http://www.the-highway.com/forum/ubbthreads.php The Highway Theology Forum The Highway - UBB.threads(tm) http://www.the-highway.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/49736/Re_Psalm_100.html#Post49736 Posted by Hitch:
http://god-bless-you.org/psalm-100-boy-is-adorable/?fb_action_ids=467596n_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%7B%22467596079981250%22%3A494077010657354%7D&action_type_map=%7B%22467596079981250%22079981250&fb_actioA%22og.likes%22%7D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D]]> Sat, 18 May 2013 23:41:56 CDT http://www.the-highway.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/49734/Re_Framework_Theory.html#Post49734 Posted by John_C:
(Is it a theory or what?)

How does the Framework theory work out? A friend has been reading Kline and said Kline makes some good points. My friend is in no way trying to make nice with evolution.]]> Fri, 17 May 2013 07:00:00 CDT http://www.the-highway.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/49724/Re_What_We_Talk_About_When_We_.html#Post49724 Posted by Pilgrim:
What We Talk About When We Talk About God


Article by Michael Kruger May 2013

Rob Bell, What We Talk About When We Talk About God (New York: HarperOne, 2013), 240 pp., $16.00


"Detheologizing" Christianity

For those who have read Rob Bell's other books (such as Love Wins and Velvet Elvis), the tone, disposition, and content of this new book will sound all too familiar. In What We Talk About When We Talk About God, Bell continues his campaign to reshape and repackage Christianity for this postmodern generation, and to rescue it from those he thinks are holding it back (traditional Christians).

In this way, Bell positions himself as an apologist of sorts. Our world views the Christian God as irrelevant and outdated (like an Oldsmobile), and Bell's mission is to give Him an extreme makeover. Bell takes the God who seems like a grumpy, judgmental old man in a polyester suit who is pointing his finger at you while simultaneously thumping the Bible, and changes him into a hip, urban young (...)]]> Mon, 13 May 2013 13:25:33 CDT http://www.the-highway.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/49717/Re_faith_in_Jesus_verse_faith_.html#Post49717 Posted by Tom:
Amen!]]> Fri, 03 May 2013 23:34:02 CDT http://www.the-highway.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/49712/Re_Restoration_of_earth.html#Post49712 Posted by Hitch:
Well founded optimism;

20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.]]> Thu, 02 May 2013 19:29:08 CDT http://www.the-highway.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/49698/Re_A_Four_Point_Calvinist.html#Post49698 Posted by Tom:
Pilgrim
Wondered whether I should even chime in here seeing I really don't have anything more to add to this discussion.
However I must say that I think you have been very clear what 'analogy of faith' means. It appears that Cramner is ignorant of what the term actually means having already made up his mind on its true meaning,despite any evidence to the contrary.
It also appears he is calling Reformed Christians neo-orthodox.

Tom]]> Sat, 27 Apr 2013 00:49:41 CDT http://www.the-highway.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/49694/Re_Is_man_required_to_choose_i.html#Post49694 Posted by Greg Bowman:
Amen Bob..]]> Fri, 26 Apr 2013 01:36:14 CDT http://www.the-highway.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/49685/Re_Charles_Leiter_Paul_Washer_.html#Post49685 Posted by Cranmer:
Since Romans 7 comes between chapter 6 and 8 it would be hard to see how this fits with a pre-conversion testimony of Paul. That is an argument of the Arminians and the perfectionists, imo.

Frankly, the whole "Lordship salvation" think smacks of Arminianism and perfectionism. Arminianism must lower the demands of God's moral law so that it can appear more holy than it actually is. But the standard God requires is one that is impossible to meet.

That's why sanctification could never be the basis for salvation or justification. That is not to say that sanctification is optional. It isn't. Those who are in open sin should be disciplined by the church. Those who are secretly in sin will be disciplined by God if they are truly elect. And those who never repent and die in that condition reveal themselves as reprobates.

But the bottom line here is that the worst Christian is saved while the most holy Muslim, Buddhist or Catholic is lost. That's because only the cross of Christ (...)]]> Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:07:01 CDT http://www.the-highway.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/49678/Re_Roman_Catholicism_and_salva.html#Post49678 Posted by Cranmer:
First of all, I would agree that salvation is three fold: 1) We are saved. There is an initial decision to follow Christ and a beginning point where we become disciples of Christ and students of the whole counsel of God in all the Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation. 2) We are being saved. That is, salvation is also a growing in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Sanctification is always imperfect, however. (2 Peter 3:18; Philippians 3:9-11; John 17:17). 3) We shall be saved. No one knows absolutely that they are "elect". That is, we believe we are saved and our assurance partly comes from good works. But we will not be ultimately and finally saved until we are glorified at the hour of our death. To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.

All that being said, the problem with Rome is that Rome confuses justification with sanctification. I take it that reason you are also confused here is that the preaching you are (...)]]> Mon, 22 Apr 2013 15:29:47 CDT http://www.the-highway.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/49665/Re_Satan_and_the_Serpent_in_th.html#Post49665 Posted by Kodiak:
Well, I am not certain of the specific answers of each question. The context does not answer the question clearly. It seems at least to show the following:

Two names are applied to this creature in the garden. Satan (later in scripture) and the serpent (in the current context). That does not necessarily mean there are two different creatures, only one creature with two names. The creature seems to be addressed as one and cursed as one by God.

Unless, Satan is indeed now a serpent that runs along on the ground on his belly, which was part of the curse, there must have been more than one entity present. On the other hand, maybe that is the case and has been Satan's basic form (a serpent) since the fall. Is there any place in scripture that would teach the Devils basic form is something else other than a serpent? He may have the ability to be a "shapeshifter" so to speak, but perhaps must always default to a serpent form because of the curse.

That might be the best I can surmise at (...)]]> Mon, 22 Apr 2013 09:13:23 CDT