'Theology Discussion Group'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HE HAS RISEN INDEED

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.'