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 |
