place, or 2) God's decree can be thwarted and God's foreknowledge was fallible. If the first be true, then John Smith's alleged free-will is no longer free. Because he cannot but believe in Christ. There is no possibility for choosing other than that which God has 'foreseen' and decreed it to be so. If the second be true, then God is anything but God and His 'predestination and foreknowledge' are far less sure and true than the fallen man which He allegedly 'saw as believing'. Conclusion: The proposition that God 'predestinates' [in truth POST-destinates, which makes God nothing more than a 'celestial armchair quarterback] upon the basis of a 'foreseen' 'free-will' act of faith is illogical and irrational, never mind it being wholly contrary to the biblical record which testifies to God's ABSOLUTE SOVEREIGNTY over ALL THINGS, and ordains all that comes to pass: Psa 33:11 'The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations.' Isa 40:12 'Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance? 13 Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counsellor hath taught him? 14 With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding? 15 Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing.' Isa 46:9 'Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, 10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:' Lam 3:37 'Who is he that saith, and it cometh to pass, when the Lord commandeth it not? 38 Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?' Rom 11:33 '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! 34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? 35 Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? 36 For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.'

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim PS: For further reading on this subject of 'God's Sovereignty vs. Free-will' and what affect it has had on the modern church read: The Starving of the Church by James Elliff


Subject: 'Free Will' lowers God
From: Five Sola
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 21:25:54 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim, You are much more read then I so maybe you can remember who exactly it is that stated this argument and explain it better than I will be able to. I think it was Lorraine Boettner in 'The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination'
---

---

---
The point made is that if the Arminian (humanistic) definition of free will is true, then God is no longer God. For truly 'free will' individuals have not decided what they will do in a given situation until that situation is upon them. And God CANNOT know what their choice will be, even in His infinite knowledge. For the history has not yet been decided so God cannot know what does not exist. Arminians will deny that this is what their theology leads to but they have no choice to accept it's logical conclusion. Foreknowledge assumes Foreordination. This debate seems so easy that I am sometimes amazed at how many intelligent people do not see it. It must then be by the Grace of God alone that people like me have been made to understand it. Five Sola


Subject: Re: God's Sovereignty vs. 'free-will'
From: Rod
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 15:32:00 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Pilgrim, Brother, your excellent post is well-taken, particularly the first paragraph. In it you said this: 'It is prognosticated by our Semi-Pelagian/Arminian visitors that God is 'sovereign', yet limited in that fallen man's 'free-will' determines whether of not he is saved.' That, indeed, is the key to the cloudy thinking of this mindset--'sovereign, yet imited'... an emphatic impossibility. God is restricted, constricted, compressed to fit a mold formed in the mind of man rather than the man really accepting the Scriptural truth and stretching his concept of what God is in accordance with those pronouncements. It is, as I've said all along, an insult to God and His Being, whether realized or not. More and more, I come back to the simple declaration of Rom 8:29. In it, God, through His Apostle says that man is 'predestinated to something' and not 'because of something' (i.e., God's having to learn something about man and his future actions). The direct expression is that certain persons are acted upon
by God to do something. It is not that God's actions are predicated on the actions of men, but that the future of the man so acted upon by God is determined by that action. Specifically, that person is saved ('conformed to the image of the Son of God') and that God is glorified by that action of His own in that the Son is given 'many brethren' by the action of the Godhead working in concert in His personalities. In the Arminian scheme, God does several things: (1) He limits Himself by allowing man to choose or reject the Son; (2) He, by the alleged action of the first proposition allows others to get glory from their actions; (3) Instead of getting glory for Himself by 'creat[ing] a person in Christ Jesus' to be conformed to His image of perfection and righteous standing before God, the person is alllowed by God to 'create himself' and to actually be elevated above God in and because of the salvation process. ALL THIS IS DIRECTLY CONTRARY TO HOLY WRIT! In the first instance, the concept is unthinkable. God cannot cease to be God. Such would be required for someone else (man/men) to be able to have the ultimate authority and decision-making ability in who becomes a 'son of God' by salvation in Jesus Christ. God cannot 'step down' from His throne and enthrone anyone else. Neither does He desire to! Speaking of man, He said, 'The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked, who can know it?' (Jer. 17:9). God knows it (He said it) and He would not enthrone such a wicked creature in place of Himself. In the second proposition, the idea is equally absurd because God's purpose is to glorify Himself. He declares this from the first book to the last, both directly and indirectly. In Is. 42:8, He declares flatly, 'I am the LORD: that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another....' Clearly, God doesn't intend to give up sovereignty or attributes. All these propositions are inter-related of course, and the third is equally damnably false: 'For we are his [God's] workmanship' is the resounding delcaration of Eph. 2:10. Nowhere is it said that 'we are man's workmanship,' or 'our own workmanship,' but 'we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus....' Now that is the exact same thing stated in Rom 8:29. He conforms us to the image of His Son for salvation for us and glory for God. Our role is to be submissively acknowledging of that fact and eternally grateful, not to steal away God's glory for man with false and unBiblical doctrines.


Subject: Re: God's Sovereignty vs. 'free-will'
From: FRG
To: All
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 18:33:13 (PDT)
Email Address: fredgoff@yahoo.com

Message:
The entire philosophical arguments against free will are based upon two false assumptions. 1. Foreknowledge destroys freedom of choice. 2. Freely choosing outside of God's compulsion brings less glory to God. These assumptions are often used as straw man arguments to support the position of militant Calvinism. The first assumption can be experimentally proven to be false. The second is simply a matter of personal opinion. To prove the first example false, go through the following thought problem: You leave a chocolate chip cookie in the plain sight of your two-year old child, whom you know loves chocolate chip cookies. You then leave the room. You have perfect foreknowledge of what the child will do, yet you have not forced any sort of decision on the part of the child at all. The two year old still has complete freedom of choice, yet the outcome is perfectly known by you, the parent. Regarding the second assumption, there are many who hold the opinion (myself included) that a freely given alleigance to God gives Him greater glory than a manufactured one. As far as scriptural justification for Calvinism, most scripture can be read to fit any desired theology.


Subject: Re: God's Sovereignty vs. 'free-will'
From: Pilgrim
To: FRG
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 21:11:59 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
FRG,

You wrote:

'To prove the first example false, go through the following thought problem: You leave a chocolate chip cookie in the plain sight of your two-year old child, whom you know loves chocolate chip cookies. You then leave the room. You have perfect foreknowledge of what the child will do, yet you have not forced any sort of decision on the part of the child at all.

I can't see how this proves anything whatsoever other than you don't understand what biblical Omniscience is as it is defined in regards to GOD. In your little illustration, you assert that because a parent has a relational knowledge of his child's 'love for cookies', then this parent has 'perfect foreknowledge' of what the child will do. But as I clearly showed in my illustration above, if this child is in fact FREE to do that which he wills, then the parent cannot possibly have a 'perfect foreknowledge' of what the child will do, because it is just as possible that the child will NOT take that cookie. There are many factors which could influence the child's FREE choice. Secondly, biblically God's 'foreknowledge' flows from his eternal determinate counsel and not from an 'educated guess' based upon His relational knowledge of His creatures. Even IF this were so, then you are thrust even into a deeper pit of contradiction than what you are already in. How so? Because for God to be able to PREDESTINATE anything or anyone, then He would have to have the Sovereign Power and Authority which Calvinists maintain He does. For God to be able to make certain that what He 'relationally knows and therefore guesses' what any particular person will do at any particular time, He would have to 'forcibly' control EVERYTHING, including every other person in the world so that nothing could happen that would adversely influence that particular person from doing what God 'guesses' he might do. You have now entangled yourself in a Gordian Knot with no means of escape. IF you define 'foreknowledge' as you have, the 'freedom' you wish to maintain for the creature is nullified. OR GOD ceases to possess divine Omniscience and you are then in the same sinking boat as the 'Openness of God' heretics. Ain't much to choose from eh? You then wrote:

'Regarding the second assumption, there are many who hold the opinion (myself included) that a freely given allegiance to God gives Him greater glory than a manufactured one.'

How does this in any way deny any teaching of biblical Calvinism? I for one can certainly assent to this statement without hesitation. The doctrine of 'Irresistible Grace' is often caricatured by a statement found in the 'Saxony Articles' whereby it was said that Calvinism teaches that God 'drags a man kicking and screaming into heaven against his will.' This is a gross misrepresentation to be sure which can be shown to be so by even a cursory look at any of the historic Reformed Confessions and their statements regarding Irresistible Grace, eg., 'The Canons of Dordt': Third and Fourth Heads of Doctrine:

Article 11 But when God accomplishes His good pleasure in the elect, or works in them true conversion, He not only causes the gospel to be externally preached to them, and powerfully illuminates their minds by His Holy Spirit, that they may rightly understand and discern the things of the Spirit of God; but by the efficacy of the same regenerating Spirit He pervades the inmost recesses of man; He opens the closed and softens the hardened heart, and circumcises that which was uncircumcised; infuses new qualities into the will, which, though heretofore dead, He quickens; from being evil, disobedient, and refractory, He renders it good, obedient, and pliable; actuates and strengthens it, that like a good tree, it may bring forth the fruits of good actions. Article 12 And this is that regeneration so highly extolled in Scripture, that renewal, new creation, resurrection from the dead, making alive, which God works in us without our aid. But this is in no wise effected merely by the external preaching of the gospel, by moral suasion, or such a mode of operation that, after God has performed His part, it still remains in the power of man to be regenerated or not, to be converted or to continue unconverted; but it is evidently a supernatural work, most powerful, and at the same time most delightful, astonishing, mysterious, and ineffable; not inferior in efficacy to creation or the resurrection from the dead, as the Scripture inspired by the Author of this work declares; so that all in whose heart God works in this marvelous manner are certainly, infallibly, and effectually regenerated, and do actually believe. Whereupon the will thus renewed is not only actuated and influenced by God, but in consequence of this influence becomes itself active. Wherefore also man himself is rightly said to believe and repent by virtue of that grace received.

It should be duly noted that the unanimously held doctrine of those who presided at Dort was that man having been graciously regenerated becomes ACTIVE himself and freely and willingly believes upon Christ. Is not God's mercy and grace upheld in this sovereign act of regeneration whereby a wicked sinner, who has nothing but hatred for God and all that is good is spiritually 'resurrected from the dead' and made alive in spirit in principle as was once Adam, who had a tender and loving relationship with His Creator? Is this act not a morally good act? Is God to be faulted for intervening into the life of a dead man and quickening his dead soul so that he may receive God's richest blessings in Christ? If you would not fault a mere man for helping a destitute beggar on the street by feeding, clothing and housing him from the natural elements, how is it that God is reviled against for sovereignly bringing to life the dead?

In His Marvelous Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: God's Sovereignty vs. 'free-will'
From: Rod
To: FRG
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 19:29:37 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
FRG, I'm not sure what your theological perspective is, but it really doesn't matter. Here are some points to consider. First, regarding your statement: 'As far as scriptural justification for Calvinism, most scripture can be read to fit any desired theology.' That may or may not be true, but the object is, for any real Christian, to read 'submissively,' which is to say, to try to prayerfully ascertain what it is that God wants us to see from His Word, confidently relying on the scripturally assured guidance of His Holy Spirit. Second, in regard to your statements on 'freewill'--our position, which I'm convinced is Biblical, is succinctly stated: Everyone has a freedom to follow his will. Which is to say that a lost person is free to be at 'enmity against God' (Rom. 8:7) because he is not at all of Christ (verse 9). Conversely, the saved person is free to serve God (as his new will, given by God in regeneration desires) as the major thrust of his life. 'There is none none righteous, no, not one...there is none that seeketh after God' (Rom. 3:11). It's hard to 'read into' that. You have incorrectly assumed that God forces people to choose Him. Not so. He gifts the saved individual with a new will which wants to and freely chooses Him. God isn't in the 'forcing' business. Please read and explain to me how Rom. 8:29 can be construed that someone is acting independently of God's will and desire in salvation. The person is 'predestinated' (by an action outside himself before his existence in time) by God's will not 'to conform himself to the image of the Son of God,' but expressly to be acted upon in merciful benevolence 'to be conformed (an outside action, again) to the image of his Son.' Read the preceding verse and notice that in it loving God is dependent on being effectually 'called' by God. Then read the suceeding verse and notice the continued outside action of God to bring that 'conformation' to fruition. Follow up with the remainder of the chapter and marvel that the saved person is the special object of God's work and attention of eternal protection and love. And this is but one section of the Bible. I'll resist the temptation to point out others because, if you will be convinced, it will be easily done by this one passage. There are, however, numerous others reinfocing the same truth of the Lord and the fact that salvation and sanctification are of God and the outcome is dependent on His will without His violating the will of the individual.


Subject: not true free-will
From: frg
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 19:51:56 (PDT)
Email Address: fredgoff@yahoo.com

Message:
Requiring a new will to be given in order to choose God means that there was no free will in the first instance. Unless a person who receives the new will can still reject God, then it, as well, is not a free will, but compulsion. Romans 8:29 First. Read the whole Chapter. Second, read it as intended. As a letter to the saints in Rome, not as a letter to you or me. Third: Paul is writing to common folk, not scholars or doctors of theology, and so his letter can be read as if we were a common person of normal learning. In other words, don't strain at gnats of greek meanings, simply read the letter. Paul is speaking to members who have already chosen to follow Christ. In vs. 1-13, he discusses the struggle between the carnal and spiritual natures of man, and exhorts his readers to seek after the spiritual nature. In vs. 14-26, he talks about how the Spirit leads, guides and sanctifies those who give heed to it and deny their carnal or natural selves and seek after the righteous desires of their spiritual nature. In vs. 27-30, he discusses how the Spirit makes intercession for those who choose to heed the leadings and promptings of the spirit. He states that God foreknows those who choose Him and that they are predestined to be conformed after the image of His Son. In other words, by following their spiritual nature, and thus being sanctified by the Spirit who interceeds for them, they are predestined to become transformed into the image of the Son of God. Vs. 31 and 32 are words of hope and encouragement, uplifting the Roman saints, who no doubt suffered severe persecution. Paul states that God is their champion and has given His Son for them (those who have chosen to follow). Vs. 33 is a warning not to take credit for sanctification and justification. It is God that does it. This, is, of course, important because earlier in this chapter Paul is exhorting the saints to choose God. Here he is warning them, that even though they made the choice, the process of justification is God's not theirs. Vs. 35 to the end of the chapter are Paul's exhortation to stay strong in the faith, phrased as a rhetorical question (vs. 35) followed by a pep talk in vs. 36-39. As you can see, Taken in context, there is nothing in vs. 29 which unilateraly points to Calvinistic theology, though it certainly can be read that way.


Subject: Re: not true free-will
From: Rod
To: frg
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 00:06:16 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
FRG, Rarely have I seen such gross misrepresentation. Just one example and I'm done with your folly: Speaking of Romans 8 you write: 'In vs. 1-13, he discusses the struggle between the carnal and spiritual natures of man, and exhorts his readers to seek after the spiritual nature.' That is utterly untrue about his appeal being one of mere exhortation. Read verse 7, which says, ''Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God,
NEITHER, INDEED, CAN BE.' One then has to ask, following your logic, 'What does exhortation and appeal have to offer to affect a mind which can't be anything except God's enemy?' Answer: Nothing whatsoever. It is totally incapable of being reached by such an appeal, as Rom. 3:9-18 dfinitively declares. Paul, you see, believed the Lord Jesus when He said, 'Ye must be born again [from above]' (John 3:7; cp. verse 3). The rest of your assertions are similarly 'smoke and mirrors,' unworthy of consideration or additional comment, save for solid condemnation. Candidly, one wonders if you are merely deceived or an outright deceiver.


Subject: Re: not true free-will
From: frg
To: Rod
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 05:33:28 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
My, how nasty we get when someone shakes our fragile little world.


Subject: Another false assumption and conclusion
From: Rod
To: frg
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 07:54:35 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
My world isn't shaken by the likes of you, but the Supreme and holy God is insulted, belittled, and His Word distorted. Your problem is with Him, not me.


Subject: Re: God's Sovereignty vs. 'free-will'
From: MONITOR
To: FRG
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 19:15:56 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Since you appear to be new here let me remind you of the rules here. Number one is that you are a guest and as such your actions determine how long you will stay. Please take the time to read the attached url. The second thing I want to stress here is the fact that this discussion forum is for Theology and not opinions. If you have a particular theological position articulate it here. Please be sure to back this stance(s) using Scripture. If you wish to articulate opinions please take it to the Open Discussion Forum. Have a Nice Day Forum Guidlines www.gospelcom.net/thehighway/discuss.html


Subject: Everything in here is opinion
From: FRG
To: MONITOR
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 19:22:29 (PDT)
Email Address: fredgoff@yahoo.com

Message:
Every post in here is an opinion. The real question is, will dissenting opinions be allowed?


Subject: Re: Everything in here is opinion
From: MONITOR
To: FRG
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 19:24:49 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
That's two. Again I will advise you that your behavior dictates your stay. I will also advise you that if you do not support your statements with Scripture you will be ejected.


Subject: Scriptural Justification
From: FRG
To: MONITOR
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 19:29:10 (PDT)
Email Address: fredgoff@yahoo.com

Message:
Joshua 24:15


Subject: Re: Scriptural Justification
From: monitor
To: FRG
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 20:31:28 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Joshua 24:15
---
*********** Ah, an arminian freewillin' favorite. Read that passage in CONTEXT...you will be embarassed (sp?) for even bringing it up! hahaha monitor (a different one) p.s. Hint: what are the two 'choices' being given to apostate Israel by Joshua?


Subject: Re: Scriptural Justification
From: frg
To: monitor
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 05:29:20 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
You're right. In context, the key scripture becomes vss. 23-25.


Subject: Re: Scriptural Justification
From: Prestor John
To: frg
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 06:40:00 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Oh yeah, there you go in context we got to ignore that whole section where God reiterates the covenant with Israel telling them again how He chose them, and caused things to happen for them. Yes, yes I see just that one section where Israel responds to the covenant is the verses of choice. (so to speak) The whole part before about God choosing them, and doing things for them that's just window dressing isn't it. MY EYES ARE OPEN AND I NOW SEE THE TRUTH!!!! HALLELUJAH! Prestor John Servabo Fidem Post Script: Yeah Right!


Subject: Re: Scriptural Justification
From: the_sword_of_the_lord
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 07:38:44 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Whatever good things the Lord did for Israel up to this point is irrelevant...for Joshua tells them in v. 20, 'If you forsake the Lord and serve foreign gods, then He will turn and do you harm and consume you
after He has done good to you. So Joshua didn't seem to think that just because God delivered them out of Egypt and sent them to the promised land that they could be certain that they were saved...read Romans 11 and tell me that some people whom God chose to be in the olive tree weren't removed for unbelief.


Subject: Re: Scriptural Justification
From: Rod
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 08:14:43 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
sword, The Scriptures are too numerous to list, but the fact is, the Lord God never intended every single Israelite to be saved. the principle is always: 'There is a remnant according to the election of grace' (Rom. 11:5). The OT is abundant with similar declarations, as in Ezra 9:8 and Is.1:9. That is why Paul, knowledgable of the OT and led by the Spirit, spoke of their status in Gal. 6:16,: '...peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God,' the remnant of God's true chosen ones, elect and sanctified by grace, the same manner in which He has saved the people of God from the start of the time of sinners.


Subject: Re: Scriptural Justification
From: Pilgrim
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 08:11:51 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
SOL,

'None are so blind and those who WILL NOT see!' What is wrong with you anyway? That's a rhetorical question, just in case you don't realize that. :-) The Israelites had ALREADY forsaken the one True God and gone after the idols of men, thus Joshua is asking them which of these FALSE GODS will you choose to serve? It's so simple that even a second grader can understand what God's Word says there. But perhaps this is the key that is missing! One must become like a little child before God, knowing that oneself is small; insignificant before the Sovereign LORD of the Universe. But then again, one may lay prostrate on the ground and beg for understanding and never receive it. For truth, justice, mercy and grace are those things which God alone dispenses as He sees fit to do so and to whomsoever He has elected to do so and when He deems it is the proper time to do so. (Matt 11:25-27; Mark 4:10-12; Luke 24:13ff). But this in no way exonerates your responsibility to see, hear and know the truth and through it honor God as God.

Jos 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

There were among the nation of Israel, men and women who were of true faith, as was Joshua. They being delivered not only from the bondage of the Egyptians but their own depraved natures truly sought to worship the LORD God and thus it is they whom Joshua was addressing to serve the Living God. However, the vast majority of Israel was left to their own devices and thus they went whoring after other 'gods' despite the warnings and curses given them. Those who were the 'seed' of Abraham brought forth 'fruit worthy of repentance' as Joshua had exhorted them to do. Many 'believed' but many were professing falsely. And it is the same today and will be in the end to be sure. For the LORD Christ has clearly said that MANY will come before Him and say, LORD, Lord did we not. . . .? And He shall say to them, 'Depart from me! I NEVER KNEW (loved) YOU; you workers of iniquity!!' Is it that difficult to understand? That the command/offer to choose does NOT equate with the ABILITY to choose. For all men choose that which is most dear, important to them at any given moment. And if they have only hatred for the object offered, then they will reject that which is offered every time for there is always something more desirable to be had. Therefore, unless a man is born again, he natively HATES THE LIGHT because his deeds are evil. It is only when God enlivens the soul which radically changes the disposition of one's nature that one has even the slightest desire for the Light of the World. This new nature includes a deep and infallible LOVE for the Light and thus the DESIRE for the Light compels the will so that it chooses the Light over the darkness. Men who have been regenerated by the Spirit of God CAN'T HELP but cast themselves upon the Lord Jesus Christ, for to them He is 'Altogether Lovely', He is the 'Rose of Sharon', He is 'My LORD and my GOD!' The regenerated man becomes a man of violence and he will do whatever it takes to enter into the Kingdom of God, even it means taking it by force. It becomes his overriding passion. No one has to 'force' a person to 'accept Jesus', it is as natural as a baby's love for its mother. It is in this sense that we are 'made willing'! (Ps 110:3)

Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Scriptural Justification
From: freegrace
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 08:00:07 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Whatever good things the Lord did for Israel up to this point is irrelevant...for Joshua tells them in v. 20, 'If you forsake the Lord and serve foreign gods, then He will turn and do you harm and consume you
after He has done good to you. So Joshua didn't seem to think that just because God delivered them out of Egypt and sent them to the promised land that they could be certain that they were saved...read Romans 11 and tell me that some people whom God chose to be in the olive tree weren't removed for unbelief.
---
============= This 'consume' is in a physical way, not spiritual. They were to obey the laws of God so that they may 'dwell in the land' God had promised to them. Just like today, God may 'destroy' one of His own children (in the way of divine providence) by giving them over to Satan for the destuction of the flesh that the spirit may be saved in the Day of the Lord Jesus Christ. God is able to destroy *both* body and soul in hell. To have the body 'destroyed' is not the same as having one's soul destroyed in hell. This is the death you don't want, and it is called the *second death*. Many of God's elect may 'fall in the wilderness' by God chastisement, but they are still one of God's elect and one of God's own beloved adopted children just the same. If ye be without chastisement, then you are not one of God's own adopted children - your 'new birth' is not for real, it is only a fake - see Hebrews 12:8. Just some food for thought, but it sounds as if you 'know it all' already, and need no further insights into the Scriptures. freegrace


Subject: Re: Scriptural Justification
From: the_sword_of_the_lord
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 08:56:24 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
freegrace - I know. I'm not saying that Joshua was speaking of physical death...the reason I made that point was that Prestor said that God had already chosen those Israelites to be His people when Joshua gave them the command to choose for themselves whom they will serve; suggesting that it was impossible for the Israelites to not choose God. I was pointing out that just because God delivered them from Egypt and sent them to the promised land
did not mean that God had also purposed to save their souls.


Subject: Re: Scriptural Justification
From: the_sword_of_the_lord
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 12:12:57 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
freegrace - I know. I'm not saying that Joshua was speaking of physical death...the reason I made that point was that Prestor said that God had already chosen those Israelites to be His people when Joshua gave them the command to choose for themselves whom they will serve; suggesting that it was impossible for the Israelites to not choose God. I was pointing out that just because God delivered them from Egypt and sent them to the promised land
did not mean that God had also purposed to save their souls.
---
oops...I meant to say 'I'm not saying that Joshua was speaking of
spiritual death.' :)


Subject: Re: Scriptural Justification
From: laz
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 10:44:39 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
freegrace - I know. I'm not saying that Joshua was speaking of physical death...the reason I made that point was that Prestor said that God had already chosen those Israelites to be His people when Joshua gave them the command to choose for themselves whom they will serve; suggesting that it was impossible for the Israelites to not choose God. I was pointing out that just because God delivered them from Egypt and sent them to the promised land
did not mean that God had also purposed to save their souls.
---
AMEN, SOL - the pagan Israelites were promised an
earthly inheritance (not eternal salvation, though some were saved being of the Elect). They were GIVEN FREELY other's land flowing with milk/honey...and houses they did not build, wells they did not dig, vineyards they did not plant...SOMEONE ELSE's LABOR (like Christ's labor on our behalf), depicting free GRACE.....all symbolizing God's ultimate promise of free grace to grant all the 'seed of the promise' (the Elect of all time) an eternal inheritance....i.e., heaven, eternity, marriage to the Lamb, etc, etc....based on the work of another also cursed (Canaanites/Christ) so that we might receive God's richest blessings. laz


Subject: Re: Scriptural Justification
From: frg
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 07:06:18 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Is this nasty, condescending attitude a sign of regeneration?


Subject: Re: Scriptural Justification
From: Prestor John
To: frg
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 19:18:16 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Gentle Sir: If I have been remiss in my duty toward you perhaps you could chide me for that. However, the fact remains that you have come here fully informed as to what particular theology this site espouses and posted your comments about that self said theology. When you were reprimanded you were treated with the same dignity any one here who claims to be regenerated is treated if they had posted errors. Still you persisted, and your scriptural defense of postings (if I can call it that) were such that you mocked us. I, sir, hold to
sola scriptura as the canon et regula fidei (the canon and rule of faith) your posting makes light of that, in fact your statement 'As far as scriptural justification for Calvinism, most scripture can be read to fit any desired theology.' shows your contempt for scripture, I replied in kind because it seemed contempt is all you understand. Now you are claiming that you have been ill used. Please! You were treated as you have treated us. If you want to discuss then discuss. If your here to argue then please go to CARM. Prestor John Armchair theologian, curmudgeon, and esperantist Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Solus Christus Servabo Fidem


Subject: Re: Scriptural Justification
From: Pilgrim
To: frg
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 07:28:50 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Is this nasty, condescending attitude a sign of regeneration?
---
frg,

Gee, actually it is! As the LORD God Most High cannot even look upon sin; He being also Most HOLY, so also His dear children have a revulsion toward all wickedness. For the mercy and grace of God from all eternity predestinated His chosen vessels to be 'conformed to the image of Christ', whereby they sometimes find it necessary to make a whip of words and thrash those who would profane the name of God with their blasphemous heresies. At least Prestor John has never said he wished you would castrate yourself as Paul did to the Judiasers who were teaching the same 'other gospel' as you. '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 'The essence of idolatry is the entertainment of thoughts about God that are unworthy of Him' -- A.W. Pink '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

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim 'Showing mercy to the wolf is showing cruelty to the sheep.'


Subject: cookie reasoning....
From: george
To: FRG
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 19:08:10 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
FRG, Imagine that child nature is such that he or she will always eat the cookie the moment you leave, because that is their desire, because they are enslaved to eating cookies. But lo and behold a power stronger than the child enslaved will to eat cookies come and changes that desire. Now and only now will the cookies not be eaten. Yet, in all of this analogy the will has never been free. We are in either one camp or the other. The other point is that our motivation for doing anything now that God has interfered with our old nature is gratitude and not rewards,thus God recieves all the glory. I.H.G., george


Subject: False assumption
From: FRG
To: george
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 19:19:33 (PDT)
Email Address: fredgoff@yahoo.com

Message:
Again, you proceed from a false assumption. The child is NOT enslaved to eating cookies, and therefore has free-will which does not abrogate foreknowledge. You cannot redefine reality in order to prove your point. The purpose of this exercise was to demonstrate the logical fallacy in declaring foreknowledge destroys free will. Since this has been irrefutably demonstrated, any argument based on the assumption that free-will and foreknowledge cannot co-exist is based on a false assumption and cannot stand. Your counter argument is a classic example of circular reasoning. You make the assumption of an enslaved nature to prove an enslaved nature. The fact that you begin with 'imagine' shows that you know the situation you describe is not reality.


Subject: Re: False assumption
From: monitor
To: FRG
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 20:46:40 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Again, you proceed from a false assumption. The child is NOT enslaved to eating cookies, and therefore has free-will which does not abrogate foreknowledge. You cannot redefine reality in order to prove your point. The purpose of this exercise was to demonstrate the logical fallacy in declaring foreknowledge destroys free will. Since this has been irrefutably demonstrated, any argument based on the assumption that free-will and foreknowledge cannot co-exist is based on a false assumption and cannot stand. Your counter argument is a classic example of circular reasoning. You make the assumption of an enslaved nature to prove an enslaved nature. The fact that you begin with 'imagine' shows that you know the situation you describe is not reality.
---
So I have foreknowledge like God just because I have 99.99% assurance that my dog will eat a fresh piece of raw steak that I drop on the floor? Your 'irrefutable' example proves too much... monitor p.s. TRUE foreknowledge of your daughters slavish cookie habit might also include not only a strong suspicion that she's gonna eat the cookie, but also the exact second she partakes, which hand she will use, what she will be thinking, how many chews or chomps, and where each and every molecule of that delightful morsel will ultimately end up as they are processed thru her tiny body.


Subject: Re: God's Sovereignty vs. 'free-will'
From: the_sword_of_the_lord
To: FRG
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 18:58:05 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Amen, and again I say, Amen! Since Calvinists are so big on Romans 11:33-36 and letting God be God, why are they trying to use
vain philosophy to reason that God cannot really be God if He allows people to have free will? I believe God can do whatever He wants and still be God...after all, He is all-powerful, is He not? If God chooses to allow man to decide his own salvation, who are we to tell Him that He is not being God? I am saddened by all the attempts by people who claim to hold God in higher esteem than most other people to make God be what they want Him to be. As a believer in a general atonement and a general offer of salvation, I think God is all-powerful and if He wants to allow man to choose his destiny for himself without compromising His own sovereignty, He can do so...who would argue with God? I won't.


Subject: Re: God's Sovereignty vs. 'free-will'
From: monitor
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 21:24:49 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Amen, and again I say, Amen! Since Calvinists are so big on Romans 11:33-36 and letting God be God, why are they trying to use
vain philosophy to reason that God cannot really be God if He allows people to have free will? I believe God can do whatever He wants and still be God...after all, He is all-powerful, is He not? If God chooses to allow man to decide his own salvation, who are we to tell Him that He is not being God? I am saddened by all the attempts by people who claim to hold God in higher esteem than most other people to make God be what they want Him to be. As a believer in a general atonement and a general offer of salvation, I think God is all-powerful and if He wants to allow man to choose his destiny for himself without compromising His own sovereignty, He can do so...who would argue with God? I won't.
---
+++++++++++ You make me laugh for you fail to see the idiocy of your own accusations against us. It is YOU who is using 'vain philosophy to reason' with statements like:
...why are they trying to use 'vain philosophy' to reason that God cannot really be God if He allows people to have free will? I believe God can do whatever He wants and still be God... You have yet to provide a single cogent biblical argument for foreknowledge, freewill, nature of God, predestination, us CHOOSING unto salvation, etc, etc... ...just silly excuses... For how can you respond when you start NOT with the authority of scripture as supreme authority (and allowing IT to temper your views - but reading scripture with a heretical pretext) and a BIBLICAL view of God, but with YOUR vain imagination rooted in faulty reason (i.e., not Spirit-wrought for the Bible is not the basis) and a sinfully disobedient disposition. Yes, your 'error' is sin for you have been shown the simple truth. God has to fit your mold. In your mind, He MUST give everyone a chance to save themselves. Men HAVE to have the final say... PLEASE, bring us the irrefutable evidence without pitting scripture against scripture? We are merely trying to be faithful to the whole counsel of God and speak the language of the Bible....even when it's offensive to our carnal ears...as it's clearly to yours! You say you use the Bible....gee, so did Arius, better than most folks of his day (or any day!)...yet, and thanks to God, Athanasius was raised for such a time to turn Arius' 'reasonings' against him. But reason didn't win the day...the Word of God prevailed and those with eyes to see, SAW! The simple truth is that Christianity's hallmark is that IT IS IRRATIONAL!!! What is so 'reasonable' about miracles, the incarnation, trinity, dual nature of Christ, God becoming man, etc, etc...yet, yet, we hold these truths as being spiritually self-evident WITH THE EYES OF GOD-GIVEN FAITH WHICH COMES BY THE WORD OF GOD! WE AS BELIEVERS NEVER BOW TO REASON....FOR REASON (HUMAN) WILL ALWAYS LEAD US TO ERROR....as we've seen all too often with cults and heretics. You believe God owes mankind a living (a 'choice') and that it's up to mankind to sin his way out of God's universal graces and into hell. All men being essentially created equal in the sense that all get an opportunity to show their metal. Choose right, get saved. Choose wrong, go straight to hell...do not pass go.... Man is sovereign and in control...and NOT almighty God. We believe man is hellbound in Adam from the get-go, and if not for God's electing mercy on some...as brands plucked from the fire, NONE would be saved. Now that's true and free grace towards undeserving and UTTERLY helpless sinners. monitor Pr 12:15 The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise.


Subject: Re: God's Sovereignty vs. 'free-will'
From: the_sword_of_the_lord
To: monitor
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 21:48:23 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Since you accuse me of thinking that God 'owes' man the choice of his own salvation, and that I am rejecting Calvinism out of my own presuppositions, it should surprise you to know that I was convinced of 4 out of 5 points of Calvinism at one time...why, you ask? Because I heard the arguments from Calvinist apologetics from scripture and became convinced that it was true. And you wanna know why I decided later that unconditional election and irrestible grace weren't true, after all? Because I heard arguments from the Arminian viewpoint...
also, from scripture...and I felt that the Arminians had made a better case. So no, I do not reject 3 of the 5 points of Calvinism because I think God 'owes' us free will, or anything like that. I reject them because the Bible does not teach them.


Subject: Re: God's Sovereignty vs. 'free-will'
From: monitor
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 22:15:47 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Since you accuse me of thinking that God 'owes' man the choice of his own salvation, and that I am rejecting Calvinism out of my own presuppositions, it should surprise you to know that I was convinced of 4 out of 5 points of Calvinism at one time...why, you ask? Because I heard the arguments from Calvinist apologetics from scripture and became convinced that it was true. And you wanna know why I decided later that unconditional election and irrestible grace weren't true, after all? Because I heard arguments from the Arminian viewpoint...
also, from scripture...and I felt that the Arminians had made a better case. So no, I do not reject 3 of the 5 points of Calvinism because I think God 'owes' us free will, or anything like that. I reject them because the Bible does not teach them.
---
******* Yes, I've heard your 'story' before. Would it comfort you to know that the NT is replete (as is history) with ORDAINED folks that have been visibly IN the faith, pastors, elders, leaders, teachers, that have fallen away chasing after 'other gods', heresies, errors, etc? Count yourself fortunate that we are willing to call you OUT of your delusions. Using the Word and tough 'loving' persuasion. A lot is at stake. Don't blow it. Make your calling and election sure!! See, how's THAT for human responsibility?! haha So, the Church must have been living in gross error all them centuries. Jesus was mistaken or lead countless astray.... Paul wasn't much help, really muddied up the waters... Augustine must have been smokin' something...and them at the Council of Orange must have been smokin' the citrus.... Pelagius MUST have had a point.... Arminius' students were correct also.... The Reformers where all wet... As were all the major groups that came out of the Reformation who embraced and defended free grace with timeless creeds and confessions.... What a bunch of pathetic losers ...a bunch of dummies... And Finney....what a guy... I guess the gates of hell have indeed prevailed against the Church for the true and historic Gospel is now nowhere to be found being taught in so many professing Churches...instead, the likes of what you sell is now considered 'truth'... How sad... monitor p.s. You might want to go see a doctor about them 'itchy ears'.


Subject: Re: God's Sovereignty vs. 'free-will'
From: Pilgrim
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 21:21:40 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
SOL, And I suppose you believe that God is so powerful that He can make a rock that even HE can't lift? GOD cannot deny Himself. But this is exactly what you are proposing;
'I believe God can do whatever He wants and still be God...after all, He is all-powerful, is He not? God's Omnipotence is not just 'power' but also AUTHORITY! He cannot relinquish His Deity or any of His attributes and still be God. What you are saying is ludicrous and always has been. That's why the Church has always deemed it damnable heresy in every major council where the subject has been introduced for debate. Why not worship a 'Golden Calf'? It has more value that your fractured philosophical musings! In His Sovereign Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: God's Sovereignty vs. 'free-will'
From: the_sword_of_the_lord
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 21:55:54 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Well Pilgrim...I'm certain, then, that you are on my side as far as the 'great paradox' argument that others in here were using the other day to ignore my objections to saying that God can decree evil and yet not be the author of it? What about some of the Calvinists in here who complained that I was 'putting God in a box' by protesting their assertion that He can create evil and still be holy?


Subject: Re: God's Sovereignty vs. 'free-will'
From: Pilgrim
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 07:02:35 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
SOL,

What seems to be evident is that you just can't/won't accept the self-revelation of God as being the Sovereign LORD of the universe. The Word of God given to us in writing says that God creates good and evil (calamities, catastrophes, etc.). He also uses wickedness for the purpose of bringing about a greater good. He also has made all things for His own glory. Further, God is sovereign over ALL things, even the hair that falls from my head; every molecule in the Universe has been created and is being directed by God's government and providence. This truth is promiscuously scattered throughout the Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation. On the other hand, man is held responsible for all his thoughts, words and deeds. God never forces man to do anything against his will. BOTH these truths appear within God's infallible Word. The problem is when people like yourself try and 'solve' the tension to their own satisfaction by either diminishing one truth and over emphasizing the other, or by denying one for the other or a combination of both. Since all men are born with the image of Adam in his fallen nature, ie., corruption an depravity are its principle attributes, invariably the absolute sovereignty of the Creator is diminished and/or denied and man is given a 'freedom' which Adam himself was not endowed with nor the angels, nor even GOD Himself possesses such power as is given to fallen mankind. Again, in all seriousness, you have made for yourself a 'Golden Calf'; an Idol where by man has become the Creator God and the Creator has become the creature; being subject to the will of the creature and possessing attributes that are no more than glorified human 'virtue'. Job went through 'hell on earth' before he was privileged to be shown the truth of God's absolute Sovereignty. Nebbuchadnezer was made like unto a ox in his madness before it was graciously revealed to him that the LORD God is a Sovereign Lord. What I wonder is what it would take to bring you to your knees and cause you to bow yourself in the dust of the earth and confess that Jesus is LORD; that the Christian God of the Bible is the ABSOLUTE SOVEREIGN LORD of all things without exception? I hope it isn't death and the Judgment!! wherein EVERY knee shall bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus IS LORD!

In His Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: God's Sovereignty vs. 'free-will'
From: Rod
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 19:40:55 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
You 'believe,' but you have offered no Scriptural proof. Your reaonsing seems to be: I believe it; therefore, it is so.


Subject: Re: God's Sovereignty vs. 'free-will'
From: MONITOR
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 19:21:21 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
And now consider this your first warning. You sir are becoming rude. I have a low tolerance for this and you will be ejected if you continue in this vein. I also suggest that you start backing your assumptions with pertinent scripture that supports your reasoning. I have yet to see anything that comes close to this. I will remind you again you are a guest and your actions will determine whether you continue to participate. Have a Nice Day. Forum Guidelines www.gospelcom.net/thehighway/discuss.html


Subject: equal treatment
From: FRG
To: MONITOR
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 19:24:49 (PDT)
Email Address: fredgoff@yahoo.com

Message:
I assume you have given the same warning to those who started the philosophical argument I am responding to?


Subject: Re: equal treatment
From: MONITOR
To: FRG
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 19:27:21 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Everyone here has been made aware of the rules most abide those that don't suffer the consequences.


Subject: Foreknowledge.Lim.Aton/sword-lord
From: Brother Bret
To: All/sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 15:40:16 (PDT)
Email Address: Lovitz5@aol.com

Message:
Hi Sword: I was reading with great interest the thread below dealing with the subjects I put in the header. There are other verses, IMHO, that clearly show the limited or better, particular atonement of Christ: Acts 20:28 says He purchased the CHURCH with His own blood; Eph 5:25 says that Christ loved the CHURCH and gave Himself for the CHURCH. The are numerous verses that tell us that Christ loves and died for US. And each time you will see that, the 'US' are believers. There are also a couple of verses in John chapter 10 about the sheep that I think were missed' Vs.11&15 says that Christ gave His life and laid down His life for the sheep. One verse that is taken out of context to try to show that Christ loves and died for 'each and every person in the world' is John 3:16. But I encourage you to look at John 1:29 and 2Cor. 5:19. If indeed 'world'(kosmos in Greek which means created order) means each and every person, than the 2 verses I just mentioned means we have universal salvation (taketh away the sins of the world;reconciled and did not impute the sins of the world). 1Tim. 2:9 translates the same Greek word 'world' to 'adorn.' Foreknowledge in the Greek in Rom. 8:29-30 is 'proginowsko' which means 'to know before hand.' The references that Pilgrim gave you for 'know/knew' is 'ginowsko'(to know). But there is a contradiction regarding the Arminian view (I was one for 13 years also) of foreknowledge and how it relates to 'God drawing all.' For if indeed God looked down the corridors of time to see whether a person would believe, when He sees that someone will NOT believe, what is the purpose in drawing that person. Not only did He alledly see that they would not believe, He did not predestinate them. No predestinating, no calling, no justification, and no glorification. Indeed, He only predestinates those He knew would believe according to that view. Yes? Or no? However, the word of God does NOT teach that God draws all. John 12:32 is referring to men generically (see NKJV-'peoples'-all types of mankind in the world.) Hence the same thing regarding 1Tim. 2:4. Are you going to chalk this one up to just another paradox? For indeed there is a serious problem with the arminian view of foreknowledge, predestination and drawing. The word of God talks of God's sovereignty in salvation AND human responsibility. Both are true, both should be taught. You should have already seen that in Acts 2:23. You will also see that in John 6:37 and Ph. 2:12-13 and others. What do you think. Look forward to your response! Brother Bret Pastor Bret's Discussion Board www.InsideTheWeb.com/mbs.cgi/mb112887


Subject: Re: Foreknowledge.Lim.Aton/sword-lord
From: the_sword_of_the_lord
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 19:49:30 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Bret - I have no problem saying that I don't know why God would draft somebody who has already signed up for the Army. I don't know! And I'm not under the impression that everything in scripture needs to be understood. Could God have been predestinating us to something other than salvation? I know that when the Bible mentions 'elect angels', that the word 'elect' in that verse cannot mean elected to salvation, since
there is no plan of salvation for angels...read 2 Peter 2:4. God automatically condemned angels who sinned. But regardless of what the reasoning is behind God electing us, I am content to say that scripture does not allow for it to be done solely by God's choice, because God is not willing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9) Therefore, if anyone is in hell it is not because God made their decision for them. I differ with the Calvinist interpretation of what Jesus means when He says 'No one can come to me unless the Father who sent Me draws Him.' Calvinists assume that Jesus means 'draw completely into saving knowledge', but in fact Jesus does not indicate just how far the Father must draw somebody before they can come to Him. Indeed, there is a problem with adapting such a view of the word 'draw', since elsewhere in the gospel of John, as you mentioned, Jesus says that if He be lifted up, He will draw all men to Himself; and in fact, not all men are saved. I don't think the question is what the word 'all' means...I think the question is what the word 'draw' means. All means all. Draw, however, has an uncertain meaning...who is to say that God doesn't draw a man to a certain point (past his depravity), and then leave it up to him to come to Jesus? 'No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws Him.' Be honest with Me...which word has more ambiguity, 'draw' or 'all'? I see John 6:44 as a verse for the Arminian viewpoint rather than the Calvinist viewpoint, as it solves the question of how a man who is born in total depravity can come to Jesus; God draws Him to a point where He can make the decision. As for your verses on limited atonement, none of them use the word 'only' in reference to the sheep, church, etc. Calvinists often cite a verse in Hebrews where it says that Christ died for many, and say 'It says many , not all!' But there is a verse in scripture where 'many' also means 'all'...Romans 5:19. 'For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners...' I don't think any Calvinist would say that 'many, but not all' men were made sinners by Adam's sin. 'Many' in this case certainly means 'all', so I see no reason why it can't elsewhere in scripture. As for verses that say Christ died for all men, I suppose it would be useless for me to quote such verses since you will argue over the extent of words such as 'all', 'world', etc. So I will give you one verse that proves that Christ died even for the non-elect. 2 Peter 2:1, 'But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.' Imagine that...even the false prophets were bought by Jesus. I appreciate your polite inquiry as to why I believe what I believe...you seem to have the spirit of Christ more so than others in here. God bless you, friend.


Subject: John 6:44
From: george
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 07:34:54 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
You say, that you 'differ with the Calvinist interpretation of what Jesus means when He says 'No one can come to me unless the Father who sent Me draws Him.' Calvinists assume that Jesus means 'draw completely into saving knowledge', but in fact Jesus does not indicate just how far the Father must draw somebody before they can come to Him. Indeed, there is a problem with adapting such a view of the word 'draw', since elsewhere in the gospel of John, as you mentioned, Jesus says that if He be lifted up, He will draw all men to Himself; and in fact, not all men are saved. I don't think the question is what the word 'all' means...I think the question is what the word 'draw' means. All means all. Draw, however, has an uncertain meaning...who is to say that God doesn't draw a man to a certain point (past his depravity), and then leave it up to him to come to Jesus? 'No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws Him.' Be honest with Me...which word has more ambiguity, 'draw' or 'all'? I see John 6:44 as a verse for the Arminian viewpoint rather than the Calvinist viewpoint, as it solves the question of how a man who is born in total depravity can come to Jesus; God draws Him to a point where He can make the decision.' The methodist have done a good job already with this train of reasoning you bring forth. Yet, like usual for those who make God into a image more acceptable to their own wishes, they abandon the simple grammar and meaning put forth in Scripture. The word 'draw' (elko) used here in the Greek according to Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament defines it to mean compel by irresistable superiority. This is also how the same Greek word is used in James 2:6 and Acts 16:19 in the form of dragged or drag. And from other Scriptures (ie. Eph.2:1-7)we know that God is efficacious, in that those He draws to Himself will also always say yes to the Son, because of their new heart (Ezk.36:22--27). I.H.G.,george


Subject: Re: Foreknowledge.Lim.Aton/sword-lord
From: Brother Bret
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 00:13:14 (PDT)
Email Address: Lovitz5@aol.com

Message:
Hi Again: In regards to the word 'all', it is not so much that word as it is, all...what? The word 'men' is a generic word. As I mentioned in my last post, if you look in the NKJV you will see it rightly translated 'peoples.' You didn't respond much to the word 'world.' Did you get a chance to look at that? In the Greek, and in Jn.1:29 and 2Cor.5:19? Can't mean each and every person :^). I meant to bring up 2Pet.3:9 in my first post. I had most of it typed out once and than my computer froze up :^(. So the above is the result of a retyped condensed version. Anyway, if you look at the context (the Lord's return), and that verses 1,8&9, mention beloved/usward, you can see that Peter IS talking to the elect believers, and that God is being longsuffering with His wrath and judgment until all His people are saved. 'And thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He SHALL SAVE HIS PEOPLE FROM THEIR SIN' (Matt. 1:21). May I ask you a couple of other questions? 1) What's your position on the security of the believer; 2) Since I believe I saw you mention the 'total depravity/(inability)of man, what's your position on regeneration/quickening/ calling/born again in relation to believing? Certainly you acknowledge that this must happen in order for a person to be able to believe? (Tit.3:5;Eph.2:1,5;Col.2:13;Acts 2:37-39;Rom.8:30;2Tim.1:9;John 1:13;3:3-8). May God bless you according to His will and good pleasure (Is.46:10;Ph.2:13). Brother Bret P.S. I'll admit, that 2Pet.2:1 is a tough verse to interpret. There are those who also try to show that the verse means that the people were TRULY saved and committed apostasy (bought...'ye are bought with a price'). But we know there are a multitude of other verses that show that cannot be (Jude 4; 1Jn.2:19; Heb.10:38-39). But who are the 'them'? The false prophets and teachers or the people? Also some commentaries say that Peter may be looking at it from their point of view of they thinking they were bought. The word of God often deals with professors that are not necessarly possessors. Especially in Hebrews :^).Thanks! BB


Subject: Re: Foreknowledge.Lim.Aton/sword-lord
From: the_sword_of_the_lord
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 19:21:28 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hello. In response to your questions... 1) I believe in the security of the believer. 2) I believe that while man is born into total depravity, God gives each man what is called 'enabling grace'. This is grace that enables a man to seek God and choose Him, but doesn't
force him to. While I'm sure you will not agree with me on the interpretation of this verse, Titus 2:11 says 'For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.' This suggests that all men have received enough grace to be saved. In addition to this verse, I will mention Luke 10:13, where Jesus says that although Tyre and Sidon did not repent and were destroyed, they would have repented if the miracles that were performed in Chorazin and Bethsaida had been performed in them...indicating that the men of Tyre and Sidon had at least some capacity to repent of their sins and turn to God. As for the terms that you used such as regeneration, quickening, etc...I am not knowledgeable at this point on what exactly 'regeneration' is, I just know that the word itself is only found in 2 places in the NT...in Matthew and Jude(?)...nor am I familiar with what the Bible says about 'quickening'. As for calling, I believe that God calls all men to repent, and this calling may or may not have a relation to the 'enabling grace' concept that I just described. Being 'born again' is something that I believe happens at the moment a person has saving faith. When Jesus expounds on it in John 3, He says that 'unless a man is born of water and the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.' There are no end to the interpretations of this verse, but one interpretation that I find acceptable is that 'water' refers to a person's physical birth, and the 'spirit' refers to the moment that a person receives the indwelling of the Holy Spirit when they have saving faith. So being born again happens at the moment a person has saving faith. I have read in Leon Morris' commentary on John about the possible meanings of the word 'world'...so I am aware that it can be generic. In John 3, however, I am convinced that the word means all of humanity rather than the elect alone. My reason for this is that after Jesus says that God loved the world so much that He sent His Son, Jesus goes on to say that while those who believe are not condemned, he who does not believe is condemned already...which would seem like a strange thing to say if Jesus only had the elect in mind, for how could the elect not believe? While I haven't read this book myself, I know that Robert P. Lightner's book The Death Christ Died expounds on this idea in John 3 further. In addition to what I mentioned about 2 Peter 2:1, I will mention Hebrews 10:29, which is often used by those who believe in the falling away of the believer that it advocates such a belief. But since you and I don't agree wtih such an interpretation, and therefore would conclude that Hebrews 10:29 is not speaking of believers, but unbelievers...in what sense is an unbeliever 'sanctified' by the blood of the covenant? While I do not think that verse refutes Perseverance of the Saints, I think it does refute Limited Atonement, for how could a person be held accountable for disregarding the blood that wasn't shed for them to begin with? Thanks for writing back, and I hope to hear from you soon!


Subject: Re: 'Kosmos' in John 3:16
From: Pilgrim
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 21:36:34 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
The meaning of 'kosmos' in John 3:16 was carefully considered by many of whom Arthur Pink was one who wrote: Essentially the same is the interpretation of Arthur W. Pink (1886-1952):

Turning now to John 3:16, it should be evident from the passages just quoted that this verse will not bear the construction usually put upon it. 'God so loved the world.' Many suppose that this means, The entire human race. But 'the entire human race' includes all mankind from Adam till the close of earth's history: it reaches backward as well as forward! Consider, then, the history of mankind before Christ was born. Unnumbered millions lived and died before the Savior came to the earth, lived here 'having no hope and without God in the world,' and therefore passed out into eternity of woe. If God 'loved' them, where is the slightest proof thereof? Scripture declares 'Who (God) in times past (from the tower of Babel till after Pentecost) suffered all nations to walk in their own ways' (Acts 14:16). Scripture declares that 'And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not covenient'(Rom. 1:28). To Israel God said, 'You only have I known of all the families of the earth' (Amos 3:2). In view of these plain passages who will be so foolish as to insist that God in the past loved all mankind! The same applies with equal force to the future . . . But the objector comes back to John 3:16 and says, 'World means world. 'True, but we have shown that 'the world' does not mean the whole human family. The fact is that 'the world' is used in a general way.. . Now the first thing to note in connection with John 3:16 is that our Lord was there speaking to Nicodemus, a man who believed that God's mercies were confined to his own nation. Christ there announced that God's love in giving His Son had a larger object in view, that it flowed beyond the boundary of Palestine, reaching out to 'regions beyond.' In other words, this was Christ's announcement that God had a purpose of grace toward Gentiles as well as Jews. 'God so loved the world,' then, signifies, God's love is international in its scope. But does this mean that God loves every individual among the Gentiles? Not necessarily, for as we have seen the term 'world' is general rather than specific, relative rather than absolute. . . the 'world' in John 3:16 must, in the final analysis refer to the world of God's people. Must we say, for there is no other alternative solution. It cannot mean the whole human race, for one half of the race was already in hell when Christ came to earth. It is unfair to insist that it means every human being now living, for every other passage in the New Testament where God's love is mentioned limits it to His own people - search and see! The objects of God's love in John 3:16 are precisely the same as the objects of Christ's love in John 13:1: 'Now before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that His time was come, that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved His own which were in the world, He loved them unto the end.' We may admit that our interpretation of John 3:16 is no novel one invented by us, but one almost uniformly given by the Reformers and Puritans, and many others since them. (The Sovereignty of God)


Subject: Pink's Predicament
From: the_sword_of_the_lord
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 22:03:09 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
My response to Pink's argument is this: if the fact that millions died before Christ came to save the world indicates that God did not love people who lived before then, isn't that also including the OT saints? I guess Pink thinks they are in hell too. No, Christ's coming also redeemed all who were saved
before His coming. I don't understand his logic.


Subject: Re: Pink's Predicament
From: monitor
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 22:19:34 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
No, the point is that if Jesus came to die for the
whole world such that by people simply believing on Him they might be saved....where was God's concern for the countless millions of peoplee across many national, linguistical, tribal boundries who NEVER got a 'fair shake' at embracing the coming Messiah promised to Eve, Noah, Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Moses, etc, etc? ...the only name under heaven, given among men whereby they must be saved? Emmanuel, God with us! You never did prove your assertion about people being saved apart from 'faith' in the coming or crucified messiah. The OT world got a raw deal, man! They were discriminated against as is the sentiment today. monitor


Subject: Re: Pink's Predicament
From: the_sword_of_the_lord
To: monitor
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 12:24:00 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
monitor- I discussed this idea last week, I think under the headings 'What about those who never hear?' Look them up if you're interested...if you've already read them and found them wanting, then oh well. I myself said that it was by no means certain that my interpretation of Paul's sermon in Acts 17 was correct...all I said was that it is
possible...and I am content with that.


Subject: Re: Foreknowledge.Lim.Aton/sword-lord
From: Brother Bret
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 21:05:59 (PDT)
Email Address: Lovitz5@aol.com

Message:
Hello Again Sword: This will not be too lengthy. Getting sleepy, and still battling a cold, On the Tit.2:11 verse, as you feared I cannot agree with your interpretation. My understanding of the greek word for 'appear' is refering to Christ's physical appearance, His incarnation, not grace in the form of the Spirit's drawing. Quickened means 'to be made alive.' There is a general call through the gospel for salvation. But there is also an 'effectual' call that goes only to God's elect/sheep. Since you mentioned repentence, Acts 2:38-39 would be a good example of the effectual call: Then Peter said unto them, Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall recieve the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you and to your children, and to all that are afar off, EVEN AS MANY AS THE LORD OUR GOD SHALL CALL.' Also see Rom.1:7; 8:28,30; 2Tim. 1:9 for the effectual call. John 3:3 says that a person must be born again to SEE the kingdom of God. Also notice verse 13 of chapter 1 after verse 12 mentions recieving Him: 'Who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, NOR OF THE WILL OF MAN, BUT OF GOD.' Being born again (from above) is synonymous with regeneration and quickening (made alive). We are dead in our sins and trespasses (Eph.2:1,5; Col. 2:13). Dead men cannot respond. This is also reflected in the term the 'natural man'(unregenerate, not made alive). In 1Cor. 2:14 it says, that the natural man cannot receive the things of the spirit of God. They are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. So until a person's nature is changed first (new birth, regeneration, made alive/ quickening) they cannot and will not respond to the gospel mesage, see their sin for what it is, and embrace Christ and the cross. Again, I remind you that the Greek word for 'world' in John 3:16 is the same Greek word used for 'world' in John 1:29 and 2Cor. 5:19. Please examine those verses. Well, I was going to say a little more perhaps, but I can hardly keep my eyes open. I notice that you base alot of your responses, on what you already believe. One of the cardinal sins of studying the word of God, is just trying to conform it to what we already believe. On the contrary, we are to study the word of God WITHOUT preconcieved beliefs but rather 'straight-up' comparing all scripture with all scripture, in context of course. Now a hypothetical question that is still indirectly rooted in Scripture: How is it we cannot resist the spirit of God during our walk with Him, but can resist Him when he is drawing? What's your take in John 6:37,39? Gotta run. Enjoying our exchange. Will look for your reply, Bro. Bret


Subject: Arguing against the Bible again
From: mebaser
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 23:15:35 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi Sword, I see that you are trying to refute the Bible again. You say,'But regardless of what the reasoning is behind God electing us, I am content to say that scripture does
not allow for it to be done solely by God's choice,' But remember Romans 9:11 which says, 'for though the twins [Jacob and Esau] were not yet born, and had not done anything good or bad, in order that God's purpose according to His choice might stand, not because of works, but because of Him who calls.' You also misinterpret and misunderstand 2 Peter 3:9. Go back and read that verse in context to see just who (what people) Peter writes about God not wishing for them to perish. In Christ, mebaser


Subject: Re: Arguing against the Bible again
From: the_sword_of_the_lord
To: mebaser
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 23:36:47 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
mebaser - Before you tell me that Romans 9 refutes anything I've said, be sure that Romans 9 even says that Esau or Pharaoh had their
eternal destinies determined by God. I see where Esau was destined to serve his brother, and I see where Pharaoh was raised up for an earthly purpose , but I don't see where either of them were destined for reprobation. I believe that Romans 9 is talking about God using men as He pleases to accomplish earthly purposes...but in the end, God still allows them the chance to be saved, if He hasn't already allowed them that chance. Keep in mind that according to Peter, the crowd whom he preached to on the Day of Pentecost had been used by God to hound Jesus to the cross...yet at the end of that sermon, 3000 of them were saved. It just goes to show that while God may use men as vessels of dishonor by his sovereign will, this does not mean that He even refuses to allow them the chance to be saved. And since Romans 9 only says that Esau and Pharaoh were destined by God to accomplish some earthly purposes, I see no reason to assume that God decided their eternal destinies for them. And I am also familiar with the Calvinist objection to 2 Peter 3:9, which is that Peter is actually directing that statement to the elect in his audience, not to everyone. But this is wrong...for if there were some in Peter's audience who had not yet come to repentance (v.9), then it would have been foolish for Peter to assume they were elect.


Subject: The Bible is sure
From: mebaser
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 22:52:50 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
mebaser - Before you tell me that Romans 9 refutes anything I've said, be sure that Romans 9 even says that Esau or Pharaoh had their
eternal destinies determined by God. I see where Esau was destined to serve his brother, and I see where Pharaoh was raised up for an earthly purpose , but I don't see where either of them were destined for reprobation. I believe that Romans 9 is talking about God using men as He pleases to accomplish earthly purposes...but in the end, God still allows them the chance to be saved, if He hasn't already allowed them that chance. Keep in mind that according to Peter, the crowd whom he preached to on the Day of Pentecost had been used by God to hound Jesus to the cross...yet at the end of that sermon, 3000 of them were saved. It just goes to show that while God may use men as vessels of dishonor by his sovereign will, this does not mean that He even refuses to allow them the chance to be saved. And since Romans 9 only says that Esau and Pharaoh were destined by God to accomplish some earthly purposes, I see no reason to assume that God decided their eternal destinies for them. And I am also familiar with the Calvinist objection to 2 Peter 3:9, which is that Peter is actually directing that statement to the elect in his audience, not to everyone. But this is wrong...for if there were some in Peter's audience who had not yet come to repentance (v.9), then it would have been foolish for Peter to assume they were elect.
---
Romans 9 is clearly speaking about SPIRITUAL SALVATION. Verses 1-3 tell about Paul's longing for his country-men to be saved. 9:1 I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, Verses 4-5 talk about the blessed position Israel finds herself in, including being the recipients of God's covenants and promises. We know according to the Old Testament, that God's covenants with Israel, and His promises to her, are fulfilled in Jesus Christ, who brought what? SPIRITUAL SALVATION. 4 who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, 5 whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen. Verses 6-8 tell about the true recipients of God's covenants and promies of SPIRITUAL SALVATION, that is, the children of promise. 6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; 7 neither are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: 'THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED.' 8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants. Verses 9-13 illustrate who are the true children and recipients of God's promises (SPIRITUAL SALVATION). 9 For this is a word of promise: 'AT THIS TIME I WILL COME, AND SARAH SHALL HAVE A SON.' 10 And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; 11 for though the twins were not yet born, and had not done anything good or bad, in order that God's purpose according to His choice might stand, not because of works, but because of Him who calls, 12 it was said to her, 'THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER.' 13 Just as it is written, 'JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.' Verses 14-18 hammers home the principle of verse 11, that God choses according to His mercy and compassion whom He wills to be the recipients of His promises and blessings. 14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! 15 For He says to Moses, 'I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION.' 16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, 'FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH.' 18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. Verses 19-20 justifies God's decision for whom He wills to be merciful and compassionate to . 19 You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?' 20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, 'Why did you make me like this,' will it? Verses 21-23 illustrate the principle of vv. 19-20 by portraying the elect as vessles of honerable use prepared for glory vs. the non-elect as vessles of wrath prepared for destruction. 21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use, and another for common use? 22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And He did so in order that He might make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, There you have it. Romans 9 is clearly talking about God's promise of SPIRITUAL SALVATION which He will fulfill for whomever He chooses to have mercy and compassion on. In Christ, mebaser


Subject: Re: The Bible is sure
From: monitor
To: mebaser
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 06:19:05 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
mebaser - Before you tell me that Romans 9 refutes anything I've said, be sure that Romans 9 even says that Esau or Pharaoh had their
eternal destinies determined by God. I see where Esau was destined to serve his brother, and I see where Pharaoh was raised up for an earthly purpose , but I don't see where either of them were destined for reprobation. I believe that Romans 9 is talking about God using men as He pleases to accomplish earthly purposes...but in the end, God still allows them the chance to be saved, if He hasn't already allowed them that chance. Keep in mind that according to Peter, the crowd whom he preached to on the Day of Pentecost had been used by God to hound Jesus to the cross...yet at the end of that sermon, 3000 of them were saved. It just goes to show that while God may use men as vessels of dishonor by his sovereign will, this does not mean that He even refuses to allow them the chance to be saved. And since Romans 9 only says that Esau and Pharaoh were destined by God to accomplish some earthly purposes, I see no reason to assume that God decided their eternal destinies for them. And I am also familiar with the Calvinist objection to 2 Peter 3:9, which is that Peter is actually directing that statement to the elect in his audience, not to everyone. But this is wrong...for if there were some in Peter's audience who had not yet come to repentance (v.9), then it would have been foolish for Peter to assume they were elect.
---
Romans 9 is clearly speaking about SPIRITUAL SALVATION. Verses 1-3 tell about Paul's longing for his country-men to be saved. 9:1 I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, Verses 4-5 talk about the blessed position Israel finds herself in, including being the recipients of God's covenants and promises. We know according to the Old Testament, that God's covenants with Israel, and His promises to her, are fulfilled in Jesus Christ, who brought what? SPIRITUAL SALVATION. 4 who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, 5 whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen. Verses 6-8 tell about the true recipients of God's covenants and promies of SPIRITUAL SALVATION, that is, the children of promise. 6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; 7 neither are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: 'THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED.' 8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants. Verses 9-13 illustrate who are the true children and recipients of God's promises (SPIRITUAL SALVATION). 9 For this is a word of promise: 'AT THIS TIME I WILL COME, AND SARAH SHALL HAVE A SON.' 10 And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; 11 for though the twins were not yet born, and had not done anything good or bad, in order that God's purpose according to His choice might stand, not because of works, but because of Him who calls, 12 it was said to her, 'THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER.' 13 Just as it is written, 'JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.' Verses 14-18 hammers home the principle of verse 11, that God choses according to His mercy and compassion whom He wills to be the recipients of His promises and blessings. 14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! 15 For He says to Moses, 'I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION.' 16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, 'FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH.' 18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. Verses 19-20 justifies God's decision for whom He wills to be merciful and compassionate to . 19 You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?' 20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, 'Why did you make me like this,' will it? Verses 21-23 illustrate the principle of vv. 19-20 by portraying the elect as vessles of honerable use prepared for glory vs. the non-elect as vessles of wrath prepared for destruction. 21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use, and another for common use? 22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And He did so in order that He might make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, There you have it. Romans 9 is clearly talking about God's promise of SPIRITUAL SALVATION which He will fulfill for whomever He chooses to have mercy and compassion on. In Christ, mebaser
---
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ THANK YOU, Brotha Mebaser!! Otherwise Rom 9 teaches VERY little of eternal significance! When in fact, we know that earthy OT types and shadows always point to greater spiritual realities (revealed in the NT)....like REDEMPTION ACCOMPLISHED thru Christ for those IN Christ and all according to an unfathomable free and sovereign GRACE. monitor


Subject: thanks monitor
From: mebaser
To: monitor
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 18:36:46 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Thanks monitor, The encouragement I get from the people here is truly a heartwarming blessing. In Christ, mebaser


Subject: Re: Arguing against the Bible again
From: monitor
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 05:58:55 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Sword - Peter is talking to 'THE CHURCH'... the visible one, the only one he can see, the one he is to feed with his letters of exhortation and encouragement ... NOT the world at large. Of course there are wheat and tares in all churches....Peter knew this...but nevertheless, and just like my own Pastor does...he preaches and teaches to the 'flock' BEFORE HIM without presuming to know who truly are of the Elect. Peter is CLEARLY addressing the Church ...and all churches for all time where in due time, the Elect will congregate. monitor


Subject: Another Amen -- very well written..(NT)
From: freegrace
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 19:36:47 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:


Subject: Re: Foreknowledge.Lim.Aton/sword-lord
From: Rod
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 16:25:27 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Brother Bret, Hi, brother! As one former Arminian to another, I can say 'well done!' to your post. I appreciate your attitude also. It's not within me at this point to be so charitable to those who will not look at the Word at face value, particularly those who, such as 'sword,' who have steadfastly refused to do so over the long haul. I look forward to his response also, but not with much anticipation of a 'breakthrough.' Yet may the Lord open his eyes as He did mine and yours to embrace the whole counsel of God. That is my earnest prayer!


Subject: Sin and Evil are not the same.
From: freegrace
To: All
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 15:29:33 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
God may send evil into a person's life (as He did with Job) and yet never sin. Job said, Shall we receive good from the hand of the Lord, and not (also) evil? Whatever God does is always right. When He sends evil, it is for our good, or testing. Some here think that God never is the Author of Evil, because they fail to see that evil and sin are not the same thing. freegrace


Subject: Correct free....
From: J
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 04:02:45 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I linked an excellent paper on the subject by a well known Calvinist thinker of this century - Arthur Custance... 'Sovereignty and Responsibility' deals with the difference between sin and evil - also this site contains most of Custance's works - some good stuff Sovereignty and Responsibility custance.org/grace/ch14.html


Subject: Re: Correct free....
From: freegrace
To: J
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 05:51:09 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Thanks, J -- I almost submited that very same link, but could not remember what chapter it was in! I had that excellent book, but gave it to my daughter to read. Thanks again. freegrace


Subject: Re: Correct free....
From: J
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 06:43:21 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
You are quite welcome. What do you think of part five of Custance's book - 'The future of the non-elect?' He seems to really question the traditional view/lenght of hell...


Subject: Re: Correct free....
From: freegrace
To: J
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 11:01:46 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
You are quite welcome. What do you think of part five of Custance's book - 'The future of the non-elect?' He seems to really question the traditional view/lenght of hell...
---
============ I do not know, for I have not really studied it that much. I think that J I Packer has taught the same thing about hell, but not sure. I agree with the traditional view of hell, so far anyway. We are still in time, so cannopt really comprehend fully the words -- everlasting burnings, and the smoke of their torment goes up *for ever and ever*..etc. I was doing good to just learn the five points, coming from my 'religious' Arminian background.. God bless you! freegrace


Subject: Re: Correct free....
From: Pilgrim
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 12:10:27 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
freegrace, FYI, Dr. Packer holds strongly, as I have understood him, to the 'traditional view' of hell and of the word 'eternal'. In fact, he rebuked Dr. John Stott for departing from this view when he temporarily embraced 'Annihilationism'. In most things, Packer adheres to classic Reformed dogma as the Scriptures clearly teach. In His Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: Thanks, Pilgrim
From: freegrace
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 12:56:20 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
freegrace, FYI, Dr. Packer holds strongly, as I have understood him, to the 'traditional view' of hell and of the word 'eternal'. In fact, he rebuked Dr. John Stott for departing from this view when he temporarily embraced 'Annihilationism'. In most things, Packer adheres to classic Reformed dogma as the Scriptures clearly teach. In His Grace, Pilgrim
---
============= OK, thanks! Sorry for the error. I just was not sure, so should not have mentioned his name. I am glad to hear he holds to the traditional view of hell. I like to think that Custance may have also corrected his views on this at a later time in his life. freegrace


Subject: Re: Sin and Evil are not the same.
From: David Teh
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 02:35:16 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I don't get it, but can you give me a precise definition of sin and evil?


Subject: Re: Sin and Evil are not the same.
From: freegrace
To: David Teh
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 05:55:55 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I don't get it, but can you give me a precise definition of sin and evil?
---
========= Hi David, please read chapter 12 of the book posted by J.. by Arthur Custance. or maybe J can make it clearer. I know all sin is of man, and not of God. but evil things can come to us because God has ordained it so. 'Ye thought evil against me, but GOD meant it for good' see Gen 50:20. fg


Subject: AMEN! nt
From: george
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 18:06:32 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:


Subject: Why do men deny God's Word?
From: Rod
To: All
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 14:10:13 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Rom. 8:29: 'For whom he did foreknow,
he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he [the Son] might be the firstborn among many brethren.' Did God not predetermine who would be saved and so 'conformed' to Christ as Savior, according to God's express and direct declaration? Who will deny it other than those who care not for the Word of the Lord and his whole counsel? There are few things so cleary expressed in the Bible as this basic truth, reaffirmed in Eph. 1, particulary verses 4-5.


Subject: Re: Why do men deny God's Word?
From: mebaser
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 22:57:45 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rom. 8:29: 'For whom he did foreknow,
he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he [the Son] might be the firstborn among many brethren.' Did God not predetermine who would be saved and so 'conformed' to Christ as Savior, according to God's express and direct declaration? Who will deny it other than those who care not for the Word of the Lord and his whole counsel? There are few things so cleary expressed in the Bible as this basic truth, reaffirmed in Eph. 1, particulary verses 4-5.
---
Amen Rod, Also, let's notice that the first phrase of the verse you quoted says, 'For whom he did foreknow.' Arminianism attempts erroneously to say that God predetermines according to his FOREKNOWLEDGE of whether or not we accept the gospel. But this passage never intimates that God knew our choices because He foresaw what they would be, instead, it says God forknew people, 'us' as it were. God knew us personally and intimately and He proceeded to predestinate us to be conformed to the image of his Son. In Christ, mebaser


Subject: Re: Why do men deny God's Word?
From: Rod
To: mebaser
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 12:48:09 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
mebaser, Exactly. That's why Arminianism belittles God--it detracts from His planning and reduces Him to One Who 'makes it up as He goes,' a terrible insult to an omniscient, omnipotent, immutable, sovereign God. Oh, that all Christians could comprehend that awesome fact that God is never surprised and never has to acquire knowledge; isn't in the image of man as the Arminians remake Him to be. May we all let Him be God, instead of compressing Him into our mold, and marvel at His majesty. 'For his mercy endureth forever'--the refrain of Psalm 136.


Subject: Re: Why do men deny God's Word?
From: Pilgrim
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 15:55:36 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:

The Arminian Credo

'In the beginning, God created man in His own image. And ever since that day, man has been trying to return the favor!


Subject: Whoa...
From: the_sword_of_the_lord
To: All
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 18:25:56 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I cannot believe we are now calling God an evildoer in order to be consistent in our beliefs. I would have thought that if a person's beliefs makes God a evildoer, that the person would surely lay aside those beliefs...evidently, I was wrong. God is willing that we think of Him as an evildoer as long as we 'maintain His sovereignty!' As for me, I fear God too much to call Him the author of evil...which no matter how you cut it, these views that I'm reading DO make Him the author of evil. As for the idea that God willed Adam to sin, we know that this is impossible...for James 1:13 says, 'Let no one say when he is tempted, 'I am being tempted by God'; for God cannot be tempted by evil and He Himself
does not tempt anyone. But each one is tempted by evil when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. But I suppose that this is just 'another great paradox', huh?


Subject: Re: Whoa...
From: mebaser
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 01:18:48 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
But I suppose that this is just 'another great paradox', huh?
---
Sword, Your parting remark is not characteristic of someone who allows God to be God. Do not think that God must fit into your logical way of thinking, do not put God in your box. Only the Calvinistic view can embrace the wonderful words written by the apostle Paul in Romans 11:33-35: 33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! 34 For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, OR WHO BECAME HIS COUNSELOR? 35 Or WHO HAS FIRST GIVEN TO HIM THAT IT MIGHT BE PAID BACK TO HIM AGAIN? In Christ, mebaser


Subject: How convenient.
From: the_sword_of_the_lord
To: mebaser
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 08:12:25 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
mebaser - That is taking the easy way out of a predicament. I could just as easily say that God has
not predetermined who will be saved, that in fact He does want everybody to be saved, and all the scripture passages that suggest otherwise are simply 'a great paradox.' Could you prove me wrong? And if you think you could, how would you do it? By showing me scripture? But to turn your own argument on your, 'God cannot be put into your own box.' Your answer is very unsatisfactory, and basically makes you a liberal as far as your approach to biblical hermeneutics.


Subject: Re: How convenient.
From: mebaser
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 12:15:28 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
mebaser - That is taking the easy way out of a predicament. I could just as easily say that God has
not predetermined who will be saved, that in fact He does want everybody to be saved, and all the scripture passages that suggest otherwise are simply 'a great paradox.' Could you prove me wrong? And if you think you could, how would you do it? By showing me scripture? But to turn your own argument on your, 'God cannot be put into your own box.' Your answer is very unsatisfactory, and basically makes you a liberal as far as your approach to biblical hermeneutics.
---
sword, Two points. 1. Do you try to logically understand everything, so that when God is doing something beyond your comprehension, you dismiss it as unbiblical? 2. You ask,'Could you prove me wrong? And if you think you could, how would you do it? By showing me scripture?' But as Tom suggests, you and other Arminian visitors here have been proved wrong many times using Scripture in a sound hermeneutical methodology. Several of my posts with Scripture used to back up the claims I make have not yet been engaged with Scripture, just fallible arguments like the one you make now. The fact of the matter is that there are no passages that clearly state that God does NOT predetermine men to their eternal state, but there are many, that have been referenced that clearly state that God DOES indeed predetermine men's soul's. My answer is unsatisfactory to you, but in fact, it is the Bible that is unsatisfactory to you, that's all I have used. The Bible is what determines who God is and what He is like, I have not, as you have, put God in a box. As far as your 'liberal' accusation, well, you don't have a clue as to who I am and how I study the Bible, so I will let it pass as a rash accusation, completely uninformed, and totally presumptuous on your part. In Christ, mebaser


Subject: Re: How convenient.
From: Tom
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 09:40:33 (PDT)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
Sword We have given dozens of scriptures so far to prove arguements such as mebaser just gave, but what have you done? You have dismissed them out right. Why do you think we should give them again? Tom


Subject: Re: Whoa...
From: george
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 19:11:27 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Sword, First of all, your comments should be directed at me. In fact my leaning in this area is a minority view in Calvinistic circles. Also, I never said God was an evildoer, I did say that evil had to originate with Him, how else can one logically come to any other conclusion. Satan, didn't conjure up this ability to do evil, unless the concept of evil was already existing. Then one must ask, what is evil? The opposite of good? Obedience or disobedience? The opposite of light? A void from God?Yes, it's a difficult concept even to define and often we don't have a clue what's good much less whats evil,until God enlightens us. Though once shown we never would call evil good.Is this not the case with Adam and Eve (Gen.3:5,22)? But none the less, the potential for evil had to exist and because of Satan's and Adam's freewill, they were able to choose to rebel. Actually, these individuals and Jesus Himself are the only ones who had the ability to choose. The rest of us are enslaved to evil, until regeneration occurs, which is in act from God (Eph. 2:1-7). Hey Sword, do a little word check on 'evil' found in Gen.2:17 and Isa. 45:7, you may be surprised. I.H.G., george


Subject: Re: Whoa...
From: the_sword_of_the_lord
To: george
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 08:20:31 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
George, First of all, I know why you are referencing Isaiah 45:7...because you have in mind that KJV mistranslation that says God creates evil. Other translations do not say this...they use words like 'calamity', 'woe', 'destruction', etc. And you are confusing the
possibility of evil existing with actually creating it. God certainly has allowed the possibility for evil to exist, but that does not mean that He has created it. Satan introduced evil into the world when He persuaded Eve to rebel against God. Just because God was the one who made it possible for Satan to do this does not mean that He Himself made Satan do it. To say that God not only created the possibility of evil existing, but that He actually brought it into existence makes God an evildoer, no matter how you cut it.


Subject: Actually...
From: george
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 11:56:41 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Sword, Obviously you did not look up the literal Hebrew word used in Is. 45:7, because if you did you would of realized that words like 'calamity', etc. are words more easily stomached then 'evil' as a first cause. Though I certainly believe God uses man evil ways as a second cause. Since God is omniscient, it would be incredible if God didn't have evil as a element of His eternal purposes. In fact evil (and man's eventual fall into sin, from the effects of evil)is a backdrop to His mercy and grace. How else could one appreciate forgiveness and mercy? So, since He so framed His creation of man that evil would certainly come in, He must have had this purpose (ie. backdrop)included to serve His own WORTHY end. I would be careful calling God a evildoer (in respect to our theology), because of the fact you can't comprehend what is clearly stated in Scripture; 'Does not the Potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor. What if God wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory...' I.H.G., george G


Subject: Prov. 16:4
From: Rod
To: george
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 13:22:15 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
george, I think sword needs to consider this one in light of both the translations and the literal. (The key word is 'consider.' That he has not done/does not do.)


Subject: Follow A 'Middle Road'..?
From: freegrace
To: All
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 14:21:16 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
In one of the messages below, Sword said, find a middle road between Arminianism and Calvinism, and follow that... Well, I did! For several years I was a 'fundamentalist Baptist'. They sure taught an 'election', but it was based on 'God knows who will believe' and so chooses them unto salvation.....(hahaha). Well, they did preach 'eternal security' but it ended up to be mere presumption, and their 'security' was founded on 'man's decision to become saved' rather than by God's sovereign decree. *God's decree, plus submission, equals praise*.. (as in Luke 1:30 - 1:44). Maybe Bro Brett will want to use that in a sermon sometime... :-) We are just as much chosen for salvation as Mary was chosen to bring Christ into this world, and for that reason, she *rejoiced* in God her Saviour, and her soul magnified the LORD! True biblical Calvinism magnifies God alone, and not man. The doctrine of our election brings the true believer much peace and joy in believing. freegrace


Subject: Sword and 1Tim2:4
From: monitor
To: Sword
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 13:00:12 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Sword - as they say, if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. However, if you can take the heat...ponder this short piece on 2Tim2:4... You are no dummy so you should be able to rightly and honestly handle this link. Print it, grab a cup of coffee and a doughnut and ponder it's implications without preconcieved notions. Can you do that? Bon Apetite monitor 2Tim2:4 www.gospelcom.net/thehighway/1Tim2.4.html


Subject: Flawed logic and Theology
From: FRG
To: monitor
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 19:13:25 (PDT)
Email Address: fredgoff@yahoo.com

Message:
The analysis you linked to of this scripture shows the typical Calvinistic strawman approach to theology in the objections to Arminian, or free-will theology. Following is the strawman objection, followed by the true principle: Straw man Logical objection: >>If God wants (desires) all men to be saved absolutely; that is without exception, then why does He not save them since none 'of the inhabitants of the earth . . . can stay His hand, or say unto Him, 'What doest Thou'' (Dan. 4:35)? << Why is this a straw man argument? Because it deliberatly omits part of God's will as stated in the Summary of Arminian theology. Namely that it is ALSO God's will that all men come to Him FREELY and WITHOUT COMPULSION. God desires all men to be saved according to this first and PRIME principle of His will. Thus He wills all men to come to salvation Freely. He desires all men to be saved, but his greater desire and will is that they come to salvation without compulsion or force. You could say that the prime Will of God among Calvinists is salvation. The prime will of God among free-will adherents is freedom of choice. The theological objections follow the same flaw, by decreeing that God's primary will for man is salvation, whereas His primary will for man is freedom of choice, to freely choose salvation or damnation. Calvinists claim that free-will destroys God's sovereignty because man can refuse Salvation. This is because they do not acknowledge the Arminian position that God's primary will is not salvation, but freedom of choice. Salvation is desired only upon principles of freedom of individual choice. Since God's primary will is that man be allowed to choose for himself, neither His will, nor his sovereignty is abrogated when man chooses damnation, since man is simply exercising freedom of choice according to God's sovereign will that he be allowed to do so.


Subject: Re: Flawed logic and Theology
From: laz
To: FRG
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 08:47:55 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
The analysis you linked to of this scripture shows the typical Calvinistic strawman approach to theology in the objections to Arminian, or free-will theology. Following is the strawman objection, followed by the true principle: Straw man Logical objection: >>If God wants (desires) all men to be saved absolutely; that is without exception, then why does He not save them since none 'of the inhabitants of the earth . . . can stay His hand, or say unto Him, 'What doest Thou'' (Dan. 4:35)? << Why is this a straw man argument? Because it deliberatly omits part of God's will as stated in the Summary of Arminian theology. Namely that it is ALSO God's will that all men come to Him FREELY and WITHOUT COMPULSION. God desires all men to be saved according to this first and PRIME principle of His will. Thus He wills all men to come to salvation Freely. He desires all men to be saved, but his greater desire and will is that they come to salvation without compulsion or force. You could say that the prime Will of God among Calvinists is salvation. The prime will of God among free-will adherents is freedom of choice. The theological objections follow the same flaw, by decreeing that God's primary will for man is salvation, whereas His primary will for man is freedom of choice, to freely choose salvation or damnation. Calvinists claim that free-will destroys God's sovereignty because man can refuse Salvation. This is because they do not acknowledge the Arminian position that God's primary will is not salvation, but freedom of choice. Salvation is desired only upon principles of freedom of individual choice. Since God's primary will is that man be allowed to choose for himself, neither His will, nor his sovereignty is abrogated when man chooses damnation, since man is simply exercising freedom of choice according to God's sovereign will that he be allowed to do so.
---
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Such 'freewill' not only makes a mockery of God's sovereignty (and holy Word)... but leaves logic in shambles, as Pilgrim and others have proved! laz


Subject: Re: Flawed logic and Theology
From: monitor
To: FRG
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 22:37:26 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
The analysis you linked to of this scripture shows the typical Calvinistic strawman approach to theology in the objections to Arminian, or free-will theology. Following is the strawman objection, followed by the true principle: Straw man Logical objection: >>If God wants (desires) all men to be saved absolutely; that is without exception, then why does He not save them since none 'of the inhabitants of the earth . . . can stay His hand, or say unto Him, 'What doest Thou'' (Dan. 4:35)? << Why is this a straw man argument? Because it deliberatly omits part of God's will as stated in the Summary of Arminian theology. Namely that it is ALSO God's will that all men come to Him FREELY and WITHOUT COMPULSION. God desires all men to be saved according to this first and PRIME principle of His will. Thus He wills all men to come to salvation Freely. He desires all men to be saved, but his greater desire and will is that they come to salvation without compulsion or force. You could say that the prime Will of God among Calvinists is salvation. The prime will of God among free-will adherents is freedom of choice. The theological objections follow the same flaw, by decreeing that God's primary will for man is salvation, whereas His primary will for man is freedom of choice, to freely choose salvation or damnation. Calvinists claim that free-will destroys God's sovereignty because man can refuse Salvation. This is because they do not acknowledge the Arminian position that God's primary will is not salvation, but freedom of choice. Salvation is desired only upon principles of freedom of individual choice. Since God's primary will is that man be allowed to choose for himself, neither His will, nor his sovereignty is abrogated when man chooses damnation, since man is simply exercising freedom of choice according to God's sovereign will that he be allowed to do so.
---
############# If you want to bow down to your sacred and pathetically man-contrived 'god' of 'PRO/FREE CHOICE'... be my guest...but as for me and my house....hahaaha! PRO-CHOICE...hmmmm, I like the analogy... ;-) monitor p.s. so for you it all boils down to 'choice'...and not the plain and oft painful testimony of scripture? How unbiblical. BTW...where are those scriptures supporting God's 'pro-choice'
prime directive? hahaha It still is a condition of your stay with us. hohoho...sorry, it's getting real late for me....


Subject: 'Choose Life.'....!
From: freegrace
To: monitor
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 08:11:00 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Not far from the truth! They were to 'Choose life' - meaning physical life and the providencial blessings of God, not 'Eternal life' as the Arminians teach it..! Keep up the good work! fg


Subject: Re: Flawed logic and Theology
From: laz
To: FRG/or Sword
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 06:20:41 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
FRG - you said as the whole basis of your proud 'arminian' theology:
Namely that it is ALSO God's will that all men come to Him FREELY and WITHOUT COMPULSION. Can I laugh? John 6:44, 65 (and elsewhere) calls your bluff....we are clearly and mercifully DRAGGED to see our true sinful state....in a way, God SLAPS SENSE into us for without such 'tough love' we would NEVER come freely. Slaves by defn are NOT free. God regenerates those whom He has mercy on - His chosen, His Elect. You call that COMPULSION....I call it FREE GRACE. laz


Subject: My assessment of the 1 Timothy 2 exegesis
From: the_sword_of_the_lord
To: monitor
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 14:33:10 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
monitor - I thank you for the article on this passage...yes, I read it. Now if you will allow me to take even less of your time, I will give you a brief, but accurate refutation of what this article says.
If God Always Decrees Exactly What He Desires, Then God Is The Author of Evil Is this not the logical conclusion to be drawn? Was it God's will for Adam and Eve to sin; and if not, how did they manage to frustrate His will by disobeying Him? According to the idea that God must decree what He likewise desires, it should have been impossible for Adam and Eve to frustrate His will by sinning...unless it was actually His will for them to sin, in which case your argument would be consistent. However...if you do not believe that it was God's will for Adam and Eve to sin, then your whole argument falls to pieces, and no further refutation is needed. God does not always decree that which He desires. If He had, then man would never have fallen in the first place. And if He does not always decree that which He desires, then there is no inconsistency in saying that while God wants all men without exception to be saved, He has not decreed that they will. The Context of This Passage Demands That Paul Is Speaking of All Men, Without Exception Paul says to pray for all men, all who are in authority, etc. If Paul actually meant for Timothy to pray for groups rather than individuals, then why doesn't he just say that? It is certain that the 'kings and all who are in authority' would have included some of the non-elect...which Paul certainly would have been aware of...and if Paul was consciously asking Timothy to pray for a group which he knew contained the non-elect, then he must likewise have the non-elect in mind in verse 4, when he says that God wants them to be saved. Did Paul Not Believe That Praying For Men's Salvation Would Make A Difference? It is significant that Paul even asks Timothy to pray for men's salvation, seeing as how if Paul believed that God had already determined this, it would have been useless to encourage Timothy to pray for anyone. And if our prayers can make a difference in who is saved and who is not, as the passage suggests, then God has not already determined this. Thank you for likewise giving me a little of your time, and I hope you have read this without your own presuppositions as well.


Subject: Prayer for others' salvation
From: mebaser
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 01:10:28 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Did Paul Not Believe That Praying For Men's Salvation Would Make A Difference? It is significant that Paul even asks Timothy to pray for men's salvation, seeing as how if Paul believed that God had already determined this, it would have been useless to encourage Timothy to pray for anyone. And if our prayers can make a difference in who is saved and who is not, as the passage suggests, then God has not already determined this.
---
The statement made above goes against the Arminian view ALL THE MORE. In the Arminian view, God has no control whatsoever as to who is saved, so why pray to God at all regarding someone's salvation? If Arminianism is right, then why would we pray to God that He would do a work in someone's heart that He cannot possibly do at all? This is more illogical and inconsistent than the claim you make against the Calvinistic (actually biblical) view of prayer for the lost. In Christ, mebaser


Subject: Oh please.
From: the_sword_of_the_lord
To: mebaser
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 08:05:05 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
When have I, or any Arminian said that God has no control over a person's salvation? I know that I have never said that, nor do I believe it...we
know that God has control over a person's salvation, it's just that He has not necessarily predetermined that He will save them. We believe that God answers prayers, and that even if He had not previously decided to save somebody, that believers can change His mind and persuade Him to save that lost person after all. That is why Paul asks Timothy to pray for men's salvation, because we can persuade God to get involved in bringing someone to salvation.


Subject: Re: Oh please.
From: Rod
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 13:58:23 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
sword, You asked, 'When have I, or any Arminian said that God has no control over a person's salvation?' This is the de facto statement of every Arminian. God is actually belittled in the Arminian view because man, not God, is the final arbiter of his salvation in that persuasion. The Arminian's view that 'God offers and man accepts or rejects at his will' takes away control over the process from God or anyone/anything else and places it solely and squarely in the hands of men whom God says about, 'There is none that seeketh after God' (Rom. 3:11). If the Arminian view were to be true (which it isn't) and God's assessment correct (which it undeniably is), there is no one who could ever be saved, for none would ever come to God.


Subject: Re: Oh please.
From: mebaser
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 11:55:21 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
it's just that He has not necessarily
predetermined that He will save them.
---
sword, These passages refute your statement: Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed. Romans 9:10-11, 15-16 10 And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; 11 for though the twins were not yet born, and had not done anything good or bad, in order that God's purpose according to His choice might stand, not because of works, but because of Him who calls, (jump to v.15) 15 For He says to Moses, 'I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION.' 16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. In Christ, mebaser


Subject: Assumptions
From: the_sword_of_the_lord
To: mebaser
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 19:03:13 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
1. You assume that those who were appointed unto eternal life were done so apart from God's foreknowledge of whether or not they would accept the gospel, given the opportunity. You
assume that God alone determined it. 2. In Romans 9:15, it is important to keep in mind that even after a person has accepted the gospel message, God is not obligated to save them; but He will, because He promises to. So even after a person seeks God's mercy through Jesus Christ, His grace is still given by His own mercy. 3. If you wish to object to #2, I would like for you to show me where scripture indicates that in order for God's mercy to be sincere, that He has to force somebody to love Him.


Subject: Re: Assumptions
From: mebaser
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 22:48:16 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
1. You assume that those who were appointed unto eternal life were done so apart from God's foreknowledge of whether or not they would accept the gospel, given the opportunity. You
assume that God alone determined it. 2. In Romans 9:15, it is important to keep in mind that even after a person has accepted the gospel message, God is not obligated to save them; but He will, because He promises to. So even after a person seeks God's mercy through Jesus Christ, His grace is still given by His own mercy. 3. If you wish to object to #2, I would like for you to show me where scripture indicates that in order for God's mercy to be sincere, that He has to force somebody to love Him.
---
It's incredible that at this point you are not refuting me. You are now refuting the Bible. O.K. as to your first point, I have no clue how you can say that I assumed God did not know in advance that these would accept the gospel. This is YOUR assumption. I and every Bible believing Calvinist knows that God knows the response of all who are appointed unto eternal life, because He ordained it by His sovereign choice before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4). By the way, you misuse the word foreknowledge. NOWHERE in the Bible does the word forekowledge EVER mean that God knows our future choices. Nowhere. I challenge you to find anywhere that it does. Instead, the word foreknowledge (when applied to God's foreknowledge of man) is ALWAYS used to indicate that God foreknew US. Not our choices, but US. He knew us personally and intimately before we were even born! What an awesome God! 2. Who is arguing that God is obligated to do anything? If anyone is arguing that, it is you Arminians who say that we must perform certain works (muster up faith, repent, etc...) before God can save us. Well, what happens when anyone fulfills those works, is God obligated to save them or not? My real point was in verse 11 though, which talks about God choosing to bless Jacob over Esau, for though the twins were not yet born, and had not done anything good or bad, in order that God's purpose according to His choice might stand, not because of works, but because of Him who calls. 3. Another strawman argument. No Calvinst (this has been said hundred's of times) has ever said that God forces anyone to do anything. Instead God's decrees and election work within the framework of human will. He who is regenerated will NOT confess, believe, and repent AGAINST his will. The regenerated man will be MADE ALIVE and will fervently desire to repent, confess, and believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ. In Christ, mebaser


Subject: Re: Assumptions
From: monitor
To: mebaser
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 06:04:01 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I think it's interesting that Rom 9:11 uses the same type of terminology as other passages of scripture which ARE referring to election/salvation.....and not just earthly purposes, as Sword maintains. monitor


Subject: Amen monitor n/t
From: mebaser
To: monitor
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 09, 2000 at 22:59:02 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:


Subject: Re: Assumptions
From: freegrace
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 19:33:35 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
1. You assume that those who were appointed unto eternal life were done so apart from God's foreknowledge of whether or not they would accept the gospel, given the opportunity. You
assume that God alone determined it. 2. In Romans 9:15, it is important to keep in mind that even after a person has accepted the gospel message, God is not obligated to save them; but He will, because He promises to. So even after a person seeks God's mercy through Jesus Christ, His grace is still given by His own mercy. 3. If you wish to object to #2, I would like for you to show me where scripture indicates that in order for God's mercy to be sincere, that He has to force somebody to love Him.
---
============== No one is 'forced' to love God! The elect do, however, for Love is a fruit of the Holy Spirit which is freely given to all that become saved. Romans 8:28. ALL of God's elect love God most freely! freegrace


Subject: Re: Oh please.
From: laz
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 09:14:42 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
When have I, or any Arminian said that God has no control over a person's salvation? I know that I have never said that, nor do I believe it...we
know that God has control over a person's salvation, it's just that He has not necessarily predetermined that He will save them. We believe that God answers prayers, and that even if He had not previously decided to save somebody, that believers can change His mind and persuade Him to save that lost person after all. That is why Paul asks Timothy to pray for men's salvation, because we can persuade God to get involved in bringing someone to salvation.
---
****************
---
- '
...He has not NECESSARILY predetermined that HE will save them'? NECESSARILY? You starting to leave the 'dark side' and join us on the side of truth? haha We predestinarians pray to God (ever read the Puritan's writings and prayers?) ...there is even a prayer forum on this website...does that mean we believe we can 'change God's mind' with our petitions? Why would we even CONSIDER such foolishness? God knows the beginning from the end, has caused all things to be, and has our best interest already worked out...we are IN CHRIST - where nothing but ultimate good (defined as whatever pleases Him!!!) comes from the hand of our Maker. I want ONLY what God wants! And does not God get precisely whatever He wants? Or is there some realm within His created order where He is trumped, tricked, outwitted, get's our leftovers,... anything in the created order that He is not in total control over? Does God really have to wait upon the actions of men? Well, does He? Why would I not pray as Jesus taught 'they will be done, on earth as it is in heaven'? Am I smarter than God...do I know best? As someone already mentioned, arminians can't pray as such....for they actually believe that there is 'shadow of turning' in God (Jam 1:17)...that He can be manipulated. That the universe is spinning and suffering and God is merely trying to hold things together as best He can and only as we allow through our efforts and prayers. Talk about being a puppet! I prefer to let God be God and take Him at his very word...even when I don't comprehend everything He's said in His Word (e.g., infinity, Trinity, incarnation, natures of Christ, sovereignty vs responsibility, genesis of sin etc). But as Job was inspired to write: Job 13:15 Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him: Just as it should be....for who can cast doubt on God's NATURE or His holy WILL? Both his nature and will being in perfect harmony....how could it not....is not God....well...GOD and thus PERFECT in all this ways? Having some familiarity with cults, the single common mistake they all make is perverting the basic nature of God. You seem to have the same problem. God is immutable and all-decreeing (having the power and authority to bring ALL things to pass)....all things are under His control...especially the salvation of sinners. This is the clear testimony of the Bible from first to last! Yet, we also affirm (as does the Bible) that God is not the author of sin. We believe the Bible...you don't for like all die-hard arminians, you simply can't take the insult! laz


Subject: Re: Prayer for others' salvation
From: Vernon
To: mebaser
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 05:41:30 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
1 Tim 2:1-8 1 First of all, then, I urge that entreaties {and} prayers, petitions {and} thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, 2 for kings and all who are in authority, in order that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. 3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, {and} one mediator also between God and men, {the} man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony {borne} at the proper time. 7 And for this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying) as a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. 8 Therefore I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension.(NAS) 2 Pet 3:9-18 9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. 11 Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, on account of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat! 13 But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells. 14 Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, 15 and regard the patience of our Lord {to be} salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16 as also in all {his} letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as {they do} also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard lest, being carried away by the error of unprincipled men, you fall from your own steadfastness, 18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him {be} the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.(NAS) There is power in prayer. Also we are to pray for another. Prayer clearly places honor to God in the fact He is soverigen. And what man will deny that Salvation belongs to the Lord? In Christ Vernon


Subject: yes, evil is also included in God's decree's
From: george
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 17:55:33 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Sword, I would agree with your conclusion that evil must have also originated with God, if all things happen out of necessity, which I believe to be true. And if God is omniscient and omnipresent, logically this is the only conclusion one must rationally accept. Yet, this is a great mystery and can only be understood fully with God Himself. What one must always remember, though God created evil (for all things were created by God, Rom.11:36), He is NOT evil, and His ways are not our ways. He also does not necessarily need to adhere to the laws He has given us. One of the greatest mysteries is how God can be totally sovereign in all things, yet man is still responsible for his actions.This apparent paradox, is through out Scripture. I accept them both as true. From one who leans to a supralapsarian view, george


Subject: Re: My assessment of the 1 Timothy 2 exegesis
From: Pilgrim
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 17:24:44 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
SOL,

It WAS God's will that Adam would transgress His commandment, otherwise it would never have happened, BUT God was not RESPONSIBLE for Adam's sinning. Likewise, God ordained that Christ Jesus would be crucified by His determinate counsel, which included the very men who would actually physically drive the nails into His hands and feet; EVERYTHING was preordained down to the minutest detail. But God is not responsible for the horrid sin committed by these men. God is not the author of sin! Period! But Rom 11:36 For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen..

Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter III 'Of God's Eternal Decree'

I. God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass:[1] yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,[2] nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.[3] 1. Psa. 33:11: Eph. 1:11: Heb. 6:17 2. Psa. 5:4; James 1:13-14; I John 1:5; see Hab. 1:13 3. Acts 2:23; 4:27-28: Matt. 17:12; John 19:11; Prov. 16:33 II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions,[4] yet hath he not decreed anything because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.[5] 4. I Sam. 23:11-12; Matt. 11:21-23 5. Rom. 9:11, 13, 16, 18

I find it impossible to conceive that any Christian can believe that petty sinful creatures can thwart the immutable counsel of Almighty God. I can't imagine the Sovereign LORD of all the universe is sitting up in heaven wringing His hands and praying that Joe Smith 'accepts Jesus into his heart' and becomes saved by an act of his own 'free-will'. How is it that the LORD God, Who brought the entire material universe into being out of nothing by just a word from His mouth cannot save a fallen man, woman or child if He so desires to do so? How is it that a fallen man is accredited with more power than Satan, for even the demons obey His voice to do that which He commands? More so, you accredit fallen mankind with more power and authority than GOD Himself, for God's 'will' according to you is for EVERY MAN to be saved, yet man says, 'No thanks!'. How will God then cast them into the abyss at the Judgment? Will not these same men stand before God and wag their heads at Him and say, 'No thanks! I'm going to dwell in the New Heaven and New Earth and you can't stop me!'. Isa 46:9 'Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, 10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:' Dan 4:35 'And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?' Acts 4:27 'For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, 28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.' Acts 13:48 'And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.'

In His Sovereign Grace, Pilgrim