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: 211


GRACE2Me -:- Regulartory Principle of Worship + -:- Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 20:14:05 (PDT)
_
Pilgrim -:- Re: Regulartory Principle of Worship + -:- Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 21:22:34 (PDT)

Rod -:- Atonement/Propitiation -:- Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 13:28:42 (PDT)
_
Pilgrim -:- Re: Atonement/Reconciliation -:- Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 15:11:05 (PDT)

Rod -:- A question for the board -:- Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 11:00:59 (PDT)

laz -:- Grown Daughters -:- Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 07:30:22 (PDT)
_
GRACE2Me -:- Re: Grown Daughters -:- Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 20:48:51 (PDT)
__ laz -:-
Re: Grown Daughters -:- Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 07:06:07 (PDT)
___ Anne -:-
Re: Grown Daughters -:- Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 18:45:37 (PDT)
____ laz -:-
Re: Grown Daughters -:- Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 20:32:48 (PDT)
___ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Grown Daughters -:- Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 07:37:56 (PDT)
____ laz -:-
Re: Grown Daughters -:- Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 18:13:27 (PDT)
____ GRACE2Me -:-
Re: Grown Daughters -:- Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 13:17:40 (PDT)
_____ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Grown Daughters -:- Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 17:01:28 (PDT)
______ Five Sola -:-
Re: Grown Daughters -:- Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 19:37:35 (PDT)
_______ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Grown Daughters -:- Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 21:08:23 (PDT)
______ laz -:-
Re: Grown Daughters -:- Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 17:58:18 (PDT)
_ Tom -:-
Re: Grown Daughters -:- Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 10:36:42 (PDT)
__ laz -:-
Re: Grown Daughters -:- Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 10:39:42 (PDT)
___ Tom -:-
Re: Grown Daughters -:- Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 10:50:59 (PDT)
____ laz -:-
Re: Grown Daughters -:- Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 14:40:02 (PDT)
_____ john hampshire -:-
Re: Grown Daughters -:- Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 22:45:35 (PDT)
______ laz -:-
Re: Grown Daughters -:- Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 06:59:30 (PDT)
_______ Tom -:-
Weaker Sex -:- Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 07:38:34 (PDT)
________ laz -:-
Re: Weaker Sex -:- Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 18:00:43 (PDT)

scott lewis -:- Public Schools -:- Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 07:10:21 (PDT)
_
Five Sola -:- my 2 cents :-) -:- Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 19:51:33 (PDT)
_ Rod -:-
Keeping our perspective -:- Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 12:59:27 (PDT)
__ Anne -:-
Re: Keeping our perspective -:- Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 18:21:32 (PDT)
___ Rod -:-
Re: Keeping our perspective -:- Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 01:29:03 (PDT)
__ Prestor John -:-
Re: Keeping our perspective -:- Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 20:52:58 (PDT)
___ scott lewis -:-
Re: Keeping our perspective -:- Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 21:33:47 (PDT)
____ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Keeping our perspective -:- Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 06:31:56 (PDT)
_____ Prestor John -:-
Re: Keeping our perspective -:- Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 08:58:48 (PDT)
______ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Keeping our perspective -:- Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 11:35:42 (PDT)
_______ Prestor John -:-
Re: Keeping our perspective -:- Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 12:48:41 (PDT)
________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Keeping our perspective -:- Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 14:14:26 (PDT)
_________ Prestor John -:-
Re: Keeping our perspective -:- Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 22:45:19 (PDT)
_________ Rod -:-
Re: Keeping our perspective -:- Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 15:34:34 (PDT)
_____ scott lewis -:-
Re: Keeping our perspective -:- Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 08:39:09 (PDT)
______ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Keeping our perspective -:- Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 11:11:48 (PDT)
_______ scott lewis -:-
Re: Keeping our perspective -:- Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 19:18:51 (PDT)
_______ john hampshire -:-
Re: Keeping our perspective -:- Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 22:28:39 (PDT)
________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Keeping our perspective -:- Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 07:24:01 (PDT)
_________ laz -:-
Re: Keeping our perspective -:- Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 18:09:41 (PDT)
______ Tom -:-
Re: Keeping our perspective -:- Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 10:47:11 (PDT)
__ stan -:-
Re: Keeping our perspective -:- Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 20:17:20 (PDT)
_ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Public Schools -:- Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 08:04:29 (PDT)
__ laz -:-
Re: Public Schools -:- Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 08:32:49 (PDT)
___ Eric -:-
Are you suggesting -:- Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 13:26:14 (PDT)
____ laz -:-
Re: Are you suggesting -:- Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 14:14:01 (PDT)
_ Eric -:-
Re: Public Schools -:- Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 07:19:26 (PDT)
__ Prestor John -:-
Re: Public Schools -:- Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 12:58:03 (PDT)
__ stan -:-
Re: Public Schools AND PARENTS -:- Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 08:44:27 (PDT)
___ Prestor John -:-
Re: Public Schools AND PARENTS -:- Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 21:01:29 (PDT)
____ john hampshire -:-
Re: Publik Skools AND PARENTS -:- Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 06:49:19 (PDT)
____ GRACE2Me -:-
Re: Public Schools AND PARENTS -:- Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 06:03:42 (PDT)
_____ john hampshire -:-
Re: Public Schools AND PARENTS -:- Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 07:36:30 (PDT)

Pilgrim -:- Redeemer/Redemption -:- Thurs, Apr 27, 2000 at 09:12:36 (PDT)

Pilgrim -:- The Atonement of Christ -:- Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 12:17:46 (PDT)
_
freegrace -:- Re: The Atonement of Christ -:- Thurs, Apr 27, 2000 at 06:47:06 (PDT)

Eric -:- Hell -:- Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 07:09:14 (PDT)
_
Pilgrim -:- Re: Hell -:- Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 17:42:58 (PDT)
_ Theo -:-
Re: Hell as viewed by the Fathers -:- Thurs, Apr 27, 2000 at 20:24:30 (PDT)
john hampshire -:-
Re: Hell -:- Thurs, Apr 27, 2000 at 04:20:20 (PDT)
_ stan -:-
Re: Hell -:- Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 21:54:31 (PDT)
_ laz -:-
Re: Hell -:- Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 10:14:31 (PDT)
__ Eric -:-
More questions -:- Thurs, Apr 27, 2000 at 08:31:13 (PDT)
___ Pilgrim -:-
Christ and Eternal Punishment -:- Thurs, Apr 27, 2000 at 10:19:30 (PDT)

george -:- Grieving the Holy Spirit -:- Tues, Apr 25, 2000 at 22:13:21 (PDT)
_
Tom -:- Re: Grieving the Holy Spirit -:- Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 23:53:45 (PDT)
_ laz -:-
Re: Grieving the Holy Spirit -:- Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 05:26:00 (PDT)
__ george -:-
Eph.4:30 -:- Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 20:26:49 (PDT)
___ john hampshire -:-
Re: Eph.4:30 -:- Thurs, Apr 27, 2000 at 03:17:59 (PDT)

Rod -:- 'Begetting'...by faith???? -:- Tues, Apr 25, 2000 at 20:37:29 (PDT)
_
john hampshire -:- Re: 'Begetting'...by faith? -:- Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 03:08:53 (PDT)

Tom -:- A Question about a Quote from Calv. -:- Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 23:13:02 (PDT)
_
Pilgrim -:- Re: A Question about a Quote from Calv. -:- Tues, Apr 25, 2000 at 07:16:52 (PDT)
_ Anne -:-
Re: A Question about a Quote from Calv. -:- Tues, Apr 25, 2000 at 06:10:27 (PDT)
_ Rod -:-
Re: A Question about a Quote from Calv. -:- Tues, Apr 25, 2000 at 00:13:17 (PDT)
__ Tom -:-
Re: A Question about a Quote from Calv. -:- Tues, Apr 25, 2000 at 11:52:53 (PDT)
___ Rod -:-
Re: A Question about a Quote from Calv. -:- Tues, Apr 25, 2000 at 15:32:42 (PDT)
___ Pilgrim -:-
Re: A Question about a Quote from Calv. -:- Tues, Apr 25, 2000 at 13:07:09 (PDT)
____ laz -:-
Re: A Question about a Quote from Calv. -:- Tues, Apr 25, 2000 at 15:56:26 (PDT)
_____ Tom -:-
Re: A Question about a Quote from Calv. -:- Tues, Apr 25, 2000 at 23:57:51 (PDT)
_ laz -:-
Re: A Question about a Quote from Calv. -:- Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 23:26:42 (PDT)

Pilgrim -:- Recent Addition to The Highway -:- Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 11:16:38 (PDT)
_
Rod -:- I urge all to read this article -:- Tues, Apr 25, 2000 at 00:50:40 (PDT)

Prestor John -:- Christ Has Risen! -:- Sun, Apr 23, 2000 at 08:01:34 (PDT)
_
Anne -:- Re: Christ Has Risen! -:- Sun, Apr 23, 2000 at 10:14:01 (PDT)

Rod -:- A statement to Bro. Bret -:- Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 23:03:10 (PDT)

Tom -:- John's Mac's Statement -:- Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 18:58:15 (PDT)
_
laz -:- Re: John's Mac's Statement -:- Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 19:28:24 (PDT)
__ Rod -:-
Re: John's Mac's Statement -:- Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 22:46:45 (PDT)
___ laz -:-
Re: John's Mac's Statement -:- Sun, Apr 23, 2000 at 05:36:59 (PDT)

Rod -:- Sort of theological...maybe -:- Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 16:53:20 (PDT)
_
Pilgrim -:- Re: Sort of theological...maybe -:- Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 22:06:00 (PDT)
_ john hampshire -:-
Re: Sort of theological...maybe -:- Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 20:50:55 (PDT)
__ stan -:-
Re: Me thinks ...... -:- Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 23:24:31 (PDT)
__ laz -:-
Re: Sort of theological...maybe -:- Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 21:07:40 (PDT)
___ Rod -:-
Re: Sort of theological...maybe -:- Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 22:34:57 (PDT)
____ laz -:-
Re: Sort of theological...maybe -:- Sun, Apr 23, 2000 at 05:43:23 (PDT)
_____ john hampshire -:-
Re: Sort of theological...maybe -:- Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 06:02:54 (PDT)
______ Tom -:-
Re: Sort of theological...maybe -:- Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 10:04:16 (PDT)
______ Eric -:-
Re: Sort of theological...maybe -:- Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 07:38:45 (PDT)
_______ john hampshire -:-
Re: Sort of theological...maybe -:- Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 14:48:29 (PDT)
________ Eric -:-
Wine, women, and the Law of God -:- Tues, Apr 25, 2000 at 08:01:20 (PDT)
_________ laz -:-
Re: Wine, women, and the Law of God -:- Tues, Apr 25, 2000 at 10:59:09 (PDT)
__________ Eric -:-
A helpful article -:- Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 11:59:29 (PDT)
___________ laz -:-
Re: A helpful article -:- Thurs, Apr 27, 2000 at 21:19:42 (PDT)
____________ Eric -:-
Re: A helpful article -:- Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 07:12:37 (PDT)
_____________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: A helpful article -:- Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 08:13:39 (PDT)
_____________ laz -:-
Re: A helpful article -:- Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 08:12:45 (PDT)
_______ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Sort of theological...maybe -:- Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 11:06:31 (PDT)
_____ Rod -:-
HE IS RISEN INDEED! n/t -:- Sun, Apr 23, 2000 at 06:48:23 (PDT)

Pilgrim -:- Christian Liberty -:- Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 16:20:02 (PDT)
_
laz -:- Re: Christian Liberty -:- Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 17:00:42 (PDT)
__ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Christian Liberty -:- Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 21:24:48 (PDT)

john hampshire -:- In summary..... -:- Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 05:02:17 (PDT)
_
freegrace -:- Re: In summary..... -:- Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 12:25:30 (PDT)

Eric -:- Lest we forget what day it is... -:- Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 13:07:39 (PDT)
_
laz -:- Re: Lest we forget what day it is... -:- Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 13:30:47 (PDT)

Pilgrim -:- Re: Why I don't take wine with comm -:- Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 00:10:18 (PDT)
_
Brother Bret -:- Re: Why I don't take wine with comm -:- Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 22:03:54 (PDT)
__ RJ -:-
Re: Why I don't take wine with comm -:- Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 10:38:43 (PDT)
___ Brother Bret -:-
Re: Why I don't take wine with comm -:- Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 12:11:55 (PDT)
__ Prestor John -:-
Re: Why I don't take wine with comm -:- Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 01:21:47 (PDT)
___ Brother Bret -:-
Re: Why I don't take wine with comm -:- Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 13:27:49 (PDT)
____ Ruth -:-
Re: Why I don't take wine with comm -:- Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 18:31:09 (PDT)
_____ Brother Bret -:-
Re: Why I don't take wine with comm -:- Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 22:33:36 (PDT)
_ Tom -:-
Re: Why I don't take wine with comm -:- Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 11:18:18 (PDT)
__ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Why I don't take wine with comm -:- Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 17:17:05 (PDT)
___ Tom -:-
Re: Why I don't take wine with comm -:- Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 22:55:47 (PDT)
__ laz -:-
Re: Why I don't take wine with comm -:- Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 12:36:05 (PDT)
_ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: Why I don't take wine with comm -:- Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 08:58:18 (PDT)
__ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Why I don't take wine with comm -:- Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 17:53:38 (PDT)
___ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: Why I don't take wine with comm -:- Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 23:39:19 (PDT)
____ Ruth -:-
Re: Why I don't take wine with comm -:- Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 13:56:26 (PDT)
_____ laz -:-
Re: Why I don't take wine with comm -:- Tues, Apr 25, 2000 at 11:01:03 (PDT)
____ Tom -:-
Re: Why I don't take wine with comm -:- Sun, Apr 23, 2000 at 17:12:27 (PDT)
_____ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Why I don't take wine with comm -:- Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 07:22:43 (PDT)
______ Tom -:-
Re: Why I don't take wine with comm -:- Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 09:51:40 (PDT)
_______ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Why I don't take wine with comm -:- Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 11:31:50 (PDT)
____ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Why I don't take wine with comm -:- Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 08:24:25 (PDT)
____ Prestor John -:-
Re: Why I don't take wine with comm -:- Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 00:54:21 (PDT)
_____ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: Why I don't take wine with comm -:- Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 08:55:36 (PDT)
______ Rod -:-
Re: Why I don't take wine with comm -:- Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 11:07:49 (PDT)
_ Eric -:-
Re: Why I don't take wine with comm -:- Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 08:52:18 (PDT)
___ Eric -:-
Actually... -:- Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 12:12:35 (PDT)
_____ Eric -:-
I will get you laz! :) n/t -:- Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 13:11:21 (PDT)
______ laz -:-
Re: I will get you laz! :) n/t -:- Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 13:25:45 (PDT)

Pilgrim -:- Re: Household Baptism -:- Thurs, Apr 20, 2000 at 21:34:22 (PDT)

john hampshire -:- Baptism questions -:- Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 17:27:30 (PDT)

Rod -:- Just to remind everyone -:- Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 12:29:47 (PDT)

the_sword_of_the_lord -:- One dispensation, two covenants -:- Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 12:17:39 (PDT)
_
Pilgrim -:- Re: One dispensation, two covenants -:- Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 21:22:16 (PDT)

scott lewis -:- Parallels Circumcision/Baptism -:- Tues, Apr 18, 2000 at 22:22:15 (PDT)
_
freegrace -:- Re: Parallels Circumcision/Baptism -:- Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 08:02:59 (PDT)
_ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Very succintly put! n/t -:- Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 07:20:46 (PDT)
_ john hampshire -:-
Re: Parallels Circumcision/Baptism -:- Tues, Apr 18, 2000 at 23:22:27 (PDT)
__ laz -:-
Re: Parallels Circumcision/Baptism -:- Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 08:38:46 (PDT)
__ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Parallels Circumcision/Baptism -:- Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 07:57:41 (PDT)
___ scott lewis -:-
Re: Parallels Circumcision/Baptism -:- Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 08:56:58 (PDT)
____ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Parallels Circumcision/Baptism -:- Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 11:35:57 (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)
_____ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: What about Rebaptism? -:- Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 08:20:54 (PDT)
_____ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: What about Rebaptism? -:- Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 07:44:38 (PDT)
______ Pilgrim -:-
Re: What about Rebaptism? -:- Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 08:12:02 (PDT)
_______ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Re: What about Rebaptism? -:- Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 08:24:41 (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)
______ Prestor John -:-
Re: What about Rebaptism? -:- Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 21:38:14 (PDT)
_______ Darrin -:-
Re: What about Rebaptism? -:- Thurs, Apr 20, 2000 at 03:59:18 (PDT)
________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: What about Rebaptism?? -:- Thurs, Apr 20, 2000 at 07:35:24 (PDT)
_________ Eric -:-
Re: What about Rebaptism? -:- Thurs, Apr 20, 2000 at 08:04:50 (PDT)
__________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: What about Rebaptism? -:- Thurs, Apr 20, 2000 at 12:59:38 (PDT)
___________ Eric -:-
Re: What about Rebaptism? -:- Thurs, Apr 20, 2000 at 14:35:12 (PDT)
____________ Rod -:-
RCC attitude -:- Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 10:28:22 (PDT)
____________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: What about Rebaptism? -:- Thurs, Apr 20, 2000 at 18:37:13 (PDT)
_____________ the_sword_of_the_lord -:-
Why I don't take wine with communion... -:- Thurs, Apr 20, 2000 at 19:32:09 (PDT)
____________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: What about Rebaptism? -:- Thurs, Apr 20, 2000 at 18:23:37 (PDT)
_____________ Eric -:-
Re: What about Rebaptism? -:- Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 08:10:01 (PDT)
______________ laz -:-
Re: What about Rebaptism? -:- Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 10:27:24 (PDT)
_______________ Eric -:-
Re: What about Rebaptism? -:- Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 11:42:55 (PDT)
________________ laz -:-
Re: What about Rebaptism? -:- Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 12:29:54 (PDT)
_______________ Rod -:-
Meaning of 'elect' -:- Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 10:39:45 (PDT)
________________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Meaning of 'elect' -:- Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 20:50:19 (PDT)
_________________ Rod -:-
Re: Meaning of 'elect' -:- Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 21:26:54 (PDT)
__________________ Tom -:-
Re: Meaning of 'elect' -:- Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 23:16:43 (PDT)
___________________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Meaning of 'elect' -:- Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 08:56:24 (PDT)
____________________ Rod -:-
Re: Meaning of 'elect' -:- Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 12:22:31 (PDT)
_____________________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Meaning of 'elect' -:- Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 16:51:07 (PDT)
______________________ Rod -:-
Re: Meaning of 'elect' -:- Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 17:24:49 (PDT)
_______________________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: Meaning of 'elect' -:- Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 21:30:53 (PDT)
________________________ Rod -:-
AMEN, brother! n/t -:- Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 22:40:33 (PDT)
___________________ laz -:-
Re: Meaning of 'elect' -:- Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 07:02:26 (PDT)
________________ Tom -:-
Re: Meaning of 'elect' -:- Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 11:54:08 (PDT)
_________________ Rod -:-
Re: Meaning of 'elect' -:- Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 16:24:10 (PDT)
__________ freegrace -:-
Re: What about Rebaptism? -:- Thurs, Apr 20, 2000 at 08:17:54 (PDT)
___________ laz -:-
Re: What about Rebaptism?? -:- Thurs, Apr 20, 2000 at 10:04:23 (PDT)
____________ freegrace -:-
Re: What about Rebaptism? -:- Thurs, Apr 20, 2000 at 18:21:09 (PDT)
_____________ Pilgrim -:-
Re: What about Rebaptism? -:- Thurs, Apr 20, 2000 at 18:40:28 (PDT)
____________ Eric -:-
Re: What about Rebaptism? -:- Thurs, Apr 20, 2000 at 10:26:49 (PDT)
_____________ laz -:-
Re: What about Rebaptism? -:- Thurs, Apr 20, 2000 at 12:02:08 (PDT)


Post New Message


Powerforum Plus+
Paradise Web Enhancements
Copyright 1997,1998



Subject: Regulartory Principle of Worship +
From: GRACE2Me
To: Pilgrim/All
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 20:14:05 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim: Down below you mentioned the 'Regulatory Principle of Worship' as a concern on where to attend church. I 'might' have an idea on what you mean there, but could you explain to the dumb ole sinner saved by grace? :-) I was also visiting another Chrisian Church Board and some questions came up about segregating children during Sunday School and Services. Do you believe the word of God addresses that per se? And could you share what the church has done historically down through the years? Did children's own services corresponded with the changes in the school system (different grades etc)? Thank you. BTW, I of course understand what you are saying about the lack of choices of a bible-believing, complete-gospel preaching, grace embracing church. But let's for the sake of argument eliminate that scenario and deal with whether we should be in church or not. Hey, kinda like asking the pro-abortionists what they think about outlawing abortion in all situations except rape, incest and mother's life being in certain danger. And we know what they usually say...haha GRACE2Me


Subject: Re: Regulartory Principle of Worship +
From: Pilgrim
To: GRACE2Me
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 21:22:34 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
GRACE2Me,

Actually, the RP doesn't directly address the question you raised about children being segregated from the main worship service. It is has more to do with the content and manner in which the people of God are to worship God. However, I do have an opinion on what you have raised in your post. It is of my personal conviction that children are to be with their parents during the communal and public worship of our Lord God. Fathers are responsible for their children's training in the Lord and to pawn them off to a volunteer 'baby sitter' who will give little training or discipline to those in her care is hardly fulfilling that mandate. Secondly, little children are to be exposed to the preaching of the Word, no less than adults. They are to be surrounded by the prayers of the saints and the singing of praises unto the Lord. One need not be able to intellectually follow a sermon to benefit from it, for a child learns as much, and perhaps more by perceiving the example set by those whose care they are under. If a child thinks that 'going to church' is just another 'play time' then how will they conduct themselves as they grow older? When I look and see how the majority of 'worship services' so-called are being conducted in the vast number of churches today, I cannot help but see adults who have never grown up. Their 'services' are 'emotional happy hours' and offer more entertainment than sober reflection of God and His majesty. And yes, you were correct in your last analysis of what I might say. :-) All true believers should make every available effort to belong to a church, and not just attend one just to be able to say, 'Oh yes! We go to church every Sunday.' But as I replied to FiveSola, one must be discerning in under whose care one puts himself and/or his family.

In His Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: Atonement/Propitiation
From: Rod
To: All
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 13:28:42 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
I've been reluctant to tackle this topic, as we have been challenged to do by Pilgrim, because I am neither learned nor a theologian. However, since I've challenged others to do so, in the spirit of 'getting things started,' I offer the following. The primary problem for me in examining this topic is where to begin...and where to end. I think Pilgrim's post was an effrot to alleviate that problem by suggesting areas of concentration, listing four: 'Sacrifice, reconciliation, ransom/redemption, and propitiation.' These are so inter-related that it is difficult to separate them out, but I will try to concentrate on 'reconciliation.' My treatment will be limited, being confined to certain aspects and passages of the NT--the OT aspects of this topic will have to be left to others, due to the nature and scope of these posts. Romans chapter 5 would seem to be the obvious place to start on this subject, but before we go there, let's examine the use and meaning of the word 'reconciliation.' My old dictionary gives this English meaning: 'reduction to congruence; removal or explanation of inconsistency.' A synonym is listed as 'harmony.' As it is employed in the NT in terms of 'The Atonement,' it is used in three basic and various ways, it seems, when the term is employed specifically. The first is that of Romans 5 and 2 Cor. 5:18-19. It is used in these passages in essentially the same manner, signifying a conformation of the believer to the standard which God requires. The thought primarily emphasizes here justification for the individual based on the principle and fact of imputation of his unrighteousness to the Lord Jesus and the imputation of the righteousness of God through His Son to the believer in 'the ministry of reconciliation' (2 Cor. 5:18) given to Paul and other ministers of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. A 'conformation' is involved; conformity to God's ideal. Not to be realized actually by the person, but only as a recipient of grace, his existence is now 'harmonized,' or brought into proper relationship with the Lord God. It is, obviously, as Paul's whole message emphasizes in the NT, a gift of grace to those who deserve condemnation. In this utilization of the term by Paul, the 'harmonious' aspect of the English definition is portrayed. It is also very necessary to mark out that there is a specific relationship between a perfectly just and holy God and the 'new man' affected and effected by the reconciliation of God. God is the Prime Mover, the Actor, the Initiator, the Achiever, the solely Responsible Agent for the accomplishment of the fact of reconciliation. Man is the beneficiary, the recipient, the receptor of a divine gift. He is passive as far as the reconciliation of God is concerned, until and unless God acts upon him by means of justification by grace through faith. Then he responds to the grace of God by receiving the gift of faith from the application of the Word of Truth made possible by the new life of the new birth received by the power and motivation of the Spirit of God now indwelling. God effects the whole change, granting a new spiritual existence with a will for God in Christ, providing justification, securing faith by provision of the truth of God's revelation in the Bible, and creating a newly sanctified person, destined to conformation to His own Son. Therein lies the secret of 'reconciliation'--the person redeemed is 'predestinated to the conformation of the image' of the Son of God (Rom. 8:29) by God's "adoption," by the work and attributes of the Lord Jesus Christ, on no other basis than 'the good pleasure of his will' (Eph. 1:5). God is not moved or changed in all this. He is eternally the same. But
GOD MOVES MEN, changing them, 'creating them in Christ Jesus' (Eph. 2:10), bringing them into right relationship with Himself and steadily working in progressive, personal sanctification until they achieve, through His actions of grace, glorification with Himself at their final destination in eternity (Rom. 30). And he does this, as we've noted, 'according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself' (Eph. 1:9). Note carefully the expressions used in Rom. 5:1-11: 'For when we were without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly' (verse 6). 'But God commendeth his love toward us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us' (verse 8; note the specificity of the Atonement--'us'). Look also at these expressions describing the state of the believer and note the nature of the believer as a recipient, not an actor: 'being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him' (verse 9); 'we were enemies,' but because of God's work and provision, 'we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son,' and 'being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life' (verse 10). It is significant that our only action (beyond reception of grace) is mentioned in verse 11, and that itself is a reaction, 'we also joy in God' (our proper response and attitude), and that 'through our Lord Jesus Christ,' and that purely because it is He Who is the One, 'by whom we have now received the reconciliation' of God (verse 11). That same theme of the activity of God on behalf of His elect ones is carried out in the similar usage of the term in Eph. 2:14-18, quoting 15-16, where the Apostle speaks of the new relationship in Christ of the redeemed Jew and Gentile believers: 'having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances, to make in himself one new man, so making peace; and that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby....' Once again, God initiating and acting; man responding and reacting, and benefitting immensely because of God's prior work. I never cease to marvel that my Arminian friends cannot see these things! But there are a couple of other senses in the Epistles in which the expression 'reconciliation' is applied. The first is discovered in Col. 1:20-23. Here, though the idea is very similar to the formerly discussed concepts of conformation and harmonizing, the 'realignment' of the other passages, there is the additional thought of the 'absolute completion' of the fact. There is no doubt of it; it is unquestionably an accomplished fact--'And having made peace through the blood of HIS cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself--by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven' (verse 20; pretty inclusive and definite, I'd say!). The same word, stressing permanency, is used in the Eph. 2:16 passage; the change is effective and permanent because it pleases God and accomplishes His purpose. Finally, we come to another word, an important and precious word of hope and encouragement and assurance. Far more than being just a fact and a legal transaction, the reconciliation of God is grounded in love and mercy for His people: 'Wherefore, in all things it behooved him to be made like his brethren [that is us believers by His grace], that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people' (Heb. 2:17). Jesus Christ, God in the flesh, the Lord, the Second Person of the glorious Trinity, is the expression of God's exact image (Heb. 1:3). As such, He is 'merciful and faithful' in His activity on behalf of His 'brethren' who are made so by His actions in that merciful and faithful action of propitiation. How great a thing is it to 'make reconciliation for the sins of the people?' So great and so far above and beyond us that it can only be comprehended in relation to the endless mercy grounded in the love of God: 'But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath made us alive together with Christ (by grace are ye saved)' (Eph. 2:4-5). How boundless and wonderful a concept of the grace of God is His reconciliation! Based on His love and mercy; founded on a decision of His will to save us; grounded in the precious shed blood of the Savior, the necessitated Sacrifice demanded by God's holy justice; how can we exhaust this subject? We can't. One must simply quit and stand in awe of God's work on his behalf. For it is only the redeemed who can realize the depth of our collective and individual debt and the extent of the work of God to our benefit. The lost will scoff yet again, never realizing the gratitude we feel for His Majesty, the Lord God of all the universe. Oh, God, of our salvation, we praise and thank you! Amen.


Subject: Re: Atonement/Reconciliation
From: Pilgrim
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 15:11:05 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod,

First, let me extend my appreciation to you for entering into this discussion of the glorious atonement of our Lord Jesus Christ. I too am no theologian nor am I learned, but a simple believer in the Lord Christ due to the mercy and grace of the love of God for me from before time. It is indeed an 'awesome' thing to comprehend the love of God in Christ Jesus for us poor needy sinners, who are by nature the wretched of the earth, casting off God's everlasting kindness toward us for our own 'vain imaginations' and trusting rather in our own 'foolish hearts'. It is our constant effort to 'exchange the truth of God for a lie' (Rom 1:25) and to dishonor the name of the Creator, Who is blessed over all. Amen! Our indigenous love of sin and hatred of God has created an immeasurable and impassable gulf between ourselves and He Who sustains us in life, giving us even the very air we breath. (Rom 8:7; Ps 10:1). It is our inherent hatred of God which is expressed in our loathsome and licentious living that has brought about the enmity which stands between us and God and has evoked His wrath upon us. (Rom 1:18; Jam 4:4). And so, out of His great love which He loved us, for no reason in ourselves; including some imagined 'foreseen faith', but rather as those who were His enemies and destitute of any holy desire whatsoever, He sent His only begotten Son, made in human flesh to reconcile us to Himself by the blood of the cross.

Rom 5:10 'For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.'

It is this 'reconciliation' that was of such importance, for there could never be a union with holiness to unrighteousness; God and man. Doubtless we as sinners are by nature estranged from God by our own wickedness of heart, yet more so is God by nature estranged from us and thus our mortal enemy, Who will some day be our Judge and Executioner. Therefore it was of necessity that God be reconciled to us by the removal of the offense. It is here that so many good Christian men and women have lost focus. We are taught from the vast majority of pulpits, over the radio, on television, books, tapes, etc. that Christ's death has made it possible for us to 'get to heaven' as if THIS were the 'pièce de resistánce' of Christ's atonement for sinners. How far this has missed the mark in understanding the glory of the cross!! It is to HIM that we have been reconciled!

Eph 2:15 'Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; 16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: 17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.'

Through Christ for us, we have received in part and principle that which Adam once had in the Garden of Eden and lost for himself and all mankind: blessed communion with our Creator GOD. What sweetness there is in God and His love for us. How anti-climatic is it therefore to focus our attention on 'heaven'! and not on the ONE to whom reconciliation has been accomplished for us through Christ's own humiliation?! Heaven must be remembered is but a 'way station' wherein will dwell our departed spirits to await the grand return of our Lord Christ. It is but a temporary place and will pass away in an instant for the establishment of the New Heaven and New Earth, where righteousness dwells. What an incomprehensible truth it is to realize that now, EVEN NOW, we have been reunited to God and the doors of that precious communion once nonexistent, restored. How large is our portion to know HIM and to be counted as sons; heirs of the kingdom of our Father and God!

'Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: . . .' (1John 3:1a) 'Oh how great is thy goodness, which thou hast laid up for them that fear thee; which thou hast wrought for them that trust in thee before the sons of men! 20 Thou shalt hide them in the secret of thy presence from the pride of man: thou shalt keep them secretly in a pavilion from the strife of tongues. 21 Blessed be the LORD: for he hath shewed me his marvellous kindness in a strong city.'(Psa 31:19-21)

Reconciliation has been made in our behalf and thus our hearts should be overflowing with joy and amazement. Should not our own hearts echo the desire of the Apostle Paul's own heart which was to:

'. . .be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; if by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.' (Phil 3:9-11)

Have we truly considered our RECONCILIATION to God through the great sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ in our behalf? To do so will surely move us to confess:

'Whom have I in heaven but thee? and there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee. My flesh and my heart faileth: but God is the strength of my heart, and my portion for ever.' (Psa 73:25, 26)

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim 2Cor 5:18 'And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. 20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.' Heb 2:17 'Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. 18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.'


Subject: A question for the board
From: Rod
To: All
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 11:00:59 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Here is a post by Pilgrim of a short time back which has gone largely unnoticed or ignored. Compare all the spilled cyber-ink on the topic of schools. I think it's a shame that we can so easily brush aside a topic like this and I was interested in seeing what the theologs here would have to say on the subject. I invite you to consider this subject again and to give it your best shot. Pilgrim's post: 'I would like to see a discussion concerning the atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ. There are 4 specific terms used in the New Testament to describe what His saving work entailed: 1) Sacrifice 2) Reconciliation 3) Ransom/Redemption 4) Propitiation Perhaps we could have a separate thread dedicated to each of these terms so that they could be discussed in detail individually. I think it would be rewarding and provide a blessing to all, including are many 'lurkers'. :-) In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: Grown Daughters
From: laz
To: All
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 07:30:22 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
'Grace2Me' (no doubt a MacArthurite, hehe) suggested we might start a new thread about where grown daughters should be living. I have an opinion. Thought you were gonna get away without hearing it, huh? ;-) Here goes: As Christians, it's all about covenants as they have been made by God thru men (father, husband, church (men elders)). So, a woman should always be under the protective covering of either her daddy, her hubby, or the Church elders. NOT 'out and about' sowing seeds, discovering herself and/or the world ... left to her own devices to ward off the wolves single handed. Once raised by Mom and Dad ... covenant daughters are 'given away' (handed off) to their next covenantal home headed by a loving covenant-minded husband. Are they not the weaker, more gullible sex? hahaha (now I've started more than just an new thread...hehe) As for the 30 yrs spinster, I suppose she can eventually leave the home if she has the economic means to support herself (but still be loosely under her father's 'authority') but should have already aligned herself with a solid Church family where the eldership can attend to her spiritual needs...much like a widow. Thoughts? blessings, laz


Subject: Re: Grown Daughters
From: GRACE2Me
To: laz
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 20:48:51 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi Laz: I guess I would be considered a MacArthurite, but that did not enter my mind when coming up with this 'handle.' I agree with what you are saying, and have held to it of late. But have not been able to dogmatically pinpoint Scriptural backing (actually just never took the time to dig). Would like to know more about this covenantal covering you brought up. There is a woman that I know that has used that term 'covering' to support her not coming to our church without her husband. As I mentioned before, my oldest daughter went to bible college for 1 year (96-97). Then finaces prevented her from going back the first semester of the following year. When she went to go back in December 1997, she had an accident on the way there. She totaled the car she was using, and the police thought he would find her dead. The Lord speared and protected her, as she only had minor cuts and bruises on her face and wrist. I believe the Lord intervened to both prevent her from going back from some reason, yet at the same time, in His woderful grace and mercy spare her fronm death or serious injury. I have reminded her of that as she prays about whether it is God's will for her to go back to bible college. She has been considering 2 in Tennessee. Bryan College in Dayton, and Tennessee Temple in Chattanooga (both are close to her maternal grandparents. And yes I do agree with you about the woman being the 'weaker vessel.' That's biblical ain't it? :-). Thanks for the input...............GRACE2Me


Subject: Re: Grown Daughters
From: laz
To: GRACE2Me
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 07:06:07 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Dear Grace2me - I try to come up with a good biblical defense of this idea of covering. ;-) I'm fixing to start Doug Wilson's new book, 'The Federal Husband' (as Jeff goes 'AAAAACK', hehe)...he might have some insights. I do know that the OP's Horizon magazine had an interesting rebuttal by a lady to a recent book review the magazine did on Doug's book. Gonna have to read the book to see if the lady's rebuttal was sound (sounded like it though). As for your lady friend using the 'covering' idea to not go to church (because her husband said NOT to?). Well, she is commanded first by God to go to Church. Period. She is to obey her husband 'as unto the Lord', yes,....which precludes her obeying him if he's asking her to sin. blesssings, laz


Subject: Re: Grown Daughters
From: Anne
To: laz
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 18:45:37 (PDT)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
Laz, what is the OP's
Horizon magazine, please? I am unfamiliar with what OP stands for, I fear. I loved Wilson's book, Reforming Marriage, and am looking forward to hearing how you like Federal Husband. As someone pointed out down below somewhere, Wilson's magazine does tend to be a bit over-the-top, but the writing is so good, I just love it! Trouble is, when one is that entertained, it can be easy to automatically fall in with what is being said, without using necessary discernment. Well, that's what happens with me, anyway. Pax! Anne


Subject: Re: Grown Daughters
From: laz
To: Anne
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 20:32:48 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Anne - Orthodox Presby (OP). At this point, I hesitate to say ANYTHING about the Wilson's... hahaha...especially any comments about 'Reforming Marriage'. LOL!! blessings, laz


Subject: Re: Grown Daughters
From: Pilgrim
To: laz
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 07:37:56 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
laz,

Where in God's Word is the commandment from God that all Christians MUST attend church? I know of some indirect commandments that would have true believers to read the Scriptures. But I have never come across a command, either direct or indirect that says that Christians MUST attend church and that if they don't, it is SIN. And this is exactly what you at least implied above, 'Well, she is commanded first by God to go to Church. Period. She is to obey her husband 'as unto the Lord', yes,....which precludes her obeying him if he's asking her to sin.' I smacks of 'Doug Wilsonism' and his unbiblical and extreme views on marriage, covenants, etc.. Yes, hehehe, I was going 'AAAAACK' when you brought his name up. His magazine used to be delivered to my home and it didn't take more than 2 issues to realize that this man is an extremist. Notice I did NOT say he is unregenerate, apostate, or any other type of thing. I will state publicly, that I think Doug Wilson is a rebel Christian, a domineering man who has an inordinate desire for power and control and an intellectual snob. There, now sue me! LOL

In His Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Grown Daughters
From: laz
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 18:13:27 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
...I must be a sucker for rebels, eh? Maybe I'll go see if Matt Slick needs any help on his site. ROFLOL!! laz


Subject: Re: Grown Daughters
From: GRACE2Me
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 13:17:40 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hello Pilgrim' You wrote: 'Where in God's Word is the commandment from God that all Christians MUST attend church? I know of some indirect commandments that would have true believers to read the Scriptures. But I have never come across a command, either direct or indirect that says that Christians MUST attend church and that if they don't, it is SIN.' It is my limited understanding that the word of God in dealing with worship, studying, ministering with the gifts that Christ gives, and fellowship, instituted the local new testament church. Whether it is in homes, or a building contructed for assembling, are we not to assemble together as believers. Does God not care one way or the other if we gather together? What of Heb. 10:25 that says: 'Not forsaking the assembling of yourselves together as the MANNER OF SOME IS; but exhorting one another, and so much the more as we see the Day approaching.' Are you advocating that we just close the church doors? Or have a cavalier attitude about people attending? And what has the church done and thought historically down through the centuries regarding this? I will not even pretend to know regarding the latter question. Look forward to your reply, thank you! GRACE2Me


Subject: Re: Grown Daughters
From: Pilgrim
To: GRACE2Me
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 17:01:28 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
GRACE2Me

I heartily agree that Christians should not 'forsake the assembling of themselves', but this is hardly a 'fixed commandment', but as I read it an exhortation. For example when the Law says, 'Thou shalt not kill (murder)', it is a universal mandate and it applies in all situations with no exceptions. Thus, if one would make the text in Heb. 10:25 a 'universal commandment', would this not preclude the taking of vacations or any other set of circumstances a person or family might find themselves in by God's providence? I would offer you a particular circumstance where an individual/family is living in a rural community where there were only 2 'churches'; one being a Jehovah Witnesses' hall, and the other a Unitarian Church. Is it therefore obligatory upon that individual/family to attend one of these two places for worship? How about a town were there are only churches that are Arminian and/or Charismatic/Pentecostal? Should a person who has come by God's grace to embrace biblical Calvinism and the Regulatory Principle of Worship attend one of these types of congregations? thus putting themselves and all their family members under the teaching and authority of these types of churches?

Now I sincerely await your reply! :-) In His Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Grown Daughters
From: Five Sola
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 19:37:35 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Dear brother, This is the last place I would ever expect to see you take a stand against? I guess I can see you wanting to be cautious not to give a blanket 'thou shalt' but am I mis-reading you as to say that regular church attendance is not necessary? I know I do not have the intelligence nor the years in study as you do but something just doesn't sound right. I understand both scenerios you give and I agree that nether of those situations would be acceptable for church attendance. And while we cannot find a perfect church (for all of them have man within them) :-) we must seek out an assembling of saints to give us accountability, authority over us, etc. Sometimes that is a great burden on ourselves. There are two families in our church that live in other small towns outside our city, one drives 45 minutes, the other 2 hours, but they know the need for a solid church is necessary and worth the sacrifice. Would not the 4th commandment and the practice of the New Testament church give good reason to believe we need this?? Many of the proof text we use to show the change in the sabbath from Saturday to Sunday give examples of regular meeting places. If I remember right, Paul on one occassion did not leave town so that he could visit with the church one more time. I really don't know how to 'challenge' your statement on this. I guess I am just trying to understand your view. A stumped Five Sola. :-)


Subject: Re: Grown Daughters
From: Pilgrim
To: Five Sola
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 21:08:23 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Five Sola,

I think you understood me correctly brother. I am a firm advocate of believers attending an organized church. But I cannot approve of attending just 'any' church for the sake of attending. We are to gather with the saints at a place that meets the biblical criterion for a 'Church'. I think the Belgic Confession has rightly summarized the biblical teaching of discerning Christ's true church:

1) The pure preaching of the Word. 2) The right administration of the sacraments. 3) The application of church discipline.

Given these three essentials as being the qualifications of the true church, the examples I offered would not qualify. Why would the head of a household expose himself and his family to 'wolves'? Just because he should be in the field grazing? I certainly agree that there is no perfect church and if should find it, by all means don't join it, for you'll ruin it! :-) Perhaps my 'years' and travels have exposed me to more of what happens when people get involved with a church that doesn't have sound teaching, makes the sacraments a 'light' thing, and/or doesn't apply proper church discipline. Even the strongest of the strong can and often is negatively affected by such a place. I hope I have made my position a bit clearer for you, regardless if you choose to agree or disagree. I am first concerned that you understand me aright. :-)

In His Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Grown Daughters
From: laz
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 17:58:18 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim - I would agree that not going to church is NECESSARILY sin (the jury is still out on the scenario you posited, LOL!)...just as attending a Jehovah's Witness Church ought not be considered to be an act of obedience. I could maintain that one would get SOME gospel even in many Arminian churches ... which might be better than nothing. After all, show me the perfect church? Now, the situation of being under the authority of Arminians is problematic (especially if you know more than they to include the grossness of their error)...but then again, how many Arminian churches practice biblical discipline? LOL! As for Wilson, you may be right....but I still like alot of his stuff. naaa naaa! LOL! Laz the Amil Wilsonite


Subject: Re: Grown Daughters
From: Tom
To: laz
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 10:36:42 (PDT)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
Laz I guess that would rule out going to college or univercity, wouldn't it? Tom


Subject: Re: Grown Daughters
From: laz
To: Tom
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 10:39:42 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
No, not at all. My daughter plans to be a doctor....she just doesn't know it. hehe laz


Subject: Re: Grown Daughters
From: Tom
To: laz
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 10:50:59 (PDT)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
Laz My daughter plans on becoming a physiotherapist, and I can tell you that there is no way she can do that by staying home. Of course God may have other plans for her life. Tom


Subject: Re: Grown Daughters
From: laz
To: Tom
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 14:40:02 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
No one said anything about staying home...just ensuring 'covering' at all times...and YOU are going to be held responsible for that covering (or delegation thereof)...either by giving it to another man (by marriage) or by making darn sure when she leaves your house...a great Church family with strong elders is waiting to receive her as their daughter. laz


Subject: Re: Grown Daughters
From: john hampshire
To: laz
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 22:45:35 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Laz, Not that it matters, but the idea expressed of maintaining a proper male authority as protector of the female is a great idea. It is somewhat possible to control the marriage aspects. It is worse when it comes to church leaders who would be a protector. The type of honorable men you suggest are few and far between. Even fewer are churches that have 'strong elders waiting to receive her'. Though, it is a great idea just the same. 'But where shall wisdom be found? and where is the place of understanding?' Job 28:12 john


Subject: Re: Grown Daughters
From: laz
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 06:59:30 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
...yeah, the thought scares me too! I guess I will have to train my daughter(s) up to be VERY strong women of faith (even though that may make it THAT much harder to find a husband, hehe)...knowing that 'solid' churches are few and far between. But I also know that the Lord will provide. blessings,laz


Subject: Weaker Sex
From: Tom
To: all
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 07:38:34 (PDT)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
While we are on this topic, I thought it might be helpful to look into what the Bible means by the woman is the weaker sex. Is this just a physical thing or does it include other aspects? Judging from Christian people I know, I would have to say I know more strong woman of faith, than strong men of faith. Tom


Subject: Re: Weaker Sex
From: laz
To: Tom
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 18:00:43 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
While we are on this topic, I thought it might be helpful to look into what the Bible means by the woman is the weaker sex. Is this just a physical thing or does it include other aspects? Judging from Christian people I know, I would have to say I know more strong woman of faith, than strong men of faith. Tom
---
************* ...which only proves that you(we) have MUCH to lament over.... laz p.s. actually, the degree of faith is immaterial...what counts is that men and women fulfill their respective and ordained roles within the church and family. My daughter SHOULD have just as much 'faith' as my sons...they are both getting the same 'education'. Nevertheless, women are more susceptible to the wiles of the evil one and so God has given men the job of shepherding the flock and family....don't ask me why. ;-)


Subject: Public Schools
From: scott lewis
To: All
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 07:10:21 (PDT)
Email Address: navyrdc1@megsinet.net

Message:
Just received this from a friend and thought it might start a thread about our Education System and its failures. The New Schools Prayer. This was written by a teen in Bagdad, Arizona. This is incredible!! Now I sit me down in school Where praying is against the rule For this great nation under God Finds mention of Him very odd. If Scripture now the class recites, It violates the Bill of Rights. And anytime my head I bow Becomes a Federal matter now. Our hair can be purple, orange or green, That's no offense; it's a freedom scene. The law is specific, the law is precise. Prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice. For praying in a public hall Might offend someone with no faith at all. In silence alone we must meditate, God's name is prohibited by the state. We're allowed to cuss and dress like freaks, And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks. They've outlawed guns, but FIRST the Bible. To quote the Good Book makes me liable. We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen, And the 'unwed daddy', our Senior King. It's 'inappropriate' to teach right from wrong, We're taught that such 'judgments' do not belong. We can get our condoms and birth controls, Study witchcraft, vampires and totem poles. But the Ten Commandments are not allowed, No word of God must reach this crowd. It's scary here I must confess, When chaos reigns the school's a mess. So, Lord, this silent plea I make: Should I be shot; My soul please take! Amen


Subject: my 2 cents :-)
From: Five Sola
To: scott lewis
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 19:51:33 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I didn't feel like addressing any of the particular replies so far. This tends to be a touchy subject sometimes and I have seen it get 'canned-vegetable-throwing' violent. :-) My perspective might be unique for I work in the public school system :-) or at least until the end of this school season. I have been for the past 7 years. Originally I saw nothing wrong with sending my children to public school, maybe sending them to private school to get them away from 'all those gangs and stuff' :-) but since working in elementary/middle school for two years of that time and seeing the teachers purposefully teaching and mentoring the children to doubt and distrust their parents. Even directly telling & illustrating to the students how little their parents knew, and openly chastizing them (in front of class) if they put trust in their parents or went to them for help on homework. (and this is from the best district out of dozens in town) I decided that public school was not an option at that point. We have decided that homeschooling is the best option for our children to better educate and train up in fear and admonition of the Lord. Now I will not as some of the homeschool people I have met (no necessarily anyone in this thread) codemn parents who send their children to public or private schools. I have even seen some (Greg Harris) give the biblical proof text why christian parents sending their children to public/private school is wrong, etc. I do personally wonder why but it is not for me to chastize. They are those children's covenant heads and they will face any 'chastizement' from the Lord (if there is any to be given). I personally then think the public education system we have in present day is anti-educational (ironic), and anit-christian (no surprise) and would like to see it still intact for those pagan children :-) we need some training grounds for those people who are going to cook my French Fries at McDonalds. :-D Five Sola


Subject: Keeping our perspective
From: Rod
To: scott lewis
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 12:59:27 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
To all: Let's remember that our schools have myriad problems because our society has myraid problems. We can't section off one area and say, 'Look how bad it is here.' The fact that it 'is bad' in this or that area certainly needs to be addressed, but we have to remember we're dealing with a 'people problem,' not an institutional difficulty.


Subject: Re: Keeping our perspective
From: Anne
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 18:21:32 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
' . . . . .we have to remember we're dealing with a 'people problem,' not an institutional difficulty. ' So true, Rod! This article by A. W. Pink, entitled 'Vile,' speaks to the innate depravity of all people. Here is but one paragraph:
Does the reader object against our appropriation of the Psalms and Proverbs, and say, We in this New Testament age occupy much higher ground than those did. Probably you have often been told so by men, but are you sure of it from the Word of God? Listen, then, to the groan of an eminent Christian: 'I am carnal, sold under sin' (Romans 7:14). Do you never feel thus, my reader? Then we are sincerely sorry for you. As to the other part of the description of fallen man, 'half devil': did not Christ say to regenerate Peter, 'Get thee behind Me, Satan: thou art an offense unto Me' (Matthew 16:23)? And are there not times when writer and reader fully merits the same reproof? Speaking for myself, I bow my head with shame, and say, Alas there is. The article in its entirety is available at: http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pointe/4495/vile.html So, to expect any group of sin-steeped humans to manage to run an institution up to God's high standards is a lost cause, whether it is a school system, or a single school; a department store chain, or a single mom-and-pop shop; a General Motors assembly plant, or a guy with a lawn mower. For instance, if the 'Christian school' is made up of people who teach the prosperity, health-and-wealth gospel, I'd pass. Or if it is 'socially upscale', I'd head for the hills. Fort Worth has an Episcopalian school that costs upward of $10K a year, and its roster shows it. If you see the school's sticker, it's likely stuck on the back of a Lexus SUV. Charles attends the local middle school, where I'm on the site based management committee, the PTA board, etc. I know the teachers, and the kids. Several attend our church, in fact. Doug Wilson may criticize me all he wants, but I know Charles is doing well at his school, and is growing in his walk with the Lord, to boot. ;-> To God be the glory, now and forever. In all situations, His will will be done . . . . it CANNOT be thwarted! No matter how hard we try. Anne Vile! www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pointe/4495/vile.html


Subject: Re: Keeping our perspective
From: Rod
To: Anne
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 01:29:03 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Anne, Thanks for the reply! I think you are right on target.


Subject: Re: Keeping our perspective
From: Prestor John
To: Rod
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 20:52:58 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
You may have something there Rod I suggest this excellent article by David Chilton. What's Really Wrong with Public Schools reformed-theology.org/html/issue08/whats_wrong_with_schools.htm


Subject: Re: Keeping our perspective
From: scott lewis
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 21:33:47 (PDT)
Email Address: navyrdc1@megsinet.net

Message:
Hey Prestor John, Great article I really like this paragraph. The real problem with public schools is that they exist in the first place. They are an ungodly, unlawful, collectivist institution. The many evils now spewing out of them derive from the curse of God inflicted on all institutions that defy Him. He has commanded parents to educate their children in terms of His law; that cannot be done in a public school. If we want our children to fear Him, to grow into diligent workers for His kingdom, we cannot afford to train them in an institution which has as its fundamental presupposition that I am entitled to as much money as I can vote out of my neighbor's pocket. What a good way to put it :) scott lewis ps Doesn't the Bible tell us that its our(the parent's) RESPONSIBILITY to teach our children, not the public schools?


Subject: Re: Keeping our perspective
From: Pilgrim
To: scott lewis
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 06:31:56 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Scott,

If I were you, I wouldn't be too quick to assimilate David's Chilton's every word against Public Schools. For one good reason alone is that he was a radical Reconstructionist, if that means anything to you? But since you 'really liked' that paragraph of Chilton's would you then posit that the Public School system should be completely removed? If so:

1) What would you substitute in its place if anything? 2) Are you advocating that all children should be homeschooled?

In His Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Keeping our perspective
From: Prestor John
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 08:58:48 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim,

Now I am not suggesting that we adopt all of Chilton's views, yes he was a Reconstructionist (are all who are Reconstructionists radicals? I don't know just asking.) however, public schools were originally created by the Unitarians so that schooling could be separated from religious training. It was at this time too that schools were funded by taxes placed upon the entire community. Up until that time the people who wanted their children schooled would get together hire a teacher, approve of the curriculum and those children would be educated by that teacher. If the teacher was deficient in any way he/she would be fired and the children would be taught at home until a better teacher could be found. Total control was given to the parents. Do we have this now under public education? I don't believe so, and I also don't believe that the curriculum now being taught is conducive to education a a person. To this end see the attached link.

To put it briefly (too late I know) school must be separate from government and placed once again into the hands of the parents. Lost Tools of Learning by Dorthy Sayers www.gbt.org/text/sayers.html


Subject: Re: Keeping our perspective
From: Pilgrim
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 11:35:42 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Prestor John,

Ah, my Post Millennialist friend and brother. It is this type of distorted 'reasoning'? that if for no other reason I would reject Post Millennialism. :-) First: Chilton before he died had adopted 'Hyper-Preterism' as his own. I hope the red flags are showing at this point! Second: If education in general and the selecting of teachers in particular was left to the parents of the world, do you really think that things would be any different than they are now? Do you seriously think an agreeable consensus could be reached among the various people of even a small community, never mind a large metropolitan city like New York, Chicago or Los Angeles? What are you supposing is so different in the ideologies of parents from what is held by the politicians who control the Public School system now? Thirdly: Public education was NOT devised by Unitarians. Even in Calvin's day there was 'Public Education' and to which the vast majority of the Reformers and Puritans supported. Why? Because who wants to go to the public market and wait for the clerk to count fingers and toes so as to return the right amount of change for a purchase? The fact is, society couldn't function without an educated populace. I grant you that the entire ideology that undergirds Public Schools is corrupt: But that's simply the expression of the depravity that all men are born with. One and one is two, regardless if you are a Christian or a pagan. The truth is, an ignorant society is a threat to humanity far more than one that is indoctrinated in what they already believe: e.g., secular humanism, evolution, immorality, etc., ad nauseam. Lastly: Contrary to your eschatological views, the world is NOT going to be nor are we instructed to Christianize it in such a way as to overthrow the government, force all people to bow before the Living God, etc. When the Lord Christ returns, it is clear, that there will be little faith to be found on the earth. The ELECT are a REMNANT and not a majority. They never have been and never will be. We are to promulgate the Gospel of Christ and make Disciples of all those whom the Lord calls. And the HOLY SPIRIT will create the change of hearts and minds of His own. This will serve to be a testimony against the world and its godless ideology. It will of course in some cases exact a change in government, education, etc. But it isn't even going to be close to Calvin's Geneva, which had its own problems and eventually it failed. Here the words of the LORD of the Kingdom of God:

Luke 17:20 'And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.'

I am convinced that Christians should make sure their children receive a 'Christian' education, whether in a private institution or at home. But if neither is feasible, despite what Douglas Wilson says, a child of Christian parents will not turn into a demon if he/she attends a public school.

In His Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Keeping our perspective
From: Prestor John
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 12:48:41 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim,

Ah, my Ammillennial brother and friend }:^{). You know that I reject most if not all the ideologies of reconstructionism, although because I read Credenda Agenda I have been lumped into that camp. And I am with you in the fight against Hyper-preterism and I was saddened when I read of Chilton's falling into that camp. But let us not make this a talk about Millennial views that has been done and over done in this forum and I for one am more than ready to say that we disagree but can still agree on the main points of our belief.

Even if the ideologies of the parents of large metropolitan cities like New York, or Los Angeles are the same as the politicians that control the Public School system I still say that is no reason why I should be taxed for their children. Let them pay for their own children. Likewise, if a group of like minded people and I want to start up a school so that our children may be educated in the curriculum that we deem fitting that should be available to us. What I object to is my money being used to teach other people's children a something that I personally find offensive. Schools should be separate from the government.

As to the 'Public Education' in the time of the Reformers and Puritans well I have seen the curriculum of that time and I also would support that system of 'Public Education'. I'm not calling for the end of education, on the contrary if anything Christianity is the biggest supporter of that system, without a doubt society is better off educated, but what their educated in is also important.

And lastly Pilgrim I am not calling for the overturn of the government I am calling for the reformation of the people, I am calling for a repentance, and a turning back to God. People need to return to a biblical world view. Will that effect our government? Perhaps, but I am not putting my hope in the government. My desire is for the kingdom of God, that is what you and I belong to.

Not by might , nor by power, but by My Spirit, says the LORD of hosts.

That is my motto Pilgrim. The kingdom of God is built up by the Spirit of God, I don't force anyone to bow or believe.
Prestor John
Servabo Fidem


Subject: Re: Keeping our perspective
From: Pilgrim
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 14:14:26 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:

Prestor John, Doubtless we agree on a vast majority of dogma! :-) And I can sympathize with your desire to not discuss eschatological views in relation to this thread. However, I would suggest, that one cannot separate the two, especially where a Post Millennial view is adhered to. For as you said, 'My desire is for the kingdom of God, that is what you and I belong to.' And it is not one of the main tenets of Post Millennialism that the 'Kingdom of God' will virtually dominate the nations of the earth? With your own personal application of this view, it has been my experience to note that the vast majority of Post Millennialists advocate most everything and anything to bring this about all the while also quoting, 'Not by might , nor by power, but by My Spirit, says the LORD of hosts.' But as an A Millennerian, I must disagree as I stated above, that the Kingdom of God is a spiritual kingdom and that which the Post Millennialists are looking for is a manifestation of the New Heaven and New Earth before Christ returns. Why avoid the obvious and necessary result of taking government out of education and letting the common man decide how it is to be organized, what curriculum will be used and what teachers are best suited to teach that curriculum? As I pointed out be way of a query, 'Do you honestly think that the common man would do anything essentially different than what the government is doing currently?' Are not the politicians who have control over education presently been elected to office by the DESIRES of these same people you suggest would do a better job? The politicians are men/women after their own choosing to do that which they themselves would do. As to the taxes collected by the government from those like yourself and in some measure myself as well, this is a 'red herring' if there ever was one. I ask, How many myriad other programs, etc. are funded by the government which Christians oppose? To quash this misuse of public funds would indeed demand the overthrow of the entire government. 'Government' is not a 'system' as much it is a assembly of representatives of the people. And it is THEY (people) who are the ungodly. God Himself has established ALL governments and the Lord Christ clearly said

Matt 22:17 'Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? 18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? 19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. 20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? 21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.'

Now from this I am not in any way advocating Christian passivism when it relates to the corruption and ungodliness which dominates all nations and in their governments. But until the Spirit of God would bring worldwide revival and reformation, the changes of policy you and others are looking for will never take place. And again, I suggest that a Christian world is not to be. There are many so-called Christian schools which are doing actually far more harm in the educating of children than some Public Schools. So perhaps, and doubtless there is far more immediate need for Reformation in the Church of Jesus Christ than there is in the quickening of politicians? :-)

In His Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Keeping our perspective
From: Prestor John
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 22:45:19 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:

Pilgrim,

You know I am just going to have to start reading the same Post-mills that you are, because for the life of me I can't remember Boettner saying that. In fact let me quote from Boettner's Postmillennialism:

There seems to be a general impression that when we speak of a Millennium we mean a time when the world will be sinless or practically so. We do believe that a time is coming when the people of the world in general will be Christians, a time when Satan will no longer be able to 'deceive the nations' (Rev. 20;3). But we do not believe that the Kingdom in this world, even in its millennial fullness and power, will be a perfect or sinless state. Nor do we believe that every person will be a Christian. Yet it is not uncommon to find pre- and amillennial writers inferring or declaring that such are the tenets of Postmillennialism, and using such terms as 'ideal perfection,' 'a perfect world,' 'convert every individual,' and 'sinless perfection,' to describe the postmillennial position. No representative Postmillennialist teaches those things. Certainly such was not the teachings of Hodge, Dabney, Shedd, Strong, Snowden, or Warfield. Nor is it the teaching of Scripture. Sinless perfection belongs only to the heavenly life. As long as the person remains in this world, even though he is a truly born again Christian, remnants of the old nature still cling to him, and he falls victim to some extent to such things as selfish desires, envy, jealousy, impatience, etc. All of us still have occasion to say with Paul, 'The good which I would I do not; but the evil which I would not, that I practice' (Rom. 7:19). Sanctification is a process which is not complete until death. As long as the present world continues all those born into it are born members of a fallen, sinful race. They can be brought to a state of saving knowledge of God and be turned to a righteous life only through the regenerating and sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit. Some experience regeneration in early childhood, others in middle life or old age, and some never experience it at all. There will always remain problems to vex the saints. In a Christian environment temptations do become much more limited in scope and intensity, but they are never completely eliminated. The wheat and the tares continue to grow together until the harvest, which is the end of the world.


Now this is what I would call the Kingdom of God's spread over all the earth. Without a doubt it is a spiritual kingdom but it will have an effect upon the world. This isn't the 'New Heaven and the New Earth' I suspect that is in actuality the teachings of some of the Reconstructionist Posties. Well as I've said before I am not of that particular viewpoint.

As for the desire to remove government from the process of education. Well part of the reasoning is the forcing of these self same politicians to make my children fit into their mold. For instance, there is currently a NEA sponsored test that all public school children must pass so not only to graduate, or even get into college. But also to get jobs! Now I'm sorry, but what right do they have to dictate to my children what classes they must take and what tests they must pass to seek employment? I have heard and read many NEA comments about what they consider homeschooling (which is what I do) and Christians to be: namely the major threat to their established rule. Their goal is not education in the original sense but indoctrination of their beliefs and their training upon my children, with the ultimate goal of undermining the principles I have spent years schooling them in.

Now as to your last comment about some 'Christian Schools' well your right! (Didn't see that one coming did you }:^P) They are not up to the standards, we do need a reformation of the Church of Jesus Christ. Prestor John Curmudgeon in Residence


Subject: Re: Keeping our perspective
From: Rod
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 15:34:34 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Pilgrim, Your words: 'There are many so-called Christian schools which are doing actually far more harm in the educating of children than some Public Schools. So perhaps, and doubtless there is far more immediate need for Reformation in the Church of Jesus Christ than there is in the quickening of politicians? :-)' This is a most interesting thought and very much in keeping with the 'proper perspective.' We often consider anything 'Christian' in name to be 'good, true, and right,' when, as we've seen over and over, there are many aberrant views and that very little of what is called 'Christian' really honors the Lord.


Subject: Re: Keeping our perspective
From: scott lewis
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 08:39:09 (PDT)
Email Address: navyrdc@megsinet.net

Message:
Scott, If I were you, I wouldn't be too quick to assimilate David's Chilton's every word against Public Schools. For one good reason alone is that he was a radical Reconstructionist, if that means anything to you? But since you 'really liked' that paragraph of Chilton's would you then posit that the Public School system should be completely removed? If so: 1) What would you substitute in its place if anything? 2) Are you advocating that all children should be homeschooled? I am saying that Christian parents had better take a hard/long look at why they are sending their children into the public school system. The public school system has failed. Period. The schools teach your children that they come from animals(evolution) and society teachs everyone that life has absolutely no value(abortion) so when the children finally act like the animals they have evolved from we all stand around and scratch our heads and say HOW COULD THIS HAVE HAPPENED? How many children have to die in america before christian parents realize it too late, do you have to wait until its YOUR child? Now i realize that the public schools have many problems but i would have to say that those 2 factors have had the most detrimental effect on the american children. So in all that no I dont believe that christian parents should send their children in the public school systems. Home school or find a good christian school. scott lewis


Subject: Re: Keeping our perspective
From: Pilgrim
To: scott lewis
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 11:11:48 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Scott,

Thanks for the reply, but you didn't address my actual questions. Here they are again for your consideration with my prefatory remark/qualification:

Would you then posit that the Public School system should be completely removed? 1) What would you substitute in its place if anything? 2) Are you advocating that all children should be homeschooled?

In His Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Keeping our perspective
From: scott lewis
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 19:18:51 (PDT)
Email Address: navyrdc1@megsinet.net

Message:
Would you then posit that the Public School system should be completely removed? 1) What would you substitute in its place if anything? 2) Are you advocating that all children should be homeschooled? YES YES YES Proverbs 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go, Even when he is old he will not depart from it. How can you train a child when even before 1st Grade the first thing they learn about science is this statment' MILLIONS and MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO and this is drilled into your children from the first page of a science book. Now this and the creation account cant both be correct. And for the next 12 years of elementary and high school, the science book repeat this lie and build upon it. So I would have to say yes we should scrap this system, but since that is going to be impossible the only alternative is to pull your children out of this system that is completely against CHRISTIANITY. I am ADVOCATING that a christian parent should never allow their children to go to public schools, since the system cant be scrapped. Hope that answer's your question. scott lewis


Subject: Re: Keeping our perspective
From: john hampshire
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 22:28:39 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hmmm, Would a Calvinist go into a false-gospel, Arminian church and reform it? How would you reform something that is entirely corrupt? How do we reform public schools, what is left that could remain un-reformed. Apart from voting for politicians who represent your views, leave the world to them that are perishing. What next, shall we reform abortion clinics? By the way, it is possible to utilize some parts of public school and home school the rest. Most schools are willing to work with parents. It does not have to be an all or nothing proposition unless you want it that way. I have seen that even a few hours a day of pulic schools causes kids to become more violent, wild, and disobedient. Bad company corrupts good morals, which is the risk you take. As for taxes, has anyone received an itemized account of where taxes are used? I haven't. My money pays for abortions, welfare, drug needle handouts, condoms, and a host of social programs that make Democrats drool. Give to our corrupt Caesar what is his. There are some who advocate not paying ANY taxes, as they find it un-Constitutional, which really goes to the heart of the matter. Here is a plan: we make everyone home school!! To keep it organized we elect a board of supervisor and a president. Then we get everyone to meet together each day to home school in a convenient location. Then we make certain qualified parents become subject-matter experts, they can teach the subjects other parents are unqualified in. Then we can standardize the course subjects, prepare standardized tests that meet the boards requirements. To keep the parents advised we will form parent-teacher conferences. We will charge all parents a tax to fund the school. We will only teach subjects approved by the Superintendent of Education for our school. We will make it mandatory that every parent send their child to our conveniently located home-schools. Oh, wait, we already have that... it's called public school. john


Subject: Re: Keeping our perspective
From: Pilgrim
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 07:24:01 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
John, Was this 'soap boxing' of yours addressed to me personally, as I see my name affixed to it? Or were you just spouting off with some of your inner feelings you deny having? hehe Either way, I fail to grasp just what it is you are trying to get across here. Could you try and explain your thoughts in another manner for me? Thanks. Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Keeping our perspective
From: laz
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 18:09:41 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
...yeah, I thouht I sensed a touch of emotion in brother John's last post also ....kinda gave me chills! It's just not like him... LOL!! laz


Subject: Re: Keeping our perspective
From: Tom
To: scott lewis
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 10:47:11 (PDT)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
Just a thought, in the church I attend, we have about 5 public school teachers. I doubt they teach things like evolution in a way that says we evolved from monkeys. They may say something like, the theory of evolution says ... I know if I was a teacher, I certainly couldn't teach evolution as though it was a fact. Then again I may get myself fired, lol. Tom


Subject: Re: Keeping our perspective
From: stan
To: Rod
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 20:17:20 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Good point, but could it be that we are having the society problems because the institution has been teaching humanism for so many years? :-) Naaaahh its probably the parents fault all over the country becasue they won't okay more taxes for more programs that don't work. stan


Subject: Re: Public Schools
From: Pilgrim
To: scott lewis
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 08:04:29 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Scott,

Can one not help but see the similarities in the public schools, in fact throughout the U.S. and Canada, and that which was existing in Babylon in the days of Daniel? :-) In the United States, I understand that the Ten Commandments are permanently affixed to the walls of the Supreme Court building. In the House of Representatives and Senate, prayers are offered to various 'gods' before each session is opened and on the paper money in the U.S., there is written, 'In God we trust'. Yet the name of the Christian God is blasphemed and prohibited to be uttered in this same government's publicly funded schools. However, I must agree with Eric, that there should be no mandate to forcibly administer public prayers in public classrooms. Yet, I don't think prayer and Bible reading should be outlawed. There are some public institutions whose attendees are predominantly professingly Christian, and thus if they chose to pray before classes or to have the Bible as one of its textbooks, I think it should be allowed. A further question to this entire matter would be, 'Knowing the philosophical base of the curriculum which is being used and the same basis which the administrators and teachers adhere to, should a Christian parent send their children to these institutions at all?'

In His Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Public Schools
From: laz
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 08:32:49 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I was waiting for someone to stick their foot in their mouth, to offend the sensibilities of christian parents who have opted to send their innocent children to public school, to call into question their love of God and committment to raising godly children. To cast a subtle aspersion to the well-intentioned idea that kids need to be about discipling the nations too,...etc Yep, you done did it, bubs! Expect some 'UNfan mail' in the coming days.... LOL!! laz


Subject: Are you suggesting
From: Eric
To: laz
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 13:26:14 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
that Christian kids shouldn't go to public schools? There is a danger if parents shirk their responsibility and do not find out what their kids are being taught, but I have found that it provides a good way to explain exactly where Christians differ from the rest of the world, and a chance to point out the errors of the modern mindset. My nine year old and I had a great discussion about evolution and the logical fallacies behind the theory, which led into a discussion of why people believe such an obviously false idea, which in turn led to going through sections of Romans with him--what a thrill! I have seen parents who send their kids to Christian schools and assume that they have done their duty, and don't need to educate at home. God bless.


Subject: Re: Are you suggesting
From: laz
To: Eric
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 14:14:01 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Eric - I don't think it's any of my business where parents send their kids to school. We happen to HS. It's worked well for us. As for opportunities to discuss the 'ways of the world' in contrast to the ways of the Bible and the people of God, well, TV, books, magazines, radio, newpapers, friends, family...all provide this and ALL THE TIME ....so, do I need to send my kids to JW or Mormon school for 8 hrs a day, 180 days a year to effectively teach them about cults? Just a thought. ;-) I will admit that as a whole and over the last 8 yrs, (there are exceptions)...I've noticed a marked difference btwn public taught and home taught (Christian) kids across many areas...maturity/socialization, love of learning, conformity, knowledge of scripture, basic behavior/self-discipline, sibbling rivalry, closeness to/respect for parents, and more.... again, there are few exceptions as there are ALWAYS a few bad apples regardless of the barrel. The secular HSed kids in our area are being brought up in very permissive environments and tend to be rude and fairly undisciplined. We taken to avoiding joint extracurricular activities with non-Christian HSing families in the local Chapter. We've had problems with a few of their kids in the past. What do you expect when their parenets reject the fundamental truth believing HSing families embrace that 'the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge/wisdom'! Training/instruction in righteousness is VERY important to successful HSing ... IMHO. We HS for character development a much as for anything else. The bottom line for me is that it's up to the parents to decide based on their unique familial situation, theological beliefs, and parenting styles, and not for others to judge. God gives each a measure of faith/conviction. Who am I to judge? Have I? laz


Subject: Re: Public Schools
From: Eric
To: scott lewis
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 07:19:26 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
On a similiar topic, what are everybody's opinions of school prayer/ten commandments being posted in schools? I find it just silly. The argument seems so ridiculous to me. The last thing I want is my son reciting a school sponsored prayer to some higher power. Talk about blasphamey! (sp?) If my son wants to pray or read his bible in school, there is no law preventing him from doing so. Same thought on the ten commandments being posted. What in the world difference will it make? IMHO, it is just another proof that 'modern Christians' just don't get it. It is not about outward form/appearance but what is in the heart that matters. God bless.


Subject: Re: Public Schools
From: Prestor John
To: Eric
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 12:58:03 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I agree, I too think its just plain silly. First what they refer to as the Ten Commandments (what they display anyway) isn't the Decalogue its just some water downed form of it. Second I don't know what 'god' they're praying to in public schools but it sure isn't the
LORD GOD. So I don't want my kids praying to it. Prestor John


Subject: Re: Public Schools AND PARENTS
From: stan
To: Eric
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 08:44:27 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
We have a situation in the Northwest that shows that the schools aren't all bad but that the parents are a tad daffy. A high female school validictorian took a shower with five guys in the high school. She and her buds were barred from all senior activities and removed as validictorian by the principal and backed by the entire board. Parents? The think it is ridiculous - nothing wrong with what she did. Townspeople are very upset with the school. Go figure! She is recieving numerous tabloid offers so you will most likely be seeing it soon if you haven't already.


Subject: Re: Public Schools AND PARENTS
From: Prestor John
To: stan
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 21:01:29 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
No stan your wrong, in fact the schools are all bad. The fact that they basically slapped her hand and the boys' hands and said ' Bad go to your room' The correct way to have handled the situation would have been to expell her and say that she can not graduate with her class. The same for the boys. As for the parents well they are exhibiting the classic signs of total depravity as far as I can tell. So I'm not really too suprised (and just for the record so is the girl and the boys). If you want my opinion (and Laz if you thought Pil was going to get hate mail wait for this) public schools must be abolished totally. Schools have to be seperate from the government. Schools and government do not belong together. Now lets talk about the curriculm! :) Prestor John Curmudgeon in Residence


Subject: Re: Publik Skools AND PARENTS
From: john hampshire
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 06:49:19 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Scott and friends, Ferst, let me sae, their is reely knothing rong with publik skool, I wint two won, and I terned out gust fign! Sew, I cant undurstande wye everrywone is sew upsett. I waz graduatted top in my klas. I gotte all 'A's' in soshal develupmint and thincking skils, plus I am a good coopurater and plae whell with othurrs. I hoppe two bee a brane surjeon somme day or a jet airplain pilit, I cant deside. I am relly luckie my parant's kared enouf two send me two publik skool. Like the problem, you know, with the schools, and stuff, is that like, it's really wierd, you know? I mean, its like, what's up with school, you know? OK, I have to agree with Prestor John and that Chilton fella (liked his car books), the state school is a social experiment gone wrong. If it were possible, put the responsibility for education back with parents again! But that is not going to happen, is it? I don't know too much about the schools in the Great White North, but in the U.S. my experience has been that they are factories of mediocrity. There is nothing worthy of 'fixing'. The brightest children are mush-brained parrots-- they have lost that natural wonderment and inquisitiveness for knowledge--the result of having facts forced down their throats--like being raped by words in a book. Yet, it is my experience that the destruction of the youth begins far earlier. I see in every community I have lived in, the blank stares of dull minds in the youngest of children left to 'daycare' workers. From the get-go kids are traumatized by these socialized 'dumping grounds'. They learn fast that Mommy and Daddy love themselves more than the littlest one, and are not above coercion and lying to make this act of abandonment and treachery seem appealing and proper. It is one of the first seeds of resentment toward 'authority' a child learns-- he/she is NOT loved by anyone. The first words out of a typical expectant Mom to her doctor is: 'When can I go back to work'? Where is a Mother’s natural love for her own child? Do you think so called Christian parents are somehow immune from the lure of socialized education? I think not, since most Christians are products of the system and grew up being good obedient lapdogs of the state, like any other. Not to mention the average Joe Christian's faith is more a faith in his faith than a faith in the true God. Whatever CNN reports, they believe... They have lost the ability to stand alone, the ability to reason a thing out; they are as much mind-numbed robots as the secular community. Christians do whatever everyone else does-- that is the standard. Little Johnny can't read, write, or think because little Johnny is in a battle for his life, or at least his identity and innocence. Little Johnny will either be absorbed into the collective, and be a people-pleaser or rebel against the hypocrisy of force-fed educational lies and be an outcast. In either case Johnny is in turmoil and pain, and carries the anger that comes with his corruption and degradation. Little Johnny's 'learning disorder' may well be that he sees the evil behind the smiles, and wants no part of it. The bottom line is: if you value your kids, you will ensure they are allowed to think freely, expand and grow at their own pace, experiment and investigate this world as their curiosity enlightens and leads them. This is the way to produce genuine 'thinkers' and the next Albert Einstein. The educational system produces a low-wattage version: Albert I’m Stymied. Public schools destroy little lives, it crushes ingenuity, creativity, and intuition. It can't work, it doesn't work. Remove your children from the 'machine'; tear apart the bonding of kids with kids and kids with teachers-- establish again the bond between child and parent. Become your child’s teacher, his role-model, his source of comfort, truth, reason and stability. Allow your child to blossom like a flower, in due season, without pressure to regurgitate facts. Keep your child, protect your child -- that is what parents are called to do. Forget public school. Sit with your children and talk, talk about anything -- they are dying for you to be part of their lives. End of soapbox. john


Subject: Re: Public Schools AND PARENTS
From: GRACE2Me
To: Prestor John/All
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 06:03:42 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Preach on Prestor John. I agree with you. Like someone said earlier, once the schooling was seperated, it seems as if it was doomed for failure beginning then. One of the biggest excuses now, for professing Christians is that they cannot afford not to send their children to public school. Either because they cannot afford to send them to Private Christian Schools (many of which are almost as bad), or because they say they cannot afford to stay home to Home School them, and not work that second job. Others fear that they are not able to Home School them. But there are many 'Home School Teacher's Guides' to help them. It's not always easy. My wife struggles with helping our youngest daughter who is finishing up 9th grade, to do the Algebra. Actually, our oldest daughter (22) is helping our youngest daughter with it. You see for me, and I know I might catch some flack with this, since we do not have any sons (a pastor once told me that meant the Lord knows when there is one good man in the family, haha)it is not as big of a deal to be concerned about 'higher education.' What's wrong with teaching and trying to prepare our children to be good Christian wives to good Christian husbands should it be God's will for them to marry??? Of course this opens a new can of worms about where daughters should be between High School and marriage? Home? Out on their own? Depends on whether they go to College? I have a 22 year old and another that will be 21 in September, and they are still home with me. The oldest one did go to College for one year a couple of years ago. It didn't work out for her to go back, but she is thinking about that again. So should we start a new thread about this :-)? GRACE2Me


Subject: Re: Public Schools AND PARENTS
From: john hampshire
To: GRACE2Me
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 07:36:30 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I have six children, one wife, and one marriage. I have home schooled all my children. It is not expensive, but it is time consuming. Yet they are able to work on their own, and the oldest helps the youngest. There are many software titles that teach subjects the parents may not by unable to handle and an incredible number of outstanding homeschooling products. They put the publik skools to shame in quality of textbooks. Also, I do not treat my daughters differently than my sons. I would not want my daughters to think that being a wife someday precludes a need to read, explore, and learn (not that you would deny them this either). It is my hope that they will each find one thing that really interests them, and that they will each pursue their interests so that it becomes their profession, if that is what they want. College means little, it used to be that it is where you must go to get 'higher' learning. Now you can go to a library or the Internet, opportunities for learning are everywhere. All that is lacking is motivation. At some point sons and daughters must leave the nest. But I would avoid unnatural breaks, such as college, which force a separation from the parents in an untimely way. If in the course of pursuing their interests they must go, so be it, but let it be a normal unfolding rather than a migration of lemmings to water. It is not that I am against college, rather I am against the mindless pursuit of knowledge which college offers. I studied Forestry in college, and eventually became a meteorologist. College does offer choices. I would hope that my children will not need choices, but will know what interests them by then, and will narrow their learning to what compliments their interest. In other words, don't waste effort on what is unimportant, learn your trade better than the rest, and you will be in demand (with or without a piece of paper in your hand). So, my answer is: I wouldn't send a 21 year old to college alone, unless it was a necessary unfolding of her/his pursuit of what has captured her/his interest, and there was no other means to that end. Just my opinion, john


Subject: Redeemer/Redemption
From: Pilgrim
To: All
Date Posted: Thurs, Apr 27, 2000 at 09:12:36 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:

I thought I might begin the desired discussion on the Atonement of the Lord Christ by considering the word(s) 'redemption, redeemer and ransom' and specifically the concept of 'Redeemer'. There are many references and allusions to the concept of 'Redeemer' throughout the Scriptures. From the earliest book of Job, which speaks of one who will 'deliver and/or vindicate' (Job 19:25) up through the writings of Jeremiah, where God Himself is said to be THE Redeemer (Jer 50:34), the Old Testament has references to a 'Redeemer'. Although these references do not directly speak of an eternal and spiritual redemption, like much of the Old Testament, these references are steeped in symbolism and many are 'types and shadows' of that great fulfillment which was realized at the coming of Christ and His atoning work. In this message, I would like to focus on just one of these places in the Old Testament where there is a rich picture of the Lord Jesus Christ as our 'Kinsman Redeemer' His great love for those whom the Father gave Him and His relationship to them I think is best displayed in the book of Ruth; and more specifically in the person of Boaz. I am sure most, if not all of you, are familiar with the story of Ruth. The story begins with a tragic account of how Naomi, her husband Elimelech and their two sons traveled to Moab from Bethlehem in search of food due to a famine that had come upon the land of Judah during the times that Israel was governed by the Judges. Some time after this family had made their residence in Moab, Elimelech died leaving behind Naomi and her two sons, who eventually married two Moabite women, Orpah and Ruth. After about 10 years, the husbands of these two women, Mahlon and Chilion, also died. Naomi, a Jewess heard that the Lord had restored the land of Judah from the famine and decided to return to her homeland. She told her two daughters-in-law to return to their own respective homes and perhaps begin life anew. It is here that we are given a 'hint' of what was going on in the culture of that day. The women were 'aliens' as it were without a husband. All property and recognition belonged to the 'head' of the family, the man/husband. The family name was carried by the male and without a husband/man, it would be lost. Naomi thought herself too old to remarry, and even if she did, if she were to bear children/sons by a new husband, they would be unfit prospects for these two daughters-in-law as husbands. As Naomi saw it, there just wasn't any future for these two women in staying with her so that their family name and/or possessions could be saved. And so it was that Orpah said her goodbyes and returned to the family of her dead husband, but Ruth clung to Naomi and in heart-rending words expresses her love, devotion and bond to Naomi:

'And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God: Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the LORD do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me.' (Ruth 1:16,17)

From this point on, Naomi and Ruth were inseparable. Returning to Bethlehem, Naomi is rejoined with her friends and tells them of the sadness which has happened and introduces Ruth to them. Then we are introduced to a man called 'Boaz' a 'covenant relative', or as the KJV translates it 'kinsman'; a relative of Elimelech's who was apparently well to do and owned a large plot of land where he grew grain. And it is here that the concept of the 'Kinsman Redeemer' is unfolded (Heb. go el). Instead of me going on at great length, which would be very easy to do, and give a running commentary on the entire text of the book of Ruth, I will leave it open to discussion at this point, saying only this; that Boaz, being a relative of Naomi's husband was of no blood relation to either Naomi or especially Ruth, except by virtue of a 'covenant vow' given in marriage which is many times mentioned throughout the story with the Hebrew word, hesed. And this 'Kinsman Redeemer' not only bought the title to the property which would have been lost, but Ruth herself in the transaction that took place in the city gate, thus making her his own. The spiritual pictures contained here are of unmatched beauty but also they contain crucial truths to the understanding of the atoning work of our great God and Saviour, the LORD Jesus Christ. Okay, take it from there! J

. In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: The Atonement of Christ
From: Pilgrim
To: All
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 12:17:46 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:

I would like to see a discussion concerning the atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ. There are 4 specific terms used in the New Testament to describe what His saving work entailed:

1) Sacrifice 2) Reconciliation 3) Ransom/Redemption 4) Propitiation

Perhaps we could have a separate thread dedicated to each of these terms so that they could be discussed in detail individually. I think it would be rewarding and provide a blessing to all, including are many 'lurkers'. :-)

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: The Atonement of Christ
From: freegrace
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Thurs, Apr 27, 2000 at 06:47:06 (PDT)
Email Address: freegracealone@yahoo.com

Message:
This is now one of my favorite topics. It was not until God opened my eyes to the truth of a particular redemption (or a Limited Atonement) of God's own chosen people that I could see the one true Church there in Exodus - a people redeemed of the Lord! The Bible seemed like a 'new Book' to me that I had never read before (as an Arminian)! Now I take delight in this wonderful truth, as it is found in Exodus 6:6, 15:13-21, and many other verses! Verses that seem to teach that Christ 'died for all' really mean that Christ died for all the elect, or all true believers from all over the world! Once you 'see it', then you can never go back to believing in a 'universal atonement' again. This may not be the reply that you are looking for, but I thought I would add this to maybe help some others here who have not yet embraced the doctrines of grace. freegrace


Subject: Hell
From: Eric
To: All
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 07:09:14 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I am currently trying to get a better understanding of the biblical concept of hell, and I would like some input. My understanding is that the Old Testament does not mention our concept of hell. Does anybody have any idea about what the Jews of Jesus time believed about the state of the soul after death? And are there any writings about hell being a place of eternal torment from the early church fathers? God bless.


Subject: Re: Hell
From: Pilgrim
To: Eric
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 17:42:58 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Eric,

I thought I would return to bring up a very important point and principle which many of the critics of the doctrine of eternal punishment, and hell in particular seem to overlook, or perhaps choose to ignore. You mentioned what the Old Testament taught concerning hell and that your 'understanding is that the O.T. does not mention our concept of hell'. What I am alluding to is the Bible's own hermeneutic; how it interprets itself (analogy of Scripture). We must never disassociate the Old Testament from the New Testament for the Bible is ONE book. Yes, there are historical and social aspects surrounding the culture in which each individual book of the Bible was written which must be taken into account. However, it must be remembered and maintained that the Bible is an INSPIRED book and thus it contains God's perspective and not just man's. That being said, another notable fact is that the New Testament is estimated to contain over 80% of the Old Testament in either direct quotes or allusions. Thus as Augustine said, by way of translation, The New Testament is in the Old Testament contained; the Old Testament is in the New Testament explained. A single example of this hermeneutical principle I think will suffice. The Old Testament says:

Ps 16:10 'For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. 11 Thou wilt shew me the path of life: in thy presence is fulness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore.'

and the New Testament then applies this statement as thus:

Acts 2:22 'Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: 23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: 24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. 25 For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: 26 Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: 27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. 28 Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. 29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. 30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; 31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. 32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.'

Peter clearly understood what David, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote was referring to much more than the 'grave' when he wrote of 'hell'. (cf. Paul's statement on this same passage, when he preached to the Jews at Antioch in Acts 13:33-37). Again the Psalmist wrote:

Ps 49:6 'They that trust in their wealth, and boast themselves in the multitude of their riches; 7 None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him: 8 (For the redemption of their soul is precious, and it ceaseth for ever:) 9 That he should still live for ever, and not see corruption.'

It seems quite clear, although hell is not mentioned specifically, that the writer, again under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit had a concept of life after death, and that one's soul needed to be redeemed. And the Lord Christ taught this same truth when He said,

Joh 8:51 'Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death. 52 Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death.'

We can see from this passage God's perspective which sees the eternality of the soul of man and man's natural perspective where it can only speak of that which is of the flesh and is limited to the 'earthy'. Whether those before Christ understood the totality of what was written in the Old Testament can't be fully known, although it would seem more than likely that those who were inspired to write the actual words had a reasonable comprehension of the Scriptures. What is true is that to come to a right judgment as to whether the concept of 'hell' as we now understand it was known unto the Old Testament saints, one must take into account much more than what a word study will reveal. Even the Pharisees seemed to comprehend the concept of 'hell' as a place of torment after death from their reaction to the Lord Christ after he told the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. And thus even they were able to arrive at an understanding of 'our concept of hell' at least in part. Lastly, by way of another illustration, the prophetic writings which spoke of the Messiah were well known throughout the Old Testament era, albeit the fulness of those prophecies and allusions were not fully known until the coming of the actual Christ Himself and the consequent writings of the Apostles through His teaching. And so, I would suggest that the doctrine of hell was indeed revealed in the Old Testament writings, but it was more fully understood after the coming of the Lord Christ, who spoke of 'hell' more than any other writer of the New Testament.

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Hell as viewed by the Fathers
From: Theo
To: Eric
Date Posted: Thurs, Apr 27, 2000 at 20:24:30 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Eric, The Fathers do comment about Hell being a place of eternal torment. (I believe Origen was an exception to this, but then he was condemned as heretical for some of his views, if I recall correctly.) But Justin Martyr, about 160 A.D., wrote:
The unjust and intemperate will be punished in eternal fire. (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, p.188) He also wrote: We know from Isaiah that the members of those who have transgressed will be consumed by the worm and unquenchable fire, remaining immortal. As a result they become a spectacle to all flesh. (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, p. 264-265) Theophilus (about 180 A.D.), wrote: He who acts righteously will escape the eternal punishments, and he will be thought worthy of the eternal life from God. (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2. p.108) And the great Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon, wrote about 180 A.D.: Eternal fire is prepared for sinners. The Lord has plainly declared this, and the rest of the Scriptures demonstrate it. (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, p. 401.) There are other texts in addition to these, but I'll post these for now and if you wish I may be able to find a link to the text of the The Ante-Nicene Fathers on the Web. May God bless-- Theo


Subject: Re: Hell
From: john hampshire
To: Eric
Date Posted: Thurs, Apr 27, 2000 at 04:20:20 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
What do you think the Pharisees thought of hell when Jesus said in Mt 23:33 'Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of Gehenna'. They knew that a place of burning was prepared for the wicked, as in 'for a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell (Sheol), and shall consume the earth and her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains'. They knew that hell (Sheol) was far apart from heaven, 'It is the heights of heaven; what canst thou do? Deeper than hell (Sheol); what canst thou know' (Job 11:8). It was understood that Sheol was the grave for the body, and a place where the spirit departs upon death for the wicked, as in 'For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell (Sheol); neither wilt thou suffer Thine Holy One to see corruption' (Ps 16:10). Acts 2:27 uses 'Hades' as the place where the Father will not leave Chirst’s soul. The soul is in Sheol, a place of separation and the body is in the grave (tomb), as this speaks to Jesus undergoing punishment in Sheol while His body is dead in the tomb. Sheol/Hades is the grave in one respect, and to be under God’s wrath, as awaiting this punishment to come on Judgment Day. Gehenna is a type of the lake of fire, the place where the wicked will be cast after being found guilty on Judgment Day. That is the ultimate fulfillment of those who have God’s wrath abiding upon them, they are punished! Sheol/Hades is one part of the consequences of sin—physical death or separation of body and soul. Gehenna or the Lake of Fire is the spiritual consequences of sin—separation of the person from God forever. While the wicked are not currently in 'Hell', that is Gehenna or the Lake of Fire, they are under God’s wrath, and it will one day be a reality (on the Last Day), so sure is this reality it is as if they were already there. As to how the Jews contemporary with Jesus understood 'hell', I doubt they did understand it at all. They certainly had little understanding of heaven, see Mat 22:28 where the Jews spoke of marriage in the afterlife, and were told by Jesus 'Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God'. I doubt they understood much of anything concerning heaven or hell, or anything else for that matter. john


Subject: Re: Hell
From: stan
To: Eric
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 21:54:31 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
There is always rich man and lazarus in last part of Luke 16


Subject: Re: Hell
From: laz
To: Eric
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 10:14:31 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Was there much discussion in the OT about heaven (except as God's domain) for that matter? Seems like the earthly realm was used to foreshadow the spiritual realm...both heaven and hell. Here are a few verses. Not sure of the exact definition of the term 'hell' being used: Ps 139:7 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? 8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. Ps 9:17 The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God. Ps 86:13 For great is thy mercy toward me: and thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest hell. Pr 23:14 Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell. Pr 27:20 Hell and destruction are never full; so the eyes of man are never satisfied. Isa 5:14 Therefore hell hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure: and their glory, and their multitude, and their pomp, and he that rejoiceth, shall descend into it. Isa 28:15 Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves: laz


Subject: More questions
From: Eric
To: laz
Date Posted: Thurs, Apr 27, 2000 at 08:31:13 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
First off, thank you all for your responses. I am speaking with somebody about this topic who claims that hell is not a place of eternal torment, but just a place where the souls of the unrepentant will be destroyed by fire after the judgement. I want to go through the OT first with him before we come to the NT. He cites the lack of OT support for this concept, as well as NT figurative language being interpreted literally. He also claims that eternal torment was thought up in the middle ages and that there is no support in the early church writings. He states that sheol has been mistranslated as hell when referring to the wicked in the OT, and rightfully translated grave when referring to the righteous. All instances of sheol should be translated as grave. Here are a couple of examples: This is Jacob speaking: Genesis 37:35 And all his sons and all his daughters rose up to comfort him; but he refused to be comforted; and he said, For I will go down into the grave(sheol) unto my son mourning. Thus his father wept for him. Now, are we to conclude that Jacob went to hell? Or is he just referring to the grave. Job 14:13 Oh that thou wouldest hide me in the grave(sheol), that thou wouldest keep me secret, until thy wrath be past, that thou wouldest appoint me a set time, and remember me! Is Job really asking to be sent to hell? And the Psalms also say that Jesus went down into Sheol, which Peter translates as Hades. And we know that did not go to hell. So his point is that there is no OT reference to the modern notion of hell at all in the OT. Any other thoughts?


Subject: Christ and Eternal Punishment
From: Pilgrim
To: Eric
Date Posted: Thurs, Apr 27, 2000 at 10:19:30 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:

The Positive and Explicit Nature of Christ’s Teaching Concerning Eternal Punishment

Matt 25:31,“When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: 32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth [his] sheep from the goats: 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. . .41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:. . . 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.” Mark 9:43, “And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: 48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.” Luke 9:25, “For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away?” Luke 16:22, “And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; 23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.” Matt 10:28, “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” Matt 13:41, “The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; 42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. ” (there is existence in the furnace of fire) Luke 12:9, “But he that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God. 10 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.” (In the Grk here, it is “never” be forgiven) Matt 23:16, “Woe unto you, [ye] blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; butwhosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!” ... v.33 “[Ye] serpents, [ye] generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?” Matt 26:24, “The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.” (the threat would be empty, if annihilation was known to be the final destiny of men) Luke 12:46, “The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for [him], and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.” (notice: portion w/unbelievers) Mark 16:16, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” (believers will not be damned). Matt 11:23, “And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. 24 But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.” (emphasis is on the “land” and the fire that destroyed it, and yet it still existed, it was not annihilated) Matt 13:49, “So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, 50 And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.” Joh 8:21, “Then said Jesus again, unto them, I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins: whither I go, ye cannot come.” Joh 5:28, “Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.” Rev 20:10, “And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet [are], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. ” ... v.14, “And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.” Rev 21:8, “But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.”

Description of Christ’s Discharging the Office of Judge

Matt 3:12, “Whose fan [is] in his hand, and he will throughty purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the gamer; but he Will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” Matt 13:30, “Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.” (wheat and tares both exist in the church now) Matt 13:47, “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind: 48 Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away.” Matt 25:10, “And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut. 11 Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us. 12 But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not.” Matt 25:19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them. 20 And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more. 21 His lord said unto him, Well done, [thou] good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. 22 He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them. 23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. 24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed: 25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, [there] thou hast [that is] thine. 26 His lord answered and said unto him, [Thou] wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed: 27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and [then] at my coming I should have received mine own with usury. 28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give (it] unto him which hath ten talents. 29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. 30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Matt 7:21, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”

“Sheol” - A Place of Retribution (notice the distinction between sin/sinners and righteousness/righteous)

Job 21:13, “They spend their days in wealth, and in a moment go down to the grave. 14 Therefore they say unto God, Depart from us; for we desire not the knowledge of thy ways.” Ps 9:17, “The wicked shall be turned into hell, [and] all the nations that forget God.” Prov 5:5, “Her feet go down to death; her steps take hold on hell.” (subject is the “strange woman” of v.3) Prov 9:18, “But he knoweth not that the dead [are] there; [and that] her guests [are] in the depths of hell.” Prov 23:14, “Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.” (discipline can’t deliver the child from death) Deut 32:22, “For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains. 23 I will heap mischiefs upon them; I will spend mine arrows upon them. 24 [They shall be] burnt with hunger, and devoured with burning heat, and with bitter destruction: I will also send the teeth of beasts upon them, with the poison of serpents of the dust. 25 The sword without, and terror within, shall destroy both the young man and the virgin, the suckling [also] with the man of gray hairs.” Prov 15:24, “The way of life [is] above to the wise, that he may depart from hell beneath.” Job 20:6, “Though his excellency mount up to the heavens, and his head reach unto the clouds; 7 [Yet] he shall perish for ever like his own dung: they which have seen him shall say, Where [is] he? 8 He shall fly away as a dream, and shall not be found: yea, he shall be chased away as a vision of the night.” Prov 15:11, “Hell and destruction [are] before the LORD: how much more then the hearts of the children of men?” Prov 27:20, “Hell and destruction are never full; so the eyes of man are never satisfied.” (in these last three verses above if hell is translated Abbadon’ then it is the same as the Hebrew for Appolyon, cf. Rev 9:11)All these are warnings of future evil and danger for the wicked only, otherwise the focus of the warnings is lost, especially if “hell “is a common abode for both the righteous and the wicked. Compare: 2Thess 1:8, “In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: 9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;”

Judgment

Isa 33:14, “The sinners in Zion are afraid; fearfulness hath surprised the hypocrites. Who among us shall dwell wIth the devouring fire? who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings?” Isa 66:24, “And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched : and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.” Dan 7:9, “I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment [was] white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne [was like] the fiery flame, [and] his wheels [as] burning fire. 10 A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened.” Dan 12:2, “And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame [and] everlasting contempt.” (raised from the dead to face eternal shame and contempt) Deut 32:35, “To me [belongeth] vengeance, and recompence; their foot shall slide in [due] time: for the day of their calamity [is] at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste.” Ps 1:5, “Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous. 6 For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.” Ps 58:11, “So that a man shall say, Verily [there is] a reward for the righteous: verily he is a God that judgeth in the earth.” Ps 90:11, “Who knoweth the power of thine anger? even according to thy fear, [so is] thy wrath.” Ps 94:1, “O LORD God, to whom vengeance belongeth; O God, to whom vengeance belongeth, shew thyself. 2 Lift up thyself, thou judge of the earth: render a reward to the proud.” Eccl 3:17, “I said in mine heart, God shall judge the righteous and the wicked: for [there is] a time there for every purpose and for every work.” Eccl 11:9, “Rejoice, O young man, in thy youth; and let thy heart cheer thee in the days of thy youth, and walk in the ways of thine heart, and in the sight of thine eyes: but know thou, that for all these [things] God will bring thee into judgment.” Eccl 12:14, “For God shall bring every work into judgment, ‘with every secret thing, whether [it be] good, or whether [it be] evil.” Amos 8:7, “The LORD hath sworn by the excellency of Jacob, Surely I will never forget any of their works.” 2Cor 5:10, “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things [done] in [his] body, according to that he hath done, whether [it be] good or bad.” Acts 17:30, “And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: 31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by [that] man whom he hath ordained; [whereof] he hath given assurance unto all [men], in that he hath raised him from the dead.” Rom 2:16, “In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.” Use this to the glory of God [Soli De Gloria in mercy and judgment]. In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: Grieving the Holy Spirit
From: george
To: All
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 25, 2000 at 22:13:21 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
To all, I was challenged the other day with the statement,'If only God is the reason one can do anything right or good, how is it that the Holy Spirit can be grieved (Gal.4:30)?' Obviously the Holy Spirit can be grieved, for Scripture so states. Is it our bad behavior which grieves God, even though He knew what that behavior would before the creation of the earth? The context of Gal. 4 seems to support our behaviors as the reason for the grief. If all good gifts come from God, how is it that God is grieved with our sins, knowing that we would commit them and yet, He none the less has purpose all things in respect to His sovereignty? I.H.G., george


Subject: Re: Grieving the Holy Spirit
From: Tom
To: george
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 23:53:45 (PDT)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
George The scripture reference isn't Gal 4:30, it is Eph 4:30. That being said, you sure got me thinking. But when you think about it, sin itself is grieving the Holy Spirit whether or not an unbeliever sins or a believer sins. When a believer sins (in which we are all guilty of from time to time) they do grieve the Holy Spirit. Even when the Holy Spirit knows we were going to sin, and even if it is used by Him for His purposes. Sin is still sin and the very nature of sin is detestable to God. Here is what John Gill says concerning the verse: John Gill's Exposition of the Bible Ephesians 4:30 And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God… Not a believer's own spirit, sanctified by the Holy Ghost, which is grieved by sin; nor the spirit of a good man, that hears our words and sees our actions, and is displeased and troubled at them; but the third person in the Trinity: and this is said of him by an anthropopathy, and supposes something done that is offensive to him; and he may be grieved, not only by unconverted persons, by their stubborn resistance and opposition to the Gospel and means of grace, and by their contempt of his person, office, and grace, but by believers themselves, and who are here spoken to; and which may be done both by their words, lying, angry, and corrupt ones, before cautioned against, (Ephesians 4:25,26,29) and by their actions, their behaviour towards God, their conversation in the world, and by their carriage to one another, which is suggested in the following verse: also he may be grieved by their thoughts, their vain and sinful thoughts, and that they are no better employed; and especially when they entertain any undervaluing ones of Jesus Christ, whose glorifier he is; and by the unbelief of their hearts, and by their unmindfulness of the things of the Spirit; and when they disregard the rules, dictates, and advice of the Spirit, and make no use of him: and his being grieved appears by his departure from them; which is to be perceived by the darkness of their souls, the prevailings of corruption, the weakness of grace, and their backwardness to duty: and now there are many reasons why he should not be grieved; as because he is God, and the author of the new birth, the implanter and applier of all grace, and the finisher of it; because he is the saints' comforter, their advocate, helper, and strengthener; and their constant companion, who dwells in them, and will remain in them, until death: and it follows, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption; of the sealing work of the Spirit, (See Gill on Ephesians 1:13). By 'the day of redemption' may be meant, either the day of death, when the saints have a deliverance from the incumbrance of the body; from their present state of exile and banishment; from the body of sin and death; from all sorrows and afflictions; from the reproaches and persecutions of men; from the temptations of Satan; from doubts, fears, and unbelief; and from all fear of death, corporeal, spiritual, and eternal: or the day of the resurrection, when the body will be redeemed from mortality, corruption, weakness, and dishonour; when it will be refined and spiritualized, so that it will not stand in need of natural sustenance; will be endowed with great agility, like that of spirits; and will be subject to the soul, or spirit, and will be suited to spiritual objects; to which may be added, the day of judgment, (Luke 21:28) when Christ shall appear in glory, and his saints with him, and he will put them, soul and body, into the possession of everlasting happiness; which will consist in the vision of Christ, in conformity to him, and in that happy company and conversation that will then be enjoyed, and that delightful employment they will be taken up in: and now the saints being sealed up by the Spirit unto this time, shows the perpetual indwelling of the Spirit in them; and that it will continue even after death, who will give them confidence at the day of judgment; and that it is the Spirit which works up the saints, and makes them meet for glory; and gives them the assurance of it, and therefore they should not be grieved.


Subject: Re: Grieving the Holy Spirit
From: laz
To: george
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 05:26:00 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Is this like God 'repenting'? If the Spirit is very God....and God is impassible, how can the Spirit be 'grieved'? Was He somehow caught off guard, surprised, taken aback by our sin? laz


Subject: Eph.4:30
From: george
To: laz
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 20:26:49 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Laz, That is what I don't understand either. One is left with the knowledge that there are two truths (sovereignty, responsibility) that are simultaneous and really can't be explained. george


Subject: Re: Eph.4:30
From: john hampshire
To: george
Date Posted: Thurs, Apr 27, 2000 at 03:17:59 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Some background info: Gen 6:6 'And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him at His heart' Ps 78:40 'How ft did they provoke [rebel against] Him in the wilderness, and grieve Him in the desert' Isa 63:10 'But they rebelled, and grieved His Holy Spirit; therefore He was turned to be their enemy, and he fought against them. Heb 3:10 Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, 'They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways' Heb 3:17 'But with whom was He grieved forty years? Was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcasses fell in the wilderness?' What does God grieve about? It would seem: a rebellious, sinful man, whom He puts up with, but would like to destroy, and sometimes did. So when Eph 4:30 says 'And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption' it is in reference to not being like the 'whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man…' (vs 5), 'for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience; be not ye therefore partakers with them'. It would seem to me, that if God is grieved, it means that God’s wrath is being kindled. Like a father who is vexed by a disobedient, brat of a child, and whose patience is gone—he is ready to punish. Of course God 'remembers' His covenant and because of His Son does not destroy those that are established as his people from the beginning. But for the rest, they exist by God’s patience. It is a good thing then, not to 'grieve' or 'vex' the Holy Spirit so that you might not be numbered amongst the kindling needing to be burnt. I suppose another way to look at the grieving is that in all cases sin is not excused, for there was a cost 'as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you' (vs 32); that being Christ’s punishment. In all cases, whether sinner or saint, God is vexed and must punish, only the object of punishment differs. If the regenerate sins, then God indeed was grieved or vexed and punished His Son, to which knowing that by this action 'ye are sealed unto the day of redemption' (vs 30). If we are sealed, then why do we in essence, slap our Saviour by adding sin upon sin as if we weren’t bought with a price. To which the reply is, we should not behave in this manner, but rather be 'forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you'. The awful truth is that if God the Father is grieved, then Christ was also grieved on our behalf. So we should be careful not to insult the grace of God, putting away from yourself all manner of malice and evil speaking and clamour, and wrath, and anger. ….and alcohol. Whoops, were did that come from? : ) That’s my take, john


Subject: 'Begetting'...by faith?
From: Rod
To: All
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 25, 2000 at 20:37:29 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
This verse popped into my mind a short while ago, having been quoted by the Arminian with whom Tom has been dealing: 'I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds' (Philemon 10). The contention was that 'regeneration,' the 'new birth,' was brought about by faith; otherwise Paul would not have been able to make such a statement. I think we should look at that assertion. In what sense is it true that Paul 'begot' Onesimus (and undeniably he did; he says he did)? Did he somehow cause Onesimus to receive the new birth? In looking at the whole of the Bible, we have to conclude that he did not. That would, at first glance, seem to be a terrible and false thing to say. But what does God say in relation to it? First of all, He has a lot to say about it, all of it very telling. To quote and look briefly at a few things, let's begin with Rom. 1:16-17, the key to the book: 'For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ;
for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek, for in it is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, The just shall live by faith.' This is significant, for these verses do not say that faith brings on the spiritual birth. They say this: 1) 'the gospel of Christ...is the power of God unto salvation; and 2) it is so powerful to save because it reveals the righteousness of God from faith to faith.' That is perfectly harmonious with Rom. 10:17: 'Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.' It is only to him who has the requisite spiritual ears of the new birth that the revelation of the righteousness of God is given. To that person is the realization granted by the presentation and actual hearing of the Word of God, 'the gospel of Christ,' that he is responsible to God in sin and needful of the exact righteousness of God imputed to him in order to be saved, 'made the righteousness of God in him,' as 2 Cor. 5:21 puts it. Is that done through faith? Most certainly. But preceding the faith is grace. That is the inescapable foundation born of God's love and mercy. Paul, in that same Epistle to the Romans says that a believer is, justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is IN Jesus Christ' (3:24). Where is it? In faith? NO, the redemption is 'in Jesus Christ,' the source of God's grace. Instead of the Arminian's securing of grace by faith, the Biblical Christian secures faith by grace, 'and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God' (Eph. 2:8). 'By grace' and 'through faith' and 'it' is all the gift of God. And why did God do it that way? Don't miss this, please. It is so that He could be glorified: 'it is the gift of God--not of works, LEST ANY MAN SHOULD BOAST' (Eph. 2:8-9). God is glorified when man realizes what he is (lost in sin) and what God is (all good and mercifully loving and willing and able to save by grace). In that realization, through the eyes of newly gifted faith from actually hearing God's revelation for the first time, the person made spiritually alive by God, turns to Christ in faith due to the fact that grace enables that turning, that desire and ability. The person is not born again at that point, having already received spiritual life prior to that act: '...them that believe on his name; who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man [How conclusive can that be?], but of God' (John 1:13). They were born of God, of His will and action on their behalf. Born 'of the Spirit' (John 3:5); God's Spirit. How can we contradict the Word of God revealed by the Spirit of God? How can we claim something the Bible refutes? God says a person is 'born' (same word as a physical birth) just as wonderously and mysteriously as he is physically when he is 'born again.' He is born of the will of God. Irrefutable. He is not born of faith, nor of works, and man can't claim any glory. Man can only bask in the glory of God and marvel at the blessedness of such an unspeakable gift! He can only praise God Who has 'created him twice': "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus' (Eph. 2:10). How then can the same apostle who says he 'begot' Onesimus, say that and also say these things? He is using terms to help us understand the process. God, in His wisdom has chosen to use human instrumentality to bring about justification and positional sanctification: Remember, 'for in it [the gospel of Christ] is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, The just shall live by faith.' It is, therefore, the privilege of the faithful to use the Word of God's revealed truth to express their faith. And God's Word has the ability to gift a new, saving faith leading to justification. Human instrumentality is involved, but not "used" by man, instead used by God, in the power of His will, to effect His work. How marvelously forthrightly all this is laid out for the believer in God's Word. Who can read it and even desire to pervert God's truth by desiring to add anything to the work of God from his own being? All I want is what God's grace has imparted to me: the benefit of being a recipient of something totally of Him, totally outside my sinful self; to be a reactor to His initiating and sustaining action of grace; to be what His plan calls for me to ultimately become--'glorified' because I am to be conformed to the image of the Son of God (Rom. 8:29). The child of God, made so by His will and action, predestined to sonship by virtue of the will and work of the Lord Jesus--it makes one draw a deep breath of relief and assurance and to breathe it out again in the voice of praise to the God of our salvation!


Subject: Re: 'Begetting'...by faith?
From: john hampshire
To: Rod
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 03:08:53 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
'I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds'. Compare that to: Ac 7:29 'Then fled Moses at this saying, and was a stranger in the land of Midian, where he begat two sons.' In what way did Moses beget two sons? Actually he didn't do the begatting did he, it was his wife or even more particularly-- God. In what way did Paul 'begat' or 'birth' Onesimus? None, but God did. Was not Paul more like the attending physician. Did he not administer the gospel, and by this become like unto a spiritual father raising a son. He says as much in 1 Cor 4:15, 'for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel'. But while Paul is an imitator of Christ, and he wanted others to be imitators of himself, it is clear who does the birthing: 1Jo 2:29 '...every one that doeth righteousness is born of Him [God]'. john


Subject: A Question about a Quote from Calv.
From: Tom
To: All
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 23:13:02 (PDT)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
Hi I have a question about a quote from John Calvin. In the following from John Calvin is he equating regeneration with faith? 'I trust I have now sufficiently shown how man's only resource for escaping from the curse of the law, and recovering salvation, lies in faith; and also what the nature of faith is, what the benefits which it confers, and the fruits which it produces. The whole may be thus summed up: Christ given to us by the kindness of God is apprehended and possessed BY FAITH, by MEANS OF WHICH we obtain in particular a TWOFOLD benefit; first, being reconciled by the righteousness of Christ, God becomes, instead of a judge, an indulgent Father; and, SECONDLY, being sanctified by his Spirit, we aspire to integrity and purity of life. This SECOND BENEFIT, VIZ., REGENERATION, appears to have been already sufficiently discussed.' Institutes Book3Chap11.


Subject: Re: A Question about a Quote from Calv.
From: Pilgrim
To: Tom
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 25, 2000 at 07:16:52 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom,

I am so glad you decided to ask your question here and not just ASSUME to understand what Calvin wrote in this quote. Perhaps this is where my own 'disdained-by-some education' is of some small advantage and usefulness here. :-) The problem is with the use of 'terms', which I have dealt with here before. The term 'regeneration' as used by Calvin is a much broader term than what it has become for us today. 'Regeneration' was used by the Reformers to include the new birth, justification and sanctification, with the emphasis falling upon the latter, mainly sanctification. This use of the term continued right into the Puritan era but due to the necessity of having to fight off the odious doctrines of Rome and the Arminian faction, with their subtleties of words and deceit, the expression of dogma became more refined and precise. So today, 'Regeneration' is used in a very narrow sense to only mean the 'New Birth'; that initial sovereign and secret work of God the Spirit whereby He recreates the will, imparts a new nature/disposition and quickens a lively faith in the soul which yearns for God and overflows with a love and need for the Lord Jesus Christ. If you will read Calvin in his previous discourse on the new birth, you will clearly see, as the others have also mentioned that Calvin holds tenaciously to the initiatory work of regeneration out of which flows faith. In other words, Calvin is a genuine, honest-to-goodness Calvinist! LOL. :-)

In His Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: A Question about a Quote from Calv.
From: Anne
To: Tom
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 25, 2000 at 06:10:27 (PDT)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
Is that quote from 'Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God?' I'm just finishing that one, and while I don't specifically recall that quote, Calvin's entire thrust is that
first comes rebirth (or what we generally term 'regeneration') and then comes belief. In any case, examining the quote, I don't think Calvin intended the twofold benefit to be interpeted as first this benefit, then that benefit, as befits a timeline mechanism, but rather, just distinguishing two equal benefits: 1) God becomes our indulgent father, instead of our judge, and 2) we are created anew. Ciao! Anne


Subject: Re: A Question about a Quote from Calv.
From: Rod
To: Tom
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 25, 2000 at 00:13:17 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Tom, I'm too lazy to get my copy out and look, but does he say anything about 'This SECOND BENEFIT, VIZ., REGENERATION" in another section to warrant your conclusion about this statement? If you're not as lazy as I, please let me know what you discover! :>)


Subject: Re: A Question about a Quote from Calv.
From: Tom
To: Rod
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 25, 2000 at 11:52:53 (PDT)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
Rod What I didn't tell you in my post is that that quote from Calvin came to me from an Arminian, who claimed that Calvin believed the way he did on this topic. Perhap I should post the Arminian's whole e-mail, to give a better idea of what I am talking about. Thanks Tom for getting back to me. i don't think we will come to an agreement on this but i would like to make some comments on the scriptures you shared. > The last verse you quoted shows clearly that we were > 'DEAD'....and then He quickens us....no talk about > believing, repenting, > etc...God acted FIRST. And that faith is an > 'operation of God'! Not > something we muster up thru the force of our wills. i agree that faith is not something we 'muster up', and as far as i am aware no arminian, except maybe those in the easy believism camp, would claim otherwise. but my point was that we are raised up into newness of life 'THROUGH THE FAITH OF THE OPERATION OF GOD'. the fact that the faith has it's origin in God does not negate the fact that this faith is God's means of regeneration, as this scripture so forcibly reveals. > As for the other verses...faith manifests itself > throughout our walk..it's > faith that Jesus AUTHORS and PERFECTS agreed! > Faith is a 'nothing' in of itself. Faith does NOT > save....it's grace and that THRU the means of faith > - BOTH being gifts from > God so none can boast. Faith is but an instrument yeah agreed but faith is still the 'means' or 'conduit' of salvation(mark16:16, 1Peter1:9), righteousness(Romans3:22), justification(Romans3:28), regeneration (Colossians 2:2), receiving the Spirit(Galatians 3:2)and being made children of Abraham(Galatians3:7). but, and this is important, it is faith which accesses that grace (Romans 5:2). well i know you will disagree with that. > I WOULD HIGHLY RECOMMEND YOU READ THIS NEW ARTICLE > RIGHT NOW...EXCELLENT FRESH > INSIGHTS on the nature of faith. i read the article. i disagree with him for the simple reason that 'faith is counted as righteousness'. this is confirmed in James 2:22-23 which defines the 'type' of faith involved. see Romans 4:3 and notice 'it'. this is the essence of 'justification by faith'. nor is this interpretation alien to Reformed theology. you will come across it in John Murray's commentary on the book of Romans. yes, faith does not in itself take away sin, as it says in Romans 3:25. 'Whom God has set forth to be a covering place of mercy THROUGH FAITH, BY HIS BLOOD', is the correct balance. how else then was Abraham justified, and how would you take into account Pauls reasoning that Abraham was justified by faith and not works? > Also, we both know that faith comes by hearing...and > that the Gospel is > God's ordained means of reaching His elect....but > this has nothing to do > with regeneration and how God regenerates > sovereignly freely according to > His riches, mercy and grace. > > Your defn of regeneration is not correct ...sounds > like a work....a work of MAN...NOT God! this agrees with what bonar said 'Faith does not justify as a work'. well i know i have gone into this a little on the board. but faith is 'a gift from God', and is not of ourselves, as scripture says. faith is not a work of the law, and therefore Paul's argument that we are not justified by works does not apply. else why would he also write: 'Now to him that worketh is the reward not counted (same word) of grace, but of debt. but to him that WORKETH NOT, but BELIEVETH on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness' i hope you can see the significance of this. > Did not Jesus say that a man MUST BE BORN AGAIN > (regenerated) before they > can enter into the Kingdom? But how can WE be born > again....? Is it > something WE INITIATE? (Arminians say Yes). NO, > for a couple verses > later Jesus talks about the rebirth being a secret > work of God's Spirit and > that it's a 'heavenly thing' (John 3:8-12). Jesus is speaking of the results of regeneration, not the means. this is very clear. 'so is everyone who IS BORN of the Spirit'. he is describing people who meet a criterion. > > Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have > done,(TO INCLUDE > BELIEVING/REPENTING/ETC) but according to his mercy > he saved us, by the > washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy > Ghost; again it is error to make faith a human work. again see Romans 4:5 'to him that worketh not but believeth'. > it's > only AFTER a person has been rebirthed, can they > see/hear and respond to the > Gospel unto salvation thru the God-given instrument > of faith. 'Seeing ye have purified your souls IN OBEYING THE TRUTH through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: Being BORN AGAIN, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, BY THE WORD OF GOD, which liveth and abideth for ever' 'For ye are all the CHILDREN (that is born) of God by faith in Christ Jesus' > > 1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the > things of the Spirit of God: > for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he > know them, because they > are spiritually discerned. > > For how can a 'natural man' repent ..when he's > clueless about the things of > the Spirit? HE IS DEAD! The Cross is a joke to > him...foolishness! Only a > rebirthed man...one no longer simply 'natural'...but > quickened, has been > GIVEN eyes to see, ears to hear. no only a man who has been woken up in his conscience by the preaching of the gospel by which faith comes. God must open their eyes, but this is not regeneration. natural means 'soulish' and refers to the type of life they have until regenerated. but it is believing with the heart which purifies our hearts, being born again by the word of God. 'I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds' > Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the > sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: > 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the > will of man, but of God. Notice 'to as many as received him, to them gave he power to become THE SONS OF GOD (that is born of God as the next verse shows), even to them that BELIEVE'. Faith is of God. regarding this scripture, it is poor exposition to try and make it teach passive regeneration. the presbyterian John Lightfoot says: 'Of the will of man, in that sense wherein they coveted so many proselytes, to admit them into the religion of the Jews, and so into covenant and sonship with God.' A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica John Lightfoot(1602-1675) you cannot interpret it against the rest of scripture nor against this very passage - John 3:5 which specifically makes the act of faith (the water of baptism) the means of regeneration. is it not significant that the act of faith is so closely tied with 'washing away of sins'?(not that the water in and of itself has power). which in turn is linked with the putting off of the old and being raised into newness of life? Romans 6? are our sins not remitted when we are born again? are our hearts not purified when we are born again? are we not made the righteousness of God when we are born again? the problem with calvinism (and any other system whether dispensationalism or whatever) is that in order to work the scriptures have to be taken in isolation from the whole. the early church, in maintaining it's stance against gnosticism 'grounded out' by emphasising the physical aspects of the outward acts of faith such as baptism. and so they spoke of baptismal regeneration. but if what you are teaching had been the ancient teaching of the church that would never have happened. and so we have another problem with systems...they cannot adequately deal with the historical development of doctrine. i hope you will give these things some thought. please feel free to continue with this if you so wish. all the best. If I may just leave you with one quote from a man called John Calvin: 'I trust I have now sufficiently shown how man's only resource for escaping from the curse of the law, and recovering salvation, lies in faith; and also what the nature of faith is, what the benefits which it confers, and the fruits which it produces. The whole may be thus summed up: Christ given to us by the kindness of God is apprehended and possessed BY FAITH, by MEANS OF WHICH we obtain in particular a TWOFOLD benefit; first, being reconciled by the righteousness of Christ, God becomes, instead of a judge, an indulgent Father; and, SECONDLY, being sanctified by his Spirit, we aspire to integrity and purity of life. This SECOND BENEFIT, VIZ., REGENERATION, appears to have been already sufficiently discussed.' Institutes Book3Chap11.


Subject: Re: A Question about a Quote from Calv.
From: Rod
To: Tom
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 25, 2000 at 15:32:42 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Tom, Thanks for posting the exchange. Pilgrim has done an excellent job of commenting on it, so I won't even bother, except to say that it brought back memories of debates/discussions I've had with Arminians over the years! As Pilgrim pointed out about this poster, their thinking is often very confused.


Subject: Re: A Question about a Quote from Calv.
From: Pilgrim
To: Tom
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 25, 2000 at 13:07:09 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom,

Just a few comments on this man's reply to you: 1) Col 2:2 says nothing about regeneration, which he quoted as doing so. The remainder of his references all refer to justification, sanctification, etc. which proceed from faith. 2) I don't know what article you asked him to read, so his comments regarding it and his disagreement with the author cannot be commented on where he said, 'i disagree with him for the simple reason that 'faith is counted as righteousness' He then goes on to quote Horatio Bonar to support his erroneous view which is really funny, since Bonar was one of the more outspoken writers of his day against Arminianism. Further Bonar was a strong proponent of Calvinism and the doctrine of Total Depravity. He many times expressed the truth that regeneration is synonymous with the 'new birth' and that IT is a sovereign work of God wherein faith is given to the elect. 3) To your pointing out to him that Jesus' excursus on the new birth in John 3, he wrote in reply, 'Jesus is speaking of the results of regeneration, not the means. this is very clear. 'so is everyone who IS BORN of the Spirit'. he is describing people who meet a criterion.' His comments are irrational, hahaha! Can Jesus have put it any clearer than He did? Certainly not, being that He is TRUTH embodied and the Spirit inspired John to record His words for our edification. The entire discourse given to Nicodemus is certainly not obscure in its meaning. The new birth is the SECRET work of the Spirit of which no man is able to discern beforehand. THIS is the perspicuous meaning of the text: 'so is every one that is born of the Spirit.'; i.e., 'so' (thus) a conclusion, not a statement of qualification. The discerning of the new birth is beyond the ability of a human being to apprehend. It is the MANIFESTATION (the blowing of the leaves, the rustling of the grass, the slight sensation of a gust upon the cheek, etc. these are things which a person senses only AFTER the wind has come and gone. SO IT IS with every one who is born of the Spirit; they are cognizant of their regeneration only AFTER it has occurred. 4) He completely avoided dealing with John 1:12, 13, and especially verse 13 which incontrovertibly says that the 'receiving' and the 'believing on His name' are the RESULT of that individual being born of God. As a side note, as he mentioned, 'Notice 'to as many as received him, to them gave he power to become THE SONS OF GOD (that is born of God as the next verse shows)' If the 'receiving' gave birth to the 'new birth' the text would read as nonsense. Secondly, the phrase, 'sons of God' is incorrectly translated in the KJV. This is not uncommon with the translators in John's gospel and his Epistles. The Greek word there is tekna or 'child (children)'. This is different from Paul's use of the word (Gk: uios) or 'son'. 'Children of God' refers to the sharing of the nature of one's Father; 'partakers of the divine nature' (2Peter 1:4), which is a progressive transformation of the soul into the likeness of the Lord Christ (Rom 8:29), which the Scriptures call Sanctification. Thus in John 1:12, God provided the ability to those who received the Lord Christ, even to those who believed upon His name the 'power/ability' to be partakers of the divine nature. So, as it is wholly consistent with the entire Scriptural teaching, those who come to Christ by faith are sanctified, being conformed to the image of the Saviour Himself. Verse 13 sets forth the ORIGIN of that 'faith' and that 'receiving', i.e., being born of God. The three preceding negatives, 'not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, . . .' rule out any possibility of viewing regeneration as proceeding FROM faith, but rather as it is clearly written, those that received Him and those who believing upon His name did so BECAUSE they WERE born of God. The 'born of God' is causal and antecedent to the 'believing' and 'receiving'. To say otherwise is to commit linguistic suicide! :-) 5) I haven't a clue as to what he was trying to show from quoting Lightfoot. :-)

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: A Question about a Quote from Calv.
From: laz
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 25, 2000 at 15:56:26 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom,

Just a few comments on this man's reply to you: 1) Col 2:2 says nothing about regeneration, which he quoted as doing so. The remainder of his references all refer to justification, sanctification, etc. which proceed from faith. 2) I don't know what article you asked him to read, so his comments regarding it and his disagreement with the author cannot be commented on where he said, 'i disagree with him for the simple reason that 'faith is counted as righteousness' He then goes on to quote Horatio Bonar to support his erroneous view which is really funny, since Bonar was one of the more outspoken writers of his day against Arminianism. Further Bonar was a strong proponent of Calvinism and the doctrine of Total Depravity. He many times expressed the truth that regeneration is synonymous with the 'new birth' and that IT is a sovereign work of God wherein faith is given to the elect. 3) To your pointing out to him that Jesus' excursus on the new birth in John 3, he wrote in reply, 'Jesus is speaking of the results of regeneration, not the means. this is very clear. 'so is everyone who IS BORN of the Spirit'. he is describing people who meet a criterion.' His comments are irrational, hahaha! Can Jesus have put it any clearer than He did? Certainly not, being that He is TRUTH embodied and the Spirit inspired John to record His words for our edification. The entire discourse given to Nicodemus is certainly not obscure in its meaning. The new birth is the SECRET work of the Spirit of which no man is able to discern beforehand. THIS is the perspicuous meaning of the text: 'so is every one that is born of the Spirit.'; i.e., 'so' (thus) a conclusion, not a statement of qualification. The discerning of the new birth is beyond the ability of a human being to apprehend. It is the MANIFESTATION (the blowing of the leaves, the rustling of the grass, the slight sensation of a gust upon the cheek, etc. these are things which a person senses only AFTER the wind has come and gone. SO IT IS with every one who is born of the Spirit; they are cognizant of their regeneration only AFTER it has occurred. 4) He completely avoided dealing with John 1:12, 13, and especially verse 13 which incontrovertibly says that the 'receiving' and the 'believing on His name' are the RESULT of that individual being born of God. As a side note, as he mentioned, 'Notice 'to as many as received him, to them gave he power to become THE SONS OF GOD (that is born of God as the next verse shows)' If the 'receiving' gave birth to the 'new birth' the text would read as nonsense. Secondly, the phrase, 'sons of God' is incorrectly translated in the KJV. This is not uncommon with the translators in John's gospel and his Epistles. The Greek word there is tekna or 'child (children)'. This is different from Paul's use of the word (Gk: uios) or 'son'. 'Children of God' refers to the sharing of the nature of one's Father; 'partakers of the divine nature' (2Peter 1:4), which is a progressive transformation of the soul into the likeness of the Lord Christ (Rom 8:29), which the Scriptures call Sanctification. Thus in John 1:12, God provided the ability to those who received the Lord Christ, even to those who believed upon His name the 'power/ability' to be partakers of the divine nature. So, as it is wholly consistent with the entire Scriptural teaching, those who come to Christ by faith are sanctified, being conformed to the image of the Saviour Himself. Verse 13 sets forth the ORIGIN of that 'faith' and that 'receiving', i.e., being born of God. The three preceding negatives, 'not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, . . .' rule out any possibility of viewing regeneration as proceeding FROM faith, but rather as it is clearly written, those that received Him and those who believing upon His name did so BECAUSE they WERE born of God. The 'born of God' is causal and antecedent to the 'believing' and 'receiving'. To say otherwise is to commit linguistic suicide! :-) 5) I haven't a clue as to what he was trying to show from quoting Lightfoot. :-)

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim
---
******** THe article in question was the recent addition to the Highway by Bonar. It dealt with faith up front. laz


Subject: Re: A Question about a Quote from Calv.
From: Tom
To: laz
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 25, 2000 at 23:57:51 (PDT)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
Laz He was not quoting Horatio Bonar to support his views. I gave an article that you recommended I give him and he was disagreeing with it, not using it to support his views. The mistake was my fault, since you were not privi to all the information of our discussion. Tom


Subject: Re: A Question about a Quote from Calv.
From: laz
To: Tom
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 23:26:42 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi I have a question about a quote from John Calvin. In the following from John Calvin is he equating regeneration with faith? 'I trust I have now sufficiently shown how man's only resource for escaping from the curse of the law, and recovering salvation, lies in faith; and also what the nature of faith is, what the benefits which it confers, and the fruits which it produces. The whole may be thus summed up: Christ given to us by the kindness of God is apprehended and possessed BY FAITH, by MEANS OF WHICH we obtain in particular a TWOFOLD benefit; first, being reconciled by the righteousness of Christ, God becomes, instead of a judge, an indulgent Father; and, SECONDLY, being sanctified by his Spirit, we aspire to integrity and purity of life. This SECOND BENEFIT, VIZ., REGENERATION, appears to have been already sufficiently discussed.' Institutes Book3Chap11.
---
you mean equate regeneration with sanctification....which comes AFTER we thru faith express belief....? laz


Subject: Recent Addition to The Highway
From: Pilgrim
To: All
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 11:16:38 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
All,

It seems apparent that there are some brothers who have not come to know exactly what 'Calvinism' really is, from what has been posted here by some. It is often the case that the opponents of Calvinism also have a misconception of what this term implies. But for those of us who are convinced that the Scriptures do in fact teach this 'system of theology' known as Calvinism, it is incumbent upon us to get a firm grasp of what it is we really do believe concerning the Word of God. Thus I thought it would be helpful to add an article to the home page which hopefully will be of some help in expanding the understanding of some who might not have had the opportunity to know of the full implications of this term, 'Calvinism'. To be sure, it is far more encompassing than setting forth soteriologcially what we know as the 'Five Points'. In fact, at the great Synod of Dordrect, where these 'Five Points' were set forth in answer to the Remonstrants' 'five points of contention/objection' to that which was universally held by the churches of the Reformation, dealt with far more than these now infamous, 'Five Points'. I pray that this article by Dr. Henry Meeter will serve to expand the understanding of all but especially for those who perhaps are less informed in this matter. You may read that article by clicking here: The Fundamental Principle of Calvinism.

In His Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: I urge all to read this article
From: Rod
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 25, 2000 at 00:50:40 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Pilgrim, At the risk of emphasizing one thing at the expense of others, may I lift out one paragraph to quote, particularly for our 'catholic' friends, both Roman and Greek, and for those who 'deal fast and loose' with interpretation of the Word of God? It is this: 'Besides the fundamental principle there are corollary principles which should be mentioned here, because they are for the Calvinist axiomatic-principia, first principles which underlie the whole system. Of special prominence is the one, which is familiarly known to us as the formal principle of the Protestant Reformation; namely, that God has given to fallen man, besides the general revelation in nature, a special revelation of Himself and of His works in the Bible as the Word of God. Because this Bible, or rather God in the Bible, presents to us a specific interpretation of God’s works in nature and a special revelation of His redemptive works, it becomes for the Calvinist the ultimate and binding source of information concerning God and the world. This objective revelation man accepts through a God-given faith.' As the author points out, this is a corollary, not the fundamental thrust of his article, but it is one on which our faith rests (or should rest), the mercy and goodness of God in providing us with the authoritative source for our knowledge of God and our corresponding faith in Him. Our faith is in God
revealed, not God 'conjured' or 'invented' by man. To depart from that revelation is a gross and grave error. May God grant us all who are here the ability to be submissive to and receptive to that revelation. May He also grant us deep, reverent appreciation for it. May He grant us forgiveness for failing short in our attitudes and understanding of His revelation.


Subject: Christ Has Risen!
From: Prestor John
To: All
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 23, 2000 at 08:01:34 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:

HE HAS RISEN INDEED


Subject: Re: Christ Has Risen!
From: Anne
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 23, 2000 at 10:14:01 (PDT)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
Alleluia!


Subject: A statement to Bro. Bret
From: Rod
To: All
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 23:03:10 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Brother and, I hope, friend, You've never spoken harshly with me that I can recall and we share many common beliefs and a somewhat common background. You didn't call me by name, but you have publically chastized some of us for our treatment of Gene. You gently rebuked me, as I recall, once for speaking out strongly against him. Others have done the same for my doing the same thing, some much less gently. I'd like say this concerning the treatment of Gene or anyone else: I dealt kindly and gently with Gene when I first came here, being unaware that his 'questions' weren't legitimate requests for info at all, but a technique to put forth his agenda. The realization of the truth signaled a time for that treatment to stop. When a person shows a willingness to be led and to learn, or even to exchange ideas and information legitimately when no agreement is reached, that is one thing. But when a person deliberately and repeatedly denies the Lord and tries to persuade others of his correctness in doing so, he deserves nothing less than to have the truth pointed out to and about him. Gene and others have been spoken to patiently and gently to no avail. The time passes when they can legitimately be patiently tolerated as the enemies of God's truth. It is dishonoring to the Lord to show misplaced kindness to His enemies. Just the other day, Eric I think it was, asked if Gene were really an unbeliever. It is incumbent on us to warn people of the insidiousness of false teaching about the fundamentals. Soft-heartedness and kindness don't come into play here. Making an honest effort to reach the people whose hearts have been prepared by the Lord and defending the truth of God are paramount. We can also pray for those such as Gene who need the Lord, but deny him, but the truth of God must be plainly declared to them. Something to consider about the other side of the coin.


Subject: John's Mac's Statement
From: Tom
To: All
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 18:58:15 (PDT)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
In a post down further on the board, there was a quote by John MacArthur from a sermon on baptism as contrasted with baptism. I wrote John MacArthur's ministry, and thought I would share with the board the responce. Hi In a sermon by John MacArthur about whether or not babies should be baptised, he wrote on the subject of circumcision 'Listen carefully: it didn’t have any spiritual implications at all. None!' and 'Circumcision was never a spiritual sign of anything.' Although in most things I generally agree with John MacArthur, and I am in agreement that the proper method of baptism is immersion. I must admitt his statement took me back. For instance from the following verses I would have to question John's statement. Rom 4:9 'Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the 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 unto them also: 12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. 13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: 15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. 16 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; who is the father of us all, 17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were. 18 Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be. Also : Col 2:10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: 11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. From these verses, it would seem to me that circumcision does have spiritual implications. Tom, I think what MacArthur is saying, in the 'context' of the statement, is that 'Circumcision was never a spiritual sign of anything' in the sense that it really did not mean that you were really saved, because lots of people (all of the men and boys) in Israel were circumcised, but not all were saved--for sure. That is the point He is trying to make--circumcision was the law. If you were a male Jew then you had to be circumcised. So the 'circumcision' could not be a true sign of salvation for the Jews since all Jews were not saved. This is the context of John's statement. Whereas, in Romans 4:9-17, it refers primarily to the circumcision of Abraham, which, in his case, was a sign of the redemption he already received prior to circumcision. Circumcision can never have complete spiritual implications for all the Jews, since a good number were women who were saved and not circumcised. MacArthur is making the contrast of the male-only act of circumcision, done to every male, and really did not mean you were saved; he contrasts it against Baptism that is required 'only' of those who profess true faith in Christ (male or female). Hope this helps....... Elected and Created for Christ, Tony Capoccia www.biblebb.com www.gospelgems.com


Subject: Re: John's Mac's Statement
From: laz
To: Tom
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 19:28:24 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom - thanks for taking the trouble! ;-) First - I hope you are reconsidering your position on immersion...especially if you've read John Hampshire's latest gem. ;-) Secondly, the reply by 'Tony' was rather weak for it's already been said by other here that baptism doesn't mean a person is NECESSARILY saved either. I'd also like to know what Tony/Mac DO consider '
spiritual'? haha If I wanted to get facetious, I might say that if Abraham was not promised anything spiritual (with circumcism never having any real spiritual significance), but merely lots of progeny, land, and temporal/earthly blessings for 'all the nations'...then hasn't Israel already been given their 'day in the sun' with the mighty works of the great prophets, priests and judges/kings? Can I declare that with the coming of Messiah, Israel's non-spiritual party is over but that the NT Church's spiritual festivities have begun? Frankly, I doubt Tony or most at 'Grace to You' (given their Credo/Dispe paradigm) can understand the 'reformed' perspective on God's covenantal promises as depicted by the various signs/seals. John Mac's initial comments and Tony's response to you prove that to me. ...oh well.... blessings, laz


Subject: Re: John's Mac's Statement
From: Rod
To: laz
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 22:46:45 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
laz, Whatever our differences on this or other issues, we all have to agree that, at least on the face of what MacArthur said, he was in serious error as quoted previously. It's both a 'blessing' and a 'curse' for preachers that their every word and pronouncement is so readily available to be read or heard by so many. I wonder how many things I'd have to recant if all my teaching had been recorded? (I'm still telling people how wrong I was as an Arminian!)


Subject: Re: John's Mac's Statement
From: laz
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 23, 2000 at 05:36:59 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
laz, Whatever our differences on this or other issues, we all have to agree that, at least on the face of what MacArthur said, he was in serious error as quoted previously. It's both a 'blessing' and a 'curse' for preachers that their every word and pronouncement is so readily available to be read or heard by so many. I wonder how many things I'd have to recant if all my teaching had been recorded? (I'm still telling people how wrong I was as an Arminian!)
---
I agree....you think I was too hard on the guy? hehe laz p.s. I happen to really like the guy! ;-)


Subject: Sort of theological...maybe
From: Rod
To: All
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 16:53:20 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
I admit to not having done a detailed study of the matter, but as I have read the Bible over the years, I don't ever recall having seen anything which would indicate alcoholism as the current view of it exists, i. e., a disease. Everything I have read indicates that excessive drinking is a choice of the individual involved. I can recall having had friendship with, or association by family ties with, 4 or 5 confirmed alcoholics (people who definitely had a problem and whose lives were deeply affected by their drinking). I don't have any medical or psychological expertise either, but these people weren't 'able to take it or leave it,' at least two of the group unable to 'leave it' at all, apparently. The others were able to stay sober most of the time, though all had 'lapses.' So, endeavoring to lay aside the fact that drinking is a very divisive issue for the Christian Church, what is the thrust of the Bible? Does there seem to be any basis for viewing the persistent, heavy drinker as one who is addicted and possibly 'diseased?' Or is this merely another form of human indulgence and essesntially a sinful choice of excess? To clarify: I am not questioning whether one should drink alcohol or not as a Christain. I am speaking purely of the matter of 'alcoholism' and/or 'problem drinking,' what is, apparently, complusive excessive drinking. And I'm interested in the subject purely from the Biblical standpoint, not from a 'clinical' one.


Subject: Re: Sort of theological...maybe
From: Pilgrim
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 22:06:00 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod,

I think you already have a good grasp of the situation and truth concerning alcoholism brother! :-) It is clearly not a 'disease', for no one can say that they were innocently walking down the street and some bug entered their system and infected them so that they suddenly found themselves over indulging against their good sense to do otherwise. Throughout the O.T. alcoholic beverages were consumed as a matter of daily life among the people of various nations, including Israel. You don't find God commanding abstinence of such drink except in specific situations with specific persons. What you DO find, in both Old and New Testaments is the prohibition against drunkenness; i.e., allowing the alcohol to 'rule over you', e.g., Prov 20:1; 23:20, 21, 29-35; Rom 13:13; Eph 5:18, et al. 'Alcoholism is a SIN problem first and foremost. But it is also true that AFTERWARDS, after a person has sinfully abused alcohol, there is both a psychological and physical addiction which was be treated. The psychological problem is effectively eradicated through repentance, but there is still the reality of the body's addiction which medical remedies sometimes are needed. Secondly, such organizations as AAA, as John has at least implied, substitute 'a religion' for the alcohol and although many are successful in quitting the habitual drinking, then become dependent upon the organization and its own brand of religion. In addition, they promote a horrid lie, in that they tell alcoholics, 'Once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic!' which is in total opposition to what Paul says about the great freedom which is found in Christ Jesus (cf. 1Cor 6:9-11). Paul is of course not saying that the instant a person comes to Christ in true faith and repentance that they are going to miraculously 'cured' of their besetting sins. But surely there is a lively hope to be expected that in Christ their is indeed going to be an eventual release from captivity.

In His Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Sort of theological...maybe
From: john hampshire
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 20:50:55 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Here's a sorta theological reply.... Alcoholism is not a disease, it is not pathological, it is not biological, it is not genetic. It is, if anything, the result of trauma and resentment of perceived wrongs against an individual who harbors resentment, where the individual escapes from the pain of reality through drink. Drunks are drunks because drinking relieves metal anguish, at least temporarily. After each drink comes the knowledge that they are MORE wrong, which leads to guilt, which leads to more pain, which is covered up by more drink. It is a cycle that never ends, except through death or by replacing the comfort of alcohol with a different comfort. An alcoholic, drug user, smoker, sex addict, you name it, can give it all up in a moment IF, and its a big if, they can locate a different pain killer for relief of their guilt. A drunk can get 'saved' and become addicted to religion, become consumed with religion and religious work, he'll never drink again. Same goes for all other addictions. You just need a bigger addiction to remove your guilt -- enter religion. Liberals like to equate these vain attempts to quash conscience by people as an addiction. What is addicting is the lack of pain that any drug or 'distraction' brings. Watching TV is great if you have a headache, the pain seems to disappear, and so TV, music, sex, endless pursuit of education, collecting money and things, really a focused devotion for nearly anything becomes a way to distract oneself from their own pursuing conscience of their wrong. The solution is to face the wrong, admit the wrongs, and repent of these wrongs. Of course that would be easy, except humans protect their self-image through many devices, designed to protect themselves from Reality. Each person seeks those who will help them maintain that facade, we call these people 'friends'. Of course an honest person who corrects your wrong, points out your fault, and will not sympathize with your excuse becomes your enemy, unless you are the rare type of person who embraces truth. Alcoholics have many friends, they have liberal politicians who 'love' them just as they are. Society excuses every deviant and destructive behavior and the reward is that they too are excused from their deviant and destructive behavior. It is like two drunks leaning on each other for support. I don't see your faults if you don't see mine -- friend! Calvinism is a true and honest friend to mankind. It is the horrible tasting medicine that provides a real cure. It damages pride, destroys excuses, eliminates man's work and effort, deflates ego, and humbles the spirit. It, of course, is the enemy of 'religion' and the world at large. By the way, the world needs to be comforted in its wrongness. That is why we elect 'leaders' who make us feel good about our evil. The 'adoring' populace finds peace in the 'love' and 'caring' provided by their 'helpful' leaders, but at a price. They soon find that if that 'love' is withdrawn, the pain of reality creeps back in, and before they know it, they are addicted to 'love'. Once on social programs the poor sap is unable to break free of this 'love', or if they should they will see how dishonored and needy they have fallen. It is by this practice of 'loving' ethnic groups, disadvantage people, and every manner of addiction that we have been successful at creating an entire 'market' for that 'love'. The more liberals care about the needy, the more needy there are to need. Personally, I do not believe a Christian should partake in any wine, or strong drink, including beer. I don't see it honorable for a man to drink. I doubt if Jesus appeared in your home you would offer the thrice Holy God a lite beer or wine cooler? Quite honestly we can find many causes of dishonor and shame in the Christian community, the real question is what will you do, not what do other people do. I don't support supposed Christians who think it their liberty to smoke or drink, they have no liberty--they are bought with a price and are owned outright by Christ. If your vision of God is Jesus in a lawn chair, watching sports on Sunday with a drink in one hand, a cigar in the other, as He relaxes and unwinds from the days hardships--you've got the wrong God. If you want to unwind-- pray. If you have a problem--stop struggling with it and realize your wrong, then repent. If you need direction-- read your Bible with an aim at understanding each verse. If you are addicted to something--become objective and realize your need, remember what caused the pain, and then forgive those who hurt you or used you. The entire world is ‘needy’, alcoholics are just one sub-class of a needy world. The solution to any need is truth—inject the medicine of reality, which is the gospel of Jesus Christ. john


Subject: Re: Me thinks ......
From: stan
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 23:24:31 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
you don't understand alcoholics so well - some may fit into your criteria but many don't. stan


Subject: Re: Sort of theological...maybe
From: laz
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 21:07:40 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
John, John, John - so if your daughter was getting married and Jesus was a guest, NO, actually performing the ceremony...you would not have the best wine you could afford to offer your guests, to include Jesus? When did wine drinking become synonomous with sin? Was Jesus sinning when he drank with partying sinners? What's the difference btwn wine and beer? laz how do you feel about owning a TV? ;-)


Subject: Re: Sort of theological...maybe
From: Rod
To: laz
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 22:34:57 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
john and laz, It's not my place to chastize you, but I will remind each of you that I appealed to all not to let this degenerate into a 'Should a Christian drink?' thing, which is, as I indicated, one of the most divisive issues in Christendom. Thanks.


Subject: Re: Sort of theological...maybe
From: laz
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 23, 2000 at 05:43:23 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
john and laz, It's not my place to chastize you, but I will remind each of you that I appealed to all not to let this degenerate into a 'Should a Christian drink?' thing, which is, as I indicated, one of the most divisive issues in Christendom. Thanks.
---
Rod, MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS!!! ...kidding. hehe I'll try....and I don't think JH does believe in total abstinance as a rule of faith (he just thinks it's not prudent...but as I've mentioned earlier, it's a fine line) .... but nevertheless, this is a legitimate subject to discuss. NO? ...I'll try to be 'good'. ;-) blessings and why not ... FOR HE HAS RISEN!! laz


Subject: Re: Sort of theological...maybe
From: john hampshire
To: laz
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 06:02:54 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
The question in my mind is not 'should a Christian drink', the question is: 'Why does a Christian desire to drink'? We know that 'Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging; and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise' (Pr 20:1). I tend to agree. Now, the reply is always that such verses as this are only pertaining to drinking excessively. Yet Pr 31:4 is fairly clear 'It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine; nor princes strong drink:', and why not? 'Lest they drink and forget the law...'. Now someone will say they can still drink, though we be kings ruling with Christ, we shall not forget the afflicted by becoming intoxicated. But I see a spiritual rule here, we should not desire to dull ourselves through drink, we are to judge righteously as sons of God. The next verse is even more clear. 'Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of bitter soul' (Vs 6). I see in this God's temporal mercy, allowing those who are perishing, that is the unregenerate sinner, something to take the edge off of life's hardships. What I don't get is why Christians feel the need, or even demand they be allowed this right. We are not 'bitter of soul' are we? Are we poor of spirit such that we must 'forget his poverty and remember his misery no more'. From my perspective, there is no need for spiritual men to drink. But given the number of Christians who are drugged or undergoing therapy to control their 'misery' I wonder. How different is a Christian from that which is common? I am reminded of John the Baptizer, he did not drink for he was a priest, he was also 'filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb'. That is how I see each believer, a priestly mediator between God and man. We must do our duty relying upon God, I don’t see our reliance to include a cigarette, a glass of wine, or a frosty cold beer to calm our nerves. I don't see necessarily an occasional drink as sin either, anymore than someone who occasionally smokes commits sin. But I don't see the necessity for it either, especially as we become more spiritually discerning. For instance, Tit 1:7 and 1Ti 3:8 are clear deacons and bishops should not be 'given to much wine' or 'wine'. Likewise, the aged women of Tit 2:3 are not to be 'given to much wine' but have 'behaviour as becometh holiness'. That about sums it up for me. A Christian's behavior should reflect the spiritual holiness (separation from the world) that we have in Christ. Wine and drink are given to the world, if we are spiritually able, and by this I mean 'mature', we will eventually remove these things from our life as detracting from our walk in purity. If you cannot see this, then I judge you not. If you understand why I don't drink, smoke, or care as the world cares, then you may see that the more we strive to be 'blameless as the steward of God' (Tit 1:7), the less alcohol has a place. Discern these things as you are spiritually able. P.S. – I see wine in communion as holding spiritual significance and thus something that we should partake without a guilty conscience. john


Subject: Re: Sort of theological...maybe
From: Tom
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 10:04:16 (PDT)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
John You said: For instance, Tit 1:7 and 1Ti 3:8 are clear deacons and bishops should not be 'given to much wine' or 'wine'. I think the key word here is 'much'. That does not say they shouldn't drink at all. Tom


Subject: Re: Sort of theological...maybe
From: Eric
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 07:38:45 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
john, While I understand where you are coming from, let me just point out something in which you wrote, that I think is common among those who hold your position--spiritual pride. Now, I want to make clear that I am not accusing you of this. You wrote: >>> Wine and drink are given to the world, if we are spiritually able, and by this I mean 'mature', we will eventually remove these things from our life as detracting from our walk in purity. >>>If you cannot see this, then I judge you not. If you understand why I don't drink, smoke, or care as the world cares, then you may see that the more we strive to be 'blameless as the steward of God' (Tit 1:7), the less alcohol has a place. You have contradicted yourself here. You said that those who are more mature spiritually, will not drink, and the next paragraph, you say that you don't judge people if they disagree with you. Well, you do judge them as being less mature. If abstaining from alcohol and tobacco is something YOU need to do to increase in sanctification, then, you are duty bound to abstain. Do not assume that what helps or hinders your walk to be the norm for other believers. Personally, I don't smoke, and I have maybe had a total of 4 drinks in the past 3 years, my conscience is clear if I have a beer. In fact, I could even have a beer while studying the Bible, and it would not bother me at all. But, I struggle with watching television. Even if I am watching a 'good' show, some of the commercials are suggestive, and might cause me to lust or envy. So I try my best to not watch TV. Now, would it be right for me to assume that those who do watch TV are less mature than I am? Why does a Christian drink or smoke? Probably the same reason a Christian watches TV, because they enjoy it. Clearly, those who can watch TV *without* it causing them to stumble, are stronger than I am. It would be wrong for me to limit anothers freedom in Christ because I am weaker than they are. God bless.


Subject: Re: Sort of theological...maybe
From: john hampshire
To: Eric
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 14:48:29 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Eric, It is not that we count the number of drinks, TV shows, or cigarettes consumed to meet some demand for holiness. There is a process of sanctification, in which we are less worldly and more dependent upon God with time, if we be His child of course. Those Christians who drink do not offend me, but in this matter I view them as having not 'seen' a better way. Whatever weakness, and yes smoking, TV watching, and drinking is in my opinion mostly just a waste of time and does not enhance our spiritual walk; but our weakness are usually different, and what you clutch to is not mine. We are all lacking maturity in different ways and growing at different rates. So with this in mind, I don't judge drinking, but then I don't drink. It is not that maturity is gained simply by not drinking either. I do not say if you abstain from drink you are more mature than the one who drinks, for maturity is the result of many more operations. But in the whole, as we become more spiritually sensitive, the things that we felt were justified and proper, become more obvious reflections of our worldliness, and we may find a better way. With time we have a deeper understanding of God's truth, and a better adherence to the law of God. But again, I limit no one-- weaker or stronger. john


Subject: Wine, women, and the Law of God
From: Eric
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 25, 2000 at 08:01:20 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi john, Why is drinking equated with worldliness? Would you say that those who are more spiritually sensitive take fewer showers, or don't mow their lawns, because those tasks are obvious relfections of worldliness? What about people who are overweight? They have taken something (food) that is good and abused it. Are we to then infer that as we become more spiritually minded, that we consume less food? Or do we just consume plain food, such as bread and water--only enough for nourishment? What you seem to be advocating, is not unlike the thought that brought about monasticism. I realize that you are saying that the spiritual growth leads to the abstinence from certain physical pleasures/distractions, what so often happens, is that people easily slip into legalism, and instead of the abstinence being a result of the spiritual, it becomes a means to the spiritual, which ends up in despair, or delusion. Look at the Pharisees, they were not always hypocritical, they started out as a group who earnestly desired to follow God's law, but over time, they degenerated into a people who ended up following their own laws as an avoidance of God's law. What is easier, not travelling a certain distance on the Sabbath, or loving your enemy? Or, look at many of the fundamentalist's today. Instead of Christianity being defined as a devotion to, and an obediance to Christ, it has degenerated into a sort of neglect ethic. You are a Christian if you dont: smoke, drink, dance, swear, commit adultery, etc... Wine is good! Food is good! Sex is great! All these things are created by God for the enjoyment of His people. The fact that each of these things can be easily abused, is not reason to assume that they are not meant to be enjoyed by spiritual minded people. God bless.


Subject: Re: Wine, women, and the Law of God
From: laz
To: Eric
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 25, 2000 at 10:59:09 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi john, Why is drinking equated with worldliness? Would you say that those who are more spiritually sensitive take fewer showers, or don't mow their lawns, because those tasks are obvious relfections of worldliness? What about people who are overweight? They have taken something (food) that is good and abused it. Are we to then infer that as we become more spiritually minded, that we consume less food? Or do we just consume plain food, such as bread and water--only enough for nourishment? What you seem to be advocating, is not unlike the thought that brought about monasticism. I realize that you are saying that the spiritual growth leads to the abstinence from certain physical pleasures/distractions, what so often happens, is that people easily slip into legalism, and instead of the abstinence being a result of the spiritual, it becomes a means to the spiritual, which ends up in despair, or delusion. Look at the Pharisees, they were not always hypocritical, they started out as a group who earnestly desired to follow God's law, but over time, they degenerated into a people who ended up following their own laws as an avoidance of God's law. What is easier, not travelling a certain distance on the Sabbath, or loving your enemy? Or, look at many of the fundamentalist's today. Instead of Christianity being defined as a devotion to, and an obediance to Christ, it has degenerated into a sort of neglect ethic. You are a Christian if you dont: smoke, drink, dance, swear, commit adultery, etc... Wine is good! Food is good! Sex is great! All these things are created by God for the enjoyment of His people. The fact that each of these things can be easily abused, is not reason to assume that they are not meant to be enjoyed by spiritual minded people. God bless.
---
Amen, Eric.... ...now can we talk about original sin? LOL!!!! ....kidding.... I'm like a dog with a bone, eh? ;-) blessings, laz


Subject: A helpful article
From: Eric
To: laz
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 11:59:29 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Here is an article that I came across today which puts things in the proper light. I think that john would agree with the viewpoint of the author, Michael Horton (who, IMHO, can be a little hard to take at times). God bless. www.alliancenet.org/pub/mr/mr00/2000.02.MarApr/mr0002.msh.prudence.html


Subject: Re: A helpful article
From: laz
To: Eric
Date Posted: Thurs, Apr 27, 2000 at 21:19:42 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Here is an article that I came across today which puts things in the proper light. I think that john would agree with the viewpoint of the author, Michael Horton (who, IMHO, can be a little hard to take at times). God bless. www.alliancenet.org/pub/mr/mr00/2000.02.MarApr/mr0002.msh.prudence.html
---
Eric - just curious...but in what way is Horton 'hard to take'? Theologically? blessings, laz


Subject: Re: A helpful article
From: Eric
To: laz
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 07:12:37 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I think Horton enjoys polemics a little bit too much. He tends to rail against those he disagrees with, but often he will choose extreme cases that aren't very representative of his opponents. Such as his views/editorials on modern worship vs traditonal worship styles. I tend to agree with him on most theological points though. Have you ever read Credenda/Agenda? I think those guys are fantastic. Very humorous, and they present a 'masculine' form of Christianity that is so hard to find these days. Check out some of their back issues at www.credenda.org God bless. misrepresent or takes extreme cases of those he disagrees with, and .


Subject: Re: A helpful article
From: Pilgrim
To: Eric
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 08:13:39 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Eric,

In defense of Horton as to what you think he is doing, i.e., misrepresenting and/or exaggerating the modern church's practice in their contemporary worship, I would suggest that if Horton is guilty of anything in this particular area, it would that of UNDERSTATEMENT. What is currently being done in the majority of churches today is abhorrable and in some cases far worse that what Horton mentioned in that particular edition of Modern Reformation magazine. Have you had the opportunity to read any of the articles on The Highway in the 'Calvinism and the Reformed Faith' section concerning contemporary worship, its music, etc? If not I suggest you do for it may enlighten you to what is really taking place today. Here's a starter article for you to consider, by my good friend and Baptist hehehe, Dr. John Armstrong: The Contemporary Church

In His Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: A helpful article
From: laz
To: Eric
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 08:12:45 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Eric - yes, I was given my first C/A about 6-7 yrs ago when I was a new believer..thought it was too 'masculine' at the time. hehe A couple years later I became reformed and have been getting their free magazine ever since. Overall, I love their stuff and their sick sense of humor. ;-) I also have a handful of D. Wilson's books (my wife just picked up 'The Federal Husband' for me last month...she must think that since I work for the Federal Govt...it might help me at my job. hahahaha!). They have lost some favor in my eyes as of late on account of their rabid postmil position and barbs at amills such as myself. I guess C/A was great so long as my ox wasn't being gored, huh? haha As for Horton, I get Mod Ref mag and love his pieces...I suppose you might be right about his perceived persnickitiness. ;-) Although, they now have a column in MR for those who have an 'opposing perspective'....like the one by an Open Theology fella .... another by the guy who heads the organization/council of world evangelicals (can't recall the exact name)... not sure who's featured on the newest issue I have sitting at home. blessings, laz


Subject: Re: Sort of theological...maybe
From: Pilgrim
To: Eric
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 11:06:31 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Eric,

You make some excellent points to John and I hope he accepts them in the true spirit in which I am sure they were intended. As I have pointed out elsewhere, it is the STRONG who 'esteem all things alike and pure' in regards to the Adiophora. If a brother is known to me to have something against the consumption of a particular food or drink, then if that brother were to visit my home, then I would make sure that none of those items were used or even seen by this dear brother in Christ, so as to not cause any offense or misunderstanding. If that same brother were to mention that he knew that I ate something or drank something which he felt was 'undignified' for a professing Christian to partake of, then I would in all gentleness and sincerity try and show him/her from the Scriptures of the great freedom which we have in the Lord Christ. I would not argue point, but simply open the Scriptures and set forth the biblical truth of the matter. True maturity in the faith is NOT a matter of abstaining from this or that which God has pronounced 'clean' and 'pure', but rather knowing when it is expedient to abstain for the right reasons of those things which 'give offense' to the brethren. As to our appearance before the world, this is an entirely different matter, although there are similarities which MAY govern our lifestyle choices. It is without question, that the Lord Jesus Christ drank wine and probably at every meal as was the custom in that day. Why else would He have been slanderously called a 'winebibber'?

Luke 7:34 'The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!'

Yet it is also possible that He chose to abstain when visiting the home of a drunkard. Unless there is a clear mandate of prohibition of a particular food, or a particular kind of drink, then we must not set forth even the implication that those who choose to partake of them are 'less mature spiritually'.

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: HE IS RISEN INDEED! n/t
From: Rod
To: laz
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 23, 2000 at 06:48:23 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:


Subject: Christian Liberty
From: Pilgrim
To: All
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 16:20:02 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:

The matter as to whether or not it is right to use wine as one of the elements in the administration of the Lord's Supper is not one which is relegated to the matter of conscience. Although it is often done so and Paul's teaching in Romans 14-15:13 is often used as support for it. However, this section of Scripture offers not only no support for this position, it actually mitigates against using the doctrine of 'Adiophora' (things indifferent) and its practical implications in the matter of Christian Liberty. From such passages as Romans 14, 1Cor 8, 10, Galatians 2,5 and Col. 2, but especially the Romans 14 passage, the following definitions of the 'Strong' and the 'Weak' can be derived:

Strong: Those who had grasped the significance of Christ's death for daily living in the area of eating an drinking. Weak: Those who were still clinging to the 'Traditions' which were based upon the O.T. ceremonial, and more specifically Dietary laws.

As long as none of the 'doctrines of men' (Col 2:22), even while they were formulated from the O.T. Ceremonial or Dietary Laws, which the Weak adhered to, had a saving significance or merit to them, then they were tolerated. It is doubtless that Paul belonged to those who he called 'the Strong' (14:4, 20; 15:1; Col 2:16, 17, 20, 21). It is also clear that the church at Rome and the universal church itself was to function from the standpoint of the Strong in its official capacity as holders of the 'keys of the kingdom' and as that organization established by Christ (Matt 16:18; 18:18) and having appointed it offices and officers (Eph 2:20-22; 4:10-16; Titus 1:5, etc.) Now turning to the passage in Romans itself: vs. 3: Paul admonishes the Strong not to 'despise', i.e., look down upon those who considered some foods or drink to be 'unclean' [a religious conviction based upon the O.T. Dietary Laws]. And he also admonishes the Weak not to 'judge', i.e., condemn the Strong in their liberty as sin [transgressing God's Law]. And why? 'for God has received him', i.e., the Strong. It is important that we distinguish the language Paul was inspired to write here. For to the Strong he says not to 'despise' the Weak. It is wrong to allow the rightful freedom merited by Christ for His sheep to become a matter of pride and to enter into vain arguments (14:1). On the other hand, Paul's exhortation to the Weak is much stronger, for he says that they, the Weak, are not to 'judge' the Strong. Though he desires that the rights of the weak be fully respected and that the vegetarian and/or temperate ones be treated with sympathetic regard and genuine deference, he is no less insistent on demanding that the weak refrain from condemning the strong, the eater/drinker, stating as his reason 'for God has accepted him.' vs. 4: Paul continues to address the Weak in their condemnation of the Strong because of their non-recognition and adherence to the Dietary Laws and the traditions of men wherein they exacted certain ways of observance to them. The person who eats and drinks is therefore under no obligation to give an account to those who abstain. And the Weak are again exhorted to not condemn the Strong, for to do so is to pass 'judgment on someone else's servant.'(Christ). It should be borne in mind that the 'eater' or Strong one is the person who has, by God's sovereign grace and the enlightening power of the Holy Spirit, gained an insight into the meaning of Christ's death for daily living. Better than the Weak person or 'abstainer' he has grasped the truth expressed so marvelously in Col 2:14, i.e., that Christ 'blotted 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;'. The question, then, is this, 'When a person, by the grace of God, has taken this lesson to heart, will he surrender this precious jewel?' To be sure, he cannot remain standing on his own power, but he has a Saviour who said, 'My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.' ( Joh 10:27, 28). Or as Paul expresses the same truth here in Rom. 14:4, 'Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.' The remainder of the chapter includes exposition on how individual Strong Christians are to conduct themselves when in their daily living they are faced with a brother who is 'weak' in the faith. If, for example there is to be a gathering of the brethren at the home of one who is Strong and there is among them one who is Weak, then the Strong is under obligation not to do offer either food or drink which he knows the Weak has objections to. He, the Strong, is not to use his Liberty in Christ in such a way as it becomes a 'stumbling block' to the Weak, so that the Weak eats or drinks that which is contrary to his conscience, even though the elements themselves are not 'unclean'. (vss. 14, 20) What must be dealt with now is how the Church ought to conduct itself in matters of the 'Adiophora', knowing that there are in most every congregation a mixture of both those who are of the Strong and those who are of the Weak. It seems clear that the Church is never to give way to the 'tender consciences' of the Weak in matters which deal with the essential doctrines of the faith, of which the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Table are included. The Church is the 'the pillar and ground of the truth.' 1Tim 3:15, and therefore it is under the authority of Christ to 'Teach them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:'. It's doctrines are not to be determined by the 'lowest common denominator' dictated by the preferences of the Weak, which have been 'nailed to the cross' and therefore no longer obligatory to those who are in Christ Jesus. For Christ has set them free from the 'traditions of men'.

'Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men? Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.' (Col 2:20-23)

What is often offered in objection is that the use of wine is ONLY one of conscience and therefore does not come under the rubric of those things which pertain to salvation. Therefore the Church is free to abstain from its use in the sacrament of the Lord's Table. However, I would suggest that this does not bear out when it is put to the test. If a Church has a strict rule that no alcohol is to be consumed by its members, for a reason, such as it dare not place a stumbling block before those who are weak, then what it is saying is that it is actually permitted to drink alcohol for this is in fact the position of one who is Strong. But they will insist that it is WRONG to drink alcohol, and thus this clearly shows that they are of the Weak. Secondly, and more revealing is when this Church is asked if it was known that one of its members did in fact drink alcohol, even in a restricted sense in the privacy of their own home, would that individual be disciplined for doing so? Further, if that person were to be brought before the elders and admonished to discontinue any and all drinking of alcohol, even in the privacy of their own home and refused, would the Church then seek disciplinary matters and if the person flatly refused to abide by the counsel of the Church officers, would that person be subject to excommunication? In my person experience there are churches who unabashedly insist that excommunication would be exercised upon such an individual. Well, what does this say in the matter at hand? First, it clearly shows that such churches' prohibitions are NOT based upon a matter of 'conscience' at all, but upon a judgment which Paul prohibits them from doing. Secondly, their 'doctrines of men' do in fact impact upon matters of salvation, for to excommunicate someone is an OFFICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT and use of the 'keys of the kingdom' whereby one is either admitted or cast out of the Body of Christ. It is to declare that the person in question is unrepentant in a matter of sin (transgression of the Law of God) and therefore has no part in Christ's church. It is to cast one to Satan (1Cor 5:5) in the hopes that the gravity of the sin and the consequential discipline of the Church will cause the offender to reconsider, repent and return to the Body of Christ. If a Church were take the position of the Weak, then what would be acceptable in its polity? Nothing!! For theoretically there could be those who object to grape juice. Or an anorexic who objects to the eating of the bread, one who has a 'problem' with the color purple or green or red. Or even one who insists that there should be no books of any kind, because he or she is convinced that through the reading of books one is courting with sinful pride, for did not Paul say that 'knowledge puffeth up'? (1Cor 8:1). In summary then, the Church of the Living God must maintain those doctrines and practices as God has ordained them at all costs, for she is under divine authority to preach, teach and uphold all truth in the name of its head, Christ Jesus. Individual believers within the congregations of the Church are to conduct themselves with all humility and forebearance toward their fellow believers whether the person currently is of the Strong or of the Weak. The liberty of the Strong allows them and even demands that they abstain from practices which in and of themselves are pure and honoring to God in their use, but which may, in their use cause those of the Weak to do that which is contrary to their conscience and thus bring offense to themselves.

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Christian Liberty
From: laz
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 17:00:42 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim - So you saying that no pastor should be teaching abstinence as an ordinance of his Church? They can recommend, suggest, discourage ... actually, that would still be evoking sin where there is clearly no sin, which is simply adding to God's commandments/word where He has NOT spoken - calling something (wine) unclean something that Christ not only made and used, but perhaps commanded to be used during the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. So we should just leave it to conscience? Which by the way is how it's been handled in the last three 'reformed' churches I've attended. In this way, the
strong and the weak can honor God with their faithful and conscientious application of God's precepts in this regard as the Spirit leads. In otherwords, in this way, 'no one gets hurt'! hehe blessings, laz


Subject: Re: Christian Liberty
From: Pilgrim
To: laz
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 21:24:48 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
laz,

I certainly agree with your first paragraph, that no pastor should or can faithfully teach abstinence for it is nowhere taught by God's Word. He, the undershepherd of the flock of Christ is to teach that which God Himself revealed to Peter (Acts 9:10-15), i.e., that nothing [food and drink] is unclean, sinful in and of itself. He should also teach that one is free therefore to partake of 'all things' [food and drink] with moderation. Further he must teach the principles of Christian Liberty in their use as well. That in the private lives of believers, it is enjoined upon those who have by grace understood the marvelous freedom there is in Christ, to use that freedom in such a way as to not cause someone who has not embraced that freedom to do that which in good conscience they think it is wrong to do. In whatever state a believer is in, whether Strong or Weak, both strive to honor God; either by partaking of all things in that freedom, or by abstaining out of sincere conscience. However, the Church in its official capacity, is under divine authority to maintain the truth that no food or drink is 'unclean' and its use of these elements, e.g., as the use of wine in the Lord's Table is perfectly acceptable. Let me also bring up another caveat at this point, and that is that many who would categorize themselves as being 'Weak' in the faith have no legitimate right to do so for they are not objecting to the use of such things as wine due to an adherence to the O.T. dietary laws, as was the case with those in the church at Rome. It was on religious grounds, due to a misapplication of the Scriptures and a failure to grasp the significance of the atonement of Christ in its fullness that their consciences were moved. I would point out that many if not most of the modern Fundamentalists promote abstinence NOT based upon O.T. dietary laws, but from their own presuppositions and ideas of what godliness is. May I say in all honesty that this smacks of Pharisaism, in that many are suffering under the weight of a man-made doctrine, which in effect usurps the wisdom of God Who has declared 'Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.' But they retort, 'Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.' (Acts 9:13,14). The unfortunate difference between Peter and these modern-day Pharisees is that Peter repented of his error and accepted the freedom in which Christ had set him free, but our Fundamentalists friends believe that they know a better way of righteousness and that God is well pleased with their self-imposed abstinence. This is what the apostle Paul referred to as 'will worship':

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: 17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. 18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, 19 And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God. 20. Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, 21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not; 22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.

In His Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: In summary.....
From: john hampshire
To: All
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 05:02:17 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
For what it is worth.... The meaning of bapto, baptizo (baptize), and baptisma (baptism) is 'union, fellowship, identification'. The mode, substance , or subjects must always be gleaned from the context in which the terms appear. To baptize is to identify with, to have union with, or to have fellowship with. Baptizo in the Septuagint is found twice, in Is 21:4 'to terrify, to fall upon to startle', that is, 'to overwhelm'. The second is in 2 Kings 5:14 where Naaman 'went down and dipped (baptizo) himself seven times in the Jordan…'. He did not immerse himself, Naaman was to 'wash (louein) in the Jordan seven times' (2 Kings 5:10), 'then he went down, and baptized himself seven times (2 Kings 5:14). If Naaman baptized himself according to Elisha’s specific instructions, he washed himself, he did not submerge himself. He dipped water out of the Jordan to splash upon his leprous flesh, and he was cleansed completely. John the Baptizer was born into the priesthood, he was qualified to take his father’s place in the course of Abijah, as such he would have been reared in the temple atmosphere. He understood the 'divers washings'—more accurately translated 'various baptisms' – of the priesthood spoken of in Heb 9:10. He followed the regulations of the Pentateuch, and thus, he had to baptize by sprinkling and pouring only. In John 1:19-21 the Jew examined John to bring a reply to the Sanhedrin. The priests and levites recognized John’s baptisms as an act of priestly purification, they wanted to know on what authority did he assume a priestly prerogative of ceremonial purification according to the law of Moses 'Then why baptizest thou, thou art not the Christ, neither Elijah, neither the Prophet?' (John 1:25). It was not John’s mode of baptism that bothered them, for all ceremonial purifications of the OT were by sprinkling and pouring. The Jews knew Is 52:15 concerning the Christ 'so shall He sprinkle many nations' and again 'I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean' (Ezk 36:25). The Jews expected the Christ to identify Himself by sprinkling, in keeping with the priestly tradition given by Moses. John the Baptizer went forth 'in the spirit and power of Elijah' (Luke 1:17), and it was Elijah who upon assuming the role of a priest, ceremonially purified as he 'poured' twelve jars of water upon the sacrifice and the alter. Elijah performed a priestly ceremony of purification by sprinkling or pouring. John, therefore, also ceremonially baptized by sprinkling or pouring, and not by immersion. Pluno is the Greek verb for laundering clothes, or washing by immersion. Pluno is found once in Rev 7:14 where the saints are said to have 'washed' (plunged) their robes in the blood of the Lamb. Another Greek word meaning wash is brecho, which means 'rain' or 'rained', so that in Luke 7:38 'began to wash His feet with tears….', we find Jesus’ feet were bathed by showers of tears. Nipto means a partial washing such as the ritual washing in Mark 7:3 'The Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash (nipto) their hands often, eat not, holding to the tradition of the elders'. In Mark 11:38 we find that Jesus 'that He had not first washed (baptizo) before dinner'. The mode of washing was by pouring, of which the Jews exhausted themselves with their keeping of 'the traditions of the elders’ which called for ritual sprinklings and pourings. Another Greek word for washing is louo 'to wash completely', where in 1 Ptr 1:2 we find we are washed by 'the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ', as all blood baptisms of the Pentateuch were by sprinkling, pouring, or laving, just as all references to the cross speak of Christ’s 'shed' or 'poured' blood of the Lamb. Scripture knows absolutely nothing of blood baptisms by immersion. We draw near to God 'having our hearts sprinkled (rantizo) from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed (louo) with pure water' (Heb 10:22) In Acts 1:5 baptizo makes its first appearance 'John truly baptized in water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days hence'. The baptizing many days hence is a purifying work of God described as sprinkling (Ezk 36:25), pouring (Acts 2:18), or a falling down (Acts 18:13). Immersion is not a valid, legitimate sign for Christian baptism, for it does not faithfully depict the Reality of that which it is supposed to signify. 'The Promise is unto you and your children, and to all who are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call' (Acts 2:39). This is the promise given by God to Abraham and His 'seed' and Paul says 'And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed and heirs according to The Promise' (Gal 3:28-29). It was with this in mind that Peter says in Acts 2, 'I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit'. It was 'about three thousand persons' that were baptized and added to the church 'the same day'. The hated disciples did not pollute the drinking water of Jerusalem by baptizing 3,000 people in the city’s reservoir of drinking water (immersion). Such a thing would have surely caused a riot, the followers of the The Way were a hated new sect. Baptism by sprinkling or pouring could have been done quite easily. In Acts 8:36-38 Philip preached Christ to the eunuch using Isaiah 52:13 'so shall [Messiah] sprinkle many nations' Isa 52:15 related to the doctrine of baptism. When the eunuch saw 'tina hudor' or 'a little water' he was baptized by sprinkling or pouring, even in the 'little water'. Acts 10:44-48 'the Holy Spirit fell on all those who heard the Word…the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit'. There the words are again, 'fell on' and 'poured out', it is clear that the sign of 'going under' in immersion is contradictory to the Reality so plainly stated in the Word of God. In Acts 10:47 Peter says 'Can any man forbid water, that these [Gentiles] should not be baptized…'. Peter was not asking 'shall we gather at the seashore', he is likely saying 'Can anyone hinder the bringing of water for Christian baptism'. Acts 16:16-31-33 we find the Philippian jailer, and his household, baptized by Paul and Silas. The jailer’s family, probably awakened by the uproar, had gathered, there they heard the Word of God proclaimed. It was there, in the jail, that they were baptized 'the same hour of the night'. They did not leave the prison, there was no river or horse trough for immersion, but there were surely large earthen jars of drinking water for sprinkling or pouring. Again, baptizo and baptisma do not, in and of themselves, indicate the mode, the substance used, or the proper subjects of baptism. The basic meaning of the Greek terms transliterated 'baptize' and 'baptism' is 'union, identification, fellowship'. It is this union with Christ that we find baptism again in Romans 6:3-6, 'know ye not that as many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death?'. 'Therefore, we are buried with Him by baptism into death, that as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we should also walk in newness of life'. The Greek word translated 'buried together' means 'entombed together'. The mode of entombment was to be placed on a stone ledge in an air-filled tomb, we cannot force immersion upon this verse. Baptism in Rom 6 points to the cross work of Jesus Christ when God the Spirit united, joined, identified, all whom He chose 'in' Jesus Christ in eternity to His dear Son as He hung there in the place of His people. The idea of UNION with Christ is what is in view here. It is the baptizing work of the Holy Spirit, whose sovereign act united those whom the Father chose 'in the Beloved' in eternity past, this is how we are 'baptized into His death'. We are not placed into the Body of Jesus Christ by means of water baptism, the way 'into Jesus Christ' is the work of the 'one Lord' by the 'one Spirit' who alone executes the 'one baptism' of Eph 4:4. God placed us in Christ when he died so that we might share his death and thus come into the benefits of that identification with Him. A good example of baptism INTO is the 'baptized into Moses' of 1 Cor 12:13, 'all our father were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and were all baptized INTO (eis) Moses in the cloud and in the sea'. On this occasion the Israelites were not 'poured', they were 'sprinkled' (Ps 77:17), and none were immersed (except the unbelievers) in the Red Sea. The OT Church 'fathers' were baptized 'into' Moses, for the true meaning of baptizo is 'union, identification, or fellowship'. To be 'baptized into Moses' is to be identified with his purpose, united in the goal toward which he led, and in fellowship with him in his tribulations and sufferings. In 1 Ptr 3:21 'eight souls were saved by water; the like figure unto which baptism doth also now save us…'. Only the unbelieving sinners were immersed, Noah as a like figure did not have a drop fall on them. What Peter is speaking of here is 'the like figure or antitype' of a baptism which does save. We are represented as having been hung on the cross together with Christ, that union is represented by our baptism into Christ. Peter speaks of the saving of the elect 'in Christ' as He hung on the cross, saving them by making atonement for them just as Noah was saved 'in the ark'. In conclusion, the immersionist rests its main case upon the idea that 'to baptize is always to immerse'—which has been examined and found incorrect, and that Rom 6 implies that immersion is the true mode of baptism. The Greek words rendered 'buried', 'planted' and 'into' simply will not support this idea. The 'baptism into Jesus Christ' is not a water baptism, the union with Christ is brought about by God alone Immersion fails the test. To baptize means to be brought into UNION with, to be IDENTIFIED with, to have FELLOWSHIP with. john


Subject: Re: In summary.....
From: freegrace
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 12:25:30 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
>>>In 1 Ptr 3:21 'eight souls were saved by water; the like figure unto which baptism doth also now save us…'. Only the unbelieving sinners were immersed, Noah as a like figure did not have a drop fall on them. What Peter is speaking of here is 'the like figure or antitype' of a baptism which does save. We are represented as having been hung on the cross together with Christ, that union is represented by our baptism into Christ. Peter speaks of the saving of the elect 'in Christ' as He hung on the cross, saving them by making atonement for them just as Noah was saved 'in the ark'. In conclusion, the immersionist rests its main case upon the idea that 'to baptize is always to immerse'—which has been examined and found incorrect, and that Rom 6 implies that immersion is the true mode of baptism. The Greek words rendered 'buried', 'planted' and 'into' simply will not support this idea.<<< >>>The 'baptism into Jesus Christ' is not a water baptism, the union with Christ is brought about by God alone <<< John, YOU said it..!! Now you are getting closer to the truth here! :-) freegrace


Subject: Lest we forget what day it is...
From: Eric
To: All
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 13:07:39 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
My favorite hymn: When I survey the wondrous cross on which the prince of glory died. My richest gain I count but loss, and pour contempt on all my pride. Forbid it, Lord, that I should boast, save in the death of Christ, my God, All the vain things that charm me most, I sacrifice them to his blood. See, from his head, his hands, his feet, sorrow and love flow mingled down; Did e'er such love and sorrow meet, or thorns compose so rich a crown? Were the whole realm of nature mine, that were a present far too small; Love so amazing, so divine, demands my soul, my life, my all. May you all have a blessed Good Friday and a joy filled Easter. He is risen! God bless.


Subject: Re: Lest we forget what day it is...
From: laz
To: Eric
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 13:30:47 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:

AMEN AND AMEN!


Subject: Re: Why I don't take wine with comm
From: Pilgrim
To: All
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 00:10:18 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
SOL,

I couldn't reply to your message below so I am doing so here. The 'alcoholic' argument is one to which I alluded to in my message below as being spurious. Are not the words of the Lord Christ inspired? more so, are they not the very words of the Creator Himself, who knows all men in every detail? Do you not think that the Holy Spirit knew what He was doing when He had Christ's words penned by the Gospel writers? Is it even conceivable that God didn't have the foresight to realize that there would be alcoholics called into the kingdom of God?

1Cor 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Is it not possible for the Spirit of God to restrain the sin of alcoholism even for a short period of time as one of His beloved sheep partakes of the 'fruit of the vine', the new covenant in His blood, in humble adoration and thanksgiving? The Church of Christ is NEVER to compromise the explicit commands of the LORD God for the sake of one with a 'weak faith', for to do so would result in NOTHING being observed. The doctrine of Adiophora is continually misunderstood and misconstrued today as being an injunction to allow anyone with a 'fragile faith' to dictate another's practice who believes that 'all things are pure' when it comes to food and drink. A careful reading of those relevant texts which speak of 'Christian Liberty' will clearly show that this is not the case at all. Secondly, your contention that everywhere in the N.T. that 'baptizo' is mentioned it is a synonym for 'immersion' is fallacious at best. Again, this is nothing more than an erroneous presupposition fostered by 'Immersionists' and has no warrant, grammatically, linguistically or exegetically. Again, a careful reading of the Scriptures will clearly disprove any such notion. Examples can easily be supplied to disprove this if necessary. :-)

In His Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Why I don't take wine with comm
From: Brother Bret
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 22:03:54 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Okay, okay. So I guess this Reformed, Fundy-mental, Immersing Pastor is doing things that are unacceptable. So please enlighten me some more. With your own words, not other articles (rings of Vernon...oh me). Are you saying that 'Fruit of the Vine (Mt.26:29;Lk.22:18)is already alcoholic? Was this by natural means? Was it stored away for a time so it would ferment? What was the process used? Please show me how by using Juice, that what I am partaking of (and avocating in the service even tomorrow) is unacceptable. What was the flavor of wine? Do we go down to the corner market and get any ole forced fermented wine for the Lord's Table. Is it 'sin' not to use fermented wine in the Lord's Supper? At what point in history did some Protestant Churches supposedly stop using fermented wine? I know this can be taken to the extreme and someone say that this reasoning is saying use coke or milk, but isn't the point of Communion/Lord's Supper to remember His death until He comes again? What kind of bread do we use? What about the crackers? As long as it is unleavened? It's no wonder you cannot find a church, brother (is there even one left in the world you would be able to attend) :^ ). You also said: 'The doctrine of Adiophora is continually misunderstood and misconstrued today as being an injunction to allow anyone with a 'fragile faith' to dictate another's practice who believes that 'all things are pure' when it comes to food and drink. A careful reading of those relevant texts which speak of 'Christian Liberty' will clearly show that this is not the case at all.' Thank you, I learned another one of those big 'college' words (Adiophora). So what does Paul mean in 1Cor. 8:10-13? There is no doubt that Paul discusses the balance in neither judging those who are weak and think abstinance should be used, or judging the mature who partake. But Paul did say 'Let not then your good be evil spoken of'(Rom.14:16). In verse 21 he does say 'It is good neither to eat meat, nor drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.' Please share with me what the Apostle under the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit means in these places. Your fundy-mental, dispy-lite, non-infant baptizing, tea-drinking, MacArthur Groupie, doctrine of grace lovin, Christ embracing, brother Bret :-)


Subject: Re: Why I don't take wine with comm
From: RJ
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 10:38:43 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:

Dear Brother Bret, I am very surprised with what you have said! For it seems as though it stems from the 'Fightin Fundy' mentality. Whereby it dominates, controls and destroys a person's ability to live freely in Christ and to read the Scriptures with open eyes. You have been far more defensive in trying to defend total abstinence in alcohol than you were in defending free will. Or any other cardinal doctrine. This is the man-made 'rules and regulations' of the modern Bob Jones Pharisee that kills as it did in Jesus' day. I lived under this type of bondage for 18+ years abiding by/listening to the doctrine of the denomination that I was a member/officer/leader in. And, I have had heart-wrenching sorrow upon leaving, knowing that in my own ignorance of Scripture, that I may have contributed to /caused others to misapply Truth...:-( ...You, are responsible to teach TRUTH. May what happened to me, never happen you! Your attitude my dear brother gives me great concern, and is disappointing. Love to you and your family. In His Precious Name, -RJ


Subject: Re: Why I don't take wine with comm
From: Brother Bret
To: RJ
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 12:11:55 (PDT)
Email Address: Lovitz5@aol.com

Message:
Sister RJ: Don't worry your head over it sis. My defense of what I still hold to be true, is no where near the way I have seen people treated on here. And I would have to disagree with you, this is not near as defensive as when I deal with 'free will' issues, believe me :-). You can call it bondage if you'd like sister. You have a right to disagree. If you folks want to sip wine, go right ahead. I'll continue to abstain, and recommend that those in my hearing do the same for the reasons I've given several times. Not that we don't have the grace to do it, but because of verses like 1Cor. 10:31, Rom. 14:16,21 and others. It appears that with some folks, if you are not 'completely reformed' you might as well as be Arminian. We will both have to answer to the Lord for what we believe and teach. And the statement you made about truth, is true :-). I take it to heart. But it also works both ways. May God bless you according to His will and good pleasure RJ...............Brother Bret


Subject: Re: Why I don't take wine with comm
From: Prestor John
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 01:21:47 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
You know Bret I had expected better from you. First of all if your going to hang on to that term 'fundamental' as in you are a 'fundamentalist' then you must give up the term 'reformed' they are not the same and to have them together is atrocious. Next, as to your questions, your prejudice is showing Bret. These aren't true information wanting questions they're nothing more than a dog barking at a passing stranger, who are you trying to impress? Chris? What is wrong, afraid he might stray over, do a little communion with wine? So you tell me where do you get your grape juice? Is it the best brand or the cheapest kind? Concentrate or fresh squeezed? Did you get it at the local mom and pop's or down at the A&P? Is the brand you used approved by the IFBC or are you buying the shelf brand? DO YOU SEE HOW STUPID THESE TYPE OF STATEMENTS ARE? Bret for years you have been sold a bill of goods. I know, I was sold that same bill. Its time to give it away bro, time to decide to READ the WORD of GOD and see just what exactly it says. Give over those presuppositions you were handed and decide to really do some word study ehh? Its time to decide Bret are you going to continue to worship here at Dan or go up to Jerusalem. Is it going to be that golden calf, or to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the first-born who are written in Heaven, and to God the judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect? You want to call yourself Reformed do it all the way. Prestor John Sola Scriptura, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solus Christus, Sevabo Fidem.


Subject: Re: Why I don't take wine with comm
From: Brother Bret
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 13:27:49 (PDT)
Email Address: Lovitz5@aol.com

Message:
'You know Bret I had expected better from you. First of all if your going to hang on to that term 'fundamental' as in you are a 'fundamentalist' then you must give up the term 'reformed' they are not the same and to have them together is atrocious.' First of all Mr. Nelson, I am not all that concerned about man-made terms. The reason why I've used this fundy- mental/fundamental term lately is because it was been thrown around by the Webmaster and others. I'm sure you expert theologians have a technical man-made definition for it, so please share it with me (sincerely) so I can know whether I should associate with that label in the future. You can call me what you want (just don't call me for dinner...hehe). I say with the Apostle Paul in 2Tim. 1:12: 'for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him against that day.' I'm not crazy about the word Reformed or Calvinist. I do use the latter term at times in certain conversations for quick identification of where I stand Scripturally. I prefer the term 'doctrines of sovereign grace' personally. I really do not want to be associated with the term 'reformed' thank you very much. Especially with some of the examples on this forum. I am not however, trying to refer to any specific person. 'Next, as to your questions, your prejudice is showing Bret. These aren't true information wanting questions they're nothing more than a dog barking at a passing stranger, who are you trying to impress? Chris? What is wrong, afraid he might stray over, do a little communion with wine?' Now you can read my mind Mr. Nelson??? That's a God-like attribute isn't it? Are you a prophet now? Yes I was being defensive regarding those issues, but I have always been interested in knowing the truth, and still am, including these issues. Once again, your assumption that I am trying to impress someone, including Chris, is false! There was no reason for you to even bring him up, Mr. Nelson (my own medicine perhaps, Darrin?). You are out of line, my friend! I don't even know if he gets on here much, if at all, anymore. I think you and I have had this kind of exchange once before, maybe on my Site. If I recall correctly, I don't think you thought you did anything wrong then. So as far as I'm concerned, if you and I cannot deal with the points at hand WITHOUT dealing with motives and playing prophet, than we have nothing else to discuss :^ ). 'So you tell me where do you get your grape juice? Is it the best brand or the cheapest kind? Concentrate or fresh squeezed? Did you get it at the local mom and pop's or down at the A&P? Is the brand you used approved by the IFBC or are you buying the shelf brand? DO YOU SEE HOW STUPID THESE TYPE OF STATEMENTS ARE?' No, I don't see that Mr. Nelson. You see, for me, these are real questions. You want to say they are stupid that's your business, I guess I'm a stupid guy :-). Since today, forced fermentation is used, which is different from Christ's time, I earnestly want to know what should be used to represent the blood of Christ. Same for His body. 'Bret for years you have been sold a bill of goods. I know, I was sold that same bill. Its time to give it away bro, time to decide to READ the WORD of GOD and see just what exactly it says. Give over those presuppositions you were handed and decide to really do some word study ehh? Its time to decide Bret are you going to continue to worship here at Dan or go up to Jerusalem. Is it going to be that golden calf, or to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the first-born who are written in Heaven, and to God the judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect? You want to call yourself Reformed do it all the way.' I already dealt with the word 'Reformed.' You can keep it :-)! Presuppositions? Oh yes, a major problem. I had it in a big way when I was Arminian, and reckon I still do to a certain degree. But if you 'Reformed' folks, think that you don't? Well, oh me! You know, I'm thankful that God allowed me to come up through the 'Free Will Fundy-mantal Baptist' movement. I know it probably has caused me to still be hanging on to some things, but I also believe that the sovereign Lord GOD has used it to 'perhaps' gain a better balance of the Scriptures regarding the doctrines of sovereign grace and human responsibility. But then again, I've been wrong before. Something that I don't think some of you think you can be...wrong. I know that it is difficult to really see the heart and attitude behind some of these posts. But based on some of the words and questions you have raised Mr. Nelson, I think your attitude needs some improvement. I too must admit that I have been out of line at times. But you know what Mr. Nelson, RJ and others? It is not because of a fightin-fundy mentality. It gradually got worse when I started particpating on here. I tried dealing with it some time ago, but it slips out from time to time. I should never have made that comment to Pilgrim about church, and for that I apologize and ask for his and the Lord's forgiveness. The Lord has really used this forum in my life in times past. Especially since I have not been to a formal college like some others, I have learned a lot. But the way 'some' people are treated by 'some' regulars on here, has bothered me for a while. And I just don't think that this Forum is as edifying as it once was(at least for me). With that in mind, I am going to take my leave in posting anything for a while, and while I pray about it. You can discuss things with me on my Discussion Board, if you'd like (as long as it doesn't get like this), or by e-mail at any time. Pilgrim, Mebaser, Laz, John H, and some others, thank you for your time and teaching here. If I don't see you here, I'll see you, HEAR? Brother Bret


Subject: Re: Why I don't take wine with comm
From: Ruth
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 18:31:09 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Dear Bret, I am glad you realized your mistake in your words to Pilgrim and I hope you seriously consider what you are doing when you reveal private messages that have been exchanged with you. You will the lose the respect and trust of your brothers and sisters in The Lord! Prestor John and others are trying to get you to think on your own reading and study of the Word not relying on what has been forced upon you! You have certainly done this many times before (with the help of some specific people vital to this forum and site!!!!!), and have in time, come to change your position on many things. Personal attacks and character assasinations are not acceptable on our forums and are not fruitful ways of study and growth in anyone's sanctification. I pray that we can LEARN from each other and HELP each other as we are commanded to do. '2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.' Bret, let me finish with 'Eph 4:29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers. 30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. 31 Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: 32 And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.' Love to you and your family, In His Hands, Ruth


Subject: Re: Why I don't take wine with comm
From: Brother Bret
To: Ruth
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 22:33:36 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Thanks for the rebuke 'Ruth.' I hope you read Prestor John's reply to me, and treat him the same. But instead, I just noticed a defense of him, hmmm :^ ). I apologized and asked for Pilgrim's forgiveness. You saw that, and still 'felt' the need to bring it up anyway, hmmm :-). I understand and accept what you are saying about personal attacks. That's part of the reason why I'm going to stop posting. However, if you have been watching this Forum, then in all honesty, this should apply to other posters as well and how they treated folks like Vernon, Gene/Darrin (although I have done Gene wrong too) and recently 'Sword_ Of_The_Lord.' I do not embrace the modern sentimentality stuff, either. But the verses you shared with me does apply to that stuff too, and has been violated often. Even if a false teacher is involved. I still have a lot of growing to do. And despite the doctrinal positions that are held to so well by folks on this forum, for which I am grateful, I hope your rebuke of me will 'also' be accepted by some on this Forum. Thank you for your love and concern...Bro. Bret


Subject: Re: Why I don't take wine with comm
From: Tom
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 11:18:18 (PDT)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
Pilgrim Are you saying that a church that uses grape juice for communion, is not having communion at all? Is it such a big deal whether or not someone uses grape juice or wine in communion? Tom


Subject: Re: Why I don't take wine with comm
From: Pilgrim
To: Tom
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 17:17:05 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim Are you saying that a church that uses grape juice for communion, is not having communion at all? Is it such a big deal whether or not someone uses grape juice or wine in communion? Tom
---
Tom, How in the world did you deduce
THAT from what I wrote? hahaha.... No, I'm not saying anything of the sort! What I am saying is that substituting 'grape juice' for wine is unacceptable. In such cases where wine is unavailable, just about anything would do. What I am objecting to is all the lame arguments posited by those with this 'Fightin' Fundy' mentality use to obviate the use of that which the Lord Christ commanded and centuries of congregations have used out of a filial fear and obedience to that commandment. 'The foolishness of God is wiser than men!' (1Cor 1:25). In His Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Why I don't take wine with comm
From: Tom
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 22:55:47 (PDT)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
Pilgrim To me, whether I have communion with grape juice or wine is, not that big a deal to me. Yes I believe that wine was used by Jesus. But it is not an area where I think should divide Christians. What is more important is why we celebrate communion and what the elements represent. If I did come accross someone, who for conscience sake couldn't use grape juice because they believed wine is the only true way, and they asked my oppinion. I would tell them my oppinion, but also tell them if they still felt that way, to just let the cup pass them by, because we need to take communion with our hearts into it. Tom


Subject: Re: Why I don't take wine with comm
From: laz
To: Tom
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 12:36:05 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom - I don't think Pilgrim went quite THAT far...hahaha As for the comment (by Darrin) about the term 'fruit of the vine'...well to be candid, even my pastor uses that line of reasoning (we use Welch's).....for what is so magical about the biochemical state of the grape juice? It's still 'fruit of the vine'. But then again, can we then use tomato juice...it's a fruit that grows on a vine? ;-) laz p.s. I suspect this thread is going to get either very juicy or very sticky - or both. hehe


Subject: Re: Why I don't take wine with comm
From: the_sword_of_the_lord
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 08:58:18 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim - Actually, I
would like to know where the word for 'sprinkle' is used in reference to baptism as opposed to 'baptizo.' :) Unless the systematic theology text that I have is wrong, it is found nowhere in connection to baptism. And as for alcoholics...it's not a matter of what the Lord could do, but what He will do. I know the Lord could keep an alcoholic from the temptation to get drunk while he's at the Lord's table. But would He do this? He might...but He might not, and rather perhaps He expects the alcoholic to take personal responsibility and not tempt himself by taking the wine. Keep in mind, there are instances in the gospels where Jesus disregards the letter of the law for a greater purpose...in particular, the Sabbath laws. The law doesn't bend, but Jesus bypassed it anyway by healing on the Sabbath, saying 'Is it right to do good on the Sabbath?' We know that He broke the Sabbath in doing so...read John 5 about the healing of the lame man, and in particular verse 18. Granted, the analogy isn't perfect, but my point is made...Jesus had greater concerns than the letter of the law. And by the way...I don't know anywhere in the NT where wine is prescribed for all believers at the communion table. Jesus Himself used it, but does He tell His disciples that only wine can be used? He also used sop to dip the bread in...do you insist that we must use sop at the communion table?


Subject: Re: Why I don't take wine with comm
From: Pilgrim
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 17:53:38 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
SOL,

Who said that 'baptizo' MEANS 'effusion'???? Oh, John Hampshire has said that didn't he? What I am saying is that 'baptizo' doesn't MEAN 'immersion' but rather it is used as 'immersion', 'effusion' and 'aspersion' depending upon the CONTEXT of the passage where it is found. If the 'Systematic Theology text' you are using insists that 'baptizo' and all its derivatives ONLY MEANS 'immersion' then I can say without hesitation that it is flatly wrong!! (cf. Exod 12:22; Lev 4:6; 17, 9:9; 14:6, 51; Num 19:18; Deut 33:24; 2 Kings 8:15; Ruth 2:14; 1Sam 14:27; Dan 4:30 [LXX vs. 33]; 5:21; Matt 20:22, 23; Mk 1:8; 7:4; Lk 11:38; 12:50; Acts 1:5; 8:38; Rom 6:3; 1Cor 10:2; 12:13; Gal 3:27; Heb 9:10-23, et al). Lastly, it is ridiculous if not blasphemous to state that the Lord Jesus Christ 'broke the Sabbath commandment'. If this were true, then we are all yet dead in our sins for we have not a Saviour Who has kept the law perfectly. I cannot fathom how anyone could even intimate such a thing and call themselves a bible believing Christian?????

Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Why I don't take wine with comm
From: the_sword_of_the_lord
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 23:39:19 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim - I'll deal with your loose definition of 'baptizo' later. But as for your statement about Jesus not breaking the Sabbath...man, just read John 5:18...
John himself says Jesus did that. Did that make Jesus a sinner? Of course not...Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath. For reasons that we can't understand, Jesus seemed to be above the law in certain respects...for He clearly did not keep it to the letter.


Subject: Re: Why I don't take wine with comm
From: Ruth
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 13:56:26 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
SOL, I really think you're way off track here. Jesus was trying to get the Jews to see who He really was! He did not debate with them about their interpretation of the Sabbath law, He told them He was doing the same work as His Father and that He had as much authority over the Sabbath law as the AUTHOR of the law His Father! To say that He was somehow above the law is absolutely absurd, He made the law! Don't you think He would know it better than the Jews? What He broke was what the Jews had added on to HIS LAW!!!!! If, as you say He was above the law, then He was above ALL the laws and did not fulfill them. We have NO RIGHTEOUSNESS in front of God at all!! We are still LOST! Think about it! In His Hands, Ruth


Subject: Re: Why I don't take wine with comm
From: laz
To: Ruth
Date Posted: Tues, Apr 25, 2000 at 11:01:03 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
SOL, I really think you're way off track here. Jesus was trying to get the Jews to see who He really was! He did not debate with them about their interpretation of the Sabbath law, He told them He was doing the same work as His Father and that He had as much authority over the Sabbath law as the AUTHOR of the law His Father! To say that He was somehow above the law is absolutely absurd, He made the law! Don't you think He would know it better than the Jews? What He broke was what the Jews had added on to HIS LAW!!!!! If, as you say He was above the law, then He was above ALL the laws and did not fulfill them. We have NO RIGHTEOUSNESS in front of God at all!! We are still LOST! Think about it! In His Hands, Ruth
---
Excellent point! blessings, laz


Subject: Re: Why I don't take wine with comm
From: Tom
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Sun, Apr 23, 2000 at 17:12:27 (PDT)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
Sword I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt on this one. In verse 18, it could correctly be put that the people percieved that Jesus had broken the Sabbath. We must remember that the Pharises(sp?) and teachers of the law made many rules that were not commanded in the scriptures. This amounted to legalism and was not breaking the biblical laws. If you look at the acts that Jesus did that lead to the Jews to persecute Jesus(in previous verses). Can you honestly say that Jesus healing on the Sabbath, is breaking the Sabbath? Tom


Subject: Re: Why I don't take wine with comm
From: Pilgrim
To: Tom
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 07:22:43 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom, Another thing to consider also is the Lord Christ's reference to the 'Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath'. This does not in anyway suggest that the Christ was able to disregard the Fourth Commandment any more than He could disregard First, or the Fifth or any of the Decalogue. I think that one of the things meant by the Christ in this statement was, 'Hey, I wrote the book! If you want to know what the Sabbath is all about.... ask ME! Just watch what I do on the Sabbath and you will hopefully see what it is to properly obey the Commandment both in body, soul, mind and heart!
I am the way, the truth and the life. . .' In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Why I don't take wine with comm
From: Tom
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 09:51:40 (PDT)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
Pilgrim Yes, I agree with you, but that was not the aspect I wanted to look at. Do you agree with what I wrote? Tom


Subject: Re: Why I don't take wine with comm
From: Pilgrim
To: Tom
Date Posted: Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 11:31:50 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim Yes, I agree with you, but that was not the aspect I wanted to look at. Do you agree with what I wrote? Tom
---
Tom,

Yes, I agree with you 100% on what you wrote. The Jews had a long-standing set of 'Traditions' to which they adhered which came down from their forefathers. These 'Traditions' were commentaries on the Law to which they addended many things; some of which were not only contradictory to the actual laws they dealt with but more so they laid a burden upon men that was unbearable (cf. Acts 15:10; Gal 5:1). In the 'Sermon on the Mount' the Lord Christ made several references to these 'interpretations' of the Law and sometimes rebuked the Pharisees for imposing them upon the people (Mark 7:10-13). Dr. Francis Nigel Lee, in his book, The Covenantal Sabbath enumerates some of the many such 'rules and regulations' which were imposed upon the people in regards to the Sabbath. It is actually shocking to read what the people were required to do or could not do on the Sabbath. I commend that section to you in his book. :-)

In His Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Why I don't take wine with comm
From: Pilgrim
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 08:24:25 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim - I'll deal with your loose definition of 'baptizo' later. But as for your statement about Jesus not breaking the Sabbath...man, just read John 5:18...
John himself says Jesus did that. Did that make Jesus a sinner? Of course not...Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath. For reasons that we can't understand, Jesus seemed to be above the law in certain respects...for He clearly did not keep it to the letter.
---
SOL, At this point sir I won't even bother to reply to this blasphemy! If you were a humble seeker of truth it would be a pleasure to take you through the Scriptures and show you the glory of Christ, but you have shown yourself to be obnoxious, contentious and arrogant person who is steeped in humanism and Semi-Pelagianism and loving all of it. I leave you to yourself and to the Devil in the hopes that God will grant you repentance unto life. By His Sovereign Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Why I don't take wine with comm
From: Prestor John
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 00:54:21 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
SOL, Were you educated in public schools? I'm not saying this to be smart, but because you can not seem to see what the text is inferring here. John doesn't say that Jesus broke the Sabbath Law but that in the Jews eyes He had broken the Law. There is a vast difference. Jesus fulfilled the Law completely if He had not, then we would all be dead in our sins and damned to hell. Prestor John


Subject: Re: Why I don't take wine with comm
From: the_sword_of_the_lord
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 08:55:36 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Prestor - I care to disagree. If you conclude that John is merely echoing the belief of the Jews in regard to Jesus, and should not be understood literally, what about John's next statement? 'For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath,
but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God. Are we to conclude that the claim of Jesus to be divine was merely a misunderstanding by the Jews? I think John was not giving the Jewish opinion alone, but his own opinion...for he doesn't say that 'the Jews believed...etc.', but he simply says that Jesus broke the Sabbath and made Himself equal with God.


Subject: Re: Why I don't take wine with comm
From: Rod
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 11:07:49 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
sword, It's obvious that your mind is made up and that you will not be enlightened, the reason Pilgrim answered as he did. But, just in case the Lord might break through to give you understanding: Prestor John is right about the Sabbath and their attitude. They were imposing an interpretation of breaking the Sabbath because they hated Him for what he was and how He exposed their hypocrisy. The fact that He did His annointed work in His
OWN TRUE NAME incensed them and they determined to kill Him rather than to recognize (1) their error of adding to God's precepts; (2) His nature; (3) His mission to the nation to rescue them from sin and, in so doing, to expose that evil and sin. May God help you to stop refusing to see.


Subject: Re: Why I don't take wine with comm
From: Eric
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 08:52:18 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Anybody else fnd it odd that most of the people who insist that baptism be done by immersion, are the same ones who do not use real wine in the sacrament? While I do think that the biblical record indicates that immersion was most *likely* the most common form(but not exlusively)of baptism, the use of wine was specifically instructed to be used. (So I am not misunderstood, it is not the water, or the wine, or the method that is effectual, but the grace of God that works through the ordained means.) So why not be consistent? The alcoholic example is preposterous. Should we not baptise people if their is a chance that someone has a phobia pertaining to water? I say, dunk the infants and drink the wine! :) God bless.


Subject: Actually...
From: Eric
To: Darrin
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 12:12:35 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Does the Bible say to use wine or 'fruit of the vine'?
---
Hi Darrin. I don't believe it says anything explicitly. But, if you read chapter 11 in 1 Corinthians, you will see that it is very clear that Paul was chastising them for becoming drunk at the Lord's Table. There are numerous other reasons that one can be quite certain that wine was originally used, with even a cursory reading of the gospels and a basic familiarity with the cultural millieu. (I can't believe I used the word millieu!) However, my preference is for wine, that is not to say that grape juice can't be substituted, in fact, 99% of the time I partake of the sacrament, it is with grape juice. Now don't get me started on those little wafers. :) God bless.


Subject: I will get you laz! :) n/t
From: Eric
To: laz
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 13:11:21 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
n/t means no text...duh!


Subject: SO YOU DID!
From: laz
To: Eric
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 13:25:45 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
n/t means no text...duh!
---
SO YOU DID! ...you just knew that despite the 'n/t'...you'd catch me looking, eh!? LOL!! Blessings, laz


Subject: Re: Household Baptism
From: Pilgrim
To: All
Date Posted: Thurs, Apr 20, 2000 at 21:34:22 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:

In reply to Scott Lewis' contention that in every instance where baptism was administered in 'households' mentioned in the N.T. that all were believing adults, I offer the following:


Had the English version been accurate in the employment of the words house oikos household oikia, our argument on this point would appear in it more just. According to the definition of Aristotle, and well-defined classic and Hebraistic usage, the word oikos means literally, the apartments inhabited by the parents and children, and oikia, literally, the curtilage. Figuratively, the former, the family; the latter, the household. And the idea which constitutes the former a house is lineage. It is by birth of infants the house is built up; so that the word may more naturally mean young children distinguished from parents than vice versa. A house is a cluster of one lineage, receiving accretion by birth and growth of children. So that when it is said in the New Testament that the oikos was baptized (never the oikia), the presence of children is forcibly implied. This distinction in usage is always carefully observed in the New Testament as to the figurative sense of the two words, often as to the literal. E. g., Acts xvi: 3 1—34 (Greek); I Cor. i : 16, with xvi: 15; Phil. iv: 22. The argument is miserably obscured in the English version. Now, while eight individuals are spoken of by name, in the New Testament, as baptized, the houses of four of these are mentioned as baptized along with them. Cornelius’, Acts x: 2, 44, 48; Lydia’s, xvi: 15; the Philippian jailor’s xvi: 33; Stephanas’, 1 Cor. i: 16. Now, on the fact that, among the very few separate individual baptisms mentioned in the New Testament, four were of families, is ground of two-fold probability: that there were young children in some of them, who were baptized on their parents’ faith, and that this sacramental recognition of the parental and family relation, looks like Pedobaptism amazingly. Immersionists do not use such language, so that even if it could be proved there probably were no young unconverted children, the argument remains.

They say they can prove in each case there were none: Cornelius’ by verses 2. ss. But see Gen. xviii: 19; 2Chron. xx:13; Ezra viii:21; Matt. xxi: 15, 16. That Lydia’s house were all believing adult children, or servants, or apprentices, they argue from Acts xvi: 40, “brethren.” But see verses 14, 15, nobody’s faith is mentioned but Lydia’s; and doubtless Paul had many other converts out of Lydia’s house. The proof is, that the whole context shows the meeting in verse 40 was a public one, not a family one; and the Philippian church, a flourishing body was now planted.

That the jailor’s family all believed is argued from verse 34. But the original places the panoiki with rejoiced. That Stephanas’ family were all baptized and believers, is argued from i Cor. xvi: i5. Answer: It was his oikia not his oikos which engaged in ministrations of Christian hospitality.

An argument of equal, or perhaps greater importance is to be derived from the addressing of the titles of Church-members to little children in the New Testament. That the words agioi, pistos or pisteuwn and adelphos are the current words employed to denote professed Christians, will not be denied. “Christians” is only used two or three times. The address of epistles to these titles is equivalent to their address to professed Church-members. Now in these cases we find children addressed in the epistles. Eph. vi: 1-4; Col. iii: 20; 1 John ii: 12, 13, teknia, paidia. First, these were not adult children.

Further, in Titus 1:6, they are expressly called tekna pista. Compare for illustration, in I Tim. vi: 2, Pistous despotas, and I Tim. iii : 4, parallel passage where the Bishop’s children being pista and en hupotaga, is equivalent to being well ruled, and in subjection. If the alternative be taken that Titus’ tekna pista mean adult children who are professors, on their own behalf, of godliness, we are led into absurdities; for what must be decided of the man whose children are yet small; and who being therefore in the prime of manhood, is fit to serve the Church? Shall he wait, though otherwise fit, till it be seen whether his children will be converted? Or if the children be already come to ages of intelligence, and not converted, in spite of the father's good rearing, must he be refused ordination? This would have excluded Legh Richmond, and many ministers blessed of God. The obvious sense is, the bishop’s children must be consecrated and reared accordingly.


From Robert L. Dabney's Lectures in Systematic Theology In His Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: Baptism questions
From: john hampshire
To: All
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 17:27:30 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
The questions are: 1. 'But Jesus said to them, You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized? They said to Him, «We are able.» And Jesus said to them, «The cup that I drink *you shall drink; and you shall be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized' Mark 10:39 What does that mean, how are we baptized in the baptism of Jesus? What baptism did Jesus undergo? Was it by immersion? In water? 2. 1 Cor 15:29 says 'Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them? Who was baptized for the dead? Are we supposed to be immersed in water for the dead? 3. Acts 22:16 says 'and now, why tarriest thou? having risen, baptize thyself, and wash away thy sins, calling upon the name of the Lord'. How do we baptize ourselves so that our sins are washed away? By immersion? With baptism being understood as a symbol of our burial and resurrection with Christ in His death on the cross, and this burial symbolized by baptism via immersion, these verses above should be easily understood by Baptists who have made baptism such an important and pronounced tenet of their faith. Knowing their expertise in this area, I look forward to their explanations, or anyone's explanation who understands Baptism equally as well. john


Subject: Just to remind everyone
From: Rod
To: All
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 12:29:47 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
To all: Not to enter into the debate over baptism/circumcision, but just to clarify: There are two points which are clear, but may not have been directly stated which all must realize in this connection. One is that the issue(s) is (are) very much connected with whether one is convinced that Israel has been replaced by the Church, that 'replacement' representing 'change,' but an essentially unbroken relationship between His people: Israel, and what is, in effect, the 'new Israel,' the Church. This makes it very much a disagreement about, as Pilgrim has intimated, Dispensationalism, its merits or the lack thereof. Since the general and prevailing view of the forum is that total lack of the merit in the doctrine of Dispensationalism, there is a deep and fundamental difference in views here with those who support that view. This helps one to understand the nature and heart of the debate. Another thing to realize is that both circumcision and baptism represent a unique relationship with God. Both are, whatever else they may or may not be, 'signs' which are indicative of a desired spiritual condition in the heart of man in relation to the holy and living God. Abraham received the sign of circumcision based on his faith in God's promise and Christian baptism is rooted in the same thing: faith that God saves those who believe His Son died a vicarious death for them and rescued them from a sure and certain judgment to glorification with Him. It is to be remembered that a 'sign' is not reality, but a symbol, a representation. In each of these cases, it is a symbolization of the ideal of God for man: becoming a spiritually alive person, one alive to God and in union with Him 'in Christ,' as opposed to remaining in the flesh and 'in Adam' (cp. 1 Cor. 15:20-22 and related passages). '...while the ark was preparing, in which few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water; the
like figure [could be read 'sign' or 'counterpart'] unto which even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ' (1 Peter 3:21). Be very much aware that Noah and his family got on the ark in the power of believing God's promise of salvation. The ark saved them only because of their prior faith in what God pledged to do. A person 'in Christ' has an 'answer.' An answer inplies an inquiry has been made. What does God demand of us by way of inquiry? Simply this (in terms we can relate to): He asks, 'Why should judgment not be executed upon you in hell?' The man in Christ has the answer by the provision of God on his behalf. By reason of God's mercy, born of love for the predesintated, grace has been given which results in imputation of righteousness--that person has a 'good conscience' before God by means of gifted faith in the risen Son of God, Who paid a substitutionary penalty so that that 'good conscience' might be obtained and apphended AS A GIFT ! Peter's emphasis is not on the act of baptism (though he surely recognizes both it and its relative importance, but upon complete and total identification with the risen Christ by grace through faith, '...concerning his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord...declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection of the dead' (Rom. 1:3-4). Whatever else may be said, Christian baptism is a 'figure' of that being 'in Christ,' that total identification of being safely placed 'in' God's Son in the eyes of the holy God by the impartation of grace through faith.


Subject: One dispensation, two covenants
From: the_sword_of_the_lord
To: All
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 12:17:39 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
First of all, I want to make it clear that I am not a dispensationalist. I believe the Bible indicates that there is only one 'people of God', not two. In Romans 11, there is only one olive tree that represents God's elect, not two...Jews and Gentiles alike are placed in and removed from the same tree. However, it does great injustice to God's Word to insist that there has only been one covenant for the people of God, as the NT consistently speaks of an 'old' and a 'new' covenant. The book of Hebrews is full of references to the old and new covenants, and the differences between them. For example, chapter 8...'For if the first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second. For finding fault with them, He says,
'Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, when I will effect a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; not like the covenant which I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; for they did not continue in my covenant, and I did not care for them, says the Lord.'' (Hebrews 7:7-9) And in verse 13, 'When He said, 'A new covenant,' He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.' It is clear that according to the author of Hebrews, not only are there two covenants, but the first one is inferior to the second one. Since the first one is 'obsolete', it does great harm to try and maintain parallels between the two...should we not base our understanding of the new covenant solely on what the Bible says about it, rather than trying to make it as similar to the first covenant as possible?


Subject: Re: One dispensation, two covenants
From: Pilgrim
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 21:22:16 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
SOL,

First of all, there are many 'forms' of Dispensationalism. So you aren't going to squeeze out of that one so easily here. :-) Secondly, the word 'covenant' like any other word, term or phraseology used in God's Word, it CANNOT be interpreted correctly if one is bound to a 'psycho-statistical-mean' hermeneutic. 'Covenant' is variously used through the Scriptures to mean different things. In the passage you are wanting to use to support the idea that there isn't 'one Covenant of Grace', which I am assuming you are trying to use to rebut my assertion that there is, 'covenant' is rightly interpreted as being 'economy'. In other words, the writer of Hebrews is referring to the old 'economy' which was that of types and shadows of the 'new economy' wherein the person and substitutionary atonement of Christ was the anti-type and fulfillment of all that was indicated. Yet, both the 'old' and the 'new' covenant are of the same 'one Covenant of Grace'. This is the entire message of the revelation of God in writing; that God has from the beginning set apart for Himself a people who He will have reconciled through faith BY His own doing. Each of these 'economies' are revelatory in that they reveal progressively different facets of God's purpose to redeem His elect. Thus there is and always has been but ONE people of God, called the 'church' (Gk: called out ones). Various nations and peoples have been set apart to display God's grace and to some degree unfold one or more aspects of the totality of the redemption which was to be secured by the LORD's Christ. Thus in the 'old economy' which was endowed with all the types and shadows had its SIGN and SEAL; circumcision, which like all that permeated the old economy was also but a 'type' a 'shadow' of the fullness which was to come by Christ Jesus. The 'old covenant' was further divided into 'sub-covenants' which had temporal manifestation, albeit with spiritual significance and prophetic import; e.g., the covenant with Noah, David, etc. In the 'new economy', that same 'Covenant of Grace' has a new sign and seal which better represents it; baptism. This new 'sign and seal' displays the completion and fullness of the work of the Lord Christ and is in essence, like the old 'sign' a Proclamation of the GRACE of God in saving sinners. It is NOT primarily a subjective sign, but an OBJECTIVE sign and seal which points to CHRIST and the redemption which is found only in HIM. It is a visual 'demonstration' of that which is not visible to the naked eye and which is apprehended by 'faith alone'. So, as I have been labouring to point out, Baptism is DEFINED and must be OBJECTIVELY. A definition is of necessity that which describes something which is permanent and perpetual; something which never wavers or changes. The recipients of baptism may or may NOT be of true faith. Without any doubt, at least in my own mind and I know many others, the vast majority of those who are being baptized in the modern churches today are without true faith. Thus their baptism is a sign of judgment to them and not of 'regeneration and the washing away of sins'. But in truth, even though there are a vast number of deceivers and those who are self-deceived being baptized, the DEFINITION/MEANING of baptism remains true for its DEFINITION is not based upon any MAN, but upon God's 'Covenant of Grace' and His immutable promise to save all who come to Him by faith in Christ. Again, Baptism is the 'picture' of GOD'S SALVATION and the covenant He has made both with His SON and with His sheep; the elect from all eternity. Circumcision was the sign and seal of the same truth as is baptism. The former looked forward to that which was to come. And the latter looks back on that which was, is and will be in Christ Jesus. Like the Gospel itself, which is so utterly ****ized and corrupted in the modern churches today, it proclaims, 'God saves sinners!' It sets forth the truth that 'Christ's substitutionary death is sufficient to save all who come to Him by repentance and faith!' It is NOT 'Jesus died for you! Please ask Him into your heart!' Only those who have apprehended the Christ with a true and living faith are warranted to believe that 'Christ died for me!' THAT is 'subjective'. Thus Baptism itself does NOT say nor signify 'an outward sign of an inward reality'! For many receive the 'sign' but few possess the 'reality'. In His Sovereign Free Grace, Pilgrim PS: There are two new articles on our web site which deal with this subject of 'Infant Baptism' They are: The Polemics of Infant Baptism by B.B. Warfield and The Sacramental Principle: Infant Baptism by William Cunningham.


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: freegrace
To: scott lewis
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 08:02:59 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
In this article it stated: >>>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.'<<<< I can tell you why Paul didn't say that.. Paul did not say that because it just isn't true.. :-) No one here in this forum has given me the verses to prove that water baptism (any kind) has 'replaced circumcision'..! fg


Subject: Very succintly put! n/t
From: the_sword_of_the_lord
To: scott lewis
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 07:20:46 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:


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: Re: Parallels Circumcision/Baptism
From: laz
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 08:38:46 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
With all due respect, John Mac is dead wrong on this one:
Col 2:10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: 11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. The connection is clear! Also note this line of argumentation: The bearing of this argument upon the question of infant baptism is direct and conclusive. Ist. Baptism now occupies the same relation to the covenant and the church which circumcision did. (1.) Both rites represent the same spiritual grace, namely, regeneration.––Deut. 30:6;Col. 2:11;Rom. 6:3,4. (2.) Baptism is now what circumcision was, the seal, or confirming sign, of the Abrahamic covenant. Peter says, “be baptized FOR the PROMISE is to you and to your children.”—Acts 2:38,39. Paul says explicitly that baptism is the sign of that covenant, “for as many as have been baptized into Christ are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise,”Gal. 3:27,29; and that baptism is the circumcision of Christ.––Col. 2:10,11. (3.) Both rites are the appointed forms, in successive eras, of initiation into the church, which we have proved to be the same church under both dispensations. 2nd. Since the church is the same, in the absence of all explicit command to the contrary, the members are the same. Children of believers were members then. They ought to be recognized as members now, and receive the initiatory rite. This the apostles took for granted as self–evident, and universally admitted; an explicit command to baptize would have implied doubt in the ancient church rights of infants. 3rd. Since the covenant, with its promise to be “a God to the believer and his seed,” is expressly declared to stand firm under the gospel, the believer’s seed have a right to the seal of that promise.––Dr. John M. Mason’s “Essays on the Church.” Hodge, A. A., Outlines of Theology, (Escondido, CA: Ephesians Four Group) 1999. I also think it's silly for John to use the argument that all in the visible church are regenerate. Since when? Does he preach to two different groups? Does he exhort two different groups...or does he presume based on his people's outward confessions and subsequent admittance into membership, that they are regenerate ...knowing that biblically wheat and tares are destined to coexist until Harvest Time? All who join a true church are beneficiaries of the outward covenant promises...short of salvation, for that is God's ultimate perogative. In otherwords, church MEMBERSHIP has it's earthly priveleges. Even in the visible church, NOT ALL ARE TRUE ISRAEL (or necessarily of the Elect)...but it is assumed as such for we can never tell the difference but merely rest of outward signs of people's regeneration - the inward reality being known only to God! laz


Subject: Re: Parallels Circumcision/Baptism
From: Pilgrim
To: john hampshire
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 07:57:41 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Amen John,

And this is one of the strange anomalies of Dr. John MacArthur, that he can hold soundly to the biblical doctrines of soteriology, Christology, anthropology, and many other 'ologies', but his Dispensationalism is the ground for his 'Ecclesiology' and thus his glaring error here. He fails to see the nation of Israel as the primitive Church and bifurcates the New Testament from the Old Testament. Fortunately, he is so very inconsistent in the application of this amputation of God's revelation. :-) What did GOD say was the meaning of circumcision compared to what John MacArthur says about circumcision?

Gen 17:7 'And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. 8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. 9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. 10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. 11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. 12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. 13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.'

It would seem clear, that circumcision was given as a token symbol of the COVENANT which God sovereignly entered into with Abraham, not as a sign of national citizenship, but a sign of GRACE in calling Abraham to Himself and making him God's own. It was a sign of the RELATIONSHIP the bond which existed between God, who called Abraham out of darkness into light, and the faith(fulness) of Abraham in heeding God and trusting in Him as GOD. How do we know this?

Rom 4:9 'Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the 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 unto them also: 12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. 13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: 15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. 16 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; who is the father of us all, 17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were. 18 Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.

It is crystal clear that Paul understood that the sign of circumcision had NOTHING to do with 'Land'.. but with JUSTIFICATION.. with that relationship between God and Abraham through faith. Further, the 'Land' the 'many nations', etc. was a promise not just for a temporal plot of dirt in Canaan, but of the entire world where the people of God would inhabit it by faith as did Abraham. This is the CHURCH of the Living God and it has indeed inherited the temporal earth and will yet inherit the final fulfillment of that great promise to Abraham and his seed in the New Heaven and New Earth. For brother John MacArthur to state, 'Listen carefully: it didn’t have any spiritual implications at all. None!' and 'Circumcision was never a spiritual sign of anything.' is embarrassing at best. Only a MacArthur 'groupie' could be blind to the error of this statement and much of what followed it. Circumcision was incontrovertibly a SPIRITUAL SIGN of the Covenant instituted by God with Him through FAITH, which the New Testament calls Justification. If that isn't 'spiritual' then what is?

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Parallels Circumcision/Baptism
From: scott lewis
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 08:56:58 (PDT)
Email Address: navyrdc1@megsinet.net

Message:
He fails to see the nation of Israel as the primitive Church and bifurcates the New Testament from the Old Testament. Pilgrim, The reason he fails to see the Israel as the primitive church is because no where in the scriptures do we have Israel called the primitive church or any direct connection, other than the connection that is forced upon the texts. What we do have is Christ saying in Matt. 16:18 And I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Christ told Peter that he will Build His church, ie in the future. This brings up another interesting topic 1 What is the church? 2.What is its function? 3.Who is its head? 4.How do we become part of the church? 5.When did it start? WE could talk about the local church and the universal church, if you would like, then then we are getting away from the original subject of Baptism and now there isn't even one reference to infant baptism. It amazes me that I hear Sola scriptura until it comes to this subject, if your honest with yourself you have to admit that there's not 1 instance of infant baptism mentioned, as close as you can get is the household's being baptized and i covered that in another post and it must be implied. scott lewis


Subject: Re: Parallels Circumcision/Baptism
From: Pilgrim
To: scott lewis
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 11:35:57 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Scott,

With all due respect, Dispensationalism bifurcates the unity of the Bible in an inordinate way as even the name implies. It is here that the ONE COVENANT OF GRACE, and the ONE PEOPLE OF GOD, from Adam to the last man is dismissed, ignored or denied. Thus it is nearly impossible for you, MacArthur or any Dispensationalist to grasp the biblical CONTINUITIES of the ONE CHURCH OF GOD. :-) Stephen surely wasn't confused over who or what the Church was (cf. Acts 7:38). The subject of the 'CHURCH' is inseparable from discerning the doctrine of Baptism, for Baptism is a COVENANT SIGN of the ONE COVENANT, and thus one's Ecclesiology will determine how one ultimately views the sacraments of both Baptism and the Lord's Supper. For you further reading, may I suggest a newly added article to The Highway web site repository. The Polemic of Infant Baptism by B.B. Warfield.

Pilgrim


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: the_sword_of_the_lord
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 08:20:54 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim - I am fully aware that Christian liberty and baptism are very different concepts...I gave my response based on this statement that you made... 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. So Jesus and Paul
never allowed their hearers to dictate their words or actions?


Subject: Re: What about Rebaptism?
From: the_sword_of_the_lord
To: All
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 07:44:38 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Did Paul conduct himself according to what others would think, despite what he believed to be the truth? 'Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this - not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way.
I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. For if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died. Therefore do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil; for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.' Romans 14:13-17 To me it seems crystal clear...though Paul knew that no food is unclean in itself, he says that we should not eat something if a brother thinks it is unclean. Compromise? Yes it is...but not without justification. 'If one of the unbelievers invites you, and you wish to go, eat anything that is set before you, without asking questions for conscience' sake. But if anyone should say to you, 'This is meat sacrificed to idols,' do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for conscience' sake; I mean not your own conscience, but the other man's; for why is my freedom judged by another's conscience?' 1 Corinthians 10:27-29


Subject: Re: What about Rebaptism?
From: Pilgrim
To: the_sword_of_the_lord
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 08:12:02 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
SOL,

Oh Please! Stop, you are killing me.. hahaha! Did you take courses in how to take Scripture out of context or is this a natural 'gift'? What does the doctrine of 'Christian Liberty' have to do with Baptism? Eating of or abstaining from certain foods and/or drinks, which are GOOD in and of themselves has absolutely nothing to do as to whether or not one should be 'rebaptized'! One's DOCTRINE of baptism will surely dictate whether this should be done or not. If your 'conviction' of what is right and wrong is always up for barter, then you are prostituting Christ Himself, for it is HIS Church, not yours or mine. The TRUTH is not something you can put 'on sale' or be tailored by someone's 'artistic talent', etc. Perhaps you should seriously consider some wise counsel from James 1:19 'Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, . . ..

Pilgrim


Subject: Re: What about Rebaptism?
From: the_sword_of_the_lord
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 08:24:41 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
And another thing...if you didn't mean to give a blanket statement about Jesus' and Paul's actions, then that's fine...but be careful how you say things, because that is certainly the impression you gave.


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: Re: What about Rebaptism?
From: Prestor John
To: Darrin
Date Posted: Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 21:38:14 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Darrin, Okay, I'll try to be a bit more eloquent with my statements. Baptism is an ordinance it is part and parcel of corporate worship. I don't know about what your church does but mine incorporates Baptisms as part of the service. Now if you want to relegate Baptism to a private out of the way thing where it is done in secret and does not entail the entire congregation. You may however, I tend to call that sort of thing a bath not a Baptism. To have someone go through multiple Baptisms in your church is to violate the Word of God as it relates to worship and the proper function of this ordinance. Prestor John


Subject: Re: What about Rebaptism?
From: Darrin
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Thurs, Apr 20, 2000 at 03:59:18 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
John, I see your point. However, I am unclear as to the biblical reference that supports your idea. Can you give me some references so I can look them up? How do you understand the baptism of the Eunich in Acts? Thanks


Subject: Re: What about Rebaptism?
From: Pilgrim
To: Darrin
Date Posted: Thurs, Apr 20, 2000 at 07:35:24 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
John, I see your point. However, I am unclear as to the biblical reference that supports your idea. Can you give me some references so I can look them up? How do you understand the baptism of the Eunich in Acts? Thanks
---
Darrin,

You are constantly showing your hypocrisy by asking, 'Can you show me the biblical reference for that whatever view you hold to?' but when you are shown passage after passage which gives prove to one's view, you cast it off like cows do flies and start harping on some extra-biblical source written by a bunch of Liberal pagans. I'll let Prestor John reply to you personally in his own way, but as for me, since I do hold firmly that baptism has replaced circumcision and share much in common with each other, I would find it rather strange for someone in the Old Covenant to want to be re-circumcised because they felt like it. Such an individual would probably be dragged off to a padded room some place, and quickly. Secondly, since I reject the notion that Baptism signifies primarily the recipient's spiritual state, but rather it is a proclamation of God's saving grace in Christ Jesus; God incarnate, of whose benefits all the elect share in common and true believers are given in time. One does not get 'resaved' and thus the Sign and Seal is not needed nor enjoined in Scripture.... 'Can you please give me the Scriptural passage(s) where there is an injunction to administer baptism to an individual multiple times, whenever the person 'feels' like they want to do that?' Is this how you operate? If there is no negation of every whim and fancy a person can dream up, it must be okay because there is no specific biblical commandment that forbids it? I really think that you have expended your welcome here Gene, Darrin or whoever you choose to call yourself. Hastalavista baby! :-) Pilgrim


Subject: Re: What about Rebaptism?
From: Eric
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Thurs, Apr 20, 2000 at 08:04:50 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi Pilgrim, I don't know why I am getting into this topic, but something that you wrote intrigued me. You said: >>> ...Secondly, since I reject the notion that Baptism signifies primarily the recipient's spiritual state, but rather it is a proclamation of God's saving grace in Christ Jesus; God incarnate, of whose benefits all the elect share in common and true believers are given in time. If baptism primarily is not a personal issue, but an objective one, why not be rebaptised? Because, after all, you are proclaiming the objective work of Christ. In fact, baptisms then become a visible portrayal of the gospel. Why do many Reformed churches refuse to baptize infants of people who are not members of the church, or of questionable status in regards to salvation? And do you agree with this practice? God bless.


Subject: Re: What about Rebaptism?
From: Pilgrim
To: Eric
Date Posted: Thurs, Apr 20, 2000 at 12:59:38 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Eric,

You asked, 'If baptism primarily is not a personal issue, but an objective one, why not be rebaptised? Because, after all, you are proclaiming the objective work of Christ. In fact, baptisms then become a visible portrayal of the gospel.' First of all, the administration of Baptism is not a substitute for the preaching of the Word, which is the primary means ordained by God to call sinners to repentance and to upbuild the saints. Thus although it is indeed the proclamation of God's promise to save all who are of true faith, it is not to be administered universally as is the preaching of the Word. There are qualifications/prerequisites to be adhered to as far as its administration is exercised. As it is also a token representation of entrance into the Body of Christ of the recipient among many other things, it seems rather illogical to administer it more than once to the same individual. The truths which Baptism displays are again, OBJECTIVE, and therefore do not depend upon the individual partaking of it. The APPLICATION of those truths will of course vary depending on whether or not true faith is present or not. So, if the person being baptized is not cognizant of what is going on, or if there is no faith present in that particular individual, the 'message' still remains true. If at a later time, an unbeliever does come to true faith in the Lord Christ, then what was signified in that person's baptism is then REALIZED as 'his or hers'. Your second question was, 'Why do many Reformed churches refuse to baptize infants of people who are not members of the church, or of questionable status in regards to salvation? And do you agree with this practice?' I would hope that ALL churches who profess to be Reformed or otherwise baptize only those who are qualified to receive the sacrament. Of course, as one who adheres to paedobaptism, that includes the infants of those who have made a valid profession of faith. As I stated in my answer to your first question, both sacraments are available ONLY to those who have the proper qualifications, which is a 'valid profession of faith'. Because Baptism serves several purposes one of which is to declare union with Christ and thus with the Body of Christ, it would be a grave error to allow unbelievers and/or their children to be baptized. I fear in many modern churches baptism and the Lord's Table are more of a social event where 'god words' are spoken, but have little significance beyond that. The sobriety of realizing that the Holy Spirit is active within both baptism and the Lord's Table is woefully absent as the even their description of them as 'celebration' reveals. Lastly, and in passing as to something someone else said in this thread concerning 'worship'... indeed baptism is part of worship as are all the other 'elements' of worshipping God in 'spirit and truth'. But more to what is being discussed here, the 'right administration of the sacraments' of Baptism and the Lord's Table is one of the 3 Essential Marks of a True Church. That being a truism of Scripture, would it not be wise to abstain from doing 'whatever a person feels like doing' or taking the modern pragmatic approach to things which says, 'Hey, what harm will it do!'?

In His Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: What about Rebaptism?
From: Eric
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Thurs, Apr 20, 2000 at 14:35:12 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I don't want to misunderstand you, so let me see if I can follow your logic. When a person is baptized, it is a proclamation of the objective reality of Christ's work being applied to believers, but not necessarily being applied to the person being baptized. If the person has true faith, then the thing signified is applied at that moment. If the person who is baptized is not cognizant of what is happening (infants), or is making a false profession, and then at a later date has been granted true faith, the application of the thing signified is 'back dated' so to speak. So, from your argument, it seems to me, that infants who are baptised only receive the benefits of their baptism at some point in the future, when they have knowledge of what their baptism means, and true faith (which if I am not mistaken is often defined as: knowledge of the gospel, assent to the veracity of the gospel, and an affectionate embrace of the gospel--or something like that.) So, I guess the question the Baptists would ask, is why baptise somebody who is not cognizant of what is happening, if the benefits of that baptism only come about at a later time, such as when they can make a verbal understanding of what it is their baptism meant? BTW, I am in complete agreement with you in regards to the attitude displayed by people when partaking in the sacraments. There are often times when I am moved to tears when partaking of the Lord's Supper, and it appalls me that so many people take these things so lightly! I think the Catholics approach the Lord's Supper in a much 'better' way than most evangelicals, even if their understanding of it is in error. While I am on my soapbox, who had the brilliant idea to substitute grape juice with wine--how pathetic! And whatever happened to the common cup and loaf??? (end of rant) God bless.


Subject: RCC attitude
From: Rod
To: Eric
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 10:28:22 (PDT)
Email Address: ma

Message:
Eric, Sorry to butt in but you touched a nerve! The RCC falsehoods in relation to Christianity in general and the Lord's Table in particular can in no way be commended. To say that they are to be admired because they exhibit an attitude of reverence and submission to falsehood and heresy is like saying a swine is a clean animal just because he, at that particular point, isn't able to get into the mud and wallow. In other words, the
nature of the observance is the thing to behold. A submission to error is never to be admired.


Subject: Re: What about Rebaptism?
From: Pilgrim
To: Eric
Date Posted: Thurs, Apr 20, 2000 at 18:37:13 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Eric,

Please forgive me for not commenting on your last statement concerning the 'common loaf and cup', and the substitution of grape juice for wine. Let me say just briefly by way of my own personal preference and experience. The use of the 'common loaf and cup' is in my estimation the purest expression of administration of the Lord's Supper. I will not go so far as to say that it is the only way, nor is it the 'right' way (as Baptists do with the mode of that sacrament). But in my experience, this manner of administering the elements of bread and wine brings a blessed union with those whom the Supper is shared. It truly, in my view, expresses that oneness that the Lord Christ spoke of concerning the gathering of many into the one Body. If anyone is interested I would be glad to share some of the details of how this is done, especially in a large congregation. :-) As to the 'grape juice' issue, it is truly sad how some have forsaken that which the Lord Himself drank at His last supper with His beloved disciples and then commanded that it be continued to be used after His departure to be with His Father. I have heard probably near every type of excuse why grape juice is 'better' than the use of wine. But none of have a ring of truth to them, IMHO. God in His infinite wisdom could have commanded us to use grape juice rather than wine, but a pleasant study of this beverage in the Scriptures will reward the diligent ones with a new found revelation of the wisdom of God in all His works. There are many terse reasons why the LORD Christ instituted the use of both bread and wine and those who would fain substitute anything other than that which He commanded to be used think themselves to be wiser than God? It is a scary thing in my mind to 'make void the commandments of God through the doctrines of men'. I therefore strongly oppose the use of grape juice at the Lord's Table, but I do not condemn those who do. I rather seek to 'enlighten' them as to the manifold richness and blessings which are hidden in the bread and wine of the Lord Jesus Christ.

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim


Subject: Why I don't take wine with communion...
From: the_sword_of_the_lord
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Thurs, Apr 20, 2000 at 19:32:09 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Personally, I see nothing wrong with the common loaf...I'm Southern Baptist and we don't use it, but I see nothing wrong with it. And while I also see nothing wrong with using wine, I personally would not. It goes back to that 'Christian liberty' thing...my conscience won't allow me to drink alcohol. So I would be condemning myself if I drank it, even if it were at the Lord's table. But there is another practical reason for not using wine at the Lord's supper...there may be recovering alcoholics in the congregation. Certainly the Lord would not want them to drink something which they have been abusing, and are trying to refrain from. And as for your assertion that it is wrong for those of us who choose not to take wine to disregard the literal instructions of Jesus in this matter, are you not doing the same thing by endorsing sprinkling as opposed to immersion? There is not a single case in the NT, in the ministry of Jesus or His apostles, where a person receiving baptism was sprinkled. It was always by immersion. Indeed, the greek word that is translated 'baptize' literally means 'to dip; plunge; immerse.' If Jesus or any of His disciples had intended to advocate sprinkling instead, there is a perfectly good greek word they could have used that means 'sprinkle'... but nowhere is that word used in reference to baptism. Without question, the biblical method of baptism is by immersion. Just thought I'd point that out. :)


Subject: Re: What about Rebaptism?
From: Pilgrim
To: Eric
Date Posted: Thurs, Apr 20, 2000 at 18:23:37 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Eric,

You just about have a clear understanding of my position, but not quite! :-) Now, let me preface my comments likewise by saying perhaps I am not comprehending you clearly and if that be the case, please correct me if I misrepresent what you are conveying. It seems to me that you are saying that infants can't be saved because they can't express outwardly an intelligent recitation of the Gospel and its meaning? However, this is not the case at all. We know not who the elect are, and especially so in the case of infants. The reason that infants of professing Christians are baptized is because they have a right to the covenant blessings as well as being under the authority of the Body of Christ; albeit not necessarily as partakers of the divine nature. However, there salvation is the sovereign and secret working of God to which no man is privy. As in Israel of old, all those who were joined to that nation, NOT as Hebrews, but as those who were desirous to be united to God and to offer the divinely appointed worship of the Almighty, they came under the authority of the appointed leaders, prophets, priests and kings (the typological manifestations of the Lord Christ) and were granted all the privileges of that union. Yet, the spiritual realities of the eternal blessings belonged only to those who were circumcised of heart. So also in the 'New Covenant' all those who join themselves to the one people of God, the church, come under the authority of its appointed officers, elders and deacons (the three-fold offices of Christ on earth as subordinates to Christ) and share in the temporal blessings of their union with the Church and the eternal blessings if they are 'buried with Christ and raised to newness of life', which is 'signed and sealed' to them who have true faith. Infants in the New Covenant as in the Old Covenant are to be included in the 'external' covenantal relationships and are thereby put under the authority of its duly appointed officers for the purpose of instruction and discipline if needed. What we look for in a child as he/she matures is the evidence of regeneration so as to either confirm their union with Christ or to evidence their alienation from Him. Believing parents should not doubt that God works through the appointed MEANS given to the Church; e.g., the preaching of the word, regular instruction in the home, family prayers, and the manifestation of godly lives by its members. Does this somehow guarantee that covenant children are regenerate or will be later in life? No, not at all, for as in the Old Testament, the vast majority of those who had received the 'sign and seal' of the covenant, circumcision, perished in unbelief. However it is within the covenant community that the MEANS OF GRACE are apprehended whereby, if God so wills, faith and repentance will be given as He has promised (Acts 2:39) to those who believe. So, it is not as if the benefits of baptism are given at a later date when the child can offer a cognizant profession of faith and of the faith, for the benefits of the gospel, seen in baptism are many as I have tried to enumerate above, which include temporal blessings as well as spiritual/eternal, where there is faith. As I have elaborated elsewhere, we must be very careful not to fall into rank Pelagianism and externalize either sin OR faith. For the outward 'believing' is but the evidence of a faith within, which is sovereignly implanted in the newly recreated soul at the time of regeneration. In the case of an infant or young child, we may not perceive the outward expression of faith and we are remiss if we demand that they do. And this is but another fallacy and odious practice which is everywhere witnessed to in Baptist churches; i.e., the pressuring even by manipulation of a profession of faith from very young children. How many adults have we heard openly and frankly admit that they 'went forward' at age 5 or 6 or 'asked Jesus into their hearts while in a Sunday school class' but as they grew in years 'fell away' and lived debaucherous lives, spurning the Christ whom they allegedly gave their hearts to? Should children be made aware of the natural state of the soul before God? Surely! Should children be made aware of their need of the Lord Christ for the remission of sins? Doubtless! But should children, should anyone, be pressed, coerced and manipulated to make a 'magic confession of faith', as if their profession is that which actually saves? I say NEVER! This is but the fruit of our modern 'Sandamanianism' (Easy Believism' and we are reaping in most cases nothing but rotten grapes.

In His Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: What about Rebaptism?
From: Eric
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 08:10:01 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi Pilgrim, I did not mean to imply that infants cannot be saved because they cannot make an outward profession. However, we can not discern their salvation. In the case of a professing adult, we hopefully can look at their lives and at least see if there is any reason to doubt the validity of their profession. Now, with infants, we know that God often chooses the elect family unit to enlarge the Body of Christ, so I guess their is warrant for making the assumption. It would be interesting to know the percentage of actual saved persons who were baptized as adults, compared to those infants who were baptized to saved parents. You wrote:>>> The APPLICATION of those truths will of course vary depending on whether or not true faith is present or not. So, if the person being baptized is not cognizant of what is going on, or if there is no faith present in that particular individual, the 'message' still remains true. If at a later time, an unbeliever does come to true faith in the Lord Christ, then what was signified in that person's baptism is then REALIZED as 'his or hers'. My previous response to you, it seems was based on a misreading of your statement above. I thought you wrote that when an infant becomes cognizant (matures) the benefits are then applied. But you only referenced those lacking real faith. So in the case of elect infants, the benefits are applied immediately. I agree. God bless.


Subject: Re: What about Rebaptism?
From: laz
To: Eric
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 10:27:24 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Eric - you said:
'My previous response to you, it seems was based on a misreading of your statement above. I thought you wrote that when an infant becomes cognizant (matures) the benefits are then applied. But you only referenced those lacking real faith. So in the case of elect infants, the benefits are applied immediately. I agree.' ...not quite ...even an elect infant does not have the full benefits applied until regeneration, faith, and justification are secured. No? laz


Subject: Re: What about Rebaptism?
From: Eric
To: laz
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 11:42:55 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi laz, When I originally was typing my post, I wrote: ...infants who have saving faith. But then my sentence was very long and convoluted. When I use the word 'elect' I don't *necessarily* mean those who are justified presently, just those who will be justified ultimately. One does not *become* elect in this age, because that was determined before we were ever born. However, one does become justified. But what benefits are there to baptism? Since we all agree that regeneration is not one of them, what spiritual benefits are not applied at the time of baptism that are then applied at regeneration? If baptism is a sign and seal then the sign is obviously displayed at the time of baptism, and the seal is a spiritual seal signifying your unity with Christ, which in a sense is true to the elect (but not yet justified), but there is also a sense in which it is not true, because before the exercising of saving faith, we are under God's wrath. God bless.


Subject: Re: What about Rebaptism?
From: laz
To: Eric
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 12:29:54 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi laz, When I originally was typing my post, I wrote: ...infants who have saving faith. But then my sentence was very long and convoluted. When I use the word 'elect' I don't *necessarily* mean those who are justified presently, just those who will be justified ultimately. One does not *become* elect in this age, because that was determined before we were ever born. However, one does become justified. But what benefits are there to baptism? Since we all agree that regeneration is not one of them, what spiritual benefits are not applied at the time of baptism that are then applied at regeneration? If baptism is a sign and seal then the sign is obviously displayed at the time of baptism, and the seal is a spiritual seal signifying your unity with Christ, which in a sense is true to the elect (but not yet justified), but there is also a sense in which it is not true, because before the exercising of saving faith, we are under God's wrath. God bless.
---
...but the wicked too are always under God's wrath yet they enjoy unfathomable temporal blessings out of God's bountiful 'common grace'. As for 'spiritual benefits'...not sure this applies, but... Keep in mind that an unbelieving spouse is 'sanctified' (not to be confused with believers being Sanctified) by the mere presence of their believing husband/wife. Here is a temporal blessing coming to a pagan for merely being in a covenant relationship with one at one with Christ. Their children being considered 'holy' as well. If I'm not mistaken...Pilgrim also talked about temporal 'benefits' of being found within a Church family. Did I miss your point? ;-) blessings, laz


Subject: Meaning of 'elect'
From: Rod
To: laz
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 10:39:45 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
laz, Just as an observer in all this, I have to ask, Doesn't the word 'elect' refer to one who is saved? Aren't you actually referring to one who is 'predestinated,' rather than actually saved and elect?


Subject: Re: Meaning of 'elect'
From: Pilgrim
To: Rod
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 20:50:19 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
laz, Just as an observer in all this, I have to ask, Doesn't the word 'elect' refer to one who is saved? Aren't you actually referring to one who is 'predestinated,' rather than actually saved and elect?
---
Rod,

I hope you don't mind me butting in here, but I am hoping I can help clear any misconceptions that might arise out of the confusion of the use of certain terminology. Here are the traditional and working definitions of the following:

1) Foreordination:God's ordaining, or decreeing, or determining, or appointing, from eternity whatsoever is to come to pass. This is a comprehensive, all-inclusive term. 2) Predestination: God's foreordaining, foreappointing, foredecreeing, foredetermining the actions of free moral agents. This is a sub-category of Foreordination and deals specifically with the actions of men. 3) Election: That part of Predestination which deals with God's eternal predestination of those acts of free moral agents which would lead to salvation. 4) Reprobation: That part of Predestination which pertains to God's ordaining the evil acts of evil beings which lead to an evil end; their damnation.

I hope this helps. :-) In His Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Meaning of 'elect'
From: Rod
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 21:26:54 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Yes, brother, it does help to clarify terms and to make sure we're dealing with definitions held in common. :>) Though we may actually use the terms 'predestination' and 'election' casually and interchangably, they are, though interrelated and inextricably bound, not precisely the same thing, as your post affirms. One who is regenerated, justified, positionally sanctified, is an elect object of God's mercy, while a 'predestinated' individual is forordained to receive that mercy in election, but has not yet received it if he is not yet 'elect.' It's all helpfully explained by whoever coined the expression the 'golden chain of salvation' to describe the process outlined by Paul in Romans 8:28-30, particularly verse 30. The beautiful relationship between the various steps leading to glorification of God's chosen ones is at once simple and utterly complex. I truly never tire of considering it, though I don't expect to plumb its depths in this lifetime.


Subject: Re: Meaning of 'elect'
From: Tom
To: Rod
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 23:16:43 (PDT)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
Rod Your responce does not seem to me to match Pilgrim's post. 3) Election: That part of Predestination which deals with God's eternal predestination of those acts of free moral agents which would lead to salvation. Now I may be wrong,(I have been known from time to time to be wrong) but I think this is saying that election is something before salvation, not after salvation as your post seems to indicate. The key words to me are 'which would lead'. Tom


Subject: Re: Meaning of 'elect'
From: Pilgrim
To: Tom
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 08:56:24 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom,

Yes, Election is from eternity as are all God's decrees. And I agree with laz that the 'Elect' refers to the 'invisible church' which is comprised of ALL those who have been predestinated to life but may have not yet even been born and come to faith in Christ. Jacob was chosen over Esau (Election vs. Reprobation) as the text clearly says, 'so the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;' All the acts involved in Jacob's being chosen over Esau temporally and eternally were ordained in the decree of 'Election', and thus Jacob was 'elect' before the foundation of the world. His apprehension of that election of course comes always and only after one is regenerated and converted.

In His Grace, Pilgrim PS. Not sure what Rod IS saying about election at this point.... LOL... but I am sure he will reply with a fuller explanation of what it is he is trying to say here. And I for one look forward to his response as one who is beloved of Christ. :-)


Subject: Re: Meaning of 'elect'
From: Rod
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 12:22:31 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Thanks, Pilgrim, for the kind words. Maybe this will clarify. The two terms, 'elect,' and 'election' are obviously not the same, though equally obviously, one is dependent on the other. I don't see the Bible expressly applying the meaning of 'elect,' in the sense as 'safe from wrath' in regeneration, justification, and positional sanctification, the general meaning of the term as it regards
God's people, to those who have not yet been that far along in the process. They are surely 'chosen,' definitely predestinated, clearly forordained to the completed process, but not yet 'saved,' being still the 'children of wrath, even as others [the lost]' (Eph. 2:3). As I referred to the Romans 9 passage in a previous post, the election of God is spoken of in relation to Jacob and Esau and prior to their births, but in the context of the passage, mercy is inextricably coupled with election as it is outlined in the succeeding verses. Jacob was heir to the mercy, predestined to receive it, but had not yet received it in time as the 'seed of promise.' His election was, although certain in the decree of God, as yet unrealized in time. Until the time he received the mercy of God as being identified undeniably and verified as the heir, he was 'predestinated' to the postion of preeminence, but he had not yet obtained it, in spite of the fact that he had been 'marked out' for it. Because of the facts mentioned above and because the Apostle so closely links the elect of God with their faith in Titus 1:1; where these acknowledge the 'truth which is after godliness;' and where the next verse speaks of the effect of this faith producing the hope of eternal life; coupled with the fact that, in the case of Israel, her status as the 'elect (chosen) nation' of God was made visible by God in His acts on her behalf, I conclude that an 'elect person' is one who has had the benefits of the election of God in His decree made realized and sure in time. This is true, it seems to me, in spite of the fact that his being chosen by God is a fact of foreordination in eternity. (Part of the problem of confusion is trying to put God's actions into terms humans can comprehend). At that point his salvation from God's wrath is realized, but until that time, he is, according to Eph. 2:3, 'by nature...even as others.' His election realized in time is the thing which distinguishes him from the lost, placing him under the protection of the holy God and, in the same process, exempting him from that wrath to come. It must be remembered that I brought up this distinction because the term 'elect infants' was used by another in a previous post. I maintain that some infants are 'elect' and already saved and serving God in the Providence of God (such as John the Baptist), while others are predestinated to election (that salvation from wrath) in the future. Again, the distinction between present salvation and the future in conjunction with the realization of salvation is important, the issue of the wrath of God and the timing of its removal being paramount. I maintain that a person may be "chosen" by God for His benefits of salvation prior to His being "chosen" by virtue of the gift of God as a child of God and made free from the guilt of impending wrath while being changed into one who is now being conformed to the Image of the Son of God. I trust this has helped clarify my muddy position! Not that I expect anyone to agree with me. :>)


Subject: Re: Meaning of 'elect'
From: Pilgrim
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 16:51:07 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Brother Rod,

IF you are suggesting that a person BECOMES elect after regeneration, then in that case I must strongly disagree as I would when our Arminian brothers state the same; ie., that one is only predestinated and deemed an 'elect' person AFTER faith has been exercised. Thus God's 'Election' from which we are considered 'Elect' of necessity is not from 'before the foundation of the world' but temporal; not Unconditional but Conditional, based upon the actions of men. Now I KNOW you abhor this heretical view! :-) And thus I am in no way even implying that it applies to you personally. But, if one does in fact BECOME 'elect' actually and temporally, then aren't you forced into this view? It is true, that the N.T. writers address believers as 'elect', because they are so by virtue of God's eternal election. But I fail to see how this would warrant holding to a view that see's an unbeliever, who has been predestinated from eternity to salvation as 'non-elect'. I believe that the 'elect' are with few exceptions, John the Baptist being one primary example, 'children of wrath even as others' until they come to faith by God's sovereign grace. It seems that they are BOTH 'elect' and 'children of wrath', no less than they are the objects of God's everlasting love and mercy AND 'children of wrath' temporally until such time they are regenerated and ingrafted into the Lord Christ by grace through faith. :-) From God's eternal foreordination flows His decree to predestinate and from his decree of predestination flows the election of individuals and all the means by which they will receive the salvific benefits of Christ Jesus, and from this eternal decree of election they are eternally 'elect'. Is this any different than God saying, 'Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.'? It is 'according to His purpose.' which is His eternal counsel that ALL the elect are called, justified and glorified. Expectantly, there are multitudes of the 'elect' who have yet to be born, have not been called or justified to come, of which we all shall be glorified. :-) In His Peace and Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: Meaning of 'elect'
From: Rod
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 17:24:49 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Pilgrim, Before I try to answer, brother, may I offer some clarification? Here is your description of 'election' from another post: '3) Election: That part of Predestination which deals with God's eternal predestination of those acts of free moral agents which would lead to salvation.' It would seem fair to conclude from that these things: 1) while predestination is eternal, and thus all of God's process leading to all the benefits of salvation are eternal; nevertheless, the actual election of a person is
realized only in connection with his 'acts' (which are temporal in nature) that you identify as being essential to the process. 2) Our respective roles are seemingly reversed at this point since I am arguing the necessisty of the temporal and you are arguing the essentiality of the eternally realized plan of God. :>) Once again, in an attempt to clarify. We are trying to put into human terms a deep mystery. We are clearly meant to understand it because the Lord God has explained it to us, but I don't think we can grasp its full implications. Election is eternal and an assurance for the chosen of God. Yet, is the reality for the person/people involved realized prior to the conditions upon which it is based, that is, the acquiring of faith by the 'free moral agent' involved? I don't think we can say so. When the Apostle speaks of 'the faith of God's elect,' which is based on 'the hope of eternal life,' we have to admit that the lost and those who are predestinated, yet still under God's wrath, all alike have no such faith or hope. It is true that the lost will never obtain to that hope and that the predestinated surely will and that it has been worked out and accomplished in eternity, but, in the temporal aspect, the merely 'predestinated' have not performed those 'acts of free moral agents' which lead to salvation. I think the difference still hinges on 'election' signifying a process and the term 'elect' identifying a particular, indentifiable (based on the actions and working of God) group: the redeemed of God. Israel could have been described as 'elect' from eternity, but she was only an 'elect nation' as God sought her out, creating her and identifying her before the other nations as His 'peculiar people.' The 'election' was firm from the beginning, but the accomplishment in time was dependent on God's outworking of His purpose.


Subject: Re: Meaning of 'elect'
From: Pilgrim
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 21:30:53 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod, I think we are in agreement! :-) One's 'election' is
realized temporally even though the election itself is eternal! In His Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: AMEN, brother! n/t
From: Rod
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 22:40:33 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:


Subject: Re: Meaning of 'elect'
From: laz
To: Tom
Date Posted: Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 07:02:26 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
To me, and this could be wrong, the 'Elect' are synonomous with the invisible Church...(i.e., those saved since Adam and yet to be saved until the Second Coming ....believers of all time periods)....'the Sheep', 'His people', etc. Predestination being a general term applying to God foreordaining all circumstancs/events by divine decree. Election applies to individuals and this being done in eternity past. Our election was predestined. (Hmmm, have I just started a 'chicken or the egg' debate. ;-) ) Being 'called' takes place in time for those of the Elect - being called out of the world. To be 'chosen' seems to also takes place in time for those of the Elect. My 2 cents, laz


Subject: Re: Meaning of 'elect'
From: Tom
To: Rod
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 11:54:08 (PDT)
Email Address: ahardy@rapidnet.net

Message:
Rod Obviously I am not Laz, but unless I have completely misunderstood the teaching and the scriptures I have been given up to this point. Then the words 'chosen' as in Eph 1:4 and the word 'elect' are interchangable. But then again, if I am wrong, now is as good as any time to clear up my misunderstanding, because I have used this information more than once on this board, and not once have been corrected. Tom


Subject: Re: Meaning of 'elect'
From: Rod
To: Tom
Date Posted: Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 16:24:10 (PDT)
Email Address: na

Message:
Hi, Tom, Well, as the posts of the last few days prove, we have to do a lot of 'hair splitting' in a theological discussion--one of the reasons, I'm no theologian. Nevertheless, I think it's safe to say that the term 'elect' denotes one in a special relationship with God, as opposed to one who is not yet elect, but predestinated to that special status. As proof, I offer Eph. 2, the first several verses, where the elect are described as having been '
by nautre children of wrath, even as others' (verse 3). I would also call your attention to a couple of other telling verses: '...there is a remnant according to the election of grace' (Rom. 11:5); and Titus 1:1: 'Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness.' It is true that Rom. 9 mentions the choice of Isaac over Esau before their birth as tied to election, but the immediate context goes on to mention that it is those who obtain God's mercy who are elect, receiving the benefits of regeneration, justification, and sanctification. It seems that there is a real distinction, with the predestinated being not yet actually elect, but headed surely for it, while the elect are the saved of God. Hope this helps.


Subject: Re: What about Rebaptism?
From: freegrace
To: Eric
Date Posted: Thurs, Apr 20, 2000 at 08:17:54 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Good question! You (Eric)said: >>>If baptism primarily is not a personal issue, but an objective one, why not be rebaptised? Because, after all, you are proclaiming the objective work of Christ. In fact, baptisms then become a visible portrayal of the gospel. <<< Yes, and I say: If water baptism is just an 'outward testimony to the world' as I have heard it said, then why not proclaim it more than just once! Be 'rebaptised' each year at Easter or whenever you think there will be alot of people there to 'watch'..! fg


Subject: Re: What about Rebaptism?
From: laz
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Thurs, Apr 20, 2000 at 10:04:23 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Good question! You (Eric)said: >>>If baptism primarily is not a personal issue, but an objective one, why not be rebaptised? Because, after all, you are proclaiming the objective work of Christ. In fact, baptisms then become a visible portrayal of the gospel. <<< Yes, and I say: If water baptism is just an 'outward testimony to the world' as I have heard it said, then why not proclaim it more than just once! Be 'rebaptised' each year at Easter or whenever you think there will be alot of people there to 'watch'..! fg
---
fg - as I understand it...there is only ONE baptism and it is God whom is orchestrating events leading to baptism and efficaciously adminstering this sacrament on behalf of an elect person....and not the parents/pastor/priest...which is why in presby circles, my infant baptism in a Catholic church is valid...even if my parents were pagans at the time. WCF xxviii says: VI. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;[16] yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time.[17] 16. John 3:5, 8 17. Rom. 6:3-6; Gal. 3:27; I Peter 3:21; Acts 2:38, 41 VII. The sacrament of baptism is but once to be administered unto any person.[18] 18. Rom. 6:3-11 laz p.s. as for rebaptizing.... Heb 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, 2
Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. 3 And this will we do, if God permit. 4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, 6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.


Subject: Re: What about Rebaptism?
From: freegrace
To: laz
Date Posted: Thurs, Apr 20, 2000 at 18:21:09 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi laz... You stated: >>>my infant baptism in a Catholic church is valid...even if my parents were pagans at the time. <<< You know, laz, there are some here no doubt who would say that you should be 'rebaptised' because the person who administered the rite was not a born-again reformed clergy! What problems we do find ourselves in (sad to say)when we fail to see that the Spirit *alone* has done the work *without* any human hands even touching the person at all! That is just why I 'contend' for the Spirit baptism alone, without any water rite ever performed on the individual. See Hebrews 9:10. The 'Time of Reformation' is here! Christ has come in all of His glory, and He alone performs our baptism into the True Church which is His Body! Regards, freegrace


Subject: Re: What about Rebaptism?
From: Pilgrim
To: freegrace
Date Posted: Thurs, Apr 20, 2000 at 18:40:28 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
freegrace, Dear brother, you cannot build a case for your erroneous view upon such things as your reply to laz's experience. The Scriptures testify against you, and the entire history of the Christian Church testifies against you. May I humbly suggest that it is YOU who are in need of 'reformation' at this juncture in regards to this particular subject! :-) In His Grace, Pilgrim


Subject: Re: What about Rebaptism?
From: Eric
To: laz
Date Posted: Thurs, Apr 20, 2000 at 10:26:49 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi laz, The verse you quoted as pertaining to baptism, if appropriate, means that baptism is more than just a sign and a seal, it is in effect the means of regeneration--Perhaps your Catholic upbringing is showing. :) So, how do you equate baptism with the verses you quoted? You seem to view baptism on a more subjective, personal level. God bless.


Subject: Re: What about Rebaptism?
From: laz
To: Eric
Date Posted: Thurs, Apr 20, 2000 at 12:02:08 (PDT)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi laz, The verse you quoted as pertaining to baptism, if appropriate, means that baptism is more than just a sign and a seal, it is in effect the means of regeneration--Perhaps your Catholic upbringing is showing. :) So, how do you equate baptism with the verses you quoted? You seem to view baptism on a more subjective, personal level. God bless.
---
Eric - I would be the first to admit my lack of complete understanding of baptism...for instance, if it's a sign/seal..then who was being 'signaled' of my 'sealing' on that fateful day in 1962 when I was been annoyingly sprinkled by a cold-handed priest in front of mostly 'lost' Catholics? What was being proclaimed? My siblings underwent the same thing...some of them seem unregenerate to this day (as do MOST Romanists, hehe). Does this relate to your question about my views being more subjective/personal? Not sure how you read baptismal regeneration from the WCF quote. As for Hebrews and why NOT get baptized regularly if it's just to proclaim the Gospel in visible form ('Freegrace' made a comment to that affect, I think) ... Heb shows the lamentable fate of those who toy with the grace of God...who've 'tasted', been 'enlightened'....etc they can't be brought back into the eternal covenant. One ought not mess with one of two holy sacraments. It's a ONE-TIME thing. blessings, laz



Copyright 1997 Paradise Web Enahancements
All Rights Reserved