Travel to the Highway home page and read our many fine articles and view the links to other sites by clicking on the blue The Highway logo in the upper right hand corner of this page.
Rod -:- Inspired
-:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 12:56:37 (PDT)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: Biblico-Theologico Approach -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 13:51:48 (PDT)
__ Tom -:- Thanks -:- Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 14:53:54 (PDT)
Rod -:- The Infirm Man
-:- Wed, May 31, 2000 at 09:56:36 (PDT)
_ john hampshire -:- Re: The Infirm Man
-:- Wed, May 31, 2000 at 17:31:48 (PDT)
john hampshire -:- Tres Dias
-:- Tues, May 30, 2000 at 23:05:45 (PDT)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: Tres Dias
-:- Wed, May 31, 2000 at 08:02:43 (PDT)
_ stan -:- Re:
Tres Dias -:- Wed, May 31, 2000 at 07:17:55
(PDT)
Mark -:- The T in TULIP
-:- Tues, May 23, 2000 at 20:06:34 (PDT)
_ Rod -:- Re: The T in TULIP
-:- Thurs, May 25, 2000 at 13:06:00 (PDT)
__ Pilgrim -:- Re:
The T in TULIP -:- Thurs, May 25, 2000
at 15:22:32 (PDT)
___ Rod -:- Exactly -:- Thurs, May 25, 2000 at 17:23:53 (PDT)
____ Rod -:- Re:
Exactly -:- Fri, May 26, 2000 at 02:15:20
(PDT)
_____ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Exactly -:- Fri, May 26, 2000 at 08:57:27
(PDT)
______ Anne -:- Re:
Exactly -:- Fri, May 26, 2000 at 10:42:52
(PDT)
_______ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Exactly -:- Fri, May 26, 2000 at 13:36:08
(PDT)
_ GRACE2Me -:- Re:
The T in TULIP -:- Wed, May 24, 2000
at 14:32:03 (PDT)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re:
The T in TULIP -:- Wed, May 24, 2000
at 08:11:58 (PDT)
_ john hampshire -:- Re:
The T in TULIP -:- Tues, May 23, 2000
at 22:19:52 (PDT)
__ laz -:- Re:
The T in TULIP -:- Wed, May 24, 2000
at 07:17:33 (PDT)
freegrace -:- Rutherford is Right..! -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 12:49:22 (PDT)
_ GRACE2Me -:- Re: Rutherford is Right..! -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 13:50:10 (PDT)
_ Rod -:- The
simple truth -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at
12:53:58 (PDT)
__ freegrace -:- Re:
The simple truth -:- Sat, May 20, 2000
at 13:11:34 (PDT)
___ Pilgrim -:- †
WARNING!! † — to Freegrace -:- Sat, May
20, 2000 at 18:10:10 (PDT)
____ freegrace -:- 2
Cor. 5:21 -:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 18:56:58
(PDT)
_____ john hampshire -:- Re: 2 Cor. 5:21 -:- Sun, May
21, 2000 at 05:17:37 (PDT)
______ Rod -:- Re:
2 Cor. 5:21 -:- Sun, May 21, 2000 at
14:15:42 (PDT)
______ freegrace -:- Re: 2 Cor. 5:21 -:- Sun, May
21, 2000 at 10:34:30 (PDT)
___ john hampshire -:- Re: The simple truth -:- Sat,
May 20, 2000 at 18:09:36 (PDT)
____ freegrace -:- Re:
The simple truth -:- Sat, May 20, 2000
at 18:27:25 (PDT)
freegrace -:- Charles Finney
-:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 06:49:59 (PDT)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: Charles Finney
-:- Sat, May 20, 2000 at 12:36:53 (PDT)
__ freegrace -:- Re:
Charles Finney -:- Sat, May 20, 2000
at 13:06:59 (PDT)
___ Anne -:- Re:
Charles Finney -:- Sat, May 20, 2000
at 14:23:24 (PDT)
Tom -:- Freegrace
-:- Mon, May 15, 2000 at 23:56:51 (PDT)
_ freegrace -:- Re: Freegrace
-:- Tues, May 16, 2000 at 04:19:22 (PDT)
__ laz -:- Re:
Freegrace -:- Tues, May 16, 2000 at 04:55:50
(PDT)
___ Just a question -:- Re: Freegrace -:- Tues, May
16, 2000 at 06:22:23 (PDT)
____ freegrace -:- Re:
Heart . and Mind.. -:- Tues, May 16,
2000 at 12:17:58 (PDT)
_____ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Heart . and Mind.. -:- Tues, May 16,
2000 at 12:44:16 (PDT)
___ freegrace -:- Re:
Freegrace -:- Tues, May 16, 2000 at 05:27:35
(PDT)
____ Eric -:- Answer
this freegrace... -:- Tues, May 16, 2000
at 07:38:24 (PDT)
_____ freegrace -:- Re: Answer this freegrace...
-:- Tues, May 16, 2000 at 12:30:03 (PDT)
Eric -:- Help needed
-:- Wed, May 03, 2000 at 09:45:53 (PDT)
_ Rod -:- Re: Help needed
-:- Wed, May 03, 2000 at 13:24:45 (PDT)
__ Tom -:- Re:
Help needed -:- Wed, May 03, 2000 at
14:39:02 (PDT)
_ laz -:- Re:
Help needed -:- Wed, May 03, 2000 at
09:58:28 (PDT)
__ john hampshire -:- Re: Help needed -:- Wed, May
03, 2000 at 15:18:50 (PDT)
___ Eric -:- For
john hampshire -:- Thurs, May 04, 2000
at 07:47:45 (PDT)
Jennifer -:- Faith
-:- Mon, May 01, 2000 at 10:30:55 (PDT)
_ john hampshire -:- Re: Faith -:-
Wed, May 03, 2000 at 06:33:47 (PDT)
_ Eric -:- Re:
Faith -:- Mon, May 01, 2000 at 13:42:59
(PDT)
__ Chris -:- Re:
Faith -:- Tues, May 02, 2000 at 21:41:00
(PDT)
_ laz -:- Re:
Faith -:- Mon, May 01, 2000 at 12:37:02
(PDT)
laz -:- Grown Daughters
-:- Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 07:30:22 (PDT)
_ GRACE2Me -:- Re: Grown Daughters
-:- Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 20:48:51 (PDT)
__ laz -:- Re:
Grown Daughters -:- Sun, Apr 30, 2000
at 07:06:07 (PDT)
___ Anne -:- Re:
Grown Daughters -:- Sun, Apr 30, 2000
at 18:45:37 (PDT)
____ laz -:- Re:
Grown Daughters -:- Sun, Apr 30, 2000
at 20:32:48 (PDT)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Grown Daughters -:- Sun, Apr 30, 2000
at 07:37:56 (PDT)
____ laz -:- Re:
Grown Daughters -:- Sun, Apr 30, 2000
at 18:13:27 (PDT)
____ GRACE2Me -:- Re:
Grown Daughters -:- Sun, Apr 30, 2000
at 13:17:40 (PDT)
_____ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Grown Daughters -:- Sun, Apr 30, 2000
at 17:01:28 (PDT)
______ Five Sola -:- Re:
Grown Daughters -:- Sun, Apr 30, 2000
at 19:37:35 (PDT)
_______ Pilgrim -:- Re:
Grown Daughters -:- Sun, Apr 30, 2000
at 21:08:23 (PDT)
________ Five Sola -:- Re: Grown Daughters -:- Sun,
Apr 30, 2000 at 21:30:24 (PDT)
_________ Tom -:- We
live in igloos too n/t -:- Fri, May 12,
2000 at 00:34:29 (PDT)
_________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Grown Daughters -:- Mon,
May 01, 2000 at 11:55:30 (PDT)
__________ Tom -:- Re:
Grown Daughters -:- Mon, May 01, 2000
at 12:57:52 (PDT)
___________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Grown Daughters -:- Mon,
May 01, 2000 at 17:01:15 (PDT)
____________ Tom -:- Re: Grown Daughters -:- Mon,
May 01, 2000 at 20:01:47 (PDT)
_____________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Grown Daughters -:- Mon,
May 01, 2000 at 21:23:02 (PDT)
______________ Tom -:- Re: Grown Daughters -:- Tues,
May 02, 2000 at 12:05:53 (PDT)
_______________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Grown Daughters -:- Tues,
May 02, 2000 at 12:23:51 (PDT)
________________ Tom -:- Re: Grown Daughters -:- Tues,
May 02, 2000 at 13:15:20 (PDT)
_________________ laz -:- Re: Grown Daughters -:- Tues,
May 02, 2000 at 13:28:28 (PDT)
__________________ Tom -:- Re: Grown Daughters -:- Tues,
May 02, 2000 at 13:45:55 (PDT)
________________ laz -:- Re: Grown Daughters -:- Tues,
May 02, 2000 at 12:31:55 (PDT)
_________________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Grown Daughters -:- Tues,
May 02, 2000 at 19:29:38 (PDT)
__________________ Tom -:- Re: Grown Daughters -:- Tues,
May 02, 2000 at 23:28:33 (PDT)
___________________ Rod -:- Re: Grown Daughters -:- Wed,
May 03, 2000 at 00:12:21 (PDT)
____________________ Tom -:- Re: Grown Daughters -:- Wed,
May 03, 2000 at 10:23:55 (PDT)
_____________________ Rod -:- authority in the local church
-:- Wed, May 03, 2000 at 13:17:13 (PDT)
______________________ Pilgrim -:- Re: authority in the local church -:- Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:42:01 (PDT)
______________________ Tom -:- Re: authority in the local church
-:- Wed, May 03, 2000 at 14:56:49 (PDT)
_______________________ Rod -:- Re: authority in the local church
-:- Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:18:48 (PDT)
________________________ laz -:- Re: authority in the local church
-:- Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:23:38 (PDT)
_________________________ Rod -:- Re: authority in the local church -:- Wed, May 03, 2000 at 21:37:18 (PDT)
__________________________ laz -:- Re: authority in the local church -:- Thurs, May 04, 2000 at 04:51:15 (PDT)
______ laz -:- Re:
Grown Daughters -:- Sun, Apr 30, 2000
at 17:58:18 (PDT)
_______ Tom -:- Re:
Grown Daughters -:- Mon, May 08, 2000
at 13:20:30 (PDT)
________ laz -:- Re:
Grown Daughters -:- Mon, May 08, 2000
at 19:24:59 (PDT)
_________ Tom -:- Re:
Grown Daughters -:- Tues, May 09, 2000
at 00:23:27 (PDT)
_ Tom -:- Re:
Grown Daughters -:- Sat, Apr 29, 2000
at 10:36:42 (PDT)
__ laz -:- Re:
Grown Daughters -:- Sat, Apr 29, 2000
at 10:39:42 (PDT)
___ Tom -:- Re:
Grown Daughters -:- Sat, Apr 29, 2000
at 10:50:59 (PDT)
____ laz -:- Re:
Grown Daughters -:- Sat, Apr 29, 2000
at 14:40:02 (PDT)
_____ john hampshire -:- Re: Grown Daughters -:- Sat,
Apr 29, 2000 at 22:45:35 (PDT)
______ laz -:- Re:
Grown Daughters -:- Sun, Apr 30, 2000
at 06:59:30 (PDT)
_______ Tom -:- Weaker
Sex -:- Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 07:38:34
(PDT)
________ laz -:- Re:
Weaker Sex -:- Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 18:00:43
(PDT)
_________ john hampshire -:- Re: Weaker Sex -:- Mon, May
01, 2000 at 04:26:16 (PDT)
__________ Anne -:- John,
may I copy/paste a part of this? -:-
Mon, May 01, 2000 at 06:15:05 (PDT)
__________ Anne -:- Re:
Weaker Sex -:- Mon, May 01, 2000 at 05:49:12
(PDT)
___________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Weaker Sex -:- Mon, May
01, 2000 at 07:30:31 (PDT)
____________ john hampshire -:- Re: Weaker Sex -:- Tues, May
02, 2000 at 06:36:17 (PDT)
_____________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Weaker Sex -:- Tues, May
02, 2000 at 07:57:44 (PDT)
______________ laz -:- Re: Weaker Sex -:- Tues, May
02, 2000 at 11:02:32 (PDT)
_______________ john hampshire -:- Re: Weaker Sex
-:- Wed, May 03, 2000 at 05:59:53 (PDT)
________________ Rod -:- Re: Weaker Sex -:- Wed, May
03, 2000 at 16:11:30 (PDT)
________________ Tom -:- Re: Weaker Sex -:- Wed, May
03, 2000 at 10:30:37 (PDT)
_________________ laz -:- Re: Weaker Sex -:- Wed, May
03, 2000 at 11:40:05 (PDT)
__________________ Tom -:- Re: Weaker Sex -:- Wed, May
03, 2000 at 15:14:00 (PDT)
_________________ john hampshire -:- Re: Weaker Sex
-:- Thurs, May 04, 2000 at 04:02:25 (PDT)
__________________ laz -:- Re: Weaker Sex -:- Thurs, May
04, 2000 at 20:27:39 (PDT)
__________________ Anne -:- Re: Weaker Sex -:- Thurs, May
04, 2000 at 05:43:05 (PDT)
___________________ Rod -:- the sinfulness of sin -:- Thurs,
May 04, 2000 at 07:57:00 (PDT)
____________________ Pilgrim -:- Re: the sinfulness of sin -:- Thurs, May 04, 2000 at 12:45:08 (PDT)
_____________________ Rod -:- 'The Love Book' -:- Thurs,
May 04, 2000 at 12:54:26 (PDT)
______________________ john hampshire -:- Re: 'The Love Book'
-:- Fri, May 05, 2000 at 00:25:02 (PDT)
_______________________ Pilgrim -:- Re: 'The Love Book'
-:- Fri, May 05, 2000 at 07:46:11 (PDT)
________________________ Rod -:- Re: 'The Love Book' -:- Fri,
May 05, 2000 at 11:36:13 (PDT)
_________________________ laz -:- Re: 'The Love Book'
-:- Fri, May 05, 2000 at 13:01:33 (PDT)
_________________________ Pilgrim -:- Re: 'The Love Book'
-:- Fri, May 05, 2000 at 12:50:24 (PDT)
__________________________ Rod -:- Re: 'The Love Book'
-:- Fri, May 05, 2000 at 13:07:06 (PDT)
____________ Anne -:- Re: Weaker Sex -:- Mon, May
01, 2000 at 08:48:20 (PDT)
Subject: Inspired From: Rod To: All Date Posted:
Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 12:56:37 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
In John P's objections to restricting singing in the chruches, his
central argument seems to be that only the OT Psaltry contains inspred
songs. As such, the psalms are the exclusive songs, hymns, what
have you, to be voiced in the public worship. All others are to
be avoided as they do not come directly from the Lord God. If that
were indeed true, it seems to me that we would also have to restrict
preaching and teaching severely, curtailing all but the inspired
messages contained in the Word of God. That principle, carried to
that extreme would mean that 'preaching' would consist solely of
Bible reading or recitation of memorized passages, no exegesis,
no illustrations, no further comment. Only then could we be certain
that the messages delivered were inspired, containing no error,
for there are no inspired preachers/writers today. Yet we routinely
accept that men may speak concerning the Scriptures in sermons and
lessons, without being confined to mere quotation. Since the purpose
of hymns is both to glorify our God and to inform the singer/reader,
there seems to be no practical difference between singing hymns
based on Scripture and its principles and listening to a sermon prepared by an uninspired man
who bases his message on the prayerful seeking of the exact meaning
of Scripture.
Subject: Re: Biblico-Theologico Approach From: Pilgrim
To: Rod Date Posted:
Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 13:51:48 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Rod, Amen!, brother.
A Biblical-theological understanding
of the unfolding character of the history of redemption will see
new songs and hymns composed with each chapter of God’s plan. When
God executes His wrath or grace, it is time to compose new songs
which celebrate these covenantal acts of God. This is why new songs
are to be found in the historical books, before the Psalms and in
the prophetic books after the Psalms. The mighty acts of God in
every generation were put to music and sung. The people of God had
the freedom to write new songs to praise God; they were never restricted
to the Psalms. a. What did the people of God do before David was
born? They composed songs as Miriam (Exod.15:20), Moses (Ps. 90)
and Deborah (Judg. 5) did to celebrate the acts of God in their
generations. b. How did David come to write the Psalms? There was
no divine command for him to write the Psalms for worship services.
Many of the Psalms were written for David’s personal edification
when he was yet a shepherd boy. He had musical gifts and he had
the freedom to exercise them in the public worship of God. If a
sole psalmist would have been present when David introduced a few
of his original songs into the worship service, he would have rejected
David’s songs because Moses’ Psalm (Ps. 90) was the only Psalm which
could have been sung. c. The presence of other authors included
in the Psalms suggests that whoever had the gifts could exercise
them for the good of God’s people. (See 1 Chron.15:22, where David
hires a song writer, or 1 Chron.16, where David encouraged the priests
to compose original vocal and instrumental music to praise God.
d. After David, songs were composed to celebrate God’s mighty acts
in each generation. (For example, see lsa. 5:1; 26:1; 42:10; Lamentations,
etc.) To be sure, the people of God did not forget all the acts
of God in ages past; they continued to sing all the old songs and
hymns and Psalms from every generation. e. Even a careful reading
of the Psalms will discover some Psalms which were written long after David. Some are
even from the post-exile period. If the people of God were limited
to David’s Psalms, why do we find Psalms from later periods included?
The only answer is that the Psalms of David were not viewed as being
the finalized hymnbook for the church. f. Finally, where in the
Old Testament do we ever find a divine command to sing only the
Psalms? There are examples of psalm singing but God never said to
restrict ourselves to the Psalms. We are told to remember the acts
of God in past generations but also we are told by God to sing new
songs to celebrate the acts of God in our own generation (Pss. 33:3;
96:1; 98:1; etc.). The History of Redemption
in the New Testament has the same unfolding character as the Old
Testament. 1. The angels open up the age
of the New Covenant with new songs, not old Psalms (Luke 2:13-14).
These new songs celebrate the incarnation and the redemptive work
of God the Son. It is apparent from the very beginning that the
New Covenant will generate new songs of praise. 2. Mary celebrated
God’s work within her by composing a glorious song of faith and
confidence (Luke 1:46-55). Thus we begin the New Testament with
original songs composed to celebrate the new acts of God in Christ
Jesus. 3. Did not the crowds compose a new song to celebrate the
triumphant entry of Jesus into Jerusalem (Luke 19:37-38)? 4. Do
we not find portions of several hymns recorded in the New Testament
which show us that the early Christians composed new songs to celebrate
the salvation accomplished by Jesus Christ? (cf. 1Cor 13; Eph 5:14;
Col 1:15-20; 1Tim 3:16; 2Tim 2:11-14; Jam 1:17; Rev 1:5, 6; 15:3;
etc.) 5. Did not the Corinthian Christians compose their own distinctively
Christian songs when they shared with their fellow saints in public
worship (1 Cor. 14:26)? 6. As the New Testament begins with angelic
songs, so it closes with heavenly songs. It is important to ask,
Are they singing only the Psalms? No! They sing new songs to God
(Rev. 4:11; 5:9-14, etc.). The New Testament people had the freedom
to compose new songs to celebrate the covenantal acts of God in
their own generation. 7. Are we told in the New Testament to restrict
ourselves to singing the Psalms in church services? No. There is
not a single verse in the New Testament where we are-told to sing
the Psalms, and only the Psalms, in the public worship of the gathered
church.
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim
Subject: Thanks From: Tom To: Pilgrim Date Posted:
Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 14:53:54 (PDT) Email Address:ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Thanks Rod and Pilgrim :-) I agree with you, unless God should shows
me otherwise through His word. I think I am satified with the information
I have read so far, to be reasonable sure on what to believe about
the issue. I concider John. P to be a very dear brother in the Lord,
but I will have to agree to disagree with him on this issue. I hope
after he reads this post he feels the same way about me. Tom
Subject: The Infirm Man From: Rod To: All Date Posted:
Wed, May 31, 2000 at 09:56:36 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
To all: I'd be interested in your thoughts. How do you assess the
'infirm' man of John 5:1-16? What are the indications of his character,
both before and after being healed?
Subject: Re: The Infirm Man From: john hampshire
To: Rod Date Posted:
Wed, May 31, 2000 at 17:31:48 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
His character? Not much to go on. He was sick, too weak to move
quickly. He was despairing, perhaps feeling in need of pity. He
had no one to put him in the water. I suppose Jesus used this pool
because it suitably represented the reason He was sent. Bethesda
= 'house of mercy' or 'flowing water', certainly Jesus is the house
of mercy out of which living water flows. He picked the sick man
to heal because He was 1) One of the elect 2) infirmed 38 years
3) Unable to help himself 4) a good example of salvation 5) It was
the Sabbath and the Jews would be suitably angry 6) He planned to
use this event to increase the rage that would lead to His death
7) He could use this event to speak to the multitudes about the
Father. After being healed the man was in the temple. Jesus warns
him to sin not, lest something worse than his earlier infirmities
fall upon him. As in: Heb 10:29 'How much severer (worse) punishment
do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son
of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by
which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?'
The part of this account that I find remarkable is the account of
the messenger of the Lord that would in certain seasons trouble
the water allowing the first in to be healed. I have read that the
troubling may have been subterraneous gas bubbles. It would seem
that people thought that it was a messenger of the Lord, rather
than actually an angel. If people were actually healed of all kinds
of infirmities then it must have been a miracle just as stated.
But I still have problem with spirit-beings stirring physical water.
And for what purpose? It is an inconsistent idea that angels heal
people. I must contend, having just convinced myself, that it was
'thought' there might be healings available at the pool, and many
believed that if they went into the pool after seeing bubbles (assumed
to be from God since all healing is from God) they would be healed.
Sound more like superstition than reality; attributed to angels
by the sick. I would think the sick man had placed his faith in
a superstition, yet Christ showed him where the reality was. I will
assume this one sick man, out of a multitude of sickly people was
God's elected one, and after the healing he was healed both spiritually
and physically. The warning to “sin not” seems not unique to that
man, but applies to all. Though the man was healed spiritually (I
assume), he was not exempt from living in obedience to God, which
should be his inner-desire. There is no way for the sick man to
know he was spiritually healed except he 'sin not'. And perhaps,
his earlier sin involved drinking or sexual immorality that resulted
in his 'sickness'. john
Subject: Tres Dias From: john hampshire
To: All Date Posted:
Tues, May 30, 2000 at 23:05:45 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Anyone familiar with the Tres Dias program? Theology is non-demoninational
supposedly reaching out to all Christians or searchers. Any concerns
with this organization? john
Subject: Re: Tres Dias From: Pilgrim
To: john hampshire
Date Posted:
Wed, May 31, 2000 at 08:02:43 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Anyone familiar with the Tres Dias program? Theology is non-demoninational
supposedly reaching out to all Christians or searchers. Any concerns
with this organization? john
--- John,
Here's a quote from the web site
Stan referenced, and found in their 'Essentials of Tres Dias'
TRES DIAS is based
on the principles, the method, and the teachings of the Roman
Catholic Cursillo movement initially proposed by Bishop Juan
Hervas, Eduardo Bonnin and their fellow Christians. Each candidate
goes through three phases of the TRES DIAS movement: the pre-weekend,
the three-day weekend1 and the Fourth Day. TRES DIAS is a Christian
ecumenical movement.
Enough said? hahaha
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Tres Dias From: stan To: john hampshire
Date Posted:
Wed, May 31, 2000 at 07:17:55 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
http://www.tresdias.org/
Subject: God's plans for the reprobate? From: Anne To: All Date Posted:
Tues, May 30, 2000 at 17:14:06 (PDT) Email Address:anneivy@home.com
Message:
Okay, riddle me this . . . . . I've been reading 'Knowing God' by
J. I. Packer and he is talking about the plans God has for us, His
adoptive children. But this set me thinking . . . . since God is
omnipotent and omniscient, doesn't He, for all practical purposes,
have a 'plan' for all His creatures, both elect and otherwise? How,
precisely, do our
plans differ from those of the reprobate, except in our eventual
eternal destinations? Anne
Subject: Re: God's plans for the reprobate? From: Pilgrim
To: Anne Date Posted:
Tues, May 30, 2000 at 17:36:58 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Okay, riddle me this . . . . . I've been reading 'Knowing God' by
J. I. Packer and he is talking about the plans God has for us, His
adoptive children. But this set me thinking . . . . since God is
omnipotent and omniscient, doesn't He, for all practical purposes,
have a 'plan' for all His creatures, both elect and otherwise? How,
precisely, do our
plans differ from those of the reprobate, except in our eventual
eternal destinations? Anne
--- Anne,
One major thing that differs between
God's 'plan' for the elect and His 'plan' for the reprobate, is
that 'all things work together for good to them that love God, to
them who are the called according to his purpose.' Within this 'all
things' is also meant our Sanctification. We are always being 'conformed
to the image of Christ' (Rom 8:29), made 'partakers of the divine
nature' (Joh 1:12; 2Pet 1:4), and are destined to receive 'the inheritance
of the saints' (Col 1:12; cf. Eph 1:11, 14, 18; Heb 9:15; 1Pet 1:4).
In other words, after we have been made 'right' for heaven (Justification),
we are then made 'fit' for heaven (Sanctification). :-)
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: God's plans for the reprobate? From: john hampshire
To: all Date Posted:
Tues, May 30, 2000 at 23:46:33 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
How, precisely, do our plans differ from those of the reprobate,
except in our eventual eternal destinations? No doubt our regeneration,
calling, salvation, justification, sanctification, and eventual
glorification differentiate us from the reprobate in a very real
way. Still, God uses all mankind for His purposes, so we fit into
His predetermined plans to the same degree. I think there is merit
in reminding the unrepentant sinner that God indeed has a plan for
him. It just gets sidetracked (distorted) by some into: 'Do you
know God has a plan for your life, He wants you to be saved'. There
is also the insidious distortion for believers too: 'Do you know
God has a plan for your life, He wants you to be ________'. Fill
in the blank with: Happy, healthy, wealthy, victorious, Spirit-filled,
on and on. The implication here is that whatever God's plan may
be, it can be 'activated' or 'altered' if we only ask. Hence, God
has not one plan, but many plans for your life, depending upon your
responses and choices. Or we can say then, based on this type of
theology, God has no plan for your life... YOU are responsible for
all that happens; God is waiting to help empower YOU! john
Subject: Re: God's plans for the reprobate? From: laz To: john hampshire
Date Posted:
Wed, May 31, 2000 at 05:38:10 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
John, you said: Or we can say then, based
on this type of theology, God has no plan for your life... YOU are
responsible for all that happens; God is waiting to help empower
YOU! I agree with your post but wanted
to add in the interest of playing the 'human responsibility' card
(and to head off any charges of determinism/fatalism)...that God
using ways and means known only to Himself, DOES empower us both
to 'will and to do His good pleasure'. blessings, laz
Subject: Psalms, hymns, and Spiritual Songs From: Prestor
John To: All Date Posted:
Mon, May 29, 2000 at 11:33:46 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Hello! yes, I'm at it again, shall Scriptural worship include hymns
or should the church only sing the psalms? Prestor John
Subject: Re: Psalms, hymns, and Spiritual Songs From: ttrails
To: Prestor John
Date Posted:
Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 01:37:22 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Hello! yes, I'm at it again, shall Scriptural worship include hymns
or should the church only sing the psalms? Prestor John
---
-- Well Prestor, I had a huge post going here, but changed my mind.
Hi anyway!
Subject: Re: Psalms, hymns, and Spiritual Songs From: Five Sola
To: Prestor John
Date Posted:
Mon, May 29, 2000 at 20:10:18 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Prestor, I would have to say hymns are acceptable. Unfortunately,
I do not have much scriptural references. Since I grew up in a legalistic
baptist church (fundamentalist) that I get a bit hesitant when exclusivity
is given in any area (I know that some areas would warrant exclusivity
as my handle even indicates :-) ). KJVonly-ism is a black plague
on our churches today, immersion ONLY (sorry my baptist brothers)
is a claim not permitted by scripture, and I would be hesitant in
the area to say Psalms ONLY. Five Sola.
Subject: Re: Psalms, hymns, and Spiritual Songs From: John P.
To: Prestor John
Date Posted:
Mon, May 29, 2000 at 18:06:29 (PDT) Email Address:putz7@msn.com
Message:
(continued) Here are some reasons for believing that the 'psalms,
hymns, and spiritual songs,' found in Col. 3:16 and Eph. 5:19 are
speaking only of the Psalms contained in the Old Testament: (1)
The Old Testament with which those who were apart of the churches
of Ephesus and Colosse were familiar was the Greek translation known
as the Septuagint (LXX). In this translation, we find that the OT
Psalms used interchangeably as their titles the same Greek words that were used by Paul in the two passages
under discussion. For proof, consider the following (by Greg L.
Price):
---
---
---
Begin Quote
---
---
--- b. 'Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs' is a form of Hebrew
parallelism wherein these 3 words do not indicate a distinction
in the content of the song sung, but rather refer to the 3 words
used in the Psalter of the Greek Septuagint (LXX) for the Psalms
authorized by David. This Hebrew parallelism is found in both the
O.T. (e.g. Deut.30:16; Ps.19:7,8) and in the N.T. (e.g. 2 Cor.12:12;
Eph.1:21; Col.1:16,22). The fact that Paul uses one other instance
of parallelism in Eph.5:19 (literally, 'singing and psalming with
your heart to the Lord') seems to give overwhelming evidence that
such was his intent in using psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.
We find the same type of parallelism used in the LXX in Ps.26:6;
Ps.104:2; Ps.107:1 where singing and psalming are used, but no distinction
in the content of song is intended by the two different verbs used.
c. Since the LXX was used throughout the Greek speaking world, the
designations *psalmois* (psalms), *humnois* (hymns), and *odais*
(songs) were familiar expressions for the psalms found in the Psalter.
In Ps.71:20 of the LXX (which is Ps.72:20 in our English version),
all of the previous psalms of David (i.e. Psalms 1-71) are called
'the hymns of David.' Six of the Psalm titles use the word 'hymn'
(*humnos*). Thirty-six of the Psalm titles use the word 'song' (*ode*).
In fact, the title to Ps.75 in the LXX (which is Ps.76 in our English
version) includes all three terms used in Eph.5:19 and Col.3:16:
'For the end, among the Hymns (*humnois*), a Psalm (*psalmos*) for
Asaph; a Song (*ode*) for the Assyrian.' In the titles of the Psalms
(as found in the LXX), all three terms found in Eph.5:19 and Col.3:16
(hymns, psalms, and songs) are used interchangeably: 'a song of
David among the psalms' (Ps.4); 'a psalm of David, a song' (Ps.64);
'a psalm of a song' (Ps.29,47,67,74,86,91); 'a song of a psalm'
(Ps.65,82,87,107); 'a psalm of David among the hymns' (Ps.6,66).
---
---
---
-End Quote
---
---
---
-- Thus, it would not have been ambiguous or confusing to the first
readers of Paul's letter that, when he used the terms, 'psalms,
hymns, and spiritual songs,' he was speaking of the OT Psalms -
He simply gave their titles. (2) Each word individually ought to be considered (in
this context) as speaking of the OT Psalms. For, A. The word 'psalm'
obviously refers to the OT Psalms, and has been interpetted that
way by even many opposers of Exclusive Psalmody. B. The word 'hymn'
was used by the gospel writers to describe the song sung by Jesus
and His disciples during the Passover (Matthew 26:30; Mark 14:26).
It was customary for the Jews to sing during the Passover the 113th
through the 118th Psalms during the Passover ('The Great Hallel');
thus, we would expect that Jesus and His disciples likewise were
probably singing these Psalms, which were recorded in the Gospels
as, 'hymns.' C. The word 'songs' is modified by the adjective 'spiritual.'
Which, in the Greek is *pneumatikos*. This word means 'Spirit inspired'
the other two times it is used to refer to that which is written,
in the New Testament: In Romans 7:14, the law is called spiritual
and the words of scripture are called spiritual in 1 Cor.2:13. Thus,
we have good Biblically warrant to believe these songs are Spirit-inspired
(the Psalms of the OT). (3) The context of the passages intimate
that these, 'psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs' under consideration
are Spirit-inspired Scripture. For, in Colossians 3:16, the apostle
Paul commands us to, 'Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom;' and then he continues
by giving us the means by which we may do this: 'teaching and admonishing
one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, &c.' Thus,
these songs are songs that are to be used as means of letting the
'word of Christ,' or Scripture, dwell in us. Furthermore, all of
those in the church (whether new, and relatively ignorant Christians,
or old, more mature Christians) are here commanded to, 'teach and
admonich' their brethren by means of these songs. If we are to expect
new and conscientious Christians sing in worship - teaching their
brethren in good conscience (when they know so little) what better
means to make their conscience clear than to sing that which God
has inspired? They aren't ordained ministers who have been tested
doctrinally by other lawfully ordained persons before they were
permitted to convey the meaning of Scripture before the people by
means of preaching; thus, they ought not have to 'preach another
man's uninspired (technical sense) song to their brethren when teaching
and admonishing them.' Now, I realize that the objection may arise
that the terms, 'psalms, hymns, and songs,' have been used by pagans
as referring to works other than the OT hymnal. However, from what
is above related to you, I think that possibility is by far too
weak to, with good conscience and in faith (which alone can rest
in God and His word), sing songs other than those given to us in
God's hymnal. And, whatsoever is not of faith, is sin. Love, John
P.
Subject: Re: Psalms, hymns, and Spiritual Songs From: Diacono
To: John P. Date Posted:
Tues, May 30, 2000 at 12:08:21 (PDT) Email Address:diacono@minister.com
Message:
Greetings in Christ John, I think that what we must keep in mind
is Christian liberty. What may be right for me, may be wrong for
you. Paul was clear in teaching this. Personally, I think that if
are to say that the hymns by many writers were not 'spiritual' you'd
have to take another look. The fact that they are not 'Scripture'
does not mean that they are not 'spiritual'. I would be wrong to
agree that hymns are not 'spiritual'. But even more than that, you
have to go the next step. How are we to sing these songs? What kind
of instroments are allowed to be used? Do we cant them, which is
the proper form of 'sining' 'songs'. For the Jews did not actually
sing as the heathens did. Do we only use the trumpet, lute, tamborine
and drum? Can we use the piano? What about a guitar? Is a bass out
of the question? Why, because the Law says not to use any other
instruments? If so, I must ask the next question: Are we still under
the Law? If under the Law, the yes, only psalms may be sung in the
church. But if we are under the Law still, the there is no Church,
because Christ did not fulfil the Law and release us from it. These
are just the idle thinkings of a conservative baptist. I have a
hard time agreeing with anything that calls for absolutes that are
out side of Soteriology and Christology. Do not get me wrong, there
are slew of importants issues out there, but when it comes to absolutes,
and setting down legalistic laws, we really need to take a good
close look at what we are doing, and see if that is in accord with
our Christian liberties. In Christ, Diacono
Subject: Re: Psalms, hymns, and Spiritual Songs From: John P.
To: Diacono Date Posted:
Tues, May 30, 2000 at 17:29:37 (PDT) Email Address:putz7@msn.com
Message:
Greetings to you, too, Diacono: It is nice to see your reply. It
raises some good questions. They primarily concerned my first point
in the shorter of my emails. I wrote, 'First, we must have warrant
from the Word of God for doing what we do in worship (aside from
circumstantials). (Deuteronomy 12:32; Lev. 10:1-3; Mark 7:7; John
4:19-24; Colossians 2:23; &c.) This is necessary a necessary
[Typo] understanding of worship before it is even worth discussing.'
Whereas I began with the claim that we must have Scriptural warrant
for all that we do in public worship, your claim is that we can
do whatever we wish - or will - to do. My claim is that any position
which says that we can do whatever we care to in worship is what
the Bible calls, 'will worship' (Col. 2:23 AV). There is a lot I
could write in defense of this, however, I will only use four passages
to prove that we cannot do whatever we desire in worship (two OT
and two NT). If you desire more, I recommend that you read a wonderful
(short) book on worship by Kevin Reed. It is free on the Internet
at the following address: <http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/BibW_ch0.htm> For now, however, consider the four passages I said
I would use: From the Old Testament: (1) Deuteronomy 12:32, 'What
thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add
therto, nor diminish from it.' This passage is in the context of
the laws of the sanctuary; or, in other words, God is commanding
the people of Israel to, when they enter the promised land, not worship God after the manner of the heathen (v30). So, after forbidding that the Israelites worship
God to use the heathen means of worship to worship Him, He gave
them a positive duty commanding them how
exactly they were to worship Him.
This manner of worshipping Him was to not add their own desired
ways of worshipping Him, nor to take away from His commanded means.
If you read the context, you will see this. This passage is not
speaking of Sola Scriptura even though Sola Scriptura certainly is true. Rather, it is speaking of how we are
to worship God. (2) Leviticus 10:1-3, 'And Nadab and Abihu, the
sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein,
and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD,
which he commanded them not. And there went out fire from the LORD,
and devoured them, and they died before the LORD. Then Moses said
unto Aaron, This is it that the LORD spake, saying, I will be sanctified
in them that come nigh me, and before all the people I will be glorified.
And Aaron held his peace.' This passage is an application of the
command of God given in Deut. 12:32. Nadab and Abihu have decided
to worship God by offering Him strange fire. God was displeased
with this worship so vehemently, that He devoured them with fire
from heaven. This ought to make us ask (with trembling), 'What,
then, was it that made this fire strange?' The details of what made
the fire strange can be debated, however, we know this much: They did something in worship which wasn't commanded. For, the text says of the strange fire that, '[God]
had not commanded [it of] them.' (NAS - bracketed portions mine;
I chose the NAS version here because modern English helps draw out
the meaning in this text). Thus, God is serious about the manner
in which He is worshipped. New Testament passages: (3) Mark 7:7,
'Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the
commandments of men.' Here, Jesus reiterates the doctrine propogated
in Deuteronomy 12:32, showing its moral perpetuity in the NT. For,
if it is vain worship to worship after the teachings and commandments
of men, and traditions too (seen in the subsequent verses), then,
by process of elimination, we either have to be commanded by God,
angels, brute beasts, or beings of whom we know nothing. Unless
were Mormons or enthusiasts, we don't get our worship from 'angels';
Unless we are over-environmentalists, we don't believe animals have
any part in worship (and even if we were super-environmentalists,
animals wouldn't teach us how to worship; they would be the object
of it); and we certainly don't care about the commands of beings
which may exist of whom we know not a thing (nor do most of us believe
in any such thing). That leaves us with the necessity of having
God's command if we desire our worship not to be 'vain.' (4) Hebrews
9:1, 'Then verily the first covenant had also
ordinances of divine service, and
a worldly sanctuary.' (emphasis added) In this passage, we find
a couple important things: A. There were ordinances (*dikaioma*
- which has the force of laws) of divine service (*latreia* - which refers to worship)
in the First (or Old) Covenant. B. Not only were there these laws
or ordinances of divine worship in the Old Covenant, the word, 'also,'
is used to describe these ordinances or laws of worship. Now, that
word intimates what? that something else
of the like kind as the first *covenant* also has laws of worship. Conveniently,
the immediate context (ch. 8) speaks of the second (or New) covenant.
Thus, the New Covenant also has laws or ordinances of worship. Concerning instruments,
I don't have time to get into the details. However, we do believe
they are regulated by God, and that (as the faithful reformers and
early church fathers believed) they are not to be used at all in
public worship in the New Covenant. Our reasn is precisely because we are no longer under the Law. Please, however,
since I don't have time to discuss more than one thread at a time
(maybe two if one is easier - like the Watts thread), send me an
email and I will send you Internet sources that will permit you
to study this on your own. Then, maybe later, you can post your
objections and I will respond with a Biblical defense. Please understand
that I would love to have time to do this all day, but I simply
don't. Love, John P. PS - Christian liberty is the liberty to obey
God in simplicity of faith; thus, the church didn't have the liberty
to add to worship whatever they desired. In fact, I suppose that
there would even come a point where (as Tom H. wisely intimated)
even you would limit others liberty. For instance, I'd suspect you
wouldn't permit cookies and soda for the Lord's Supper, or oils
for baptism. Thus, you are either determining how everyone else
is to wroship God according to your own counsel and rule, or you
must submit to the fact that God alone has the right to command
how He is served in worship.
Subject: Re: Psalms, hymns, and Spiritual Songs From: Tom.H To: Diacono Date Posted:
Tues, May 30, 2000 at 13:23:51 (PDT) Email Address:ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Diacono Although I agree that Paul talks about Christian liberty.
He also uses it (Christian liberty) in a context. What I would like
to ask you is, can you show me from scripture, how we can apply
our Christian liberty to worship? Also if it can, to what extent
are we allowed to take that? Would you say that Christian liberty
even applies to contempory worship, where rock music is being used
in the worship of God? Tom
Subject: Re: Psalms, hymns, and Spiritual Songs From: Diacono
To: Tom.H Date Posted:
Wed, May 31, 2000 at 06:49:59 (PDT) Email Address:diacono@minister.com
Message:
Diacono Although I agree that Paul talks about Christian liberty.
He also uses it (Christian liberty) in a context. What I would like
to ask you is, can you show me from scripture, how we can apply
our Christian liberty to worship? Also if it can, to what extent
are we allowed to take that? Would you say that Christian liberty
even applies to contempory worship, where rock music is being used
in the worship of God? Tom Tom, Let me start by quoting Paul in
his letter to the Romans. “For one believeth that he may eat all
thing; another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth
despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateh not judge
him that eateth; for god hat received him…. It is good neither to
eat flesh nor to drink wine nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth,
or is offended, or is made weak. Hast thou faith? Have it to thyself
before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing
which he alloweth. And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because
he eatheth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.”
(Rm.14:2-3,21-23) Realizing of course that the particular context
here is eating meat, the application goes beyond that, even into
musical worship with song in the church. The argument has been made
previously that ‘whatsoever is not of faith is sin.’ But the context
only partly supports that statement. Partly insomuch as the believer
does not doubt that which he is doing, that he has faith that he
is right before God in what he does. Paul speaks to one of the most
controversial issues between Jewish and Gentile believers, that
of eating meat, unclean meat at that. We all recall the rebuke that
Paul gave to Peter for removing himself, and thus many other Jews,
from eating with Gentiles. The reason for this is that the Gentile
believers were eating things unclean to a Jew. Christ Himself said
that it is not what man eats that makes him unclean but that whish
comes out of his heart (and this all because the disciples didn’t
wash their hands before eating). We all would heartily agree that
eating meat, whether it be fish, chicken, beef or pork is of no
consequence. Paul speaks specifically of meat offered to idols in
1 Cor. 10. The warning of eating food offered to idols here is not
for the conscience of the believer, but that of the other. If eating
the food will offend another, then for his sake, don’t eat it. Paul
did not instruct the Romans or the Corinthians to stop eating meat.
For that matter, he didn’t tell them to stop using any particular
kind of music in their worship either. The non-Jewish believers
would not have known the old Psalms, neither would their song pattern
be like that of Jews. In fact, of all the instructions that the
Jerusalem council could have given to the Gentiles, they limited
it to “abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and
from things strangled, and from fornication.” As we have already
seen, the eating of meat is not a mandate because it is a sin, but
because of the offense that it would cause to the Jewish believers.
Where then is the forbidding of Roman music in church? It is not
there. Surely Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, would have instructed
them as to what type of songs are appropriate for worship. In fact,
it is believe (and enough research to prove) that Paul himself either
authored, or used portions of doxologies and early hymns in his
letters. These could not have been the Psalms to which he was referring
to in ‘psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.’ The key to Christian
liberty as applied to worship, especially corporate worship is this,
do you doubt what you are doing? Do you have faith that what you
are doing is right in God’s eyes. If the question be applied to
up beat music, to worship songs, to hymns and songs not written
in the Psalms, I can say yes. There is no convection in me, and
thus no condemnation in such. If one finds fault, or is offended
by such music in church, then that person needs to find another
church that fits his acceptance in worship. It is not sin for the
chuch is worshiping in true faith, and doubts not. I’m sure that
this just opens up more questions. My reply is not meant to be a
treatise in defense of my particular feelings on musical worship
in church. How a church worships is between them and God alone.
In Christ, Diacono
Subject: Re: Psalms, hymns, and Spiritual Songs From: John P.
To: Prestor John
Date Posted:
Mon, May 29, 2000 at 18:06:12 (PDT) Email Address:putz7@msn.com
Message:
Greetings: Scriptural worship must only include Psalms. The chief
passages from the New Testament which can be brought forth as witnesses
against exclusive Psalmody are the two alluded to by Prestor in
his Subject for this message: Colossians 3:16 and Ephesians 5:19. What I am arguing
is that these passages are speaking only of the God-breathed Psalm
book recorded in the Old Testament, under the titles of, 'pslams,
hymns, and spiritual songs.' How does one get that? I will answer
that in the next post. However, for the moment, I will just lay
out my claims: (1) First, we must have warrant from the Word of
God for doing what we do in worship (aside from circumstantials).
(Deuteronomy 12:32; Lev. 10:1-3; Mark 7:7; John 4:19-24; Colossians
2:23; &c.) This is necessary a necessary understanding of worship
before it is even worth discussing. (2) This warrant from Scripture
must be clear enough that we can do that which we do in worship
in faith and good conscience, otherwise it is sinful worship. 'And he that doubteth
is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin' (Romans 14:23). (3) The passages referred to by Prestor
do not give warrant for singing anything other than Psalms, and
even if stretched to argue against the exclusive Psalmody, they
certainly do not warrant a certainty that we may sing songs other
than the Psalms. (see next post for evidence) (Continuing) Biblical
Worship www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/BibW_ch0.htm
Subject: Re: Psalms, hymns, and Spiritual Songs From: Pilgrim
To: John P. Date Posted:
Tues, May 30, 2000 at 17:26:31 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
John P.
So here we are again debating
the untenable position of Exclusive Psalmody. :-) You want to base
your view on two particular passages of Scripture, namely Ephesians
5:19 and Colossians 3:16. From Greg Price's writings, you assert
that Paul was referencing the Scriptures from the LXX; delineating
between three 'groups' of psalms rather than three 'types' of songs.
First of all I think it must be noted that 'the Reformers, the English
Puritans, and the best modern Reformed commentators such as Hodge
and Wm. Hendriksen all reject this interpretation of these two passages
and including James 5:13. John Calvin, for example, said this on
Col. 3:16:
Moreover, under these
three terms he (Paul) includes all
kinds of songs. They are commonly
distinguished in this way: a psalm is sung to the accompaniment
of some musical instrument, a hymn is properly a song of praise,
whether it be sung simply with the voice or otherwise; an ode
contains not merely praise, but exhortation and other matters.
He wants the songs of Christians to be spiritual, and not made
up of frivolities and worthless trifles. (emphasis is mine).
Another example can be drawn from Scripture itself. Is the reference
to 'songs' in Rev.5:9 therefore to be understood as referring
to the O.T. 'Psalter'?
Now let's move on the one of the
passages in question, e.g., Eph:519 which reads:
Speaking to yourselves
in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making
melody in your heart to the Lord;
For this text to
teach 'Exclusive Psalmody' it must first speak directly concerning
the public worship of God by the gathered church. The question therefore
is, Does it do so? If it was speaking strictly of the public worship of the saints then
what are we to make of the preceding verse which commands us 'to
be filled with the Spirit'? Is this then to be restricted to the
public worship? What about 'giving thanks'? (vs. 20). And what about
'Wives, submit yourselves
unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.'; are wives only to submit themselves to their husbands
during the public worship, and are free from offering submission
when they leave the assembly? It seems clear that Paul is referring
to all of life and not just to the public worship of God.
'Does this verse refer exclusively to public worship? Verse 19 primarily
concerns personal edification just as verse 18 refers to personal
filling, verse 20 to personal thanksgiving, and verse 21 to private
mutual fellowship. The remainder of the passage concerns personal
obedience in the home (22-6:4) or at work (6:5-9). Exclusive Psalmodists
allow hymns and songs to be used for personal edification, but then
point to Eph. 5:19 as proving exclusive psalmody. If this verse
actually taught exclusive psalmody, it would mean that only the
Psalms are to be sung in private for personal edification. But this
position is unacceptable to nearly everyone.' Again, Eph 5:19 does
NOT speak narrowly of only the public gathering and worship of God,
but rather to the everyday life of all Christians. 'Notice also
that the apostle said, 'Speaking to yourselves in Psalms and hymns an spiritual songs.' If this verse refers to exclusive psalmody
in public worship, then not only must singing be done by the Psalms,
but all speaking as well. All sermons, prayers, and lessons
must be restricted to quotations from the Psalms if this verse teaches
exclusive psalmody.'
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Psalms, hymns, and Spiritual Songs From: John P. To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Tues, May 30, 2000 at 18:06:26 (PDT) Email Address:putz7@msn.com
Message: Greetings again, Pilgrim, it has been a while, brother.
:) I thought you would get involved - that is good. Let me deal
quickly with your arguments (as I'm running short on time): (1)
Calvin, Hodge, and others, believed psalms, hymns, and spiritual
songs could be interpretted as more than merely the Psalms of David.
I grant this. However, the Westminster Divines, Matthew Henry, John
Owen, Jonathan Edwards, St. Augustine, and more, maintained exclusive
Psalmody, and hence, either advocated the interpretation that I
gave concerning these passages, were moving in that direction, or
completely disassociated these passages from the context of worship
at all. (2) I did not present these verses as an argument for
exclusive Psalmody. Rather, I interpretted them to refute an objection
against it. What is the significance? I don't think they have
to be speaking of public worship. I think the fact that the OT worshippers
sang their worship tunes from the Psalter because of divine warrant,
we need warrant that this command of God has been abrogated. From
these passages, people attempt to prove that other songs have been
added to the worship of God; this I deny, and this is what I was
attempting to prove. Thus, in my first sentence, I didn't say, 'Here
are two passages that prove Exclusive Psalmody'; rather, I wrote,
'The chief passages from the New Testament which can be brought
forth as witnesses against exclusive Psalmody are the two alluded
to by Prestor in his Subject for this message: Colossians 3:16 and
Ephesians 5:19. What I am arguing is that these passages are speaking
only of the God-breathed Psalm book recorded in the Old Testament,
under the titles of, 'pslams, hymns, and spiritual songs.'' Notice,
I approached my first two emails as a refutation of an expected objection; not as a positive
argument for exclusive Psalmody. For, if there is no positive warrant
from Scripture (whether necessarily inferred from Scripture's plain
teaching, or expressly commanded) to sing songs other than the OT
Psalms, then you are without an argument for the practice. Besides,
if these verses were commands to sing songs other than the Psalms
(which it would have to be if it is a command, and your interpretation
is correct), then the Westminster Divines, and the men above mentioned
(plus more), continually committed a sin of omission: they didn't sing religious songs by men (at least not in public, private, or family
worship). (3) You wrote, 'Exclusive Psalmodists allow hymns and
songs to be used for personal edification, but then point to Eph.
5:19 as proving exclusive psalmody. If this verse actually taught
exclusive psalmody, it would mean that only the Psalms are to be
sung in private for personal edification. But this position is unacceptable
to nearly everyone.' The Regulative Principle of worship does not
apply to times other than worship. Thus, even if this passage is
referring to times other than public worship, it does not forbid us to sing other songs for personal edification throughout the
day. However, in (organized) private, domestic, or public worship,
I do not know of any exclusive Psalmodists who sing other songs
from those of the Psalter. (4) About the 'Speaking' objection, in
which you claim that, if this passage is referring to only public
worship, then we may only speak the Psalms. I agree, IF two conditions were met: A. We could prove that the word
'speaking' isn't being used in a strange manner referring to 'singing,'
and, B. This is speaking of public worship only. I have no problem
claiming that this passage is not explicitly referring to public
worship. All I'm claiming is that it does give no warrant to
the opposers of exclusive Psalmody to defend their singing other
songs - which Augustine condescendingly and condemningly called,
'the poetic effusions of human genius.' In conclusion, the basic
assumption on which almost the entirety of your objection to exclusive
Psalmody lied was that we believe Col. 3:16 and Eph. 5:19 are speaking
of the public setting of worship. We can agree with you, that these
are speaking of the setting outside of worship, and still not have
our argument weakened in the
least. Thus, your argument
was impertinent. For Christ's Crown and Covenant, John P.
Subject: Re: Regulative Principle From: Pilgrim
To: John P. Date Posted:
Wed, May 31, 2000 at 07:57:03 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
John,
Very few Reformed people would
ever argue against
the use of Psalms in public worship. In fact, most all have argued
for their inclusion.
On the Regulative Principle, however, I would have to strongly disagree
that it is to be limited ONLY to public worship, but rather in is
an all encompassing principle that affects all of life; public worship
being but one of its applications, albeit a very important one.
The Puritans who developed this Principle surely applied it to their
everyday lives as no one can contest. At the time of the Reformation,
the Reformers established the basic principle that so far as the public worship of God is concerned, whatever
is not commanded by Scripture is forbidden.
This principle was necessary in order to give a clear reason for
the exclusion of the mass, prayers for the dead, prayers to the
saints, rosary services, etc. The Reformers wanted to re-establish
the pure worship of the apostolic church. The regulative principle
was their main instrument by which they sought to do this. Since
nearly all Reformed Christians accept this principle, it is surprising
that exclusive psalmists claim that the regulative principle of
worship forbids the introduction of uninspired hymns in New Testament
church services. 'If it is not commanded, it is forbidden' is thought
by them to be the main argument for exclusive psalm singing in the
church. But this principle in no way gives support to the sole psalmists'
argument, as will be seen by the three following reasons. A. The
Reformers and the Puritans who established this principle and fought
for it, never understood it to mean the exclusion of uninspired
hymns from church worship.
1. Did not Calvin
include uninspired hymns in the Geneva Psalter? Yes. 2. Did
not the first Scottish, English and Dutch Psalters include uninspired
hymns? Yes. 3. Did not the Puritans who developed this principle
actively engage in the writing of hymns (Baxter, Henry, Bunyan,
etc.) and publish them (Owen)? Yes. 4. Even the great lights
of the Evangelical Awakening were not opposed in principle to
the singing of uninspired hymns in the services, (Whitefield,
Romaine, Wesley, Toplady, Williams, etc.).
If the very framers and the greatest
expounders of the regulative principle never derived exclusive psalmody
from the regulative principle, this casts suspicion that the present
use of the principle for exclusive psalmody is based upon a misunderstanding
of the principle itself. B. This misunderstanding arises out of
a confusion between the essence of the act of worship and the circumstances
attending worship. Dr. J . I. Packer has pointed out this distinction
as being fundamental to the Puritan concept of the regulative principle
of worship. 1. Scripture alone tells what makes up the essence of
worship. God has revealed to his people that there is to be (1)
a gathering together for (2) the preaching and teaching of the Word,
(3) the administration of the sacraments, (4) church discipline,
(5)prayers, (6) singing, (7) fellowship, and (8) collection of offerings.
The Romanists sought to add the Veneration of the Saints, worship
of Mary, masses for dead, adoration of images, auricular confession,
penance, candles, rosaries, etc. The Reformers and Puritans refused
to add any of these things to the essence of worship. Nothing is
to be added except it be a rule of Scripture. This is the clear
teaching of Chapter XXI in the Westminster Confession of Faith.
2. On the other hand, the circumstances of worship are a matter
of Christian liberty and practicality. The early churches met in
the temple and in synagogues until driven out by the Jews. Then
the home was the place of the churches until the congregations grew
too large; then they had to go into the fields to worship. When
Christianity was legalized, believers built places of worship. The
design of the building, the presence of pews and organs, even the
clothing of the minister belongs to the circumstances of worship.
The vestment controversy of Owen's day was not over the issue of
whether or not a minister could wear vestments, but whether or not
the minister must wear vestments as part of the essence of worship.
Whether or not you have musical instruments accompanying your singing,
or whether you sing the Psalms or uninspired hymns are issues belonging
to the circumstances of worship. C. Even if we were to grant that
regulative principle of worship will dictate the material to be
sung in the worship service, where do we find in Scripture any explicit
commands concerning congregational singing? Even if we were willing
to grant that Eph.5:19 and Col.3:16 did directly and exclusively
refer to public worship, these passages clearly include hymns and
songs as well as the Psalms. D. I must agree with the Reformers,
the Puritans, and the best Reformed commentators in their understanding
of the regulative principle of worship, i.e. that the regulative
principle cannot be used to establish exclusive psalmody.
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Regulative Principle From: John P.
To: Pilgrim Date Posted:
Wed, May 31, 2000 at 23:14:10 (PDT) Email Address:putz7@msn.com
Message:
Brother Pilgrim, (beware of typos, this is long, uneditted, and
quickly typed) I think you are mistaken in your arguments (or at
least the conclusions you draw from them). Because of the length
of it, and the various different arguments presented, I will reply
paragraph by paragraph (highlighting major points). (1) In your
first paragraph, you claimed the regulative principle applies to
all of our life,
not merely to public worship. By this claim, you have demonstrated
one of two things: A. You either don't believe in the Regulative
Principle of worship, but rather what others believe; or B. You
have not made the appropriate distinction between how our lives
are regulated and how worship is - thus leading you to us the term
'Regulative Principle,' sounding as though it is the same thing
in worship and life, while at the same time having two different
understandings of the term. Why do I say this? Let me give an example
of how the regulation in life is different from that of worship.
(My example:) Nadab and Abihu, rather than being priests, were ordinary
merchants. As they moved from one location to another, they sold
a certain product - I know not what. However, one day, they noticed
a distinct and bad
odor. 'You know Nadab,' said Abihu, 'I bet we could make a ton,
without sinning, by selling censor-like pans, incense, and matches!
That would cover the odor when the people burnt the incense!' 'No,
no, Abihu; (replies Nadab) We ought not sell it so quickly. First,
let's see how the people like the smell by trying it ourselves!
Don't you think?' 'Good idea!' Poof! They light a fire in a censor
like devise, in order to burn incense for the purpose of 'perfuming
the camp.' Did they sin? No. Why? Because in our ordinary life -
independant of formal (or public, private, or family) worship -
they were certain that there was no prohibition, nor principle that
would lead to the prohibition of burning incense in a censor-like
devise for the purpose of covering a bad
odor. However, had Nadab and Abihu not
been merely merchants doing this as a business endevour, but were
(as they were) priests and doing this in the public worship setting,
because they had no express commandment
to do this in the worship of God, they
were consumed by the wrath of the Almighty. I hope you see the difference.
Thus, if you desire to deny this difference, you either deny the
regulative principle of worship or you deny the regulative principle
of life by saying Nadab and Abihu were not in sin in their hypothetical
business endeavor; if you accept this difference, then you must
confess that your claim, 'I would have to strongly disagree that
it [Regulative Principle-JP] is to be limited ONLY to public worship,
but rather in is an all encompassing principle that affects all
of life;' contains ambiguity which allows you to change your understanding
of the regulative principle when you speak of worship or its application
to non-formal-worship life. For, the regulative principle of life
is what most today think we may do in worship: anything
not forbidden; while the regulative principle
of worship is what most today despise: nothing
can be done in worship (as to elements of worship) except that which
is commanded or warranted by good and necessary inference. (2) Now I'm going to skip a few paragraphs, and continue
on to your 'A - B - C - D' points. Starting with point A: In this point, you essentially
are claiming that those whom we claim to be the great expounders
of the Regulative Principle of Worship, denied exclusive Psalmody.
Let me deal with your four questions (which you answered for us):
1. About Calvin's including uninspired hymns in the Geneva Psalter.
In my most recent post, I discussed this. So I won't get into it
for the time being. I agree that Calvin was not an exclusive Psalmist
- however, he was moving in that direction his whole life, and even
held a position of exclusive singing of inspired songs. However,
I would simply state that the presense of hymns in the Psalters
of the various reformed churches does not intimate they used them
in worship. 'What!' you say? 'That is an absurd claim!' No - their Bibles also contained the apocrypha. I don't suspect you would argue that they used the apocrypha
in worship (expressly contrary to the WCF). 2. This point was that
various churches included hymns in their Psalters. See last two
sentences of previous point. 3. Your next claim is that some of
the Puritans actively engaged in writing hymns. I
wouldn't have a moral problem writing them either (although I likely wouldn't spend my time doing that).
I have even - impromptu - sung little songs of my own; this doesn't
make me an opponent of exclusive Psalmody. 4. First off, I wouldn't
call Wesley a light in any way. Secondly, you neglected to mention
Edwards. That was because he was plainly an exclusive Psalmist.
In his 'History of Redemption,' Part V, he wrote, 'Another thing
God did towards this work [the work of redemption-JP], at that time,
was his inspiring David to show forth Christ and his redemption,
in divine songs, which should be for the use of the church, in public
worship, throughout all ages.' (p. 554, Works of Jonathan Edwards;
v. i. - Banner of Truth) Concerning the rest of them, I agree with
you on some, but others I am ignorant and am going to have to take
your word for it - which I do. B. Now, to deal with your second
major heading, which you subdivided into two points, ultimately
leading to the conclusion that Psalms and hymns (and instruments
made their way into the discussion here, though they don't belong
for the time being) are a part of the circumstances of worship.
Your two claims were these: (1) 'Scripture alone tells us what makes
up the essence of worship.' You certainly are not going to get an
argument from me. However, you continue to list off the ordinances
/ elements of worship which are among those which make up the essence
of worship. Among this number is 'singing.' Then, you appealed to
the Westminster Confessional Standards (WCS) in order to show that
they agree that Scripture alone make this distinction between that
which is of the essence of worship and that which is circumstantial.
Amazingly, the Westminster Standards teach
not merely that singing is an ordinace or essential element, but
rather that Psalm singing is an ordinance of God.
Furthermore, in all their details about what goes into worship as
elements, they (conspicuously) neglect to mention anything but the Psalms. Consider
their Directory for Publick Worship: _____Begin Quote______ 'Of the Singing of Psalms: IT
is the duty of Christians to praise God publickly, by singing of
psalms together in the congregation, and also privately in the family.
In singing of psalms, the voice is to be tunably and gravely ordered;
but the chief care must be to sing with understanding, and with
grace in the heart, making melody unto the Lord. That the whole
congregation may join herein, every one that can read is to have
a psalm book; and all others, not disabled by age or otherwise,
are to be exhorted to learn to read. But for the present, where
many in the congregation cannot read, it is convenient that the
minister, or some other fit person appointed by him and the other
ruling officers, do read the psalm, line by line, before the singing
thereof.' _____End Quote______ They even got into the details about
how the psalms ought to be sung in order to make it possible for
the illiterate, children, or impaired-seeing elderly could sing
along! And, lo, they - being non-exclusive Psalmodists - forgot to mention that other songs can be sung! Furthermore, it is amazing that the singing of Psalms
and instrumental accompaniment are merely circumstantials now, when,
in the Old Covenant, God treated them as elements. Now, without
Scripture changing them from non-circumstantials, how, I pray you,
did they insta-become circumstantials? Location became a circumstantial,
when it wasn't before - but we have express
warrant for that change (John 4:19-24);
where is the warrant for that change when it comes to the substance
of the songs we sing, and the instruments that accompany them? It
doesn't exist. (2) Secondly, you claim that (or at least intimate
without qualifying) that in the time immediately following the legalization
of Christianity, organs were present in
the Church. Pilgrim, you claim to know
church history, and I believe you do (as a brother); but how the fact that even the
most pro-instruments-in-worship Church historians (Schaff, for instance)
will only say that instruments were introduced in worship at earliest as a remotely
acceptable practice in the 8th century escaped your notice, I cannot
answer. I suspect that you just were writing fast, and didn't explain
that to us because of a mistake that we make when rushing (which
is understandable). However, it is hard to imagine that the Christian
church, having come out of the Jewish church which used instruments,
could have been taught by Jews (the apostles) who would have used
instruments in worship when Jewish, would have ceased the practice
if they did not believe instruments were regulated and non-circumstantial.
Even in the 1200's Aquinas claimed that they were not in the majority
of churches because the churches did not wish to Judaize! --But
I am now working on a tangent, and must stop. We need to stick to
Psalms, please. I simply couldn't overlook this error. C. Thirdly,
you claimed (and I quote), 'Even if we were to grant that regulative
principle of worship will dictate the material to be sung in the
worship service, where do we find in Scripture any explicit commands
concerning congregational singing? Even if we were willing to grant
that Eph.5:19 and Col.3:16 did directly and exclusively refer to
public worship, these passages clearly include hymns and songs as
well as the Psalms.' -We find warrant from Scripture to sing in
the congregations from Hebrews 2:11,12, ' Heb 2:11-12, 'For both
he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one:
for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, Saying,
I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church
(*ekklesia*) will I sing praise (*humneo*) unto thee.' Thus, in
the church, there will be singing; see also 1 Cor. 14:26, where,
in the public worship, they were bringing forth 'psalm' (*psalmos*)
to sing. Thus, we have warrant to sing in worship. Secondly, you have simply begged the question by assuming what
nobody has been able to prove (with certainty) for as long as the
debate has existed, viz. that the 'hymns and spiritual songs' in
Col. 3:16 and Eph. 5:19 are other than the Psalms. You have to prove that - not
just claim it. Saying, 'these passages
clearly include hymns and songs as well as the Psalms,' is merely
a proof surrogate (a claim of fact without evidence to defend it).
D. Finally, you say you must agree with, 'the Reformers, the Puritans,
and the best Reformed commentators in their understanding of the
regulative principle of worship, i.e. that the regulative principle
cannot be used to establish exclusive psalmody.' First, I would
argue that, at best, you can grasp at only a percentage of these
people who would agree with you; Second, I would argue that, although
I respect many of these men greatly, I nevertheless base my argument
for this position on Scripture. Thus, that is where the center of
our argument ought to lie. However, I don't mind bringing more witnesses
to the stand for our position. One more note: about Matthew Henry's
quote. (1) The Psalms of David are a typical title used by men throughout
church history to refer to the book of Psalms. I am surprised that
you - who appear to have read some historical literature - would
be ignorant of this. (2) You wrote, 'Henry used the conjunction
and to distinguish between 'the Psalms of David, and spiritual hymns
and odes, collected out of the Scripture. If anything, to the first-time
reader, Henry is making mention of three types of songs, of which
the Psalms are but one type.' Whether they are, 'the Psalms of David,'
or, 'spiritual hymns and odes,' it is clear they are songs from Scripture. Furthermore,
as I continued in my post, I did not claim that this quote of Henry's
was a sound argument
establishing (without possible objection) my claims; rather, I said
it was a strong
argument (as those who study philosophy know, the difference between
these terms is vast; for, a sound argument is one that is deductively
valid with all the premises true; whereas a strong argument could
still be stronger by bringing in more facts, &c.). Thus, when
he only speaks of the 'psalms' as 'ordinances' of worship, the conspicous
lack of mentioning 'hymns and spiritual songs,' gives us a strong
argument for concluding that he believed that only the psalms were
an ordinance, and that either (1) hymns and spiritual songs were
considered to be Psalms by Henry, or (2) he believed hymns and spiritual
songs to be songs other than the psalms, and no part of public worship
anyhow. The other possibility - which seems unlikely from the above
quote - is that he didn't believe in Exclusive Psalmody, and I am
wrong (which doesn't change the fact that Scripture teaches it).
Pilgrim, brother, I am saddened by your argumentation. I feel as
though you are being dishonest (whether wittingly or unwittingly)
with what you are writing. Lord willing, I would repent if this
position of mine is faulty; however, it has yet to proven such.
In fact, I think your arguments have only assured me more of my
position. I would ask the same from you; I fear being wrong, and
I suspect you do too. I realize our 'reputations are on the line'
because people are watching and reading along. All of us, both you,
myself, Diacono, Tom H., Prestor, Five Sola, &c. need to be
humble enough to sacrifice our reputations for Christ's truth. I
pray you are willing to do that. I will be praying for you. In Christ,
John P. Sorry about the typos, again. It's too late to check the
whole of this.
Subject: Re: Regulative Principle From: Pilgrim
To: John P. Date Posted:
Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 09:44:26 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
John,
In the first attempt to rebut
my arguments, you have not offered any convincing argument at all.
I still maintain, being in complete agreement with the Westminster
Confession of Faith, that the 'Regulative Principle' is two-fold
in its application. This is nothing more than restating Sola Scriptura.
The 'Regulative Principle' has NEVER been restricted to the aspect
of public worship but rather it has been applied to ALL OF LIFE.
Do you really think that Chapter XX 'Of Christian Liberty, and Liberty
of Conscience' was exempt from the 'Regulative Principle'? Hardly!
What you are positing, is a very narrow definition and use of 'Regulative
Principle' that is to be restricted only to public worship, and
then switch over to the Lutheran position for everything else (whatever
is not forbidden is allowed). Sorry, brother, but this is inconsistent
and hypocritical and self-serving. I don't buy it, and neither has
the Reformed churches historically. This is something you and your
little 'group' have been trying to foister on us and it hasn't worked.
:-) 1) A non sequitur argument! 4) Are John and Charles Wesley,
in your estimation, Reprobates? If not, then why are they to be
excluded from the history of the true church? Although I admire
Jonathan Edwards and have read most all that is publicly available
of his writings, he is not the 'all and all' source of infallible
truth. The Scriptures are 'sole and final authority in ALL matters
of faith and practice.' B) Psalms ARE to be sung in the churches!
Again, no one should argue with this tenet and I certainly am not.
The issue is whether or not the SCRIPTURES teach that ONLY Psalm
singing is permitted in the public worship of God's people. The
'proof' of this has not been made by you or anyone else that has
been incontrovertible as history shows. As to the 'Directory for
Publick Worship' it is non-binding, being an uninspired document.
And this again is another example of your 'group's' attempt to bind
the consciences of men by documents written by men that are not
necessarily normative for all the people of God. NO 'covenant' and/or
document written by men is able to bind the consciences of men,
as the WCF itself states clearly. The fact that it 'fails to mention
other songs' is no argument against them being sung in the public
worship. The point being made was that the INSPIRED songs need to
be carefully used so as not to 'add or subtract' from them. C) You
clearly missed the point here concerning Col 3:16 and Eph 5:19.
I was pointing out your hypocrisy in trying to use them in contradictory
ways. If they do teach, which they don't, that 'Psalms and hymns
and spiritual songs' are ONLY a triad designation for the O.T. Psalter,
there is nothing in these texts that restrict them to public worship.
It's an either/or, brother, not 'both/and' as you have tried to
use them for your purposes. D) Another instance of hypocrisy on
your part, if I may say so? All along you have been making reference
to 'so and so' said this, and this, etc. about the use of Psalms
only in public worship, but NO exegesis of a text yourself to prove
your position. Whereas I certainly did offer an exegesis of Eph
5:19 to show that it does NOT teach that the singing of 'the Psalms
and hymns and spiritual songs' are but the O.T. Psalter nor is there
any reference to public worship in that text whatsoever, and cannot
be. I mentioned, for example, William Hendriksen who was a solid
Dutch Calvinist and more than able and highly respected N.T. scholar.
It was to his EXEGESIS of these texts that I was referring to. I
think that one must refute his exegesis from Scripture to be a valid
argument, and not simply making a presumptive deduction from something
Matthew Henry wrote. Lastly, I object to your accusation that I
am being 'dishonest' in my argumentation. This indeed is an attempt
to cast a dark shadow upon my personal integrity. Ad hominem arguments
generally result in the opposition of what was intended by them.
I would suggest that at this time there just isn't going to be any
'proof' that will convince you that your position is in error. What
you are not willing to allow is that there have been, are and will
be many very conservative, biblically minded and godly men and women
who will disagree with Exclusive Psalmody, who are just as convinced
that it is wrong as you are they it is correct. This of course begs
a more important question: 'What of those who disagree with you?'
'How do you view, therefore, those who reject the Exclusive Psalmody?
Is there salvation in question?' It seems to me that Scripture would
encourage the singing of Scripturally derived New Testament songs.
The Psalms, albeit legitimate songs to be sung, are yet 'types and
shadows' of the reality of the Lord Jesus Christ and His atoning
work. It would seem rather strange that God would restrict the church
from singing the name of Jesus and/or the completion of His redeeming
work. Again, Rev. 5:19 does clearly show that the 'saints' sing
this type of song. No doubt that one's eschatological position has
some bearing on this matter. :-)
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Regulative Principle From: Tom To: Pilgrim Date Posted:
Wed, May 31, 2000 at 13:10:58 (PDT) Email Address:ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Pilgrim As I look at this thread, I can not help but notice that
there is conflicting information about what people such as Baxter,
Henry, Bunyan believed. For instance you said: 3. Did not the Puritans
who developed this principle actively engage in the writing of hymns
(Baxter, Henry, Bunyan, etc.) and publish them (Owen)? Yes. While
John said that these very people believed in Exclusive Psalmody.
If you could show proof that these great men of the faith, were
not Exclusive Psalmists, I think it would go a long way, to show
the truth of this matter. But that is only my oppinion, for what
that is worth;-) Tom
Subject: Re: Regulative Principle From: John P.
To: Tom Date Posted:
Wed, May 31, 2000 at 17:49:58 (PDT) Email Address:putz7@msn.com
Message:
Just a quick note, Tom. First, I think what Pilgrim was claiming
and what I am claiming are consistent with one another. He is merely
saying (as far as I can tell) that these men wrote hymns; I don't doubt that they did - I simply deny that
they sang them in public worship. Secondly, I didn't mention Baxter
or Bunyan. Although I would expect them (at least Baxter) to sing
Psalms only, I wouldn't doubt that either of them would take a different
position. For both had significant doctrinal errors in other areas.
In defense of my claim that men can write hymns and yet not include
them in worship, consider the words of a man that wrote them: Matthew
Henry. He wrote the following in his commentary on Col. 3:16: 'We
must admonish one another in psalms and hymns. Observe, Singing
of psalms is a gospel ordinance: psalmois kai hymnois kai odais--
the Psalms of David, and spiritual hymns
and odes, collected out of the scripture, and suited to special
occasions [i.e., worship - JP],
instead of their lewd and profane songs in their idolatrous worship. Religious poesy seems countenanced by these expressions
and is capable of great edification. But, when we sing psalms, we
make no melody unless we sing with grace in our hearts, unless we
are suitably affected with what we sing and go along in it with
true devotion and understanding. Singing
of psalms is a teaching ordinance as well as a praising ordinance; and we are not only to quicken and encourage ourselves,
but to teach and admonish one another, mutually excite our affections,
and convey instructions.' (from Matthew Henry's Commentary) Notice
in this quote that Henry chiefly believes that this passage is speaking
of the Psalms of David, especially at special
occassions; whereas he believes other
songs may be permitted by this passage in other circumstances as
edifying. The singing of Psalms, according to Henry, is conspicously
set apart from the other uninspired songs; for, Henry does not even hint that anything
can be called 'ordinances' of worship, except the Psalms of David.
He even quotes each of the Greek words for 'psalms, hymns, and spiritual
songs,' and then immediately calls them, 'the Psalms of David, and
spiritual hymns and odes, collected out of the scripture,.' So, although I don't necessarily agree with every part
of Henry's interpretation, this quote of his certainly fits into
what I said concerning him and the other men I used as witnesses
for the exclusive Psalodists cause. I wrote, 'the Westminster Divines,
Matthew Henry, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, St. Augustine, and more,
maintained exclusive Psalmody, and hence, either advocated the interpretation
that I gave concerning these passages, were moving in that direction,
or completely disassociated these passages from the context of worship
at all.' Henry was an advocate of this interpretation I presented,
plus believing it could hint at a little more (thus, 'he was moving
in [our] direction.'). Nevertheless, I need to get back to writing
Pilgrim. As I said, this was just a quick note. I will be more thorough
in addressing Pilgrim's arguments in my response to him. Love, John
P.
Subject: Re: Regulative Principle From: Pilgrim
To: John P. Date Posted:
Wed, May 31, 2000 at 19:39:38 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
John,
From the quote you offered by
Matthew Henry, I see NOTHING that would even hint that he held to
the view that psalms only should be sung in public worship. To use
your quote,
the Psalms of David,
and spiritual hymns and odes, collected out of the scripture, and suited
to special occasions, instead of their
lewd and profane songs in their idolatrous worship. Religious
poesy seems countenanced by these expressions and is capable
of great edification. But, when we sing psalms, we make no melody
unless we sing with grace in our hearts, unless we are suitably
affected with what we sing and go along in it with true devotion
and understanding. . . etc.
Henry used the conjunction
and to distinguish between 'the Psalms
of David, and
spiritual hymns and odes, collected out of the Scripture. If anything,
to the first-time reader, Henry is making mention of three types
of songs, of which the Psalms are but one type. Secondly, there
is absolutely no mention whatsoever about using Psalms exclusively in public worship
in this quote. This is assumed by you and yet to be proven. The
fact you chose to quote Matthew Henry where he is making commentary
on Col 3:16, is a blatant contradiction on your part is it not?
For in a previous reply, you were more than clear that Eph 4:5:19
and Col 3:16 did NOT
address public worship. But here you quote Henry in an attempt to
show that Col 3:16 does in fact make reference to public worship. You can't have
it both ways. Paul in Col 3:16 either is referencing the singing
of Psalms and hymns and spiritual songs for public worship or he
does not. My contention, and exegesis shows that it is the later,
and it is quite clear that Matthew Henry's comments do not restrict
the singing of 'Psalms and hymns and spiritual songs' to the public
worship of God. Further, to imply that Matthew Henry is saying that
anything but Psalms is therefore 'lewd and profane songs in their
idolatrous worship' is to totally misconstrue what the man is actually
saying. Here, Henry having established that it is proper to sing
'the Psalms of David, and spiritual hymns
and odes, collected out of the scripture,'
he compares these to what the heathen Colossians in their pagan
worship sing, i.e., 'lewd and profane songs'. The comparison is
NOT between the
Psalms and all other uninspired songs. Lastly, in like manner, he
(Henry) says, 'But, when we sing psalms,
we make no melody unless we sing with grace in our hearts, . . .' he is not making a bifurcation between the Psalms of
David and 'other' songs, but simply he is saying that whatever is
sung, it must be sung from a heart that is moved by the grace of
God unto a transformation of life that bespeaks of godliness. If
one were to press yet even further and for the sake of argument
agree that he is isolating the Psalms, it proves too much. For he
doesn't just make mention of 'the Psalms' but rather the Psalms of David. Without
question, the O.T. Psalter consists of far more than the songs written
by David. Thus would we then have to conclude that even the large
remainder of the inspired songs in that book could not be included
for either worship or personal edification, if the 'odes and spiritual
songs' were in fact nothing more than 'the Psalms of David'?
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Regulative Principle From: Pilgrim
To: Tom Date Posted:
Wed, May 31, 2000 at 17:11:52 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Tom,
I agree that such information
would be very helpful. Since my time is very much taken up with
other things, I really can't afford to dig through my library for
specific instances to give you. However, I would offer you these
bibliograhpic references which cover these details to a great extent:
Benson, Louis F. 1910-1914. The Hymnody
of the English Speaking Churches. Princeton
Theological Review (July, 1910; 1912-1914). Benson, Louis F. 1915.
The English Hymn: Its Development and Use
in Worship. Richmond, Virginia: John Knox
Press. Reprint. 1962. Benson, Louis F. 1926. The
Hymnody of the Christian Church. New York.
Reprint. Richmond: John Knox Press, 1956. Benson, Louis F., DD.,
The hymns of John Bunyan, Published: New York city, The Hymn society, 1930. Benson,
Louis F. in the following articles in the Princeton
Theological Review c. 1915f:
'Development of English
Hymnody'. X:39 'English Hymnody, Its Later Development'. VIII:353
'Hymnody of the evangelical Revival'. XII:60 'Hymnody of the
Methodist Revival'. XI:420 'Liturgical Use of English Hymns'.
X:179 'Watts Renovation of Psalmody'. X:399, 606; XI:85.
In these books and articles, Benson
documents a plethora of instances of hymns being written and used
in the Church from the period of the Reformation onward. Further,
the very early Church also wrote and sang uninspired hymns which
also can be documented by several notable Church historians, eg.,
Kenneth Latourette. I know where this volume is in my library, so
I can supply quotes for you later on if you are interested. :-)
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Regulative Principle From: Tom To: Pilgrim Date Posted:
Wed, May 31, 2000 at 23:27:19 (PDT) Email Address:ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Pilgrim Do you know where I can find that information, without buying
them myself? Tom Tom
Subject: Re: Regulative Principle From: Pilgrim
To: Tom Date Posted:
Thurs, Jun 01, 2000 at 07:08:27 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Tom, Gee, why not try a search on the Internet? There is also a
possibility that Regent College library would have some if not all
of the referenced titles. :-) And then again, sometimes you just
have to rely on the integrity and reliability of the source Tom!!
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Psalms, hymns, and Spiritual Songs From: John P.
To: John P. Date Posted:
Tues, May 30, 2000 at 18:09:34 (PDT) Email Address:putz7@msn.com
Message:
Significant correction: I said that the OT worshippers sang their
'tunes' from the Psalter. The 'tunes' are rather the music to which
we sing the words of a song. What I meant was, 'songs from the Psalter'
- not tunes.
Subject: More 'Wattage' From: Rod To: All Date Posted:
Sat, May 27, 2000 at 14:09:22 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
To all: I have deleted this post, due to more research and the questionable
nature of the "Address to the Diety" Watts is supposed
to have made. See the post below for my views on this subject.
Subject: Re: More 'Wattage' From: Rod To: Rod Date Posted:
Sat, May 27, 2000 at 14:47:46 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
As Prestor John points out below: 'Well sir I found the quote at
a oneness site. If you go to the site you can find the same quote.
With this quote you can also find a little story about how this
particular treatse was recalled from general publication by Watts
on the entreaties of his friends. If Watt's really believed this
particular heresy would he then recall the books? Also his character
and his godliness are well known and attested to by many people
in the Reformed Churches would his hymns have been added to the
hymnal if he had been an anti-trinitarian? I think not. Plus I also
believe that more evidence must be presented then just this supposed
article written by him.' I would have to heartily agree. I later
found the 'oneness site' he mentions in that post, and read the
'little story.' It seems highly unlikely that it happened as related.
Fifty copies sold, recalled successfully, burned by Watts, but one
survived the flames? Possible, but very suspect. It is more likely
that, when he expresses his theology in his hymns, such as the one
I posted below and 'When I Survey the Wonderous Cross,' identifying
'Christ my God,' that this is an indication that his theology was
correct on the Trinity.
Subject: Isaac Watts non-Trinitarian? From: Tom.H To: All Date Posted:
Fri, May 26, 2000 at 09:26:38 (PDT) Email Address:ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
I was sent these quotes recently, concerning Isaac Watts. Not sure
I want to sing songs written by a non-Trinitarian. What do you think?
Quote #1: 'Dear and blessed God, hadst thou been pleased, in any
one plain scripture, to have informed me which of the different
opinions about holy Trinity, among the contending parties of Christians,
had been true, thou knowest with how much real satisfaction and
joy, my unbiased heart would have opened itself to receive and embrace
the divine discovery. Hadst thou told me plainly, in any single
text, that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are three real distinct
persons in thy divine nature, I had never suffered myself to be
bewildered in so many doubts, nor embarrassed with so many strong
fears of assenting to the mere inventions of men, instead of divine
doctrine; but I should have humbly and immediately accepted thy
words, so far as it was possible for me to understand them, as the
only rule of my faith. Or, hadst thou been pleased so to express
and include this proposition in the several scattered parts of thy
book, from whence my reason and conscience might, with care, find
out, and with certainty infer this doctrine, I should have joyfully
employed all my reasoning powers, with their utmost skill and activity,
to have found out this inference, and ingrafted it into my soul.
—Holy Father,—how can such weak creatures ever take in so strange,
so difficult, and so abstruse a doctrine as this? And can this strange
and perplexing notion of three real persons, going to make up one
true God, be so necessary and so important a part of that Christian
doctrine, which, in the Old Testament, and the New, is represented
as so plain and so easy, even to the meanest understanding?'—Watts’
Works, vol. 7, pp. 476-7. Leeds ed. Quote #2: In a letter to Dr.
Coleman of February 11th: 1747, accompanying his volume on 'The
Glory of Christ,' Dr. Watts says, 'I think I have said every thing
concerning the Son of God which Scripture says; but I could not
go so far as to say, with some orthodox divines, that the Son is
equal with the Father.'
Subject: Re: Isaac Watts non-Trinitarian? From: Prestor
John To: Tom.H Date Posted:
Fri, May 26, 2000 at 21:08:33 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
What I think is that this set of quotes came from a Oneness site
and is from a supposed treatse that was burned except for one copy.
I think that the credibility of the people sending these things
to you are in question and that you should be discerning in regard
to this and see if he ever wrote anything else. Or at least to see
if you can get the original treatse. One thing that I have noticed
is that any of these people who espouse these types of heresies
will go to great lengths to get some christian of history on their
supposed side by chopping and pasting bits and pieces of their works
together in an order that wasn't what was originally issued. Prestor
John A Solemn Address to the Deity www.omniabc.org/watts.html
Subject: Re: Isaac Watts non-Trinitarian? From: Rod To: Tom.H Date Posted:
Fri, May 26, 2000 at 12:32:29 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
Tom, It's interesting that the last paragraph of the first quote
seems to be at direct opposition to the second. I'd like to know
more to nail down his stance for sure. It would be interesting to
know also if the second quote was taken out of context. Did he actually
mean what it says or did additional explanation reveal that Watts
meant that the Lord Jesus was subordinate to the Father necessarily
because He came
to earth to do His Father's will, subordinating Himself to the Father
willingly so that lost men could be redeemed?
Subject: Re: Isaac Watts non-Trinitarian? From: John P.
To: Rod Date Posted:
Fri, May 26, 2000 at 22:16:48 (PDT) Email Address:putz7@msn.com
Message:
Greetings, First, to Prestor: The first quote didn't come from a
oneness site (believe it or not). Rather it came from a book by
Reverend Gilbert M'Master, D.D. He held (strictly) to the Westminster
Standards. Unless you would say that they are not orthodox, then
it probably isn't good to presume the person presenting these quotes
is a heretic. If you are interested in reading his appendix on Mr.
Watts, it can be found on the Internet at the following address:
Second (still to Prestor), the first quote was cited as being
found in the seventh volume of the Leads edition of 'Watts' Works,'
with the page numbers: 476-477. So unless M'Master was willing to
explicitly cite a location which would easily allow the readers
of his time to prove he has forged the quote, then it is likely
the quote is legitimate. Thirdly (to Rod): You asked, 'It would
be interesting to know also if the second quote was taken out of
context. Did he actually mean what it says or did additional explanation
reveal that Watts meant that the Lord Jesus was subordinate to the
Father necessarily because He came to earth to do His Father's will, subordinating
Himself to the Father willingly so that lost men could be redeemed?'
I think that in the quote Watts' was teaching a different kind of
inequality from that of the functional inequality of the Father
and the Son. I gather this from Watts' distinguishing himself from
some 'orthodox' divines. Those considered orthodox certainly believed
in a functional inequality, while a real equality in substance.
Fourthly: I don't think these quotes are that difficult to understand,
however since
I don't have Watts' works, I cannot study to see if these quotes
are legitimate. I suppose - though I think it is unlikely - that someone who held
to the Westminster Confessional Standards, has as good a reputation
as M'Master, published these claims before the eyes of the public
(subject to testing by these same people at his time) while making
them up of his own fancy. In fact, even if these quotes could not
be found in the modern edition of Watts' works, I would still hesitate
to say M'Master lied (and also Doddridge - who can be quoted as
a source believing Watts was anti-trinitarian). So here is my question:
Does anyone have Watts' works? If so, has he written anything called,
'The Glory of Christ,' which was published in them (or, does someone
have a book entitled, 'The Glory of Christ' by Watts?)? M'Master
often cites that book by Watts. Also, does anyone have that letter
to Dr. Coleman? I think that if we could see these we would have
a more sure ground to stand on in believing Watts was anti-trinitarian.
I suspect that M'Master wasn't lying (maybe that is just naive),
but, if it can be proven otherwise, that would certainly be good
news for Watts' sake (not as though the proving of this would change
his actual state, but it is always a happy and good thing to be
able to have a stronger hope for someone's salvation). I hope someone
out there has Watts' Works (it would be great if it was the Leeds
Edition. Love, John P. Sorry about any typos. Dr. Watts and the
Trinity - M'Master www.covenanter.org/McMaster/Psalmody/psalmapdx.htm#back6
Subject: Re: Isaac Watts non-Trinitarian? From: Prestor
John To: John P. Date Posted:
Sat, May 27, 2000 at 11:09:33 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Well sir I found the quote at a oneness site. If you go to the site
you can find the same quote. With this quote you can also find a
little story about how this particular treatise was recalled from
general publication by Watts on the entreaties of his friends. If
Watt's really believed this particular heresy would not he then
have recaledl the books? Also his character and his godliness are
well known and attested to by many people in the Reformed Churches
would his hymns have been added to the hymnal if he had been an
anti-trinitarian? I think not. Plus I also believe that more evidence
must be presented then just this supposed article written by him.
Prestor John Armchair theologian, curmudgeon and esperantist Sola
Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Solus Christus Servabo Fidem
Subject: Re: Isaac Watts non-Trinitarian? From: John P.
To: Prestor John
Date Posted:
Sat, May 27, 2000 at 12:52:39 (PDT) Email Address:putz7@msn.com
Message:
Dear Preston, Could you please give us the address to that site?
It would be interesting to see what they have to say. I'm sorry
if I sounded as though I was hostile to you; I assumed (wrongly,
and I apologize) that you were guessing that the quote probably
came from a oneness site whereas I knew that it came from a book
written by an orthodox theologian over a century ago. Secondly,
yes, I do believe that hymns could have been written and included in hymnals by
heretics since Arminians also are published in most supposedly 'Reformed
Hymnals.' Thirdly, it is begging the question to assume that Watts
was godly (I actually hope he was, but...) - unless potentially
denying the Trinity doesn't make a person ungodly, I think that this is what is question we are trying
to answer. Sincere love, John P. Still Water Revival Books www.swrb.com/
Subject: Re: Isaac Watts non-Trinitarian? From: Prestor
John To: John P. Date Posted:
Sun, May 28, 2000 at 00:29:21 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Dear John P, First it is PRESTOR not Preston as in Presbyter Johannes the
mythical priest-king of the middle ages. If your an old dodger like
me bump up your font size and quit being so vain. }:^{) Second I
included the site with my first comment but I'll include it again
there it is on the top take a look. Lastly, it sounds to me like
you are one of those that are exclusively psalmody, if I am wrong
then I am sorry, but it seems to me that your motives are also suspect.
After all Watts wrote hymns and if you are against the singing of
hymns then perhaps you would be seeking to discredit the man for
your own agenda. This is all speculation you understand, I could
be beating a wrong path here. If so I apologise. Prestor John Armchair
Theologian, Curmudgeon, Esperantist Sola Scriptura, Sola Gratia,
Sola Fide, Solus Christus Servabo Fidem THE SITE IS HERE! www.omniabc.org/watts.html
Subject: Re: Isaac Watts non-Trinitarian? From: John P. To: Prestor John Date Posted: Sun, May 28, 2000 at 06:26:41 (PDT) Email Address:putz7@msn.com
Message: Dear Prestor, Greetings. Thank you for the site.
I'm sorry I missed it on the first post of yours. I'm sorry if I
have done anything to provoke you. I sincerely did not intentionally
call you 'Preston' out of any malice. Secondly, please don't jump
to conclusions about my motives (I understand that you qualified
your questioning them - so I don't claim that you are necessarily
at fault). I have expressed twice (as I recall) that I would not
desire a person to condemn themselves by being antitrinitarian (whether
they were hymn writers or not). Luther wrote hymns, and I would
not dare desire to slander him by saying he was antitrinitarian.
What profit is there in me intentionally slandering someone in order
to prove a position? God forbid I do that! I swear before God almighty
that I do not desire to slander anyone - whether I agree with them
theologically or not. God help me to be sincere! Thirdly, yes, I
do believe in only singing the O.T. Psalms in the public worship
of God. However, that is a position that I defend chiefly with the
Bible. If you were to ask anyone who I debate concerning this issue
where I believe the support for this position comes (whether from
church history chiefly or the Bible supremely), I certainly affirm
the latter of the two - and I try to express that as much as I can.
Fourthly, if M'Master did slander Watts (whether wittingly, by being
a wilfull deceiver, or unwittingly, too quickly using secondary
sources - as I sinfully may have done), then that grieves me. I
certainly hope that it wasn't wilful deception, and, hoping all
things, it would take strong evidence for me to suppose that he
would do something so popish and heinous. Fifthly, so you know the
reason why I am on the computer at this time in the moring on the
Sabbath day, I would just like to say that I am only here so that
I could write out that, if, after we see Watts' Works, we find that
these are forged, then I apologize for too quickly assuming that
a citation was legitimate (it is simply amazing to me that from
now on, I am going to even have to check out the legitimacy of apparently
clear citations!). I don't have any desire to go into the public
worship of God this morning believing that I have possibly slandered
and orthodox (possibly ordained - I don't know much of Watts' life
except he was short and wrote hymns and 'psalms' and Logic texts,
plus some) man. So, I am sorry. This is on record publicly. Love,
John P. PS - Sorry about typos, again, if there are any. Also, possibly
in the future, we can discuss exlusive Pslamody and its biblical
warrant.
Subject: Re: Isaac Watts non-Trinitarian? From: Rod To: John P. Date Posted:
Sun, May 28, 2000 at 13:51:41 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
John P, Though I don't see what 'ordination' by men has to do with
it, I assume Watts was processed through an ordination ceremony
of his denomination. I base that assumption on the fact that a couple
of sites identify him as a Congregationalist pastor. There are plenty
of 'ordained' people who have fallen into error, however, and that,
in itself, is no guarantee of orthodoxy. Based on Watts' works,
available to us in a large body of hymns, English versions of the
psalms, etc. which are attributed undoubtedly to him, his own testimony
seems to be refutation enough of the anti-Trinitarian charge.
Subject: Re: Isaac Watts non-Trinitarian? From: John P.
To: Rod Date Posted:
Sun, May 28, 2000 at 21:36:49 (PDT) Email Address:putz7@msn.com
Message:
Rod and others following along: I have not given a little thought
to this today. Since the time of worship and the conclusion of a
Bible study in which I am a participant, I have read, meditated
on, thought about, prayed concerning, &c. what to think of Watts'
position. I am still not convinced one way or the other. For instance,
here are some more hymns of his which seem to make it obvious that Watts was trinitarian: 'Glory to God the Trinity,
Whose name has mysteries unknown; In essence One, in persons Three,
A social nature, yet alone.' (Hymn 29, Book III; The
Psalms and Hymns of Isaac Watts) and,
'To praise the Father, and the Son, And Spirit, all divine, The
One in Three, and Three in One, Let saints and angels join.' (Hymn
30, Book III, Ibid.) Now, I realize that, to many - including me
at first - this appears to end the subject with the conclusion that
Watts was a trinitarian. I hope that is correct - sincerely. However, these hymns, and the fact that a oneness site promote
Watts as anti-trinitarian, are not arguments that in any way affect
the argument presented by M'Master in the 19th century unless M'Master used [numerous
and various] sources which all were forged. For instance, about 150 years ago, M'Master
already mentioned that: 'it is notorious, that every Anti-trinitarian,
who has read his [Watts'] works, claims him as of that school.'
Thus, what we think sounds like an argument against Watts' being anti-trinitarian (in that a oneness site
uses Watts' to defend their position), 148 years ago was an argument
for Watts' being
anti-trinitarian. Furthermore, concerning the fact that Watts' wrote
in a language that sounded orthodox much of the time also was not
ignored by M'Master. He wrote: 'He often used the language of the
orthodox, but claimed the right to explain the terms in his own
way, and to press them into an agreement with his own peculiar opinions.
Thus scraps taken from his works may be, as they have been,—with
what degree of intelligence and honesty we say not,—adduced to prove
him orthodox, while taken in their full and proper connexion they
prove no such thing, but the reverse.' In fact, M'Master claims (the verity of which
claims we must discover by searching to see if his quotations are
legitimate) that
Watts only believed there was one eternal person in the Godhead
(the Father), while at the same time did beleive the Son and the
Holy Ghost were persons - yet not divine
in the most literal sense. Thus, for Watts
to say that God is 'three in one,' or that there are 'three persons'
- as is implied by M'Master concerning Watts - is not contradictory
to what Watts believed (though erroneous). For, to Watts, (says
M'Master) 'The Godhead of the Father and of the Son is the same.'
For, as M'Master further claims Watts' belief to be, 'The Godhead
is a unit. It is one.' However, 'According to his scheme, in that
Godhead, naturally and eternally, there is but one Person, the Father.
The pre-existent soul, or spirit, of Christ is a mere creature—has
no Deity of its own; but as an exalted and favoured creature is
related in a near friendship with the Father, and in virtue of this
relation, or created union—can lay some claim to Deity.' Thus, to
say Christ is divine - if Watts was applying his own meaning to
the orthodox language in some instances - is not inconsistent with
what Watts would have believed supposing M'Master's claims are true.
Furthermore, M'Master calls other witnesses to testify against Watts:
'Such (says M'Master) were the [i.e., Anti-trinitarian] opinions
of Dr. W. written and left on record by himself; and thus have these
opinions been understood by Bradbury, Doddridge, the two Edwardses,
Erskine, Anderson, Willson, Ely, &c.' Throughout the letter
written by M'Master, he cites where some of these men wrote about
Watts' being Anti-trinitarian; at least one of whom knew Watts'
personally (Doddridge, who was Watts' 'personal friend, companion,
and admirer.'). I hope that you all have read that site - or intend
to. I'm not out to get Isaac Watts; but, now that the subject has been raised, I certainly
don't desire to be guilty of slandering the man by believing and
propogating errors concerning him (whether I be defending him when
he was wrong, or condemning him when he was correct) - so I think
it is important to figure this out. In fact, earlier today, I almost
wrote a letter to one of the web-sites which has published this
work by M'Master, defending Watts and asking them to remove the
book because I thought it was slanderous. But then I reread M'Master's
work, and (for that time in history) it is well-documented and dealt
with the various arguments which have been raised in defense of
Dr. W. So now - as I have already said - we need to just figure
out whether or not the sources used were
faithful to Watts' doctrinal positions or forged. In Christ, John P. M'MASTER's Letter about Watts; Please
Read. www.covenanter.org/McMaster/Psalmody/psalmapdx.htm#1
Subject: Re: Isaac Watts non-Trinitarian? From: Prestor
John To: John P. Date Posted:
Mon, May 29, 2000 at 11:14:10 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
John P: Not to rehash this any more but seeing how M'Master mentions
these men (Edwardses, Erskine, Anderson, Willson, Ely, &c) I
would think that perhaps they would have written denouncements of
Watts' position. If they were trinitarians themselves is there any
records of them saying such about Watts? If not, then again I think
that says alot about what they did think about Watts and that it
was in favor. As I said I'm not trying to keep this going I'm just
wanting to see a good man's name remain in the clear. I figure you'd
do the same too. Prestor John Servabo Fidem
Subject: Re: Isaac Watts non-Trinitarian? From: John P.
To: Prestor John
Date Posted:
Mon, May 29, 2000 at 16:58:00 (PDT) Email Address:putz7@msn.com
Message:
Prestor, I certainly hope to keep a good man's name clear: but there
are two names on the line in this discussion - and we mustn't forget
that. Watts and
M'Master. To acquit the one from the accusations against them, is
to condemn the other in some way or another. So, I hope you are
willing to consider that. Secondly, I don't mean to sound harsh,
but if you would have read the letter by M'Master, you would have
found that he did quote these men (and gave a particularly clear
citation for where he got Doddridge's statement). That is why I
keep recommending that people read that site - at least understand
what he is saying (I don't intend on quoting the whole thing). Not
trying to promote hard feelings. Love, John P.
Subject: Re: Isaac Watts non-Trinitarian? From: Rod To: John P. Date Posted:
Mon, May 29, 2000 at 06:33:46 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
John P, I went to the site linked and read some of the article.
In the first paragraph we find this statement: 'The Doctor’s sentiments
concerning the Redeemer, will be found in his 'Discourses on the
Glory of Christ.' The edition of the Discourses now before me is
that of 1746,' Obviously then, all one needs to do is to come up
with a copy of that title (with adequate evidence that it is of
Watts' authorship) and examine it. There is none to be found on
the web, as far as I can tell, not even
on the oneness site. You'd think they'd
move Heaven and earth, so to speak, to find it, wouldn't you. I
do note that the article you referenced mentioned the highly questionable
'Address to the Diety' employed on the oneness site, quoting it.
I stand ready to denounce Watts or anyone else who denies the Lord
Jesus Christ, but the evidence I have from Watts' pen is that He
calls Him: 'Savior, Sovereign, Maker, Lord, God, Redeemer,' and
several other designations identifying Him as the Second Person.
The witness of his words seems to be that he had an orthodox view
of the Lord Jesus. Until more concrete proof can be offered, I must
defend Watts, as I defend the salvation of the Wesleys. It is a
dangerous thing to bring into question the salvation of a person
on such flimsy evidence as has been offered so far. 'Wherefore,
I give you to understand that no man speaking by the Spirit of God
calleth Jesus accursed; and that no man can say that Jesus is the
Lord, but by the Holy Spirit' (1 Cor. 12:3).
Subject: Re: Isaac Watts non-Trinitarian? From: John P.
To: John P. Date Posted:
Sat, May 27, 2000 at 12:55:04 (PDT) Email Address:putz7@msn.com
Message:
Oops. Not: 'I think that this is what is question we are trying
to answer.' But: 'I think that this is the question we are trying
to answer.' Sorry.
Subject: Re: Isaac Watts non-Trinitarian? From: Rod To: John P. Date Posted:
Sat, May 27, 2000 at 09:59:36 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
John P., You are of course exactly right when you suggest that examining
the writings of the man himself is the correct mode of discovery.
While I don't have any of his letters or other prose available,
I do have access to at least one old standard hymn. Hymns, as you
know, necessarily express theological standpoints. I offer this
one as evidence that Watts, when he wrote it, had a pretty good
grasp of the Nature of the Sovereign Lord. At The Cross: Alas! and
did my Savior bleed, and did my Sovereign die? Would He devote that
sacred head for such a worm as I? Chorus: At the cross, at the cross,
where I first saw the light, and the burden of my heart rolled away,
It was there by faith I received my sight, and now I am happy all
the day. Was it for crimes that I had done, He groaned upon the
treee? Amazing pity! grace unknown! and love beyond degree! (Chorus)
Well might the sun in darkness hide, and shut his glories in, When
Christ the mighty Maker died for man the creature's sin. (Chorus)
But drops of grief can ne'er repay the debt of love I owe: Here,
Lord, I give myself away--'Tis all that I can do. (Chorus) Except
for that sappy, 'And now I am happy all the day,' line, that's pretty
sound, it seems to me. There's a lot of basic stuff in a short song.
I've heard it said that Luther espoused the idea of a Bible and
a good hymn book in the hands of every Christian, the idea being,
apparently, that each was to enable the believer to become more
spiritual by being more and more aware of the Nature of the Lord.
Subject: Re: Isaac Watts non-Trinitarian? From: laz To: John P. Date Posted:
Sat, May 27, 2000 at 06:20:16 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
JohnP and Rod - might this be a good example of someone that from
all indications fully trusted in Christ's finished work (even imputation),
contended for the Faith, fought the good fight,....a person with
fruit galore to 'prove' his faith to be a legitmate one (not 'easy
believism') ... who was therefore of the Elect and saved? My point
again being that doctrine (e.g., imputed righteousness and even
the Trinity) DOES NOT SAVE ... but Christ saves ...despite sometimes
what our minds might be thinking....for is it not God whom CONDITIONS
and JUDGES the heart? laz
Subject: Re: Isaac Watts non-Trinitarian? From: Rod To: laz Date Posted:
Sat, May 27, 2000 at 10:18:38 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
laz, I see Pilgrim beat me to this answer, yet I still want to say
what I was going to say in response. I can offer a mass of evidence
of posts here that I have thoroughly repudiated the notion of salvation
by faith in 'imputed righteousness.' But, though I would not want
to have to put together a list of the 'Standard Attributes Whereby
to Identify Christians,' I would certainly include in such a list
the affirmation from the heart of the Trinity. Any Christian, being
gifted with faith by grace, being led by the Spirit of the holy
God, and being taught by godly men, must embrace the Trinity. I
am on record here and in other places for endorsing the statement
that, 'Christians are Trinitarian.' These quotes seem to cast some
doubt on Watts, but they are for me, at least at this point, based
on the very little info I have, open to serious examination.
Subject: Re: Isaac Watts non-Trinitarian? From: Pilgrim
To: laz Date Posted:
Sat, May 27, 2000 at 09:48:29 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
laz,
Oooooops! I think that the doctrine
of the Trinity is one of the MOST essential doctrines of the Christian Faith which is 'inherent'
in the faith given at regeneration. The newly regenerated sinner
might not know much at all about the Trinity; economic relationships,
etc. but one thing that MUST be embraced in the heart is that faith in the Lord Christ
INCLUDES the FACT that the LORD Jesus Christ is God incarnate. (cf.
the Athanasian Creed). In the case of Isaac Watts, of whom I know
little other than the hymnody that he wrote, this man was more than
capable intellectually of comprehending what the doctrine teaches.
And this man was surrounded by men who fully embraced and taught
the doctrine of the Trinity. In other words, he wasn't your average,
run-of-the-mill 'pew sitter'! Thus, there is no excuse why he should
not have embraced it. Whether or not he denied it is still to be
determined here at least! :-) Let's not make the fatal mistake of
throwing out ALL doctrine as being necessary unto salvation. A truly
regenerate man/woman may not articulate verbally 'doctrine', but
the heart surely embraces it, for the person and work of Christ
MUST be known to a certain degree else one would never BELIEVE on
Christ. The regenerate person, by virtue of that regeneration is
convicted of sin, acknowledges the supremacy of God, the deity of
Christ, the sufficiency of His atoning sacrifice and the need of
His righteousness to be his own; [this is NOT the same as 'putting
one's trust in the doctrine of Imputed Righteousness'].
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim
Subject: aaah, but did he.... From: laz To: Tom.H Date Posted:
Fri, May 26, 2000 at 12:02:51 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message: AAAH, but did he believe in imputed righteousness? ROFLOL!!!!!!!! laz
Subject: Home Page SEARCH ENGINE From: Pilgrim
To: All Date Posted:
Fri, May 26, 2000 at 09:10:51 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Everyone,
The Highway web site is getting
quite expansive, over 420 pages at last count and I thought it was
about time to add a Search Engine to the home page to facilitate
browsing the site. Now you can simply type in a subject, title,
author, etc. in the Search window and presto, the results will be displayed
much like Yahoo, Excite or any of the major search engines. The
use of 'quotes' is recommended if you are looking for something
that contains more than one word, eg., 'rock music' or 'false gospel',
etc. I hope this addition will aid you in finding many articles
which previously have been unknown to you on The Highway. ENJOY!
In His Service, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Home Page SEARCH ENGINE From: Pat To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Sat, May 27, 2000 at 05:04:37 (PDT) Email Address:reform@worldspy.net
Message: Where is the highway site ?
Subject: Re: Home Page SEARCH ENGINE From: monitor
To: Pat Date Posted:
Sat, May 27, 2000 at 06:29:23 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Where is the highway site ?
--- Pat...you be on it! haha! (actually, you are on the THEOLOGICAL
DISCUSSION ROOM) If you click up at the upper right corner on 'THE
HIGHWAY' logo at the top of each DISCUSSION room (some musical notes
can be seen just below the logo)you will go to the Highway's HOMEPAGE
and find the Search feature right at your disposal. monitor click
HERE for HOMEPAGE www.gospelcom.net/thehighway/
Subject: Re: Home Page SEARCH ENGINE From: Anne To: Pilgrim Date Posted:
Fri, May 26, 2000 at 10:46:05 (PDT) Email Address:anneivy@home.com
Message:
How neat, Pilgrim! What a great feature! Thank you for taking the
trouble to provide it for us. ;-> Chow down! Anne
Subject: Re: Home Page SEARCH ENGINE From: laz To: Anne Date Posted:
Fri, May 26, 2000 at 11:53:40 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
yeah...it's simply too cool! laz
Subject: Re: Home Page SEARCH ENGINE From: Tom To: laz Date Posted:
Fri, May 26, 2000 at 13:21:31 (PDT) Email Address:ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Ya man, far out and funky dude! Tom
Subject: The T in TULIP From: Mark To: All Date Posted:
Tues, May 23, 2000 at 20:06:34 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
I was having a discussion with someone about whether we are basically
good or bad. This person answered yes to both. Their argument goes
something like this. We were created in God's image, that is good.
When we fell we became broken but parts left over were still good
just not assembled. the unassembled parts lead to evil but not complete
evil because the image of God still resides within us. They argue
that the logical conclusion of Depravity is that no human being
is of value and that we are no longer in the image of God in any
way, otherwise we would be partially good. Please offer your comments.
I belive that the good that exist within in us comes only from the
working of God and not ourselves but this proves to be too simple
for the argument I heard. Please provide scriputre wherever possible
with your reply. In Christ, Mark
Subject: Re: The T in TULIP From: Rod To: Mark Date Posted:
Thurs, May 25, 2000 at 13:06:00 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
Mark, You are of course right when you say that good can only come
from God. You have also received some very good answers to date.
The 'good' concept is the key here. Your friends are looking upon
'good,' as Pilgrim pointed out, as 'relative,' that is, comparative
good. When man is compared to man, some are better than others,
as other men judge things. The fact that man can do some things
which are noble in human terms clouds the mind and brings us to
a faulty conclusion. Additionally, we are confused on the issue
when we fail to grasp what the Bible's real message is about the
nature of God and the nature of man. john and Pilgrim have pointed
out some excellent Scripture in relation to this. Most telling are
Luke 18:19: '...None is good, except one, that is, God;' and Is.
64:6: '...all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags.' If men took
the Scriptures literally on such definitive statements, there would
be no difficulty understanding this, but we are so unable to discern
absolute truth so clearly stated that we can read it and not comprehend
the depths of the statements. There are countless other statements
which pronounce the same standard of judgment. They run throughout
the Bible. In fact, Galatians instructs us that the purpose of the
Mosaic Law was to demonstrate to us that 'goodness' is an impossible
standard for us to meet. The Law represents God's standard, the
minimum requirements
to be blameless before God. If we think about it that way it's very
illuminating. There is no room whatsoever for failure in violating
the Law. It pronounces an absolute requirement for man which has
no room for error; it is a system designed to reinforce that man
is helpless to do actual good and to induce guilt for his sin, so
that God can graciously provide cleansing blood to wash his filthy
rags clean. The spirit of the law is detailed by the Lord Jesus
in these statements: 'Master, what is the great commandment in the
law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord, thy God with
all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This
is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it, Thou
shalt love thy negithbor as thyself. On
these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets' (Matt. 22:37). No one can meet that standard for goodness.
There is no one who can say that he has absolutely loved the Lord
God impeccably for every monent of his life and his fellow man as
himself. And that is the only measure of good. How do we know that
is the only measure? We refer back to the Lord Jesus' statement:
'None is good, except one, that is, God.' There is nothing in man
that we can pronounce 'good,' since he is flawed in every aspect
of his being. We're required to demonstrate goodness by loving God
with all our hearts, souls, and minds. See how far short we fall:
'And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth,
and that every imagination of his heart
was only evil continually' (Gen. 6:5);
'The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked,
who can know it?' (Jer. 17:9, cp. Mat 15:19); 'For I know that in
me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good
thing...' (Rom. 7:18); 'Because the carnal
mind is enmity against God...' (Rom. 8:7). Take those statements
literally, and we have no difficulty understanding the concept.
For example, when we read the "carnal mind IS enmity against God," we see that enmity aginst God
is all it consists of. There is nothing else in man's motivation
which allows him to act, but his oppostion to God and His will.
Thus, every thought and motive of such a person is void of any good
whatsoever, being totally separated from God. To claim that fallen
man retains any good is to be ignorant of the measure by which 'goodness'
is to be truly judged. He is a sinner through and through and cannot
do good because that would mean that he had some merit within him.
Goodness is a quality belonging solely to the Lord God and the reason
man needs a Savior. Just because man is not as bad as he can be
doesn't change any of that. To assert that man has any inherent
goodness at all, when judged by the proper standard, nullifies grace
and is an affront to a holy God. The fact that we must have righteousness
imputed to us
by grace is proof of that fact.
Subject: Re: The T in TULIP From: Pilgrim
To: Rod Date Posted:
Thurs, May 25, 2000 at 15:22:32 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Rod,
Amen, brother! The problem is
indeed that men refuse to accept the testimony of the Spirit against
them, but 'exchange the truth for a lie'! What lies at the bottom
of men's refusal to accept God's indictment against them and HIS
evaluation of their true nature is that men just can't take the
insult. 'Surely,' they say, 'we can't be ALL bad!? Their MUST be
some good thing in me!' And even such statements like this are testimony
enough of man's inherent wickedness in that they dare question the
Almighty Who knows us better than even we ourselves. This even contrives
against the gospel of the grace of God in Christ, for God, knowing
how destitute fallen men are; that they possess no godly inclination
whatsoever, that He Himself is dishonored and profaned in the lives
of the best of men, that all men see themselves as having the power
and knowledge of God (Gen 3:5) and therefore have no need of a Sovereign
LORD to rule over them, even though He is most merciful and full
of grace. God, knowing full well our hopeless condition determined
to save a remnant of us poor needy sinners and took upon Himself
the incomprehensible task and humiliation to suffer in our stead,
thus paying the infinite demand of the law and enduring the incomprehensible
punishment due us. Why, if there was the slightest 'chance' that
even one solitary man could redeem himself; even if he was able
to incline himself to receive God's grace, would the Son of the
Most High have suffered the eternal wrath of His Father so as to
save him? Many years ago, I had the privilege of hearing the late
Dr. John Gerstner give a lecture on the depravity of man. He began
by making an apology to the audience for what some others have been
known to say in that they compared fallen man to that of a rat!
He said that was indeed an unpardonable insult and that he begged
forgiveness for these men for having denigrated the good name of
all rats! He went on to compare fallen man to the deceased man Lazarus
who laid four days in the tomb, and whose body was decomposing in
the hot Israeli sun. Quoting George Whitefield, he said,
'In other words, you
STINK in the nostrils of Almighty God! And I have only one thing
to say about George Whitefield; he was guilty of understatement.
I try to be as insulting as I possibly can when I describe the
fallen condition of man. And if I have succeeded in insulting
any of you today with my descriptions, then you can only draw
one conclusion; you haven not been genuinely regenerated. For
it is impossible to describe just how fallen man really is.
But if you do begin to comprehend just how bad man really is,
and just how deep a pit he has fallen into, you will be just
like Martin Luther who said he would believe in Unconditional
Election even if it WASN'T taught in the Bible! For there is
just no other way man could be saved!'
The more a person is convicted
of his sinfulness the more he will come to comprehend the grace
of God and live unto righteousness out of a heart of untold praise.
Soli Deo Gloria!!
In His Marvelous Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Exactly From: Rod To: Pilgrim Date Posted:
Thurs, May 25, 2000 at 17:23:53 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
brother, You are correct, as usual. Central to the understanding
of 'grace' (I think few people really know its meaning) is the realization
of the utter need of that grace, that there is no
other hope for lost men, due to their
sold-out-to-sin condition. Even in the churches there is a general
lack of understanding and a subsequent 'watering down' of theology.
As an example, I once was at a church camp where we were having
general work days to fix the place up. In the evenings we had speakers,
prayer, and song. When the songbooks were passed out one night,
someone (I think I did) suggested 'Amazing Grace.' I sang the hymn
with the original words describing man, 'for such a worm as I.'
The young man next to me gave me a look of utter disbelief, the
words in the book being, 'for such a one as I.' I doubt that he'd
ever heard the original. There were some good men there, sound of
doctrine, and old enough to know the words, but I believe I was
the only one to sing it so. Incidentally, that same young man had
spoken earlier and referred to Is. 46:10, this way: 'God knows the
beginning from the end.' He said that twice, as I recall, not reading
the verse, not having it memorized, and not giving the Scriptural
referece where it could be found. I agree with whoever it was who
said, 'Every local church should be a theological school.' Even
the obvious precepts have to be hammered in. We just, as a rule,
can't read the Bible for what God says without interposing our own
standards and values.
Subject: Re: Exactly From: Rod To: Rod Date Posted:
Fri, May 26, 2000 at 02:15:20 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
Before anyone thinks I'm completely out of my mind, something that
has nagged at me all day just hit me. Instead of citing Newton's
'Amazing Grace' above, I should have named Watts' 'At the Cross!'
I guess the legs aren't the first to go. :>)
Subject: Re: Exactly From: Pilgrim
To: Rod Date Posted:
Fri, May 26, 2000 at 08:57:27 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Rod,
Ain't that the truth, though?!
In 'Amazing Grace'
many new hymnals have eliminated 'saved a wretch like me'
and substituted a far more 'self appeasing' euphemism. They say
the old terminology was too abasing and didn't promote a 'positive
self image'! hahaha
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Exactly From: Anne To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Fri, May 26, 2000 at 10:42:52 (PDT) Email Address:anneivy@home.com
Message: In 'Amazing
Grace' many new hymnals have eliminated 'saved a wretch like me'
and substituted a far more 'self appeasing' euphemism. They say
the old terminology was too abasing and didn't promote a 'positive
self image'! You're joking,
right? That's why the 'hahaha' at the end? What's sad is, a part
of me would have no problem believing someone would actually do
that. Positive self-image, my Aunt Fanny! Ciao!
Anne
Subject: Re: Exactly From: Pilgrim
To: Anne Date Posted:
Fri, May 26, 2000 at 13:36:08 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Anne, Sorry, no joke.... the 'hahaha' at the end was my reaction
to the ludricrousness of it! In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: The T in TULIP From: GRACE2Me
To: Mark Date Posted:
Wed, May 24, 2000 at 14:32:03 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Hello Mark: I haven't looked to see what the other two brethren
said, who are much more knowledgable than I. When the word of God
says we were made in the image of God, it means that He made us
as 'thinking, feeling, acting beings (mind, emotion and will). God
has a mind, emotions and will. When Eve and Adam sinned in the garden,
they died spiritually, and everyone born since then, are born spiritually
dead. We are depraved in as much that there is nothing within us
that that will cause/allow us to seek Christ/God. We may commits
acts of good, but we live a sinful life. Another word that many
use instead of 'depravity' is 'inability.' We are still in the 'image
of God' because we still have a mind, emotions and will (think,
fell and act). It is the way we think, feel and act that seperates
us from God. And unless God sovereignly intervenes by regenerating/quickening
us with a new nature, we will remain in this state and spend an
eternity in the Lake of Fire. That's my 2 cents worth I guess. GRACE2Me
Subject: Re: The T in TULIP From: Pilgrim
To: Mark Date Posted:
Wed, May 24, 2000 at 08:11:58 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Mark,
It is many times the case that
people confuse the doctrine of 'Total Depravity' with 'Utter Depravity'
and thus reject it out of hand. The doctrine of 'Total Depravity'
simple means that the totality of man's being has been affected
by the Fall. Man is not as bad as he could be, but is capable of
deprovement. It is the providential restraint of God that keeps
men from falling into 'utter depravity', which will be withdrawn
after the Judgment and the reprobate are cast into the Lake of Fire.
Another error that people make is failing to understand that the
'Total' aspect of 'Total Depravity' refers to the MORAL part of
man (the ability to good), not the physical. As John rightly stated
from the teaching of Scripture, 'There
is none that doeth good, no not one.'
(Ps 14:1-3; Job
14:4; 15:14-16; Rom 3:10-18; Eph 4:17-19; et al). In other words,
EVERYTHING the natural man thinks, feels and does is sinful because
he is alienated from God, having inherited a corrupt nature (Eph
2:1-5; Rom 5:12f). But this corruption of nature did not eradicate the uniqueness of man in
that he was created with the 'imago dei' (image of God). It is just
because man is created with the image of God which is corrupted
with sin that makes him so odious in the sight of God. It is true
that man is capable and does relative good, i.e., there are many things which men do that benefit
other men and the creation. On the 'horizontal plane' man does 'good'
in this sense, but nevertheless, those 'good deeds' are sinful and
damnable because they are done apart from a heart that 'loves the
Lord God' so that they are not done out of 'fiducia' (a lively faith
and dependence) upon God, but out of self. Augustine, who opposed
Pelagius on this matter; that there is any good within man in his
natural state, spoke of this 'relative goodness' of man as 'the
splendid vices of the heathen'. These 'vices' only show that man
is in fact made in the image of God and all the more damnable in
that not only are these things done apart from true motives; for
the glory of God but also there is an inherent denial that all goodness
belongs to Him and Him alone, and that apart from Him nothing can
be done nor can they be even called good. Isaiah, under the inspiration
of the Holy Spirit says of our 'good deeds':
'But we are all
as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy
rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like
the wind, have taken us away. And there is none that calleth
upon thy name, that stirreth up himself to take hold of thee:
for thou hast hid thy face from us, and hast consumed us, because
of our iniquities.' (Isa 64:6, 7).
If one is to use an analogy of
the condition of man after the Fall, one might better think of a
glass of pure water that had a drop of deadly poison added to it.
The poison permeates the entire contents and thus renders it undrinkable.
Although to the naked eye it might 'appear' to be clean, yet it
is contains a fatal potion that would result in certain death to
anyone who might drink it. There is no part of the water that can
be safely consumed without also ingesting the poison and suffering
the consequences from it.
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: The T in TULIP From: john hampshire
To: Mark Date Posted:
Tues, May 23, 2000 at 22:19:52 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
What did Jesus say to the assumption made that He was a good man,
'only God is good'. Isn't it true that we have all gone astray,
from the womb?, That there is none who do good, no not one. Yes,
the fall was severe, but it wasn't humpty-dumpty who fell from a
wall and got broken; there are no unassembled parts, the analogy
is broke. We are made in the image of God because we are spirit
and God is Spirit, unlike animals which are not. Our 'value' is
assessed by God, and He finds our works worthless and us worthy
to be destroyed. The image of God in the unregenerate spirit ends
in the lake of fire. Do we find any 'value' keeping God from executing
His justice on the wicked? If someone wants to believe we are partially
broken because we are made in God's image, I would ask what benefit
Jesus' death and resurrection had? Exactly what did He redeem us
from, and why? john
Subject: Re: The T in TULIP From: laz To: john hampshire
Date Posted:
Wed, May 24, 2000 at 07:17:33 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
AMEN, big John! Ontologically and in a temporal sense, we may be
of 'value' to God ... since murder is still an offense to God....but
in our relationship to God...we are worthless and fitted for destruction
as a vessel of wrath (Rom 9). I like my dog and care for her...but
will she inherit my stuff? Aren't the reprobate referred to as pigs
or dogs? hehe But then again, aren't the elect called sheep? ;-)
The only 'good' are Christ (God)...and those found IN
CHRIST - and that by virtue of unconditional
mercy and grace. laz
Subject: Government in Heaven From: laz To: All Date Posted:
Tues, May 23, 2000 at 08:21:56 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message: Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto
us a son is given: and the government
shall be upon his shoulder: and
his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God,
The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. 7 Of
the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to
order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from
henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform
this. OK, so what... I know Christ will
reign supreme, but will there be 'government' in heaven with officers
similar to what we have now in the earthly Church/civil sphere?
Or this passage dealing with the earthly millenial reign of which
we are now enjoying whereby the 'government' is the Church environment
where we are earthly citizens in subjection to the elders? I was
told that since there will be no sin or sinful tendencies in heaven,
we won't need elders, etc...i.e., Church-like government in heaven.
We will all be the same 'rank' in heaven. What say ya'll? blessings,
laz
Subject: Re: Government in Heaven From: Anne To: laz Date Posted:
Tues, May 23, 2000 at 09:40:59 (PDT) Email Address:anne_g_ivy@yahoo.com
Message:
Do you think the word 'government' in Isaiah carries the same meaning
that we put on it? A ruling hierarchy? Perhaps in Isaiah, it is
referring to Christ's governance of His creation? It rather sounds
like a preview of the Lord's prayer: ' . . . Thy will be done on
earth, as it is in heaven.' Anne
Subject: Re: Government in Heaven From: john hampshire
To: anyone Date Posted:
Tues, May 23, 2000 at 21:18:04 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Well we know that no idolaters or liars will enter heaven, thus
there won't be any liberal Democrats. (hehe) IMO, God's government
IS His rulership over all His creation, including His elect and
the wicked in the lake of fire. All this rests on His Son. As for
what authority the elect might possess in the new heavens, who knows?
Whatever it is it is derived authority. It is like arguing what
a tree is like having never seen anything but a tiny seed. We wonder
what the seed will become, but the reality of a tree from a seed
is so great (assuming you've never made the connection) that it
is beyond anyone's ability to grasp. Yet, I really would doubt those
who God used greatly in this life would be rulers over those who
were used in a lesser role. The idea of Jesus walking amongst the
elect in the new heavens and new earth, as He used to do in the
garden with Adam/Eve, implies no ruler except Christ. Moses, Paul
and the rest will all be on an equal level with the least of us.
That's my opinion, but who knows, I am only looking at the seed.
john
Subject: God's justice......what's it mean? From: Anne To: All Date Posted:
Tues, May 23, 2000 at 07:43:49 (PDT) Email Address:anne_g_ivy@yahoo.com
Message:
I've been musing on God's perfect justice, since it appears to me
that that is the correct starting point for why we're here at all.
God is perfect in and of Himself, and with His triune nature, His
divine love can be expressed without bothering to create anything
or anyone else. However, the same does not hold true of His divine
justice. As someone correctly pointed out, justice is not an issue
for one person living on an island. It requires the interaction
of at least two people to make justice rear its head. Since God
can hardly disagree with Himself, additional created beings are
needed for His justice to be expressed. This is where we come in.
The truth is, the Fall was the entire reason He created us. Or so
it seems to me. ( God could be thinking, 'Boy, are you batting zero.') BTW, another thing that might be useful
to consider is that His wrath is in no way similar to our wrath,
which is usually expressed by stomping through rooms and yelling.
God's wrath is not an expressino of divine bad-temperedness and
irritability. His wrath is holy, as are all His attributes, and
is likewise worthy of our adoration. Thoughts? Criticisms? Witticisms?
Anne
Subject: Re: God's justice......what's it mean? From: Pilgrim
To: Anne Date Posted:
Tues, May 23, 2000 at 08:31:01 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Anne,
You wrote: 'The
truth is, the Fall was the entire reason He created us. Or so it
seems to me.' And you mused 'God could be thinking, 'Boy, are you batting zero.'. Well, the first statement is far afield!
But the second is probably more correct! :-) Nowhere has God revealed
to us in His Word that the Fall was the ultimate purpose for the
creation of mankind! The truth is that God created man so that His
glory might be known and that we might 'enjoy Him forever' (cf.
Westminster Larger Catechism: Q&A #1). To better show forth
His glory in mercy and grace and to facilitate the creatures appreciation
of His majesty, the Fall was designed and decreed. Thus it is just
the reverse of what you said. :-) As to the 'wrath' of God, this
is surely inherent in His being and not a 'reaction' to that which
is contrary to His nature. You have implied something very important
here, and that is that 'love' is NOT that attribute from which all
of His other attributes flow out of. God is thrice HOLY and if any
of God's attributes can be said to be 'above' any other, it is that
He is Holy. One must seriously question why 'love' would be elevated
to a position over and above any other attribute in the Godhead.
(cp. Ex. 34:14; Ezra 9:15; Ps 11:7; Lev 11:44; Is 47:4; 1Pet 1:16;
Ex 3:14; Ps 111:9; Jer 23:6; Amos 5:8; etc.) The LORD God is NOT
'the sum of His parts'
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: God's justice......what's it mean? From: Anne To: Pilgrim Date Posted:
Tues, May 23, 2000 at 09:27:42 (PDT) Email Address:anne_g_ivy@yahoo.com
Message: To better show forth His glory in mercy
and grace and to facilitate the creatures appreciation of His majesty,
the Fall was designed and decreed. Flip
side of the coin! Before He could express His mercy, He had to have
something to be merciful about, true? And, once again, all by Himself, there would be
no way to express it. So, he-e-r-e's Adam! He falls, taking us,
by necessity, with him, and now God has creatures worthy of His
wrath, with some graciously elected for eternal life with Him. And
thank you for bringing out that holiness is God's primary attribute, from which all others flow!
Absolutely. That this is forgotten or neglected has led to many
of the errors found in the churches today. We aren't comfortable
at all in speaking of God's holiness and wrath, are we? Uncharted
territory! Especially His divine wrath, which we tend to treat as
if it's more polite to ignore it; as if it is somehow dishonoring
to Him. Ciao! Anne
Subject: Re: The WRATH of God! From: Pilgrim
To: Anne Date Posted:
Tues, May 23, 2000 at 18:08:41 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Anne & All: Here you go: The Wrath of God. Be edified to the glory of God. In His
Grace and Mercy, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: The WRATH of God! From: Anne To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Tues, May 23, 2000 at 18:40:05 (PDT) Email Address:anne_g_ivy@yahoo.com
Message: Quote from the article: In his Commentary on Romans Dr Dodd says that the wrath
of God ‘does not appear in the teaching of Jesus’. Well, Dr. Dodd's a dud. Christ preached
about hell frequently, for Pete's sake! I guess if you're going
to pick and choose which verses you deign to read, though . . .
. . Great article, Pilgrim! I'm stuffing it in my briefcase, too.
Anne
Subject: ????? From: Tom -E
To: All Date Posted:
Tues, May 23, 2000 at 07:18:44 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
To Anyone: Is this site no longer in use? From time to time I still
monitor this site to see what’s new. I haven’t seen any posts for
almost two months? Shalom Tom-E
Subject: Re: ????? From: Tom-E To: Tom -E Date Posted:
Tues, May 23, 2000 at 07:22:19 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
To All again: I’m sorry! I’ll answer my own question. After posting
my question all the new posts came up. I see your still functioning.
Shalom Tom-E
Subject: Re: ????? From: Pilgrim
To: Tom-E Date Posted:
Tues, May 23, 2000 at 07:46:04 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
To All again: I’m sorry! I’ll answer my own question. After posting
my question all the new posts came up. I see your still functioning.
Shalom Tom-E
--- TomE, Try purging the 'cache' of your browser and this might
help...! hahaha Also, you can also read the archived posts here:
Theology Forum Archives Pilgrim
Subject: Whatever happened to the truce???nt From: Eric To: All Date Posted:
Mon, May 22, 2000 at 07:05:18 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Did you look again laz?
Subject: Anyone want to discuss infra vs supra? From: Anne To: Eric Date Posted:
Mon, May 22, 2000 at 08:50:54 (PDT) Email Address:anneivy@home.com
Message:
You know, the more I read Scripture and pray and ponder, the more
I am convinced that the supralapsarian position is the more accurate
one. I say 'more,' since we see through the glass darkly. Most of
our beliefs verge on educated, to a greater or lesser degree, guesswork.
In any case, I think that God does create each soul with a particular
destination in mind. Which means that, yes, He creates heaps of
folks who are destined to spend eternity in hell. There is no denying
that from those souls POV, this is a bummer. On the other hand,
I am darned if I can see why the alternative is desirable . . .
. to wit, that they were 'passed over,' as in a divine game of Duck,
Duck, Goose. Talk about so near, and yet so far! Scripture's insistance
on our being made either 'vessels of wrath' or 'vessels of mercy'
appear to be firm support for the supra argument. To suggest that
God is unfair or harsh in creating souls for the purpose of satisfying
His perfect wrath is foolishness . . . . this is His creation, every scrap and molecule of it, and He may
create anything and anyone for any reason that glorifies Him and
His Name. Since nothing can exist or occur outside of or beyond
His will, then if He is desirous of expressing His wrath and justice,
by necessity He is going to have to create beings as the objects
of those divine attributes. He can hardly sit hopefully by a roadside
and wait for some sinners to come trundling along. His very sovereign
nature means that if He wants something done, He is going to have
to do it Himself. If He wants something to exist at all, He must
create it Himself. I was pleased to read in Calvin's 'Concerning
the Eternal Predestination of God' that he wasn't any more enthusiastic
about the notion of God 'permitting' or 'allowing' something to
occur than I am. If I permit or allow my son to do something, that
means that he was the instigator of the suggested action. How can
any of us instigate something beyond God's will? That would mean
ours is the primary action, and He is, in effect, seconding our
motion. I don't think so. Ciao! Anne
Subject: Yep, it's a tough one! From: Rod To: Anne Date Posted:
Mon, May 22, 2000 at 13:25:49 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
Hi, Anne, Being an infra, yet seeing how one can be a supra, please
allow me to ramble a little. I'm certain you and most here understand
that we infras pretty much have arrived at this conclusion, but,
for those who came in late...God is ultimately the cause of all
things and the Creator of all things created, but He did it in a
way mysterious to man, a way beyond our total comprehension. God
created all things and is the cause of all things without
being responsible for man's sin morally and without being the direct,
morally responsible agent for any man's lost estate. Confusing, yes, but the way I see it God's ultimate
plan for man is such that He could create men who are 'predestinated
in love' (see
Eph. 1:4-5) and destined for 'conformation to the image of his Son'
(Rom. 8:29) without directly causing man to fall into sin and thereby
being consigned to hell. The difficulty of understanding how seems
immediately bound up in the issues of the 'fall of Adam.' Before
turning to Adam, let me make a few more observations. Most significantly
in Scripture, I can recall no statement whereby men are predestinated
to hell, though there are several that underscore that we are saved
by His lovingkindness (mercy because of love for us) and would be
lost eternally without it. I would urge you to look carefully at
the words of Rom. 9:22-23, which you summarized like this: 'Scripture's
insistance on our being made either 'vessels of wrath' or 'vessels
of mercy' appear to be firm support for the supra argument.' I believe
there are some extremely pertinent things in these verses. I believe
an outstanding argument for the other side can be made from them.
In verse 21 we have God making one vessel to honor and the other
to dishonor. So far that is in keeping with the arguments of each
camp. But, in verse 22, we see something interesting in the words
'fitted to destruction.' I leave it to the language experts to argue
this, but my quick study of this word 'fitted' indicates that there
is a 'adjustment' made to those particular persons. John Gill states
much in his exposition of this section which I already believed,
but also goes deeper into some aspects of it than I was able to
on my own (naturally). I will intermingle some of Gill's ideas with
those which I have formed over the years in the following. Going
back to verse 21, Gill points to the words 'the clay.' This is a
mass of clay from which all the individuals of the earth will be
made by the Lord God. For the purposes of illustration, we'll think
of it as an immense mass of clay, not one vessel yet being made
from it. As such, there is no evil, no
sin inherent within it. Then one person
is made from the mass, the 'lump.' That person is 'innocent,' being
without sin, and he has the ability to choose between good and evil,
but the gracious God has given every physical and moral incentive
not to sin. The incentive to sin comes from without the man, through
Satan, through and his wife, who each have sinned previously. This
man, this person of no evil character, chooses to join his wife
in rebellion against God. In that action, he dooms himself and all
those whom he represents as the 'perfect man' of creation. Sinning
under the most auspicious of circumstances, he provides an inheritance
of separation from God, and condemnation by God, to all his and
Eve's offspring, changing the nature of the 'lump.' All vessels
formed from the lump, born of Adam's parentage (and remember, Eve
was "born" of Adam herself), subsequent to Adam's sin
will be born with the 'adjusted' nature of sin, lost and under sin's
penalty. The morally responsible agents for the cause of the sin
of man are Satan, and the created couple, not God, though he was
supervising and orchestrating the entire sequence. Yet, though the
predestinated are born from Adam's seed and made from the the same
fleshly lump, they, precisely because they are 'predestinated in
love,' are 'vessels of mercy,' having been 'before prepared unto
glory, even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but of
the Gentiles' (Rom. 9:23-24). The same Apostle comments on this
in Eph. 2:10, which I find occasion to quote so often: 'For we are
his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that
we should walk in them.' This 'creation' is actually a recreation,
a 'new creation,' as Paul says elsewhere, made possible solely by
God's mercy through our predestination to conformation to the image
of His Son. The mercy of our gracious God is displayed and made
available generally, as the Bible teaches, in the testimony of the
physical creation and in the offer of salvation made generally to
all men, but it is specifically applied by God only to those whom He has chosen. The direct choice
of lost men is to ignore and spurn the revelation. Each person born
of the sinful Adam does sin, being at 'enmity against God' (Rom.
8:7). He does so because he chooses to. He is responsible in the
federal head for his sin and he is responsible as he sins individually.
He sins because he is 'fitted' to it; subsequently responsible before
God's wrathful justice for filling with that wrath in punishment.
The recreated vessel of mercy is, conversely, because of predestination/election,
filled with God's mercy because of His direct intervention in rescuing him from sin. I see a vast difference
between the two causative factors. For me, infra is the Scriptural
choice.
Subject: Re: Yep, it's a tough one! From: Anne To: Rod Date Posted:
Mon, May 22, 2000 at 14:38:05 (PDT) Email Address:anneivy@home.com
Message: The morally responsible agents for the
cause of the sin of man are Satan, and the created couple, not God,
though he was supervising and orchestrating the entire sequence.
Yet, though the predestinated are born from Adam's seed and made
from the the same fleshly lump, they, precisely because they are
'predestinated in love,' are 'vessels of mercy,' having been 'before
prepared unto glory, even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews
only, but of the Gentiles' (Rom. 9:23-24). The same Apostle comments
on this in Eph. 2:10, which I find occasion to quote so often: 'For
we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works,
which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.' Well, I'm screwing up something somewhere (Ha! Nuthin'
more likely!) because this bit seems to be, in more erudite terms
than I normally employ, saying what I said. The allegory of the
big ole lump of clay seems reasonable, I must say. As you said,
God takes some bits of the bad (so to speak) clay and fits them
to be vessels of mercy, true? I am certainly agreeing wholeheartedly
that we are morally responsible for our own sins. Absolutely! Positively!
Sans dout! But
we are unable to effect a change with our choices . . . . look,
either God numbers our days or He doesn't, right? So if Alex is
killed (God forbid!) by a drunk driver, can I really believe that
if only that
sorry skunk hadn't chosen to drink and drive, Alex would still be
alive? If I can believe that the timing of our deaths is dicey,
and affected by the free choices of ourselves and others, then where
is God's omnipotence? Where's His sovereignty? 1Peter 2:8 'They
stumble because they disobey the message--which is also what they
were destined for.' 2 Peter 2:12 'But these men blaspheme in matters
they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of
instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts
they too will perish.' Acts 4:27-8 'Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate
met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this
city to conspire against Your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed.
They did what Your power and will had decided beforehand should
happen.' There's others, but you get the drift. Pontius Pilate and
Herod were created to play the roles they did. They had no real
choice in the matter, and the infra position seems to suggest that
they could've straightened up and flown right, since their sinful
actions had nothing to do with God, or God had nothing to do with
their sinful actions, whichever is your preference. I say their
actions were predetermined, but their wicked thought processes were
their own. You know, like Jacob, and the-what-had-better-be-ficticious-if-he-knows-what's-good-for-him-scenario
for Don. Really, ISTM that the trouble is that since Scripture is
written to our level, so we can understand it, it causes misunderstandings.
We can only judge others by their actions, so we assume that God
also judges us by the same criterion. Instead, I think we don't
pay near enough attention to the fact that all of His creation is
saturated with His presence, and He is aware of every concious and
subconcious thought we have, which is a truly unnerving notion.
If Christ doesn't cloak me with His righteousness, I am
in BIG trouble. I could sit immobile for the rest of my life, nary
moving a muscle, and still offend God right and left. Who needs
actions? With us professional sinners, it's all in the mind. Just
my 2 cents, and worth every penny. Anne
Subject: Re: Yep, it's a tough one! From: Rod To: Anne Date Posted:
Mon, May 22, 2000 at 17:42:04 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
Anne, I think I'll focus on this statement of yours to see if we're
in agreement: 'The allegory of the big ole lump of clay seems reasonable,
I must say. As you said, God takes some bits of the bad (so to speak)
clay and fits them to be vessels of mercy, true?' Yes, that is true,
but it doesn't reveal the whole story. The active, direct choice
of the Lord God was, from the moment eternity began, that He would
create Adam with a free will--the only person ever to have such
a characteristic. He also determined at that point that He would
rescue some of Adam's fallen race, actively choosing those whom
He loved (we don't know why He loved them) for predestination to
glory with His Son. The rest were not chosen for that privilege,
but God was not the direct cause of their being lost, though it
was His will. Their 'fitting' is from the fact of their own sin
and unrighteousness. The 'rub' comes in when the end
result of His choice of love and mercy
in predestination (you'll remember that it's based on 'foreknowledge'
in Rom. 8:28) is considered. The effect of the choice of some to
be saved and others to be passed by is the same as if He had predestinated
them to hell by being the moral agent Who caused them to sin directly
and maliciously, as was Satan's design. That the 'lump' was not
predestinated to be lost is best illustrated, I think, by the Word
becoming flesh and dwelling among us. The Lord Jesus' humanity was
of the same lump as Adam's original one, but as Adam was not His
father, He wasn't 'infected' with sin, as they say. Adam was the
created representative man who failed because he could choose sin,
and did choose to, in the face of temptation. The Lord Jesus, however,
Whom the Scriptures describe both as the 'second' and 'last' Adam
(meaning 'man,' representative man, the federal head) was of the
good clay of God's provision. The Lord Jesus didn't sin because
He was of the morally good clay and because He was joined with the
nature of God, the Second Person, the eternal Son. On that basis,
He could be the Federal Head of those Whom He has chosen to save,
as Adam was the federal head of those for whom he sinned. Adam the
first, the 'perfect man' of creation doomed His offspring; Adam
the second, the perfect Man due to the eternal choice of God, came
to earth for the express purpose of saving His people (Matt. 1:21).
Note that, though He will ultimately judge in righteousness, He
'came not to judge the world, but to save the world' (John 12:47;
cp. 8:15-16, 26). He came to save His own out of the whole world
of men, but the fact of His coming and His righteous life and death
according to God's plan of substitution accomplished the end that
men would be judged lost and guilty of sin when they spurned His
offer of salvation and when they are judged by the righteous standard
of the only Man acceptable before God. This was not unknown to God,
being in His plan, as we both agree, but God was not the direct
cause of the rebellion of the lost. That rebellion was born from
within their natures, the natures which are at enmity with God.
It seems to me that there is a fine line between the two positions.
That line hinges on whether God, though willing and decreeing that
the lost be lost forever, though He directs and causes every deed
of man, does it in such a way that He is morally responsible for
their eternal damnation. Again, mysteriously to us, He is ultimately
responsible for everything which happens, but He isn't morally responsible
for the sin of man. The example is given (and remember, all human
analogies fail, sometimes badly) of the two positions as this: In
the supralapsarian view, God leads the lost to the cliff of destruction
and pushes them over into damnation. The infras, on the other hand,
would say that He made the cliff for their destruction, but that
though He plans that they will go over it and wills it, He doesn't
do the actual pushing, giving instead every reasonable chance for
them to turn to Him if they can and avoid the cliff. The result
is the same, but the agents causing the destruction of men's souls
are vastly different. Well, that analogy doesn't satisfy me completely,
but it contains an element of truth. God has determined that men
will be lost and is working His eternal plan in such a way that
this is one of
the ends of His purpose. But let's not forget His central and primary
purpose: to save his people from their sins! It is (again paradoxically)
true that God makes 'all things work together
for good to them that love God, to them
who are the called according to his purpose.' Why? The answer is
provided in the next verse: 'For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be
conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren' (Rom.
8:28-29). By all things working together, even the sin of the lost
and their judgment, the saved of the Lord Jesus Christ are benefitted.
That is God's established purpose as revealed in the Word. God is
blameless in the entire proceeding, as the Bible declares from beginning
to end. In a manner in which the passage demands a 'YES!' answer,
Abraham reveals his understanding of that fact by asking this of
the Lord: 'Shall not the Judge of all the do right' (Gen. 18:25).
By 'right' he meant moral right. That Judge did right, and in doing
so He saved Lot and his family, as well as bringing terrible destruction
on Sodom and the surrounding area. As in this instance, God the
Spirit isn't reticent in declaring God's absolute perfection and
righteousness: 'The Lord is righteous in all his ways, and holy
in all his works' (Ps. 145:17); 'And after these things I heard
a great voice of many people in heaven, saying, Hallehujah! Salvation,
and glory, and honor, and power, unto the Lord, our God; for true
and righteous are his judgments; for he hath judged the great harlot...'
(Rev. 19:1-2; cp. 4:11). Now, Anne, I know you agree with that last
paragraph, as you have posted that fact many times here. But, though
we are agreed on the fact of God's absolute righteousness, the division
comes when the supras declare that He does something contrary to
His nature. That thing would be causing people to sin, which He
would do under the supra view. That, it seems to me would violate
His essential character, based on the Scriptures. Instead, we find
Him 'just, and the justifier of him who believeth in Jesus' (Rom.
3:26). That is the essential message of the Bible: a righteous and
just God causing all things to work together for good to them that
love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.'
Subject: Re: Yep, it's a tough one! From: Pilgrim
To: Rod Date Posted:
Mon, May 22, 2000 at 20:03:57 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Rod,
In all fairness, most Supralapsarians
categorically deny that God is the Author of sin, and therefore
His 'initial' decree to create some for destruction and others for
salvation in Christ is not contrary to His nature. :-) The Supra
position is the most 'logical' and both can easily be derived from
Scripture. Personally, I hold to a combination of the two, hahaha,
ala Herman Bavinck (cf. The Doctrine of
God transl. by William Hendriksen: Baker
Book House, Grand Rapids, MI.).
Rom 11:33 'O the
depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding
out! 34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath
been his counsellor? 35 Or who hath first given to him, and
it shall be recompensed unto him again? 36 For of him, and through
him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever.
Amen.'
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Yep, it's a tough one! From: Anne To: Rod Date Posted: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 18:54:15 (PDT) Email Address:anneivy@home.com
Message: It seems to
me that there is a fine line between the two positions. That line
hinges on whether God, though willing and decreeing that the lost
be lost forever, though He directs and causes every deed of man,
does it in such a way that He is morally responsible for their eternal
damnation. Again, mysteriously to us, He is ultimately responsible
for everything which happens, but He isn't morally responsible for
the sin of man. Dagnabbit,
Rod, I have been bending over backwards assuring all and sundry
that we are morally culpable, morally responsible, morally
[pick-your-word] for our own sin! Have I ever said otherwise? Didn't
think so. If God is willing and decreeing that the lost be lost
forever, then why ****foot around about it, is all? We twist ourselves
in knots trying to protect Him from His own decree, for fear He
won't sound nice. He wills that the lost be lost, but hey, it's
okay, 'cause He feels real bad about it? Balderdash. I can with
all honesty assure you that if, God forbid!, God should have fitted
me to be a vessel of wrath, I would far prefer to know that I was
created for that purpose from the get-go; not that I just missed
Heaven by a hair. And I know, from having been me, that every crummy
thing I have ever done, or ever will do, is my own fault, and not
His. How does that work? Haven't a clue, really. Nor more do you.
Nor does anyone else. We may never know, even after we die. This
might easily be one of those areas that we aren't capable of understanding
. . . . infinite matters cannot be comprehended by finite minds.
Ciao! Anne
Subject: Re: Yep, it's a tough one! From: 'Doesn't
have a clue' To: Anne Date Posted:
Mon, May 22, 2000 at 19:43:50 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
Anne, It wan't my purpose to ruffle your feathers. When you wrote
this, 'Dagnabbit, Rod, I have been bending over backwards assuring
all and sundry that we are morally culpable, morally responsible,
morally [pick-your-word] for our own sin! Have I ever said otherwise?
Didn't think so,' you were exactly right. I do remember your stance
on this and it is as you've stated. It's just that, if I understand
the two positions correctly (which of course you have made clear
you don't think I do), it would be impossible for God to be the
direct, active cause of people sinning and then for Him still to
be able to find them responsible for their sins. BTW, even though
a particular person has been addressed directly, I add a lot of
detail to some posts which I'm certain some, such as yourself, already
know. I'm sure others do the same for the reason that there may
be lurkers and visitors who don't have all the knowledge that you
do.
Subject: Oops! Sorry, Rod! From: Anne To: 'Doesn't
have a clue' Date Posted:
Mon, May 22, 2000 at 20:05:00 (PDT) Email Address:anneivy@home.com
Message:
Rod, you goose! My feathers weren't ruffled! I apologize for making
you think that I was. And yes, I think you understand the two positions
just fine, really. Far better than I, in
toto, truth be known. We just look at
them and put the weight on different points, I guess. The fact is,
this entire discussion very likely belongs to that class of things
that are contained in that Deuteronomy verse about our not inquiring
into the stuff we aren't meant to know. I can't recall if it's in
chapter 29, or is verse 29 in a different chapter. . . . ? Well,
you know the one I mean. Drives one nuts, you know? We can pull
out verses to support predestination, or man's free-will determinism,
or God's sovereignty over every single thing what happens, or that
He is disappointed and frustrated by our disobedience. And that's
just the big stuff! Think of all the lesser things that can be easily
contrasted, depending upon the verse quoted. What can we do? On
the one hand we have James insisting that God never tempts us to
sin, yet there is verse after verse demonstrating that when people
do something dreadful, they do it at God's behest. [sigh] It's a
mystery, alright. Which are fine when authored by Agatha Christie
or Rex Stout, but not so agreeable to us (well, me, anyway) when
it concerns such important matters as these. [wistfully] I rather
wish the Lord would come out with an official sequel, entitled 'The
Idiot's Guide to the Divine.' I might possibly be able to manage
that version! Still friends, I hope! Affectionately, Anne
Subject: Still friends, of course! :>) From: Rod To: Anne Date Posted:
Mon, May 22, 2000 at 21:41:03 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
Anne, I hate to differ with you so soon, but I think the Lord gave
us His whole Word, and his Spirit within each believer, with the
intent that we understand all that which He has revealed to us.
By that I mean this: Ideally, the Church should be able to study
the Word, rely on the guidance of the Spirit of God, and arrive
at harmony on the major doctrines put forth in the Bible. The fact
that we don't agree is a testimony to our blindness and hardness
of heart. That notwithstanding, good and godly people do disagree
on some substantive issues. It doesn't affect their salvation, if
they agree on the essentials, but it isn't in the spirit of Eph.
4:11-16, where the individuals of the body are designed to help
the body grow and be edified. Let's see, 'Duck, duck, goose....'
You referred to me as a 'goose.' Does that mean I'm reprobate or
saved? :>)
Subject: What are Friends For? :-) From: Pilgrim
To: Rod Date Posted:
Tues, May 23, 2000 at 07:43:23 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Rod,
You are right, of course, that
God graciously gave us His Word, and actually condescended to put
it into comprehensive language so that men/women/children, by His
Spirit would be able to apprehend and apply it. I love Calvin's
statement concerning the perspicuity of the Word, where he said
that 'God lisped so that we might know Him in His Word'. But I think
it is important to not give the wrong impression that ALL of God's
children are given the same 'ability' by the Spirit to comprehend
the Word to the same degree. The Spirit, Eph
4:7 'But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure
of the gift of Christ. . . . 16 From whom the whole body fitly joined
together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according
to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase
of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.'. There have been and will continue to be those who have
been gifted with more 'response-ability' within the Body of Christ
for the purpose of serving the Church. Now I realize that there
are many today who would posit that we are all 'equal' etc., but
this simply isn't true according to the Scriptures. However, the
common 'sheep' is not left to the mercy of those 'gifted' to serve
in the ministry of the Word as if they are to bow before every 'wind
of doctrine' that blows their way. But rather, EVERY teaching is
subject to the fundamental and perspicuous teachings of God's Word.
For example, there is no doubt that the Scriptures teach that God
possesses the 'Big 3' Omni's; Omnipotence, Omnipresence, and Omniscience.
Thus if someone should come along with a 'deeper truth' that he/she
has discovered by diligent study and the 'revelation' of the Spirit
which contradicts any or all of these three 'Omni's', then that
person is simply wrong. There are No contradictions within the Godhead,
nor in His written Word, and the Church has always recognized this
from the beginning, confessing that God's inscripturated Word is
'Infallible and Inerrant'. No child of God is to fear that he/she
can be led down a wrong path, at least for very long, when they
have the Scriptures as the 'light of their path.' Thus it is incumbent
upon ALL believers to be faithful disciples of the Lord Christ and
'continue in the Word' (Jh 8:31). This 'check and balance' created
within the Church is a marvelous thing and thus we are to be 'subject
to one another'(1Pet 5:5). Personally, I am always suspicious of
anyone who says they adhere to 'No creed but Christ! No doctrine
but life!' Granted there are various 'Confessions' which the denominations
from the Reformation wrote for themselves, but if one takes a good
look at these historic Confessions, they only differ on the 'non-essentials',
e.g., the recipients and mode of baptism, etc. But as to the essentials
of the fundamental doctrines, which are known as the 'Doctrines
of Sovereign Grace,' they are ALL in agreement. In my younger days,
when I was overflowing with enthusiastic energy, hehehe, I read
through Philip Schaff's Creeds of Christendom and was amazed that there was so much unity within the
diversity of the various denominations which came out of the Reformation.
Today however, these Confessions are ignored, rejected and in many
quarters, ridiculed. They are seen as 'binding' rather than 'unifying';
'detrimental' rather than a sure 'guard' against the heretical teachings
of the wolves. Okay.... done! hahaha
In His Marvelous Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: What are Friends For? :-) From: Rod To: Pilgrim Date Posted:
Tues, May 23, 2000 at 09:49:45 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
Pilgrim, As I hurredly read your post (have an appointment), I don't
think I see any basic dispute here. I didn't find anything which
wasn't fundamentally my conviction also. In your statement you seem
to suggest that I think every individual member of the Church has an equal ability to discern
God's truth. That is emphatically not my contention. I am frequently
humbled in the presence of greater knowledge of God than I possess
by people who are obviously closer to the Lord than I have ever
been. I am perfectly content to sit back in those situations and
learn, though I am also sometimes inspired to try to find an avenue
to share some of the truth I've received from them. You made this
statement: 'But I think it is important to not give the wrong impression
that ALL of God's children are given the same 'ability' by the Spirit
to comprehend the Word to the same degree.' In response, I offer
that I tried to give the opposite impression, saying this: 'Ideally, the Church should
be able to study the Word, rely on the guidance of the Spirit of
God, and arrive at harmony on the major doctrines put forth in the
Bible.' In that statement, I was speaking of the Church of Jesus
Christ, in its entire makeup, not an individual. I specifically
had the passage in Ephesians you quoted in mind. If we are all fulfilling
our gifted and appointed functions, then there should be properly
gifted people studying the divisive issues and the entire Body should
be looking at those conclusions with an
eye for resolution of differences based on the Word of God and the
leading of the Spirit. That, I think,
is 'edifying.' I am often saddened deeply by the type of debate
I see on the various Christian boards which is self-serving and
not honoring to God. If we adhere to the principles of Eph. 4:11-16,
our goal won't be debate and winning, but discussion and resolution
of conflict whenever possible so that God's Church will be edified
and more closely resemble that 'perfect man' mentioned by Paul in
verse 13. I also endorse this statement of yours heartily: 'However,
the common 'sheep' is not left to the mercy of those 'gifted' to
serve in the ministry of the Word as if they are to bow before every
'wind of doctrine' that blows their way. But rather, EVERY teaching
is subject to the fundamental and perspicuous teachings of God's
Word.' It seems to me that the 'common sheep' is to be Berean (Acts
17:11) enough to do so. I think that is exactly what John was referring
to in the oft misinterpreted 1 John 2:27, that the real Christian,
led by the Spirit and sound in the Word, will be able to recognize
teaching from those so gifted which is honoring to the Bible's truth
and not be led astray by false teachers. If I gave you and the board
any other impression, I regret that. My goal was, as I say, just
the opposite. May God preserve me (and all my brothers and sisters)
from being too full of myself. John 3:30.
Subject: Re: What are Friends For? :-) From: Pilgrim
To: Rod Date Posted:
Tues, May 23, 2000 at 12:08:55 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
The Pil
Subject: Re: Still friends, of course! :>) From: Anne To: Rod Date Posted: Tues, May 23, 2000 at 05:13:22 (PDT) Email Address:anneivy@home.com
Message: Let's see,
'Duck, duck, goose....' You referred to me as a 'goose.' Does that
mean I'm reprobate or saved? [firmly]
Saved, naturally. The reprobate outnumber the saved, as I understand
it, so the geese are the elect. Ciao! Anne
Subject: Re: Yep, it's a tough one! From: Chrystostomos
To: Rod Date Posted:
Mon, May 22, 2000 at 14:32:01 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Hello Rod, I hope you are continuing on the road to recovery. Since
it's a slow day at work, I did a little digging on these terms which
I'd heard a few times, but never really knew anything about. My
understanding is that the crux of debate surrounds whenGod 'decreed' certain things. In infrlapsarianism, God
decrees election to salvation after the fall and in supralapsarianism,
God decrees election to salvation prior to the fall. (I guess that
would be self-evident if one knew Latin, but I am a product of the
American educational system and am thus a bit behind the curve)
Further, I have read that the 'means' for God's glorification are
different on both sides as well. The 'supras' say that God glorifies
himself through the process of creating some for election to salvation
and some for reprobation. The 'infras' say that God glorifies himself
by the creation of the entire human race (thus, the decree comes
after the fall). Have I got that right? Thanks.
Subject: Re: Yep, it's a tough one! From: Pilgrim
To: Chrystostomos
Date Posted:
Mon, May 22, 2000 at 14:44:56 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Chrystostomos,
Nope, you got it all wrong my
friend!.... TOTALLY wrong! The Infralapsarian view NEVER says God
decreed ANYTHING after He created the worlds. The 'decrees' in both
views stem from ETERNITY! It's the ORDER of the decrees that is at issue, NOT when! :-)
Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Yep, it's a tough one! From: Anne To: Pilgrim Date Posted:
Mon, May 22, 2000 at 15:44:31 (PDT) Email Address:anneivy@home.com
Message:
Perhaps it would be useful to get our definitions clear. My impression
has been that the infras say that God created everyone, then there
was the Fall, then the elect were chosen. The supras say that God
created everyone, basically as either vessels of mercy or of wrath,
though from the same lump of clay, and afterwards there was the
Fall. In the infra POV, the election comes after the Fall; in the
supra POV, it preceeds it. Keeping in mind that this would have
not taken place in 'time,' as we understand it. How badly am I off
in my reckoning? Anne
Subject: Re: Yep, it's a tough one! From: Chrysostomos
To: Pilgrim Date Posted:
Mon, May 22, 2000 at 14:59:45 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Chrystostomos,
Nope, you got it all wrong my
friend!.... TOTALLY wrong! The Infralapsarian view NEVER says God
decreed ANYTHING after He created the worlds. The 'decrees' in both
views stem from ETERNITY! It's the ORDER of the decrees that is at issue, NOT when! :-)
Pilgrim
--- OK, OK, no need to yell. :) The word 'order' seemed to imply
some sort of temporal sequence, which may be what confused me...
Subject: Re: Yep, it's a tough one! From: Pilgrim
To: Chrysostomos
Date Posted:
Mon, May 22, 2000 at 18:10:33 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Chrystostomos,
Nope, you got it all wrong my
friend!.... TOTALLY wrong! The Infralapsarian view NEVER says God
decreed ANYTHING after He created the worlds. The 'decrees' in both
views stem from ETERNITY! It's the ORDER of the decrees that is at issue, NOT when! :-)
Pilgrim
--- OK, OK, no need to yell. :) The word 'order' seemed to imply
some sort of temporal sequence, which may be what confused me...
--- Chrystostomos,
I wasn't 'yelling', hehehe but
rather EMPHASIZING! :-) We as finite creatures do have this tendency
to try and comprehend an infinite GOD in 'time modes', and thus
your reply, 'The word 'order' seemed to
imply some sort of temporal sequence, which may be what confused
me...'. This is understandable, but simply
wrong. Since the LORD God is endowed with the attribute of 'Infinity'
(having no beginning nor end) and is the Creator of time itself
and thus is not subject to it. As Rod initially commented, this
is a very difficult subject, and I think mainly because of our limitations
as time-bound creatures. But as I have come to understand the decrees
of God, they existed as one in His infinite 'consciousness'. Thus
for us being finite, we speak of the 'order' of the decrees or perhaps
better said, the 'sequence' in which God's infinite counsel and
will was to be applied in time. [Got a headache yet?] For an introductory
article I would refer you to The Decrees of God by Arthur Pink.
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Yep, it's a tough one! From: Chrysostomos To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Tues, May 23, 2000 at 08:22:09 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message: Pilgrim, Thank you for taking the time. C
Subject: Pilgrim how is this? From: kevin To: Pilgrim Date Posted:
Mon, May 22, 2000 at 19:53:13 (PDT) Email Address:amoshart@earthlink.net
Message:
It is my understanding that it is not an issue of time order God
creates, then He elects, etc. But an issue of logical order. This
begins the thought process then such and such flows from said process.
It is not of necessity an issue of time but logical flow. Did that
make any sense and if so is my understanding correct? In Him, kevin
sdg your humble infa/supra lapsarian believer. That is how easily
I can agree with both sides. . . .
Subject: Re: Pilgrim how is this? From: Pilgrim
To: kevin Date Posted:
Mon, May 22, 2000 at 20:07:56 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
It is my understanding that it is not an issue of time order God
creates, then He elects, etc. But an issue of logical order. This
begins the thought process then such and such flows from said process.
It is not of necessity an issue of time but logical flow. Did that
make any sense and if so is my understanding correct? In Him, kevin
sdg your humble infa/supra lapsarian believer. That is how easily
I can agree with both sides.
--- kevin, We are on the same page! :-) In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Yep, it's a tough one! From: Rod To: Chrysostomos
Date Posted:
Mon, May 22, 2000 at 18:04:00 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
Chris, If God did things the way you have suggested, it would be
as the Arminian view has it: that He has to learn things, not being
omnipotent or omnipotent. God knows and decides all things from
eternity past, never acquiring knowledge. That is the only proper
view of Almighty God.
Subject: Re: Yep, it's a tough one! From: Chrysostomos
To: Rod Date Posted:
Tues, May 23, 2000 at 08:57:41 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Hi Rod, Actually, I was just seeing if I had 'absorbed' the information
from the attached link properly. Pilgrim pointed out that 'order'
doesn't imply a temporal sequence. Whew! Gotta be careful which
definitions are used, eh? C Infralapsarianism mb-soft.com/believe/text/infralap.htm
Subject: Re: Anyone want to discuss... From: Eric To: Anne Date Posted:
Mon, May 22, 2000 at 09:38:15 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Hello Anne, To suggest that God is unfair
or harsh in creating souls for the purpose of satisfying His perfect
wrath is foolishness . . . . this is His creation, every scrap and
molecule of it, and He may create anything and anyone for any reason
that glorifies Him and His Name. Since nothing can exist or occur
outside of or beyond His will, then if He is desirous of expressing
His wrath and justice, by necessity He is going to have to create
beings as the objects of those divine attributes. I don't think your argument holds, for a couple of reasons.
First, the biblical record speaks of God pouring out his wrath on
account of the evil deeds (sin) of his creatures. This is just and
right. In addition scripture speaks of God not delighting in the
destruction of the wicked, He would rather that all men repent and
turn to him. The second reason, is God's wrath is not an essential
part of His character. He is no less, and no more satisfied by the
expression of it, or lack there of. To deny this point, is to assume
that God was somehow less than completely satisfied within the fellowship
of the Holy Trinity before the creation of the universe. God's character
is made up of love, holiness, rightousness, justice, etc, but not
wrath or anger. Wrath and anger are a response to events committed
by beings outside of himself. If I permit
or allow my son to do something, that means that he was the instigator
of the suggested action. How can any of us instigate something beyond
God's will? That would mean ours is the primary action, and He is,
in effect, seconding our motion. Your
reasoning in essence is saying that God creates people for the express
purpose of tormenting them in hell, and then decrees that they sin,
in order to be just in sending them to hell. God bless.
Subject: Re: Anyone want to discuss... From: Anne To: Eric Date Posted:
Mon, May 22, 2000 at 10:35:17 (PDT) Email Address:anneivy@home.com
Message: God's character is made up of love, holiness,
rightousness, justice, etc, but not wrath or anger. Wrath and anger
are a response to events committed by beings outside of himself.
Hmmm, I don't think this is true. For
one thing, how can an omnipotent, omniscient (is that spelled correctly?
It just looks
wrong!) God have stuff happening outside of Him, which I presume
means outside of His control. For another, God's wrath is referred
to as many times, if not more so, than His love, etc. As R.C. Sproul
Jr. said, His wrath is not unwanted baggage that He wishes he could
ditch. As for how God's perfect sovereignty squares with our moral
culpability, I freely grant that that's a poser, all right. I've
been thinking of it like this: Okay, there's some ghastly situation
wherein some woman must be kept from making an appointment, otherwise
it will be The End Of Civilization As We Know It. This woman is
known to have been making plays for my husband, who is not present
for this meeting. The decision is made, with my reluctant approval,
that Don is just going to have to sacrifice himself and make the
Sign of the Aardvark with the wicked woman. We are hidden, anxiously
looking for him to come back, so the plan can be put to him. It
will require much argument and arm-twisting, I am certain. Ah! Here
he comes! Oh, no! There she is! And before we can get to Don! Whateffershallwedo?
Watching, we see her beckon Don, who goes to her, looks carefully
around, puts his hand on the small of her back, and together they
head off. Civilization As We Know It is saved! Ain't it grand? Unless,
of course, you happen to be his wife. I am not nearly as enthusiastic
as everyone else, since Don didn't need any urging at
all to perform the Evil Deed. When he
learns what happened, he attempts to placate me by pointing out
that all he did was what I wanted him to do anyway, right? So that
was a good thing, right? So everything's okay, right? Wrong. What
he DID may have been part of the plan, but his REASONS for Doing
His Part (to put it delicately), stunk. To high heaven, as it were.
Basically, it's the kidnapping of Jacob, only updated with a new
cast of characters and storyline. Calvin also said something in
that book that I loved, which was that God's sovereignty should
be of immense comfort to us, since we can look back on the heinous
sins we have committed, and feel remorse for our sinful part in
them, yet know that nothing different could have happened. ISTM
that in Scripture there are two different sets of instructions,
so to speak. God's total sovereignty is spelled out clearly . .
. this is reality. Yet we are also given instructions and commands
and exhortations. What's up with that, if God is complete control
of His creation? Think back to when you were in school. Remember
when you'd be given an essay test, and the teacher would tell the
class to assume that he has no knowledge of the topic whatsoever?
'Pretend I don't know anything about it,' the teacher would insist.
Now, the class knows he knows about it. He knows that the class
knows he knows about it. The class knows that he knows that the
class, etc. etc. That instruction was the working hypothesis for
the class; that's rule by which they are respond to the test. So,
God provides us with a working hypothesis, with which we are to
make our concious decisions and choices. Considerations of His sovereignty
are most useful when looking at the past, and when facing the future,
but for the here-and-now, God wants us to refer to His instructions
in His Word for how to behave. Ciao! Anne
Subject: Re: Anyone want to discuss... From: Eric To: Anne Date Posted:
Mon, May 22, 2000 at 13:10:04 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message: For one thing, how can an omnipotent, omniscient
(is that spelled correctly? It just looks wrong!) God have stuff
happening outside of Him, which I presume means outside of His control. You assumed wrong. :) Nothing is outside of God's control,
we share that viewpoint. If you do not grant that God allows creatures
action, apart from his direct control(as opposed to puppets), then
you must logically conclude that God is the author and cause of
sin. I will not go that far. For another,
God's wrath is referred to as many times, if not more so, than His
love, etc. We are told in scripture that
'God IS Love',
to my knowledge, there is not a verse that says God is wrath. As R.C. Sproul Jr. said, His wrath is not unwanted
baggage that He wishes he could ditch.
Okay, are you willing to say that before the creation of the world,
God was less satisfied, or not expressing himself completely, because
he was unable to be angry? And that the reason that the reprobate
are created, is so he can finally have somebody to be angry at?
Sign of the aardvark
Never really heard that one before. I guess I better brush up on
my zoology, I can't get a picture in my head of what an actual aardvark
looks like. :) As to the rest of your analogy, you need to change
one thing. You need to insert yourself, as the one who decreed that
your husband have the wrong motives. Your husband cannnot have one
thought that was not commanded beforehand by you. Now, would you
still be angry with him? Calvin also said
something in that book that I loved, which was that God's sovereignty
should be of immense comfort to us, since we can look back on the
heinous sins we have committed, and feel remorse for our sinful
part in them, yet know that nothing different could have happened. Ahh, but isn't the only way this makes sense, is if we
caused the sin ourselves. Otherwise, where is the sorrow coming
from? So, hypothetically speaking, Hitler would not have been guilty
of sin, if he would have killed millions, not as a quest for power,
but as a humble servant, who realizes he is only carrying out God's
plan? How can we disassociate the motivation, and the act? Is not
the torture of an child always wrong, regardless of the motivation
behind it? Can we dismember infants to the glory of God? So, God provides us with a working hypothesis, with
which we are to make our concious decisions and choices. Considerations
of His sovereignty are most useful when looking at the past, and
when facing the future, but for the here-and-now, God wants us to
refer to His instructions in His Word for how to behave. Yes, I agree, good point.
Subject: Re: Anyone want to discuss... From: Pilgrim
To: Eric Date Posted:
Mon, May 22, 2000 at 14:41:36 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Eric, Apply your 'logic' to the crucifixion and see if it works!
:-) It fails miserably to be sure! In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Why does it fail? From: Eric To: Pilgrim Date Posted:
Tues, May 23, 2000 at 07:23:42 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Hi Pilgrim, Who creates sin? Obviously man does, scripture precludes
all other possibilities. Therefore, I reject the notion that God
actively decreed
the sinful actions of man. Was Christ crucifixion ordained from
eternity past? Yes. Could Pilate have decided to release Jesus instead
of allowing his crucifixion? No, because that would have required
God to bestow more grace upon Pilate to do the right thing. It is
my view that God sovereignly administers common/restraining grace
in all people in order to accomplish His purposes. So, God does
not command the sinful actions of men, but rather he permits thoses
sins that accomplish His purposes. God bless.
Subject: Re: Why does it fail? From: Pilgrim
To: Eric Date Posted:
Tues, May 23, 2000 at 07:55:15 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Eric,
Well that certainly is a far cry
from what you initially posted! :-) However, could you expand just
a bit on what you mean by: 'God actively decreed
the sinful actions of man'? This is now
getting into the area of 'Double Predestination' which is a sub-topic
of the Decrees. God 'Foreordains' ALL things, even the sins of men. Yet no man is compelled
against his will to rebel against the Almighty and transgress His
laws. All men sin as naturally as rain falls from the sky and thus
I agree with you that God's direct 'action' in the affairs of men
is more in the way of 'restraint'. Yet this does not negate the
fact that ALL THINGS
are 'Foreordained' by God. Is He therefore morally and legally culpable
for the sins of men? Mae genito 'God forbid!'. And this is one of those 'mysteries' which
finite minds are unable to comprehend, and I suspect never will.
:-)
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Why does it fail? From: Eric To: Pilgrim Date Posted:
Tues, May 23, 2000 at 10:17:06 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
I don't think that it is, in light of the context. We were discussing
supra vs infra lapsarianism. Supra's must hold to reprobation for
a cause other than sin. God sends people to hell, not as a punishment
for sin, but as a way of glorifying himself. This ties in with the
concept of ordination. God ordains (commands) sin in order to be
just in sending people to hell. Anne stated that nothing can happen
outside of God, and the reason that people are sent to hell, is
not so much for their actions, but for their attitude while performing
their actions. Hence my question: Can we dismember infants to the
glory of God? In regard to God's active decree. What I mean is that
I don't think that God positively commands every action, rather
the order of the universe is a combination of positive commands
performed by God, and God granting man 'permission' to do some of
the evil things that arise out of man's heart. God allows (not decrees)
evil, for a time, in order to bring about the ultimate good. God
bless.
Subject: Re: Why does it fail? From: Anne To: Eric Date Posted:
Tues, May 23, 2000 at 11:09:00 (PDT) Email Address:anne_g_ivy@yahoo.com
Message: What I mean is that I don't think that
God positively commands every action, rather the order of the universe
is a combination of positive commands performed by God, and God
granting man 'permission' to do some of the evil things that arise
out of man's heart. The main problem that
appears to arise from 'God granting man 'permission' to do some
of the evil things that arise out of man's heart' is that it has
man, in time, instigating actions outside of and beyond God's will.
To be able to know the end from the beginning, does He look into
the future to see what all us rascals get up to, as time passes?
I don't see how it could be otherwise, if none of the dreadful things
that occur have nothing to do with Him, and He'd just as soon they
not. Occur, that is. From there it is but a short hop to God's foreknowledge
consisting of Him looking into the future and discovering who accepts
Him and who does not, with such being the basis for our election,
or lack thereof. The two views seem to me to be inextricably tied
together, you see. BTW, those who are perishing in hell are most
certainly doing so based on their sins. Consider the story of the
rich man in hell, speaking to Abraham . . . . at no point does he
complain that he is being mistreated, or judged unfairly. This is,
I believe, significant. Yet to his plea that Lazarus be sent to
warn his brothers of their same fate, he's told simply that it would
do no good, and be of no use. It is their unchangeable destiny.
They wouldn't believe, even if they should see someone raised from
the dead! Ciao! Anne
Subject: Man does violate the will of God From: Eric To: Anne Date Posted:
Tues, May 23, 2000 at 12:32:05 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message: The main problem that appears to arise
from 'God granting man 'permission' to do some of the evil things
that arise out of man's heart' is that it has man, in time, instigating
actions outside of and beyond God's will. The
only alternative to this, is to say that God's secret will is that
many sin and blaspheme His Son, but scripture declares that God
hates sin. So, you have a perfectly holy God commanding his creation
to sin which He hates. Also, I really don't think that this leads
to God's election based upon a foreknowledge of a persons's faith.
The doctrine is derived from scripture, and not from logical conclusions.
Anne, when you sin, are you violating God's will? Would God rather
not have sin in your life, as it is stated so plainly in His Word?
Or, does He tell you that He doesn't want you to sin, while all
the while knowing full well that He commanded you to sin before
the universe began? God bless.
Subject: Re: Man does violate the will of God From: Anne To: Eric Date Posted:
Tues, May 23, 2000 at 12:50:23 (PDT) Email Address:anne_g_ivy@yahoo.com
Message: Anne, when you sin, are you violating God's
will? Would God rather not have sin in your life, as it is stated
so plainly in His Word? Or, does He tell you that He doesn't want
you to sin, while all the while knowing full well that He commanded
you to sin before the universe began? I'm
violating His revealed
will when I sin . . . His hidden will (there's some term for it,
but it escapes me) is another matter. Eric, lamb, if I could explain
precisely the way this stuff works, I'd be God! ;-> But I can't, so I'm not, therefore the
world is safe. Ciao! Anne
Subject: Re: Man does violate the will of God From: Pilgrim
To: Anne Date Posted:
Tues, May 23, 2000 at 18:03:10 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Anne: Secret Will= Decretive Will Revealed Will= Preceptive will In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Thank you, sir! From: Anne To: Pilgrim Date Posted:
Tues, May 23, 2000 at 18:16:39 (PDT) Email Address:anne_g_ivy@yahoo.com
Message:
Those are the ones! How the dickens do you get those faces to show
up? All I can manage is bold and italics. Anne
Subject: For fg re-righteousness From: Tom To: All Date Posted:
Sun, May 21, 2000 at 17:25:49 (PDT) Email Address:ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
fg The following is from the Westminster Confession of Faith. You
should notice from it, that it supports what we have been saying
all along. I. The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled
to believe to the saving of their souls,[1] is the work of the Spirit
of Christ in their hearts,[2] and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry
of the Word,[3] by which also, and by the administration of the
sacraments, and prayer, it is increased and strengthened.[4] 1.
Titus 1:1; Heb. 10:39 2. I Cor. 12:3; John 3:5; 6:44-45, 65; Titus
3:5; Eph. 2:8; Phil. 1:29; II Peter 1:1; see I Peter 1:2 3. Matt.
28:19-20; Rom. 10:14, 17; I Cor. 1:21 4. I Peter 2:2; Acts 20:32;
Rom. 1:16-17; Matt. 28:19; see Acts 2:38; I Cor. 10:16; 11:23-29;
Luke 17:5; Phil. 4:6-7 II. By this faith, a Christian believeth
to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority
of God himself speaking therein;[5] and acteth differently upon
that which each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding
obedience to the commands,[6] trembling at the threatenings,[7]
and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which
is to come.[8] But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting,
receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification,
and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.[9] 5. II Peter
1:20-21; John 4:42; I Thess. 2:13; I John 5:9-10; Acts 24:14 6.
Psa. 119:10-11, 48, 97-98, 167-168; John 14:15 7. Ezra 9:4; Isa.
66:2; Heb. 4:1 8. Heb. 11:13; I Tim. 4:8 9. John 1:12; Acts 15:11,
16:31; Gal. 2:20; II Tim. 1:9-10 III. This faith is different in
degrees, weak or strong;[10] may be often and many ways assailed,
and weakened, but gets the victory:[11] growing up in many to the
attainment of a full assurance, through Christ,[12] who is both
the author and finisher of our faith.[13] 10. Heb. 5:13-14; Rom.
4:19-20; 14:1-2; Matt. 6:30; 8:10 11. Luke 22:31-32; Eph. 6:16;
I John 5:4-5 12. Heb. 6:11-12; 10:22; Col. 2:2 13. Heb. 12:2
Subject: Re: For fg re-righteousness From: freegrace
To: Tom Date Posted:
Sun, May 21, 2000 at 18:25:33 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
All very true, I agree! True saving faith believes *all that is
revealed in the word*, and this includes how we are justified in
the sight of God. The Puritans and reformers all taught justification
by the imputed righteousness of Christ, received by faith alone
- without works of any kind! We do good works *after* we become
saved... that is certain. Sermon by Erskine www.puritansermons.com/erskine/eerskin02.htm
Subject: Re: For fg re-righteousness From: Tom To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Sun, May 21, 2000 at 23:30:22 (PDT) Email Address:ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
fg I don't know why I waisted my time looking up that maturial.
It is obvious that you either can not comprehend what we and those
of the people who wrote the Westminster Confession of Faith are
saying. Or you are purposely misusing what they said for your Hyper-Calvinist
leanings. I was recently told that what you are saying is also opposed
to what John Calvin taught. They are looking up that information
for me. Tom
Subject: Re: For fg re-righteousness From: freegrace
To: Tom Date Posted:
Mon, May 22, 2000 at 05:49:37 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Hi Tom, JOhn Calvin taught this great truth, as well as Martin Luther
and many others as well. Calvin wrote about justification the following:
>>>On the contrary, a man will be justified by faith when,
excluded from the righteousness of works, he by faith lays hold
of the righteousness of Christ, and clothed in it appears in the
sight of God not as a sinner, but as righteous. Thus we simply interpret
justification, as the acceptance with which God receives us into
his favor as if we were righteous; and we say that this justification
consists in the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of the righteousness
of Christ, (see sec. 21 and 23.)<<<
Subject: No Ears to Hear? No Posting Here! From: Pilgrim
To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Mon, May 22, 2000 at 07:24:13 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
freegrace,
You were given a warning to cease
and desist from promoting this heresy along with distorting the
teachings of others. It seems quite obvious that you are OBSESSED with this thing
and have no ears to hear what the Spirit has said in the Churches
nor what He is saying in the Scriptures. You blindly rush head-on
down this dark path that you think is brightly lit evidently having
no consciousness of the terrible end this road leads. Your persistent
refusal to at least stop posting this distortion of the Gospel which
is in fact what Paul calls 'Another Gospel' leaves me no choice
but to remove you from this Forum for a period of time in the hopes
that God will deal with your heart as well as your head and give
you the needed understanding unto repentance and restoration. May
the LORD be merciful to you always.
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: No Ears to Hear? No Posting Here! From: laz To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Mon, May 22, 2000 at 11:15:01 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
fg - you wrote: I am very sorry, I thought
that we were in agreement on how a sinner is justified in the sight
of God. We do agree as genuine believers
that justification is an act of God whereby Christ's righteousness
is imputed to us. This is NOT the issue. The issue is your insistence
that a person MUST embrace imputation (as a condition) before God
will justify....as thought salvation always comes in the same little
PACKAGE. To require the embracing of any doctrine as a CONDITION
of salvation (or even the the fruit/sign of true regeneration) turns
the Gospel into works. Can't you see this? I say this doctrine can
very well be misunderstood by a TRUE believer (i.e., someone who's
regenerate)....and so we must trust in God's providence in bringing
a SAVED person via SANCTIFICATION to the point of being able to
comprehend or apprehend this important and blessed doctrine. Some
might NEVER grasp imputation .... but still be saved despite their
ignorance. Orthodoxy doesn't save...mercy (God's) saves! I simply
WON'T say that a person HAS to believe like a Calvinist in order
to be saved...or even believe in imputation (which is NOT an exclusively
calvinistic doctrine as many arminians embrace it also). So, when
are you gonna see the light? There CAN be a Mormon who is fully
and genuinely trusting in the historical God-Man's finished work
(which arguabley means he's not a very good Mormon, hehe) ... not
understanding imputation, election predestination, perhaps never
hearing of such doctrines...yet die tonight in the arms of our Savior.
He was providentially and mercifully saved by hearing just a smidget
of the Gospel and yet it was enough for the Spirit to cause his
heart to be 'strangely warmed'... This is fully possible....and
doesn't take on iota away from the Gospel of Grace...in fact, it's
a GREAT example of it! You simply can't say that Arminians(who are
fall closer to the truth than Mormons) who reject election (or any
other doctrine) are hellbound. Only those who reject the person
and work of Christ FOR THEM are still dead in their sins. What they
understand and believe about particular doctrines is certainly important,
but secondary when it comes to how God chooses to justify individuals.
laz
Subject: Re: No Ears to Hear? No Posting Here! From: freegrace
To: laz Date Posted:
Mon, May 22, 2000 at 13:57:16 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Hi Laz, That sounds like 'easy-believism' to me. Those who just
let 'jesus come into their hearts' are saved and on their way to
heaven - be they Mormon, or whatever. Seems like you are forgeting
that the spirit of antichrist will give a person a false assurance
of salvation, and deceive them into thinking everything is OK, when
it is not OK. Liberal thinking is 'I'm OK, and you're OK'..etc.
All I have been trying to say here is, that what is true about a
person submiting to God's sovereignty in salvation.. (election),
is also true about a person's submiting to God's way of justification
by an imputed righteousness. >>>All God's people, sooner
or later, are brought to this point -- to see that God has a 'people,'
'a peculiar people,' a people separate from the world, a people
whom He has 'formed for Himself, that they should show forth His
praise.' Election sooner or later, is riveted in the hearts of God's
people. And a man, that lives and dies against this blessed doctrine,
lives and dies in his sins; and if he dies in that enmity, he will
be damned in that enmity (J. C. Philpot). 'The Arminians, on the
other hand, hold and teach conditional election on a ground of foreseen
faith. This is contrary to the Truth. As long as men are unregenerate,
they are in a state of unbelief, without hope in God and without
faith in Christ. When saved by grace, they have faith, but that
not of themselves. It is not of their own power or free-will, but
the gift of God through the efficacious teaching of the Holy Spirit.
Faith, therefore, cannot be the cause of election. It is the effect
of it and is insured by it. 'As many as were ordained to eternal
life believed' (Acts 13: 48). 'For by grace are ye saved through
faith: and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of
works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created
in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained
that we should walk in them' (Ephesians 2: 8-10). The text quoted
by Arminians in support of their doctrine of conditional election
on the ground of foreseen faith, is 'Whom He did foreknow, He also
did predestinate, etc.' (Romans 8: 29). Such a view is superficial
and untenable. 'The word 'foreknow' in the New Testament usage,
as pointed out by Dr. W. G. T. Shedd, is employed in the sense of
the Hebrew yada (know) which denotes love and favour. 'Not foreknowledge
as bare prescience,' says Calvin, 'but the adoption by which God
had always from eternity distinguished His children from the reprobate.'
The Scriptures represent election as occurring in the past, irrespective
of personal merit. 'The children being not yet born, neither having
done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election
might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth, it was said
unto her, the elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob
have I loved, but Esau have I hated' (Romans 9: 11-13). The sovereignty
of God's choice comes out clearly in the Pauline statement that
Christ died for His people while they were yet sinners (Romans 5:
8). It has been well said that Arminians take the choice out of
the hands of God and place it in the hands of men' ('The Reformed
Faith' by the Rev. D. Beaton, p. 24). 'But of Him and through Him
and to Him are all things to whom be glory for ever. Amen' (Romans
11: 36). ========================= But I will wait for Pilgrim's
reply, and his meaning of 'alien righteousness'.... Of course, you
are free to think that Arminians are saved..even if they are deceived
into thinking that they 'elect themselves' unto salvation by their
own 'free will'...! Then why contend for the true faith once delievered
unto the saints, if a false faith will save a person also?! freegrace
Subject: Re: No Ears to Hear? No Posting Here! From: laz To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Mon, May 22, 2000 at 19:59:45 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
'Easy believism' is mere intellectual assent - which has NOTHING
to do with Spirit-wrought faith....I was talking TRUE faith in Christ....and
even granting the possibility that an Arminian/Mormon CAN not only
be brought to saving have but have WORKS galore to PROVE his faith
is genuine. Besides, a true believing Mormon...WILL eventually leave
the LDS on account of her gross heresies, but still never grasp
perfect doctrine. Please, I was not talking about 'letting Jesus
into their heart'...you know I reject that. I was intentially CLEAR
about what I defined as both saving faith and the proper object
of that faith. Maybe you need to reread my post. laz
Subject: Re: No Ears to Hear? No Posting Here! From: laz To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Mon, May 22, 2000 at 18:58:38 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
fg - you wrote:Then why contend for the
true faith once delievered unto the saints, if a false faith will
save a person also?! Why is a simple understanding
of the Gospel (or nature of faith) necessarily equate to a false
gospel (or false faith)? You think Lydia, the Eunuch, or Cornelius
said, 'I'm so glad that Jesus' righteousness
was imputed to my account and my sin was given to Him'? Or, 'I'm sure glad that God
in His infinite and unconditional mercy chose to grant me repentence
by grace thru faith unto justification and salvation'. I say probably not....they likely simply BELIEVED with
the eyes of simple Spirit-wrought faith that Jesus THE Messiah died
on their behalf (like Arminians do)...and had no clue about election,
predestination, imputation, etc....that wonderful 'stuff' MAY have
come later.... So, when are you gonna 'give it up'? Your argument
has no true merit...despite your love of sovereign grace. laz
Subject: Re: No Ears to Hear? No Posting Here! From: Pilgrim
To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Mon, May 22, 2000 at 14:04:34 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
freegrace,
We are NOT in agreement concerning HOW a person is Justified before God. I stand on the biblical
and historic doctrine of Sola Fide, which says that a person is
justified by GRACE through FAITH IN CHRIST ALONE! Whereas you have posted no less than 2 dozen times
that a sinner can ONLY be justified by 'trusting in the doctrine
of imputed righteousness, unconditional election, limited atonement
and who knows what other doctrines! There is therefore an impassable
chasm that separates us, no less than the chasm that separates biblical
Christianity from ALL other religions. I do sincerely regret that
you are either incapable of comprehending this odious heresy you
are currently embracing or you have consciously rejected the doctrine
of Sola Fide for a form of Gnosticism. Further, you have rejected
all attempts by those who have posted here to point out to you both
the serious flaws in your view and the end to which it will bring
you if you continue on the road you are currently traveling. I leave
you with the wisdom of one who knows of these things as well as
any other:
LUTHERAN THEOLOGIAN
MARTIN CHEMNITZ (1522-1586)
ON JUSTIFICATION:
This
unique doctrine in a special way distinguishes the
church from all other nations and religions....[Justification]
is the pinnacle and chief bulwark of all teaching
and of the Christian religion itself; if this is
obscured, adulterated, or subverted, it is impossible
to retain purity of doctrine in other loci. On the
other hand, if this locus is securely retained,
all idolatrous ravings, superstitions and other
corruptions are thereby destroyed (Loci Theologici
II, p. 443)
May the Spirit of
God bring conviction to your heart and guide you to repentance.
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: For fg re-righteousness From: Rod To: Tom Date Posted: Mon, May 22, 2000 at 00:33:31 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message: Tom, You aren't the first, or even the second, to
reach this conclusion. Freegrace will not, or is not able to, hear
Scriptural truth on this matter. I don't want to say this definitely,
but the strong indication seems to me to be that it is deliberate,
as I cited earlier in a post to him about those described in 2 Peter
3:5: '...they willingly are ignorant.'
Subject: Re: For fg re-righteousness From: freegrace
To: Rod Date Posted:
Mon, May 22, 2000 at 07:41:30 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Yes, you are correct. For many years I was ignorant of this great
truth! John Gill says: 4th. Faith is manifestly distinguished from
righteousness (Rom. 10:10), when a man is said to believe unto righteousness,
when the righteousness of God is said to be revealed from faith
to faith, and when it is said to be through the faith of Christ,
and is called the righteousness of God by faith. Now then, if faith
and righteousness are two different things, then faith is not our
justifying righteousness, and so not the righteousness mentioned
in my text. 5th. Something else is represented, as the righteousness
by which a sinner is justified before God. The people of God, are
said to be justified freely by the grace of God, through the redemption
that is in Christ Jesus, and some times by the blood of Christ,
and at other times by the one man's obedience (Rom. 2:24; 6:9-19).
Now, faith is not the redemption in Christ Jesus, nor is it the
blood of Christ, nor is it his obedience either active or passive,
and therefore is not that which is imputed for justification. Nevertheless,
faith must be allowed to have a very great concern in the business
of justification. Hence we are said to be justified by faith (Rom.
5:1), not by faith either as a work performed by us, or as a grace
wrought in us, but we are justified by it relatively or objectively,
as it respects, apprehends, and lays hold on Christ and his righteousness
for justification; or we are justified by it organically, as it
is a recipient of this blessing, for faith is the hand which receives
the blessing from the Lord, and righteousness from the God of our
salvation. Faith is that grace to which this righteousness is revealed,
and by which the soul first spies it. When beholding its glory,
sufficiency and suitableness, it approves of it, and renounces its
own righteousness. It is that grace by which a soul puts on Christ's
righteousness as its garment, and rejoices therein, by which all
boasting in a man's own works is excluded, and by which all the
glory of justification is given to Christ.<<<,>
Subject: Re: For fg re-righteousness From: laz To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Mon, May 22, 2000 at 11:25:21 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
fg - what's interesting is that the vast majority of Arminians I
know would not have the foggiest idea what Gill is saying. Are they
therefore unregenerate? I agree that a true conversion includes
repentence ... but it's repentence of their sins, NOT necessarily
of their cluttered mindset or misunderstood (or ignorance of) doctrines?
A person need only believe in their heart and confess with their
mouth that the 'CORRECT' (i.e., the correct OBJECT of faith) Jesus
Christ is Savior and Lord .... the appropriation of the correct
'docrines' may or MAY NOT come later. laz
Subject: 'A Covering for Naked Sinners' From: freegrace
To: All Date Posted:
Sat, May 20, 2000 at 13:49:34 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Robert M'Cheyne (1813-1843) wrote this in his study of John 16:8...
...God highly exalted him-looked upon him as worthy of much honour-worthy
of a seat on the throne at his right hand. Oh! how plain that Christ
is accepted with the Father!-how plain that his righteousness is
most lovely and all divine in the sight of God the Father! Hearken,
then, trembling sinner!-this righteousness is offered to you. It
was wrought just for sinners like you, and for none else; it is
for no other use but just to cover naked sinners. This is the clothing
of wrought gold, and the raiment of needlework. This is the wedding-garment-the
fine linen, white and clean. Oh! put ye on the Lord Jesus. Why should
ye refuse your own mercies? Become one with Christ, by believing,
and you are not only pardoned, as I showed before, but you are righteous
in the sight of God; not only shall you never be cast into bell,
but you shall surely be carried into heaven-as surely as Christ
is now there. Become one with Christ, and even this moment you are
lovely in the sight of God comely, through his comeliness put upon
you. You are as much accepted in the sight of God as is the Son
of Man, the Beloved, that sits on his right hand. The Spirit shall
be given you, as surely as he is given to Christ. He is given to
Christ as the oil of gladness, wherewith he is anointed above his
fellows. You are as sure to wear a crown of glory, as that Christ
is now wearing his. You are as sure to sit upon Christ's throne,
as that Christ is now sitting on his Father's throne. O weep for
joy, happy believer! O sing for gladness of heart: 'For I am persuaded
that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor
powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor
depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from
the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.' ======================================
This way of salvation removes all boasting from the sinner, and
places all the honor and glory completely on Christ! This is not
'boasting in my imputed righteousness' at all, but it is glorying
in the Lord completely! If the early reformers (who have gone before
us)found this way of salvation, then we can too. freegrace
Subject: Re: 'A Covering for Naked Sinners' From: john hampshire
To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Sat, May 20, 2000 at 17:29:17 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Freegrace, Taking several statements of Robert M'Cheyne concerning
each person yet to believe we find, in my estimation, he is not
correct. He said, '...You are as much accepted in the sight of God
as is the Son of Man' Implying that each person on earth is made
acceptable by Christ's redemption and only thing lacking is the
putting on of Christ's righteousness. So then he says, 'Why should
ye refuse your own mercies?', implying again that God has shown
mercy on all, but it is not activated until you believe. While this
is a common view today, what do you think, is it correct? john
Subject: Re: 'A Covering for Naked Sinners' From: freegrace
To: john hampshire
Date Posted:
Sat, May 20, 2000 at 18:24:37 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Freegrace, Taking several statements of Robert M'Cheyne concerning
each person yet to believe we find, in my estimation, he is not
correct. He said, '...You are as much accepted in the sight of God
as is the Son of Man' Implying that each person on earth is made
acceptable by Christ's redemption and only thing lacking is the
putting on of Christ's righteousness. So then he says, 'Why should
ye refuse your own mercies?', implying again that God has shown
mercy on all, but it is not activated until you believe. While this
is a common view today, what do you think, is it correct? john
--- =========== Yes, I think it is correct because it is the
free offer of the gospel. Preachers often say 'Flee to Christ for
refuge, He will save you now'..etc. This is the gospel message of
*your salvation* - Paul said in one place..; knowing full well that
only the elect would lay hold of eternal life and be converted.
The sovereignty of God does not take away from human responsibility.
We do not know whom God will call by means of sound gospel preaching
and exortation... How shall (God's elect) hear, if there be no preacher
..? Romans 10:14. Regeneration and conversion may happen at the
same time in some cases, I think. You do believe in the universal
call of the gospel, I'm sure. freegrace
Subject: Re: 'A Covering for Naked Sinners' From: Pilgrim
To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Sat, May 20, 2000 at 20:21:50 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
freegrace,
You wrote: 'Regeneration
and conversion may happen at the same time in some cases, I think.' I am assuming that the persons in question here are adults?
And if this is the case, then it seems that you are saying that
regeneration and conversion are normally separated in time and not
simultaneous. Can you offer any biblical support for this view?
Can you offer some reasonable explanation how someone can be regenerate
for a period of time and not believe upon Christ unto justification?
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: 'A Covering for Naked Sinners' From: freegrace
To: Pilgrim Date Posted:
Sat, May 20, 2000 at 20:42:38 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Pilgrim, the verses I often refer to are found in John 1:12-13.
All those *born of God* John 1:13, will in due time, receive Christ
as Saviour and Lord - John 1:12, and they are enabled by the Spirit
to lay hold of Christ and His righteousness alone for a full and
free eternal salvation. We may not understand very much at first,
but as new born babes that desire the sincere milk of the Word,
we will grow in grace and knowledge. (Not grow 'into grace', but
grow IN grace and knowledge)... As the Puritans often have said,
regeneration is God's secret operation upon our hearts (and we are
passive), but in conversion we become active. I think that there
may be a time in between the two, or, during a gospel sermon, they
could even be simultanius. The best example is the case of John
the Baptist; he was regenerated in his mother's womb, but converted
later in life as an adult, so there was some time there for him
to come into a full knowledge of his adoption into the family of
God. regards, freegrace
Subject: Re: 'A Covering for Naked Sinners' From: Pilgrim
To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Sat, May 20, 2000 at 23:07:11 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Freegrace,
I would have to disagree with
your example of John the Baptist! If he was regenerate in the womb,
and this is an exception rather than the rule (plus I did say 'adults'),
then he was born with faith and justified in the womb. Regeneration
creates faith and faith immediately seeks Christ as its object in
which to rest.
Pilgrim
Subject: Rutherford is Right..! From: freegrace
To: All Date Posted:
Sat, May 20, 2000 at 12:49:22 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
From the article on Assurance of Salvation ... posted by Pilgrim
on the HIGHWAY... ========================================== ...This
matter of assurance is no small thing. It is certainly important
whether one has 'true assurance.' I do not mean presumption, but
spiritual assurance. May I inquire, my listener, have you never
had any assurance that you are saved? Have you presently absolutely
no assurance that you have an interest in Christ's death? No trace
of faint assurance, neither internally or externally? Then scripturally
we must conclude that you do not have that God-given faith which
rests the heart, calms the soul, and assures the spirit. Candidly,
I do tersely state that a measure and degree of assurance is of
the very essence of saving faith. Hence, a positive degree of assurance
is necessary to salvation (I Thess. 1:5; II Tim. 1:12; Heb. 10:
22). This does not exclude the possibility of doubt, as they can
exist together. (I) LET US OBSERVE THE TESTIMONY OF SOME GREAT DIVINES
OF THE PAST. John Calvin says, 'We shall now have a full definition
of faith if we say that it is sure knowledge of the Divine favor
founded on the truth of a free promise and revealed to our minds,
and sealed on our hearts by the Holy Spirit.. .No man, I say, is
a believer but who, trusting to the security of his salvation, confidently
triumphs over the devil and death.' John Owen, the great Puritan,
says in answer to 'What is faith?': 'A gracious resting on the free
promises of God in Jesus Christ for mercy, with a firm persuasion
of heart, that God is a reconciled Father to us in the Son of His
love.' Ebenezer Erskine, one of Scotland's marrow men, says, '..In
this, that in this faith(which I have been describing) there is
a twofold certainty of assurance, viz., of assent and application.
The former necessarily supposes a assurance of understanding, or
of knowledge, Col. 2:2. The apostle there speaks of the full assurance
of understanding, which every believer hath in a greater or lesser
measure...' Edward Fisher, another of Scotland's marrow men, says,
'... Therefore, I would have you to close with Christ in the promise,
without making any question, whether you are in the faith or no:
for there is an assurance, which ariseth from an exercise of faith
by a direct act; and that is when a man by faith directly lays hold
upon Christ, and concludes assurance from thence.' Samuel Rutherford
says, 'The assurance of Christ's righteousness, is a direct act
of faith, apprehending imputed righteousness; the evidence of our
justification — we now speak of the reflect light, not by which
we are justified, but by which we know that we are justified.' ==============================
I say that Rutherford is right! Amen! A direct act of faith ..*apprehending*
the imputed righteousness (of Christ)'... If this is 'dangerous
doctrine', then so be it. It is the gospel...; those who claim to
be saved any other way are sadly deceived...! freegrace
Subject: Re: Rutherford is Right..! From: GRACE2Me
To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Sat, May 20, 2000 at 13:50:10 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
FreeGrace: You said: 'they will learn to trust in God's righteousness
for justification, and not their own, etc. Based on this statement
FreeGrace, Christ's perfect keeping of the law and sinlessness could
save without He going to the cross. There is no statement in the
word of God that says: 'Without the believing of Christ's imputed
righteousness, there is no remission.' It is Christ and the cross
brother! Above, Rutherford said: ' 'The assurance of Christ's righteousness,
is a direct act of faith, apprehending imputed righteousness; the
evidence of our justification — we now speak of the reflect light,
not by which we are justified, but by which we know that we are
justified.' ' Notice at the end of this quote FreeGrace 'NOT BY
WHICH WE ARE JUSTIFIED BUT BY WHICH WE 'KNOW' WE ARE JUSTIFIED'
There is a difference. Just as we need to take care to study the
word of God in context, so also must we take the quotes of even
great Christians of yesteryear in context! GRACE2Me
Subject: The simple truth From: Rod To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Sat, May 20, 2000 at 12:53:58 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
The dangerous thing is insisting that 'assurance' is the same as
salvation.
Subject: Re: The simple truth From: freegrace
To: Rod Date Posted:
Sat, May 20, 2000 at 13:11:34 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
The dangerous thing is insisting that 'assurance' is the same as
salvation.
--- ============ Rod, please read the complete article when
you have time. Some measure of assurance is the very *essence* of
true saving faith! Any 'assurance' of salvation that is not based
on the imputed righteousness of Christ is presumption! fg
Subject: † WARNING!! † — to Freegrace From: Pilgrim
To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Sat, May 20, 2000 at 18:10:10 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Freegrace,
GRACE2Me and Rod in this thread,
and all others in the remaining threads where you have posited the
heresy of 'putting one's faith in the DOCTRINE of 'imputed righteousness' are correct in disagreeing
with you and rebuking you for maligning the Gospel of FREE GRACE
in the Lord Christ. You once again have totally ignored what someone
else has said; in this case Samuel Rutherford, where he clearly
stated, (as did ALL the Reformers and Puritans) that assurance is
a matter of SANCTIFICATION and not JUSTIFICATION. Specifically,
as GRACE2Me pointed out to you, Rutherford made it more than clear
that one's apprehension of the DOCTRINE of 'imputed righteousness'
is NOT a matter
of one's JUSTIFICATION, but Assurance. I am afraid that I must give
you a public warning at this time to cease from promoting this odious
heresy you have consciously adopted for yourself on The Highway
in any shape or form. At best, you are confused and at worst a 'wolf
in sheep's clothing'! As to which, I leave that to God to judge.
But as to the right given to the Body of Christ to judge a man according
to his 'profession' as well as his 'life', I must rebuke you for
this view you have plastered all over this forum for the past week.
You have had ample proof given to you to show you that 1) This is
not taught in Scripture, 2) It is contrary to the testimony of the
Church historically, 3) It is in opposition to the Gospel of the
free grace of God in Christ Jesus and 4) A clear violation of the
Guidelines set forth by which this forum operates. We have all tried
to persuade you with precise, profound and cogent arguments, but
you have resisted all of our evidences. It is not within our power
to change your heart, but it is our duty to warn you of the danger
you face if you do not repent of this heresy. May God truly grant
you repentance so that you will cast off this Christ-dishonoring
view and return to your first Love.
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: 2 Cor. 5:21 From: freegrace
To: Pilgrim and
All Date Posted:
Sat, May 20, 2000 at 18:56:58 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Pilgrim, My faith is not in a cold doctrine (the letter killeth),
but my faith is in the imputed righteousness of Christ itself!.
How else can a sinner be justified? This is the ground of our assurance!
To become eternally justified is then to have much assurance of
salvation! Don't you see it? I think you and the some of the others
here have greatly misunderstood me at this point. Please read the
following about 2 Cor. 5:21. ======================================
...Here Is A Fountain of Consolation Oh, what a fountain of consolation
here! What marrow and fatness is here. What sweetness if like to
this, to all who believe? Who now may say, once sin was mine, then
it was laid upon Christ and now they are neither mine nor His because
they are not at all: For by His blood He washed them all away; and
now they are all gone, blotted out, and shall be remembered no more,
no more, no more. Now Christ's righteousness is mine, as well as
His, for I was 'made the righteousness of God in him,' 2 Cor. 5:21.
And I did nothing at all to procure these things to me. ==================================
don't you see it? Christ's righteousness is now *my righteousness*
before a holy God. We are now *in Christ*..! We are complete in
Him! 1 Cor. 1:30 says that Christ is made unto us Wisdom, RIGHTEOUSNESS,
santification, and redemption! All of this - without works of any
kind.. all this by faith alone. freegrace
Subject: Re: 2 Cor. 5:21 From: john hampshire
To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Sun, May 21, 2000 at 05:17:37 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Are we eternally justified by faith in imputed righteousness? Abraham
was justified, that is, gave evidence to all mankind of his loyalty
to God (Jas 2:21) 'Was not Abraham our father justified by works,
when he had offered Isaac his son…'. His humble obedience demonstrated
his righteousness to all. It was by works and faith, not a belief
in imputed righteousness only. James 2:24 says of this 'Ye see then
how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only'. It
is not some belief in imputed righteousness that shows a man to
be justified, not even by faith alone, but the demonstration must
be by works. The faith we have is demonstrated to all that we are
righteous by our obedient walk. But it is not our works that cause
us to be declared eternally justified before the father. Tit 3:7
says clearly 'That being justified by His grace, we should be made
heirs according to the hope of eternal life'. It is clear that we
cannot do works to justify ourselves before God (Luke 16:15, Acts
13:39), our works are filthy rags. If we demonstrate the new life
that is in Christ, then we are obedient to God’s Law, it is far
more than believing imputed righteousness. 'For not the hearers
of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law shall
be justified'…'. But this is before men, for before the Father we
are justified only in Christ. (Ro 3:20) 'Therefore by the deeds
of the law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight….'. Justification
is free, not of our works and by His grace: 'Being justified freely
by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus'. Is
it not God who declares each of His elect Just? 'Who shall lay any
thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth.'
(Ro 8:33). 'Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of
the law, but by the faith OF Jesus Christ, even we have believed
in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ,
and not by the works of the law…' (Gal 2:16). We are justified before
God by the faithfulness or fidelity of Christ. Yet the just shall
live by faith. So from Christ’s faith(fulness) I see our faith given
as a gift, and our works demonstrate what was given. We are not
only given faith but also we are given His Spirit (1Jo 4:13). We
are given understanding that we may know Him (1Jo 5:20). We are
given actually all things, including our faith 'according as His
divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life
and godliness, through the knowledge of Him that hath called us
to glory and virtue'. (2Pe 1:3). We are given to believe, so we
believe, 'For unto you it is given on the behalf of Christ, not
only to believe on Him, but also to suffer…'. We have nowhere to
boast. Our faith is not in imputed righteousness. Our faith is in
Christ, the Word, based on everything written in Scripture, all
the promises of God. This is the ground of our assurance. Your assurance,
if you have any, is by the manifestation of your works, which is
an outcropping our your faith, which is an gift of God given freely
because of the faithfulness of Christ in redeeming the Father’s
elected ones. Even if you wished to be justified before men, you
cannot do it by belief in imputed righteousness, you must demonstrate
the faith given you by God by your deeds. In Heb 6:11 it was the
'work and labour of love' that brought 'the full assurance of hope
unto the end'. Before God your faith is but a product of grace,
a free gift given by God in salvation. If you have this thing, then
it can only be that God has declared you eternally Just, but not
because of your faith, but by the faith OF Christ. Your faith follows
a long chain of events that began in the Father’s choice. So, how
is a sinner eternally justified? By believing in something, thus
unleashing justification. No way. Our belief is not from us, but
'because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through
sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth' (2Th2:13).
Our belief is given. If I have erred, I am sure someone will clarify.
But in my mind, eternal justification is before God, by faith, which
is given and not of ourselves, but of Christ. john
Subject: Re: 2 Cor. 5:21 From: Rod To: john hampshire
Date Posted:
Sun, May 21, 2000 at 14:15:42 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
john, That was very good. I would only add one thing: The works
which demonstrate our faith, giving it proof of reality before men
are, along with faith, given us by God. Saved man has nothing whatsoever
to boast in, but the Lord alone: 'For we are his workmanship, created
in Christ Jesus, unto good works, which
God hath before ordained that we should walk in them' (Eph. 2:10); 'A man's heart deviseth his way, but the
LORD directeth his steps' (Prov.16:7).
Subject: Re: 2 Cor. 5:21 From: freegrace
To: john hampshire
Date Posted:
Sun, May 21, 2000 at 10:34:30 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Yes, we are eternally justified by Christ alone - who imputes to
us His righteousness (or places it to our account) as a free gift.
Our assurance is never in the fact that we do 'good works'...etc.
I heard Mr. Camping on Family Radio say the same thing as you say,
but it is not correct. Christ does not somehow do the 'believing
for us', john. With the *gift of faith* that is freely given to
all God's elect in regeneration, we then lay hold and *apprehend*
God's righteousness as our own. We then do good works (before men)
because we already are justified in the sight of God ... Romans
speaks about our justification before God, wheras James speaks about
our 'justification in the sight of men'.. Paul even said to be careful
to 'maintain good works' in the sight of others; however, our good
works are never the ground of our assurance, but the imputed righteousness
of Christ and the blood applied to our hearts is always the ground
of our assurance... Once we see that we are eternally accepted in
the Beloved One (Eph, 1:4-6), our hearts are filled with peace and
joy, and then we do good works out of a heart of love and thankfulness
to God for His 'so great salvation'. fg
Subject: Re: The simple truth From: john hampshire
To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Sat, May 20, 2000 at 18:09:36 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
I would also add Fg, that any assurance of salvation that clings
only to the imputation of Christ's righteousness is presumption
also. The gospel is not imputation, imputation, and more imputation.
You have grabbed the tail of the elephant and made him short and
slim and easily understood. The gospel is much deeper and broader
than your imputation mantra. The ability to understand the gospel
as it relates to all Scripture is an evidence of salvation, not
simply understanding one part. As has been mentioned before, we
can understand correctly imputation but have little understanding
of anything else, or make imputation the result of our works. You
have made a small part of the gospel of grace the only measuring
rod for assurance. Even worse, you have totally neglected that faith
without works is dead. Do you believe imputed righteousness? Good.
Do you live a life of obedience with an ongoing desire to please
God? The deeds give assurance and are strong testimony when combined
with a desire to understand the true gospel. The gospel is not just
imputed righteousness. One wonders what you tell people who ask
how they can be saved. Do you say, this is the gospel: 'believe
on the imputed righteousness of Christ and understand this truth
and you will be saved, you and your household'. I doubt it. We all
know the gospel is rather complex and intricate, taking years to
put together, and that assurance is not attained because you understand
one small part of it. It takes many years of searching the Bible
to understand even a small part of the whole, and it is with each
revealed truth that comes an increased level of assurance. Assurance
of salvation is not a on/off yes/no switch. It is a gradual process
of accumulated small changes in word and deed that increasingly
convince the believer that they are indeed saved. The Arminians
can state the exact moment they were saved, to the very second.
It was when they accepted Jesus into their heart and felt a strange
warming, or other proof. You have made assurance a similar thing.
We can know exactly when we are SURE of our salvation by the exact
moment we understood how imputed righteousness works. Sadly, assurance
doesn't work that way. It is a life long process that evolves out
of sanctification - the increasing spirituality and decreasing reliance
on flesh. If you don't mean to say that imputation carries such
a meaning for assurance, then would you please stop repeating that
it does. Simply replace the word 'imputation' with 'gospel' and
you will be closer to truth. We have assurance by our deeds and
by our increased understanding of the 'Gospel [not imputation] of
Christ's righteousness', which entails everything found in the Bible,
not just imputation. Will you say we must understand imputation
first, or foremost, or it is the basis of all else. What of God's
Holiness, could that be a better basis. What of Christ's true nature,
or predestination, or election, or redemption, or... none is above
or below the other, they all hang together. john
Subject: Re: The simple truth From: freegrace
To: john hampshire
Date Posted:
Sat, May 20, 2000 at 18:27:25 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
John, we are speaking of our justification, and not sanctification;
that is another topic altogether! fg
Subject: Reply to Tom -- from below. From: freegrace
To: All Date Posted:
Sat, May 20, 2000 at 09:12:51 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Hi Tom. Yes, in a way, you are correct. To trust in Christ is enough
for salvation..; but my point is, there are many 'false christs'
or antichrists out in the world that will allow a person to 'establish
a righteousness of their own to be saved',,etc. However, The Christ
of the bible demands us to renounce our own 'good works' and lay
hold of His perfect righteousness for a covering (or for our eternal
justification). We have nothing but 'filthy rags' to offer to God,
and the true God of the Bible demands a perfect Righteousness to
be found acceptable in His sight. This perfect righteousness is
what is offered in the true gospel. All other ground is sinking
sand! freegrace Imputation Sermon number One rofgrace.simplenet.com/audio3.html
Subject: Re: Reply to Tom -- from below. From: Rod To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Sat, May 20, 2000 at 11:45:08 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
fg, I see this statement, coupled with your position on salvation
in general, as very dangerous. You wrote: 'However, The Christ of
the bible demands us to renounce our own 'good works' and lay hold
of His perfect righteousness for a covering (or for our eternal
justification).' While that is true, it, as many of us have said,
is the wrong emphasis. The proper emphasis is that the Lord Jesus
Christ provides us regeneration, a new spiritual life and a new
will which wants to
turn to Him in faith that His sacrifice at the cross was for us,
personally, and that it is sufficient to cleanse us from sin. To
continually emphasize a demand that no sin-natured human can meet
is not the message we should give, unless it is linked directly
and resoundingly with God's promise to conform those whom He has
called to the image of His Son, to His glory and the saved person's
eternal benefit (Rom. 8:29). God's demand is righteousness and purity,
as the Mosaic Law illustrates. The requirements of the Law also
illustrate that no one can achieve it, leaving man without hope.
But, stressing the aspect of substitutionary sacrifice in innocent
blood, the Lord has taught us in His revealed Word that He is not
only demanding, but gracious, calling the predestinated and elect
in grace by the effect on their hearts as He regenerates. Looking
again at your statement I see a dangerous stress and insistence
concerning what man does, rather than God's accomplishment in the
Lord Jesus. It seems as if you're boasting in your meritoriously
acquired imputed righteousness (i.e.,
your own work of meeting God's demand), rather than what God has
executed for the sake of those whom He saves. Look at your statement
once more: 'However, The Christ of the bible demands us to renounce
our own 'good works' and lay hold of His perfect righteousness for
a covering (or for our eternal justification).' There is nothing
more or less in that but an exclusive insistence on what man does
for God in turning to Him, at the expense of the true gospel that
God has already made all the provision necessary for lost men; it
actually sounds very much like the Arminian's insistence that he
'turns to Jesus' on his own. If God has saved us, we should follow
His precepts exactly as taught in His Word: 'God forbid that I should
glory, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the
world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world' (Gal. 6:14).
Subject: Re: Reply to Tom -- from below. From: Tom To: Rod Date Posted:
Sat, May 20, 2000 at 14:58:15 (PDT) Email Address:ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Thanks Rod I don't think I should add anything to that. Tom
Subject: Sermon by A. Toplady From: freegrace
To: All Date Posted:
Sat, May 20, 2000 at 07:35:36 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Just found this good sermon by A. Toplady! Sermon by Toplady www.spiritone.com/~wing/toplady.htm
Subject: Re: Sermon by A. Toplady From: Anne To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Sat, May 20, 2000 at 14:43:46 (PDT) Email Address:anneivy@home.com
Message: Self-righteousness, cleaves to us, as naturally,
and as closely, as our skins: nor can any power, but that of an
Almighty hand, flay us of it. I remember an instance, of a clergyman,
now living and eminent, above many, for his labours and usefulness.
This worthy person assured me, a year or two since, that he once
visited a criminal, who was under sentence of death, for a capital
offence (I think for murder). My friend endeavoured to set before
him the evil he had done; and to convince him, that he was lost
and ruined, unless Christ saved him by His Blood, righteousness
and grace. 'I am not much concerned about that,' answered the self-righteous
malefactor; 'I have not, certain, led so good a life as some have;
but, I am certain, that many have gone to Tyburn, who were much
worse men than myself.' So you see, a murderer may go to the gallows,
trusting in his own righteousness! And you and I should have gone
to hell, trusting in our own righteousness, if Christ had not stopped
us by the way. This bit from Toplady reminded
me forcibly of the Easter sermon at my church, where Dr. Kitchens
said that we naturally opt for Plan B for our salvation, which is
to find at least one
person worse than us. The trouble is, of course, that as soon as
we think we found such a one, we just lost our place in line. He
strongly urged us to, instead, rely on Plan A, which is Christ's
righteousness, rather than our own. It's frightening how frequently
I will find myself thinking - or even worse, saying - 'Well, at
least I [fill
in the blank].' Yet those words start me right back down that slippery
slope of self-righteouness, with its unspoken message that if God'll
only grade on a curve, I should be okay. Anne
Subject: Re: Sermon by A. Toplady From: freegrace
To: Anne Date Posted:
Sat, May 20, 2000 at 18:13:31 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Thanks, Anne. There was a time in my life - about 35 years ago now,
that I thought that I was 'doing okay' in the sight of God. But
I was just going about to establish my own righteousness...; spiritually,
I was very naked, but knew it not. I had never even heard of election,
or God's way of justification by an imputed righteousness. Our self-righteousness
and 'free will' will lead us right to the place where we do not
want to go.....hell. Only God's sovereign grace, mercy, and eternal
love can deliver our souls from going there. Be thankful for a good
church, and good gospel preaching! (I know you are)! freegrace
Subject: Charles Finney From: freegrace
To: All Date Posted:
Sat, May 20, 2000 at 06:49:59 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Interesting article here about Charles Finney! Charles Finney Article
mcnet.marietta.edu/~Bbc/
Subject: Re: Charles Finney From: Pilgrim
To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Sat, May 20, 2000 at 12:36:53 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Freegrace, What is the point of your making reference to this article
on Charles Finney? Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Charles Finney From: freegrace
To: Pilgrim Date Posted:
Sat, May 20, 2000 at 13:06:59 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Freegrace, What is the point of your making reference to this article
on Charles Finney? Pilgrim
--- =================== I thought it looked interesting. Maybe
there are some here in the forum who can use this article or any
of the other articles as reference material... I know it was worded
very simple, I thought; simple enough for even me to understand..
:-). Please remove it if it is not suitable... :-( freegrace
Subject: Re: Charles Finney From: Anne To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Sat, May 20, 2000 at 14:23:24 (PDT) Email Address:anneivy@home.com
Message:
I haven't read the Finney article, but the one entitled 'The Unrepenting
Repenter' is excellent, I thought, and I stuffed it in my briefcase! That's a neat
link . . . . thank you! Anne
Subject: Man does NOT speak through God From: Bro. Charles
To: All Date Posted:
Fri, May 19, 2000 at 15:27:57 (PDT) Email Address:BNFLD3@juno.com
Message:
You all have seen the 'God speaks' or 'God quotes' billboards on
the sides of the highways. Well, this is what I sent and what I
think a lot of Christians would like to say to the ones who do those
billboards.
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
- Well I think it is a great thing your doing for the Lord. I am
sure He is using it well. I just wonder why you don't have any 'God
quotes' about JESUS? (or if you have/will) You could do #1 'Remember
why my Son went to war for you' or #2 'Only my Son's friends can
come in this house' or #3 'If you got a problem with my Son, then
you got a problem with me' #1 the death, burial, and resurrection.
#2 John 14:6 'the way, the truth, and the life. no one can come
to the Father (God) BUT BY ME(Jesus) #3 John14:6-9 1:1,14 10:30
14:6-9 Or you could start doing 'Jesus speaks'. Just think it is
good to get God back in the world (so to speak - he never left)
but we(all Christians) need to focus on the Gospel. Please send
a reply, I would love to know what you think about what I think.
:-) Yours in Christ. Charles Benfield
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
-- This is what they sent back.
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
-- Dear Charles; Your e-mail to God Speaks was forwarded to me.
Thank you for taking the time to remark on the website and campaign.
Your thoughts are accurate, however, the overall purpose of the
GodSpeaks campaign was and is to begin with the idea that God is
relevant to everyone and to their lives. The hope is to prepare
the soil for a more open mind to the fact that God loves you and
sent His son, Jesus, to die for you. The sayings have done just
that in many lives. There has been talk about providing more information
the 'deeper' into the site you go. However, those plans have not
materialized yet. Again, thank you for your encouragement and great
ideas. God bless
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
-- this is what I sent back.
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
-- Thank you for taking the time to send a pre-typed E-mail. I think
that the pre-typed letter was too vague, and needed to be hand typed
having addressed the actual Questions I asked. I am wondering WHEN
you are to do things on the site about JESUS. For you said 'There
has been talk about providing more information the 'deeper' into
the site you go. However, those plans have not materialized yet.'
I wonder why? Tell me, of what faith makes up the majority of your
campaign? Do you not put things about JESUS so as not to offend
others of deferent faiths? There must be a balance. Why don't you
do both kinds, JESUS quotes and the GOD quotes? If the Lord IS drawing
someone they WILL both be used unto His honour and glory. Do you
not believe this? Please send a reply
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
--- I just hope it is not to harsh :-) If you want to E-mail
them go to http://www.godspeaks.net/interact.html it is there feedback
page. Fight for the truth! -|
--- Till next time......... I'll read you later Hand picked
by God -Charles ( sorry it is so long) :-) Truth, fight fo it www.godspeaks.net/interact.html
Subject: Re: Man does NOT speak through God From: john hampshire
To: Bro. Charles
Date Posted:
Fri, May 19, 2000 at 17:06:45 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Charles, How about a billboard on the side of the highway that says:
#1 'God's ANGER and FURY will be poured out upon YOU, unless you
repent from your evil and seek the Lord' #2 'Go to church, pray,
read your Bible... BUT UNLESS you are born from above you shall
die in your sins -- REPENT, SEEK GOD (and you will find him) AND
LIVE' I would like to see that. We can take down the: 'Pray for
Polukaville' or 'Jesus Loves You' billboards. or am I being too
harsh (hehe) john
Subject: Re: Man does NOT speak through God From: Bro. Charles
To: john hampshire
Date Posted:
Fri, May 19, 2000 at 23:20:30 (PDT) Email Address:BNFLD3@juno.com
Message:
My hole point is that if they are so concerned about people getting
to know God, then they should meet Jesus (who is God) who came down
to show us how to live for him. As I said what there doing IS GOOD,
but if they want others to get to know God they should tell them
HOW to get to God. As I also said that we as Christians should be
more concerned about getting the GOSPEL out into the world. For
there many 'gods' that are said to be true. Many think that the
GOD of the Bible is the same god worshipped by the Buddhists or
the Muslims or any other group that thinks you can get to the one
true God by some other way than Jesus. My thought to them was that
GOD IS using the billboards, I do not doubt that. What I question
is if they are so on fire for the Lord how can they not say any
thing about Jesus. (And why they don't)
Subject: Re: Man does NOT speak through God From: Pilgrim
To: Bro. Charles
Date Posted:
Sat, May 20, 2000 at 06:41:15 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Bro. Charles,
You wrote, 'My
hole point is that if they are so concerned about people getting
to know God, then they should meet Jesus (who is God) who came down
to show us how to live for him.' I think
John's reply was right on target as it was based on the REAL reason
the Lord Christ became flesh and dwelt among men; to Redeem, Propitiate,
Reconcile them from the wrath and judgment of God and to offer Himself
as the perfect sacrifice so that those whom the Father gave Him
would be made adopted sons of God and partakers of His divine nature.
Perhaps you meant to say this too? But to be sure, the main emphasis
of Christ Jesus's 'coming down' was not to be an example
to show us how to live for Him! To make
this the focal point of the Lord Christ's incarnation, death and
resurrection is to miss the entire purpose of His person and ministry,
which was to 'save His people from their
sins' (Matt 1:21). Once a person has been
regenerated and receives the Lord Jesus Christ by a true and living
faith, THEN and ONLY THEN is He to be considered a 'model/example'
to some measure as one to follow. But His life is to be considered
only in conjunction WITH His Word, and not isolated from it. See
WWJD
. In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Is everyone aware? From: Rod To: All Date Posted:
Fri, May 19, 2000 at 11:53:08 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
Is everyone here familiar with the expression 'another gospel,'
its implications and its origin? Paul is emphatic that anyone preaching another
gospel than the gospel of God, the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ,
is lost. The practice is condemned in the strongest possible terms
in Gal. 1:6-9, Paul pronouncing such a one as 'accursed' (by God)
in verses 8 and 9. He says essentially the same thing in in 1 Cor.
16:22, speaking to those who are a part of the church at Corinth.
So, the question becomes, What is the foundation and basis constituting
'another gospel?' It seems safe to me to say that 'another gospel'
is any other system which negates 'the grace of Christ' (Gal. 1:6).
That seems perfectly consistent with the revelation of Paul on the
topic of salvation and precisely what it is which secures that salvation
for the individual. The Apostle puts into direct words what the
entire Bible illustrates and declares by example and illustration
throughout its length: '...by grace are ye saved' (Eph. 2:5); and
'For by grace are ye saved through faith' (verse 8). Compare that to Rom. 3:24 '...being justified
freely by his grace,
through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.' The word translated
'by' is most significant. If signifies the reason for the process of salvation in the
redeemed individual. No thing associated with salvation for the
Christian is apart from grace, all else
is secondary. Eph. 2:4-5 makes it
clear that the grace which saves is born of mercy, and founded on
love, electing love. It is totally dependent on God, totally received
from God, and there can be no cause whatsoever for boasting on our part because we graciously possess
what God has granted us against the judgment we deserve: 'lest any
man should boast (Eph. 29).' If we boast, let us do it with the
right emphasis, which Paul, again, supplies for us in the inspired
Word: 'But he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. For not
he that commendeth himself is approved, but whom the Lord commendeth'
(2 Cor. 10:17; cp. carefully Phil. 2:9-11). If God's purpose is
to 'highly exalt' the Lord Jesus Christ (Phil. 2:9), shouldn't we
be about that business also? We definitely should for the simple
reason that it's is God's plan for us: 'For we are his workmanship,
created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath beofre ordained
that we should walk in them' (Eph. 2:10. In glorifying the Son,
we fulfill God's purpose: we glorify the Father (Phil. 2:11). Gorifying
God is our business, emphasizing the majesty of His Person. That
is 'the chief end of man,' is it not? Emphasizing anything to the
detriment of the grace of God and apart from that grace is contrary
to God's plan and purpose. That purpose is to exalt among men the
'name that is above every name' because it glorifies God, the purpose
about which all things of the created universe revolve. If we lift
out one aspect of the salvation process, and glorify that to the
detriment of Jesus Christ, it's like buying an engine for a car
and declaring that it, alone, will convey us where we want to go,
and will do it in style! The person who brought us to his garage
to show us his new car would be thought a fool if he unveiled merely
a motor sitting in the middle of the floor! The entire car is a
package, the engine, the drive train, and the chassis being essential--seats
are nice too, as is air conditioning here in the desert! An auto
engine is essential to the car, but it must work in concert with
all the other parts, as the designer intended, transferring power by means fo the transmission to the
drive shaft and axles to the wheels. Steering is necessary to keep
this marvelous invention from piling up in a heap. Similarly, we
must use the Word of God to declare the gospel of God to His glory.
If we neglect to do that, we circumvent His purpose for the Chruch,
the glorification of His Son, the purpose for which He gave us the
indwelling of the Holy Spirit: '...and this is the victory that
overcometh the world, even our faith' (1 John 5:4). We then have
to ask ourselves, 'In what or Whom do we place our faith?' Providentially,
the Apostle answers that question in the succeeding verses: 'Who
is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus
is the Son of God? This is he that came by water and blood, even
Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it
is the Spirit that beareth witness, because
the Spirit is truth' (verses 5-6). May
the Spirit of the supreme and sovereign God enable us to honor and
to glorify our Lord, His Son, the One by whom it is possible for
lost men, irredeemable in any other way, to be saved.
Subject: Confessing Christ From: laz To: All Date Posted:
Fri, May 19, 2000 at 05:56:15 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Should a person who is obedient to God (as John Hampshire mentioned)
in every way...manifesting the fruit of the Spirit...but deny the
deity of Christ and/or the atonement be baptized and admitted into
membership into the Church? Is this scenario even realistic or possible?
In otherwords, can a person be every bit a Christian on the outside
based on manifestation of tremendous fruit ... and yet be doctrinally
numbered with the heretics? Or is orthopraxis (sp?) exclusively
the fruit of orthodoxy? laz
Subject: Re: Confessing Christ From: john hampshire
To: laz Date Posted:
Fri, May 19, 2000 at 17:20:27 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Laz, If we deny that Christ is God, then we undercut all the other
doctrines of grace. Such a person would not be a candidate for baptism
in my opinion. He might be admitted into membership in a church,
but not a church I would want to attend. What if, (everyone enjoys
a whatif scenario), the applicant for baptism believes the gospel:
understands Calvinism perfectly, yet is known to be a drunk, or
a liar, or an adulterer, or a homosexual, or a (place your beloved
sin here) .... how much manifestation of the Spirit's fruit and
a proper walk (not talk) with God is required? And for how long
must they behave Christian-like? What did the apostles use as their
criteria for water baptism? (hehe) john
Subject: Re: Confessing Christ From: laz To: john hampshire
Date Posted:
Fri, May 19, 2000 at 18:34:50 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
John - any person who claims to be a believer but is identified
by the world by a willful sinful life is a liar who cares not for
the things of God. All of us sin...but not everyone sins to the
degree that they need the elders of the Church to come to their
house to apply Matt 18, ala church discipline. Believers indeed
sin...but are not to be named with the wicked and unregenerate by
a shameful lifestyle that hurts the purity of the Church and the
good name of Christ. An adulterer has no business being in good
standing within the Church. You can only become a member of our
Church with a true and understanding confession of faith that includes
repentence...and by being identified as one of Christ's by the fruit
you show over a reasonable amount of time. It's that simple. Oh,
and you also have to attend classes to be instructed in the teachings
of the Church and agree to be under the authority of the Session.
laz
Subject: Re: Confessing Christ From: john hampshire
To: laz Date Posted:
Sat, May 20, 2000 at 17:14:39 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Laz, To be a member in your church you must give a 'true and understanding
confession of faith that includes repentance'. I'm not sure what
that might entail. Churches that I have seen admissions performed
involved studying church history-doctrine for a month or so, an
interview with the pastor, the acceptance of most church doctrine,
and a reasonable display of civility. Then there would be a public
church confession (usually quite embarrassing to watch) and a round
of applause for the new member. This may explain why most people
do not seek church membership. I assume the Session you wrote of
is similar. The only bone of contention I have with this 'process'
is the public church confession. That's usually where I discover
the applicant doesn't understand church doctrine, the gospel, or
much else. We all get to witness human ego in action as they dramatize
their 'bad' life. While most of the congregation melts at the sincere
confessions, I usually find the ego-display repulsive as much as
the mutilation of the gospel. It doesn't help the pastor's reputation
either when he is swooning with delight at each confession. I would
like to know, (without doing research myself, hehe) when and where
did the system for church membership used by most churches today
originate? I might ask also, why? john
Subject: Re: Confessing Christ From: laz To: john hampshire
Date Posted:
Sat, May 20, 2000 at 17:44:51 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
haha! I assure you, there is not 'testimonials'... or confessions
of that kinds...just the Pastor asking you a few simple yes/no questions
before the Church since the weeks of instruction and 'grilling'
by the Session has already taken place behind closed doors. Where
does this practice originate? From scripture, where else! lol laz
Subject: Re: Confessing Christ From: Christopher
To: laz Date Posted:
Fri, May 19, 2000 at 21:01:52 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Hi laz, Long time, no rhetoric! :) What is the 'Session?' Thanks,
Chrysostomos (formerly Christopher
Subject: Re: Confessing Christ From: laz To: Christopher
Date Posted:
Sat, May 20, 2000 at 17:42:27 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
My rhetoric or yours? hahah Greetings. What brings YOU back? Sola
Scriptura, laz
Subject: Re: Confessing Christ From: Chrysostomos
To: laz Date Posted:
Sun, May 21, 2000 at 15:26:52 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Hi laz, >>>>>What brings YOU back? Just wanted to
know what the 'Session' is. Never heard of it. Chrystostomos
Subject: Re: Confessing Christ From: laz To: Chrysostomos
Date Posted:
Sun, May 21, 2000 at 18:01:49 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Chrys - the Session are the church elders. I think it's a presby
term. blessings, laz
Subject: Thanks, laz...n/t From: Chrysostomos
To: laz Date Posted:
Mon, May 22, 2000 at 07:48:16 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Subject: Re: Confessing Christ From: Prestor
John To: laz Date Posted:
Sun, May 21, 2000 at 07:57:57 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Now, now, Laz, lets not give a false impression here. After all
everyone is welcome to the forum as long as they abide by the rules
posted. Even the greek orthodox or the roman catholic. And for that
matter even pauline dispensationalists, as long as they abide by
the rules. Prestor John Sola Scriptura, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide,
Solus Christus Servabo Fidem http://prestorjohn.cjb.net
Subject: Pauline Dispensationalist??? From: Rod To: Prestor John
Date Posted:
Sun, May 21, 2000 at 15:15:54 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
I don't know what that is, John. Would you please define? It must
be pretty bad, since they are a notch below RCC and Greek Orthodox!
:>)
Subject: Re: Pauline Dispensationalist??? From: Prestor
John To: Rod Date Posted:
Sun, May 21, 2000 at 16:48:42 (PDT) Email Address:pdnelson@icehouse.net
Message:
Rod: It would be best that you read what it is from one of their
own. Thus I invite you to go to the link and read about it. Prestor
John Servabo Fidem http://www.prestorjohn.cjb.net PAULINE DISPENSATIONALISM
www.ezlink.com/~trbranch/paul.htm
Subject: For the record From: mebaser
To: Prestor John
Date Posted:
Sun, May 21, 2000 at 23:40:07 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Rod: It would be best that you read what it is from one of their
own. Thus I invite you to go to the link and read about it. Prestor
John Servabo Fidem http://www.prestorjohn.cjb.net
--- For the record, This 'pauline dispensationalism' (PD) is
a crock of non-sense in the traditional dispensational school of
theology. Especially disturbing is the PD notion, which is rejected
by most dispensationalists of today, that the Sermon on the Mount
beattitudes are blessings gained from merit, and that they cannot
apply to the Church today. Dispe lites, as some of you have come
to call me and others here, recognize that the blessings of the
sermon on the mount come to the regenerate, who by that virtue are
able to be described by the beattitudes. In Christ, mebaser
Subject: Re: For the record From: Prestor
John To: mebaser Date Posted:
Mon, May 22, 2000 at 06:34:34 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Ahhh my friend, it is so good to see you back on the boards again.
Yes PD is a crock of nonsense but, I must say that I can see it
origins in Scofield especially in his notes found on page 1343 in
the original Scofield Reference Bible where he talks about the four
forms of the gospel. But as you have pointed out to me dispensational
theology has changed over the years (and I must say I like the form
of progressive dispensational theology of them all) and PD is one
of the ways it has changed I'm afraid. Prestor John Servabo Fidem
http://www.prestorjohn.cjb.net
Subject: Re: Pauline Dispensationalist??? From: Rod To: Prestor John
Date Posted:
Sun, May 21, 2000 at 17:39:49 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
Thanks, John, I was able to stomach about 6 or 7 paragraphs, but
had to cut it off after that!
Subject: Re: Pauline Dispensationalist??? From: Prestor
John To: Rod Date Posted:
Mon, May 22, 2000 at 06:38:51 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Now, Rod if I knew it was going to send you back to your sick bed
I wouldn't have had you read it. My advice to you is to go read
a little Henry Scougal in particular: The Life of God in the Soul
of Man. That will take the bad taste out of your mind. }:^{) Prestor
John Servabo Fidem http://www.prestorjohn.cjb.net
Subject: Truce on Imputation From: monitor
To: fg Date Posted:
Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 13:29:44 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
fg- I think we have reached an impasse on this matter of imputation
of Christ's righteousness. An important and blessed doctrine to
be sure. It's precisely how we are justified unto salvation. You
say it's a simple and essential doctrine and therefore MUST be embraced
in order for salvation to take effect. I would like to ask you if
election is another core doctrine that MUST be embraced in order
for one to be truly saved...but fearing your answer, I won't....Instead,
I say we give it all a rest. How 'bout it? monitor
Subject: Re: Truce on Imputation From: freegrace
To: monitor Date Posted:
Fri, May 19, 2000 at 05:52:15 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
fg- I think we have reached an impasse on this matter of imputation
of Christ's righteousness. An important and blessed doctrine to
be sure. It's precisely how we are justified unto salvation. You
say it's a simple and essential doctrine and therefore MUST be embraced
in order for salvation to take effect. I would like to ask you if
election is another core doctrine that MUST be embraced in order
for one to be truly saved...but fearing your answer, I won't....Instead,
I say we give it all a rest. How 'bout it? monitor
--- ========== That's just what I have been saying.. 'It is
precisely how we are justified unto salvation'..! It is precisely
just how we are saved! Without it, we are lost! Of course, election
is also a apart of the true gospel. We must believe sound doctrine
*for our conversion*..! Hear this interesting sermon: called 'Satan's
Counterfeits' located at: http://rofgrace.simplenet.com/audio.html
Please let me post this before we call it a truce. Thanks!..:-)
I do not like to debate, anyway. This sermon is right in line with
what we have been discussing. Best Regards, Freegrace Satan's Counterfeits
rofgrace.simplenet.com/audio.html
Subject: Re: Truce on Imputation From: laz To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Fri, May 19, 2000 at 06:03:31 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
fg - I agree that imputation is exactly HOW we are saved, but is UNDERSTANDING or even accepting
that fact, necessarily WHY we are saved? In otherwords, is the rule that only those
that accept the right doctrinal formulas are regenerate? One 'mistake'
in understanding election, or still being unsure as to it's veracity,
and you consider this person unregenerate? No? Knowledge doesn't
save...grace saves and that thru simple faith in Christ's work on
our behalf brought on by the hearing of the Word. laz
Subject: Re: Truce on Imputation From: freegrace
To: laz Date Posted:
Fri, May 19, 2000 at 06:15:19 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Please hear the sermon, The Necessity of Right (or Sound) Doctrine
There can be no *true conversion* without the doctrines of grace
being taught and preached! It is God's means for our *conversion*
(that is the way I see it brother, maybe I am wrong - if so, God
will correct me and chasten me for my error). fg Necessity of Right
Doctrine rofgrace.simplenet.com/audio.html
Subject: Re: Truce on Imputation From: laz To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Fri, May 19, 2000 at 10:12:32 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Please hear the sermon, The Necessity of Right (or Sound) Doctrine
There can be no *true conversion* without the doctrines of grace
being taught and preached! It is God's means for our *conversion*
(that is the way I see it brother, maybe I am wrong - if so, God
will correct me and chasten me for my error). fg
--- ...which is why you were providentially sent HERE! Now take your beatin'
like a man! LOL! laz
Subject: Salvation is Impossible! From: freegrace
To: All Date Posted:
Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 12:04:48 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
This well known writer says that 'the Arminian sytem offers an *impossible
salvation* to the sinner'..so how can it be said that multitudes
of people will be saved by it? freegrace An Impossible Salvation
offered by Arminanism www.efn.org/~davidc/c&ea.html
Subject: Re: Salvation is Impossible! From: Marc D.
Carpenter To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 18:22:30 (PDT) Email Address:romans9@shoreham.net
Message:
OUTSIDE THE CAMP www.outsidethecamp.org
Subject: Re: Salvation is Impossible! From: Marc D.
Carpenter To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 18:24:19 (PDT) Email Address:romans9@shoreham.net
Message:
Hey, freegrace! It sounds like we're of like mind. I'd like to get
to know you. You can e-mail me at romans9@shoreham.net. Soli Deo
Gloria, Marc
Subject: Re: Salvation is Impossible! From: Pilgrim
To: Marc D. Carpenter
Date Posted:
Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 20:24:37 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Mr. Carpenter, And your reputation precedes you! Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Salvation is Impossible! From: GRACE2Me
To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 14:45:31 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
FreeGrace: You said: 'This well known writer says that 'the Arminian
sytem offers an *impossible salvation* to the sinner'..so how can
it be said that multitudes of people will be saved by it?' Since
when does something become fact/true just because one man said it.
Give it a rest brother, you have made your point. I hope you have
the same zeal for the lost? :-) GRACE2Me
Subject: Re: Salvation is Impossible! From: john hampshire
To: GRACE2Me
Date Posted:
Fri, May 19, 2000 at 01:03:23 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
...the question really is: How did salvation become based on one's
beliefs. Fg seems to hold to a gospel regeneration of some type,
where, if you believe properly, you get regenerated. What if, Arminians
believe improperly. What if, God regenerates an Arminian, or anyone
for that matter, and they find truth with their new spiritual eyes.
Does that mean Calvinism saved them? No way. john
Subject: Re: Salvation is Impossible! From: freegrace
To: john hampshire
Date Posted:
Fri, May 19, 2000 at 05:31:45 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
...the question really is: How did salvation become based on one's
beliefs. Fg seems to hold to a gospel regeneration of some type,
where, if you believe properly, you get regenerated. What if, Arminians
believe improperly. What if, God regenerates an Arminian, or anyone
for that matter, and they find truth with their new spiritual eyes.
Does that mean Calvinism saved them? No way. john
--- ========= Sure, John, you are correct. WE are passive in
regeneration, but become active in comversion. (I never said that
a person first 'believes and then becomes regenerated') That is
just my point; how is one who is regenerate going to *find the truth*
in a apostate religious system? God opened my eyes through reading
the great Puritans and hearing good messages by casstte tape. God
even made sure I heard Family Radio to confirm me in the doctrines
of Grace...! I did not learn them in the church where I was a music
director! God's elect are told to Come out of her, MY PEOPLE,and
so I did. Praise God! fg
Subject: Re: Salvation is Impossible! From: laz To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Fri, May 19, 2000 at 05:44:03 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
fg - you wrote: 'That is just my point;
how is one who is regenerate going to *find the truth* in a apostate
religious system?' Are you confessing
that a person CAN be regenerate despite being in an apostate church?
I think you'd say yes...but, Does it take 'right knowledge' to be
saved? Or does it take a 'right heart' (caused by God) coming about
by the mere basic info that Christ died for the ungodly while they
were yet sinners? laz p.s. what do you think about Mr. Carpenter's
strong assertion that Calvinists like me who believe that one can
be saved as an unlearned Arminian are unsaved?
Subject: Re: Salvation is Impossible! From: freegrace
To: laz Date Posted:
Fri, May 19, 2000 at 05:59:21 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
laz, we are passive in regeneration, but become active in conversion.
It takes right knowledge for our *conversion* yes. No sound doctrine,
no *assurance* of an eternal salvation (is what I say). Of course
God has His elect in the Arminian camp, and everywhere. God bless,
brother. fg
Subject: Re: Salvation is Impossible! From: laz To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Fri, May 19, 2000 at 10:14:55 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
God may have Arminian elect but they are yet to be regenerate until
they embrace Calvinism? Which brand? Listen to what you are saying....!
In Him, laz
Subject: Re: Salvation is Impossible! From: Pilgrim
To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Fri, May 19, 2000 at 08:13:48 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
freegrace,
Enough of your skating the issues
and your constant references to sermons, etc. on other sites. Why
don't you answer the question laz asked you and several others as
well?? You have dug a pit for yourself at this point in your life
and without help, you shall perish in it. Yet you think yourself
'liberated' and 'free'. You've jumped from the proverbial 'frying
pan into the fire', freegrace. May it be only temporary and a means
of purification for you. Do you believe what Marc Carpenter believes
in the following statement from his web site:
(5) All who know what
the doctrines of Arminianism are and believe that at least some
Arminians are saved are unregenerate (this includes professing
Calvinists who say they remained Arminians for a time after
they were regenerated or who say that some Arminians are their
brothers in Christ).
Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Salvation is Impossible! From: freegrace To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Fri, May 19, 2000 at 08:35:52 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message: Hi Pilgrim, I have never posted Marc CArptenters
link ATC for that reason; I do not try to judge people as 'lost'
if they do not agre with me, etc. However, His article about Wesley
and what he believed is well worth reading - but I have been told
to drop this issue now, so will not say any more about it. I am
already outside the camp, bearing the reproach of Christ....I do
not need a website to tell me I am 'outside the camp'... :-) regards,
freegrace
Subject: Re: Salvation is Impossible! From: monitor
To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Fri, May 19, 2000 at 10:18:16 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
hehehe....fg, I asked you to consider dropping the matter...but
I don't own the website....Pilgrim, as owner, has asked for a reply....inquiring
minds want to know. Pls, indulge me ONE LAST TIME and give me your
take on Carpenter's statement. Pretty Please? monitor
Subject: Re: Salvation is Impossible! From: freegrace
To: monitor Date Posted:
Fri, May 19, 2000 at 11:15:32 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
hehehe....fg, I asked you to consider dropping the matter...but
I don't own the website....Pilgrim, as owner, has asked for a reply....inquiring
minds want to know. Pls, indulge me ONE LAST TIME and give me your
take on Carpenter's statement. Pretty Please? monitor
--- =============== Sorry, I do not really understand the question,
I guess. I am sure God has His elect among all classes of people,
and all religions. But as God gives them a love for the truth in
regeneration, I think they will leave the apostate gospels or religions,
and follow after the true gospel. This is called repentance from
dead works, etc. True conversion comes when a person 'lays hold
of eternal life' by trusting only in the imputed righteouness of
Christ alone for their justification. This also means they will
*renounce* their own self righteusness. I never said that all Arminians
will be lost. What I do say is that all who are deceived by any
false religion will be lost....sad to say. True conversion comes
by believing sound doctrine. The only gospel that eternally says
the soul is the one that reveals the righteousness of Christ - freely
given to the humble, contrite sinner. All other ground is SINKING
SAND...! I was on sinking sand, but now, thank God, i stand on a
solid Rock...and that Rock is Christ alone plus nothing! 'Their
rock is not as our Rock' it says in Deut. Those who trust in a false
'christ' are not saved. freegrace
Subject: simple question, fg From: monitor
To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Fri, May 19, 2000 at 14:35:18 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message: (5) All who know what the doctrines of
Arminianism are and believe that at least some Arminians are saved
are unregenerate (this includes professing Calvinists who say they
remained Arminians for a time after they were regenerated or who
say that some Arminians are their brothers in Christ). Do you agree, fg? monitor
Subject: Re: simple question, fg From: freegrace
To: monitor Date Posted:
Fri, May 19, 2000 at 14:49:05 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Sorry, I don't understand what Carpenter is trying to prove here.
What I am saying applies to any (Arminian or Calvinist) who are
still self-righteous, and have never submitted to God's righteousness
for a covering.. Romans 4:3-8. Romans 10:1-3. See my reply to laz
below..called; 'All I have to say'... Once I was blind, but now
I see! Where there is no conversion testimony, there is no new birth.
Our 'fig-leaves' must be removed, and God's Robe of Righteousness
put on (by faith alone). We must come naked to God, if you please,
and let Him clothe us....Isaiah 61:10. God came not to call the
self-righteous, but sinners to repentance (from dead works to serve
the true living God of the Bible). fg
Subject: Re: simple question, fg From: Five Sola
To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Fri, May 19, 2000 at 20:31:09 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
'Sorry, I don't understand what Carpenter is trying to prove here.'
Mr Carpenter is saying that we Calvinist are unsaved because we
let God be God (saying that Arminians Can be saved and still be
Arminians). Do you Agree? 'What I am saying applies to any (Arminian
or Calvinist) who are still self-righteous, and have never submitted
to God's righteousness for a covering.. ' So you would say that
an Arminian who is not self-righteous and has submitted to God's
Righteousness is saved, Right? Oh by the way, not one person on
this forum (or on this earth) can say that they have fully submitted
to God's Righteousness and are without self-righteousness. We are
still sinners and we will always try to add works to our salvation
(now if we are saved we will repent of that when we realize it but
we still do it). Five Sola
Subject: Re: Salvation is Impossible! From: Tom To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Fri, May 19, 2000 at 13:17:54 (PDT) Email Address:ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
fg You don't understand the question? Ya right! You sure like skirting
around clearly laid out questions. I will ask one more time for
the board, do you agree with Marc Carpender's statement. Yes or
no? The answer you gave, is too vague to know for sure what you
believe. A simple yes or no, is all we ask. Tom
Subject: Re: Salvation is Impossible! From: freegrace
To: Tom Date Posted:
Fri, May 19, 2000 at 14:37:12 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
fg You don't understand the question? Ya right! You sure like skirting
around clearly laid out questions. I will ask one more time for
the board, do you agree with Marc Carpender's statement. Yes or
no? The answer you gave, is too vague to know for sure what you
believe. A simple yes or no, is all we ask. Tom
--- ============ HI Tom. Yes, if I understand Marc Carpenter
correctly, those who NEVER have their eyes opened to the truth of
God's imputed righteousness are still lost.. See my recent reply
to laz ... 'All I have to say' down below. regards, freegrace
Subject: Re: Salvation is Impossible! From: Tom To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Fri, May 19, 2000 at 14:58:14 (PDT) Email Address:ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
fg I hope you know that you have included most of us on this board
as those who are unsaved. For most of us believe that it is indeed
possible for an Arminian to be in actuality regenerate, but in knowledge
of how they were saved lacking. That is the gist behind Marc's number
5. He would call us all unsaved tolarant Calvinists. Tom
Subject: Re: Salvation is Impossible! From: freegrace
To: Tom Date Posted:
Fri, May 19, 2000 at 15:20:25 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
I think Carpenter is in error at this point. Those (Arminians) who
become regenerated by God will be taught of the Lord, and repent
of 'dead works' etc. Many will see the apostasy all around them
and come out...; they will learn to trust in God's righteousness
for justification, and not their own, etc. They will be brought
to a full assurance of their election in Christ before time began,
etc. I do not judge anyone here as 'lost' ..that is God's business,
and that seems a bit childish to me. I know this, the truth produces
humility and a humble Christ-like spirit that is teachable, and
rejoices in the truth! True saving faith *cannot* believe just anything..it
must believe what God has revealed in His holy Word! fg
Subject: Re: Salvation is Impossible! From: john hampshire
To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Fri, May 19, 2000 at 16:48:30 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Hello Freegrace, You said: Yes, if I understand Marc Carpenter correctly,
those who NEVER have their eyes opened to the truth of God's imputed
righteousness are still lost.. Yet You said: Many will see the apostasy
all around them and come out...; We can boil down your statements
to two beliefs: 1. A regenerate Arminian will come out of their
apostasy 2. Arminians who do not come out of their apostasy are
unregenerate. You will agree that it will take time for regenerate
Arminians to recognize their apostasy, seek truth, understand it
enough to embrace, and put all the puzzle pieces together? During
this time they are still members of an apostate church. During this
time, unsure of their new beliefs they may still argue for their
apostate beliefs. How long do you give a regenerated Arminian before
the condemnation of #2 kicks in? Can they remain apparently apostate
for only a few days, weeks, months, years? You have said that they
will eventually understand fully the doctrines of grace, especially
the 'imputed righteousness of Christ'. If they embrace historic
Calvinism, and obediently serve Christ in deeds and words, but still
don't understand how Christ's righteousness was imputed to Abraham,
even after many years of study: Is this proof of their unregenerate
nature? If an Arminian drenched in heresy, should completely agree
that Christ's righteousness is imputed to our account, and yet believes
still that unless we first believe the righteousness cannot be imputed,
have they given enough proof of their regeneration by believing
imputed righteousness, or must they understand every other supporting
Biblical doctrine (which are legion)? Lastly, you have said you
do not seek to judge the salvation of others. But from what I can
see you have clearly defined what the criteria is: believe on imputed
righteousness and thou shalt be saved. From what I can tell you
have kidnapped a doctrine and used it as proof of a real conversion
experience. But first let's see if you will actually reply-- on
point, your track record so far is dubious. John
Subject: ...A Different Gospel? From: freegrace
To: All Date Posted:
Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 09:14:09 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Here is an interesting study by Rev. E. Kampen. Is Arminianism A
Different Gospel? Both CAlvinism AND Arminianism cannot be true
at the same time! Interesting Study..! www3.bc.sympatico.ca/WilloughbyHeights/DIFGOSPL.HTM
Subject: Re: ...A Different Gospel? From: Marc D.
Carpenter To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 18:32:17 (PDT) Email Address:romans9@shoreham.net
Message:
Hey, freegrace! It looks like we are of like mind! I'd like to correspond
with you. You can send an e-mail to romans9@shoreham.net Marc P.S.
Sorry for all the posts that contained nothing on the other thread.
I don't know how that happened. OUTSIDE THE CAMP www.outsidethecamp.org
Subject: Re: ...A Different Gospel? From: monitor
To: Marc D. Carpenter
Date Posted:
Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 19:15:23 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Oh joy....fg...a kindred spirit. You sure you wanna be associated
with something like OTC? monitor
Subject: All I have to say... From: CyberFish
To: monitor Date Posted:
Fri, May 19, 2000 at 06:30:11 (PDT) Email Address:cyberfish8@aol.com
Message:
I visited that site, and all I have to say is that I am glad that
God is the judge of our eternal destination, and not this guy! CyberFish
Subject: Re: All I have to say... From: freegrace
To: CyberFish
Date Posted:
Fri, May 19, 2000 at 09:24:26 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Greetings! How many of his sermons have you heard so far? I jyst
played 'Teach No Other Doctrine' and it sounds right to me. I said
AMEN! Are you saying that there is 'another way to heaven' besides
trusting in God's imputed righteousness? freegrace Teach No Other
Doctrine rofgrace.simplenet.com/audio5.html
Subject: Re: All I have to say... From: Cyberfish
To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Fri, May 19, 2000 at 19:48:14 (PDT) Email Address:Cyberfish8@aol.com
Message:
Greetings to you too :) Gods righteousness is imputed to those who
trust in CHRIST. The thief on the cross was saved, I bet he did
not know of this imputation until he was with the LORD and it was
all made clear to him. In a way I agree that everyone in heaven
will be a 'Calvinist'...it is just that many won't become one till
they get there :) CyberFish
Subject: Re: All I have to say... From: laz To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Fri, May 19, 2000 at 11:18:44 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
fg - where besides Cor and I think Rom is the doctrine of imputed
righteousness discussed? If it was so important....the entire bible
would be full of the importance of this doctrine. Did John, Peter,
James, etc...specifically hammer this doctrine (or any other) down
in their writings? Don't you think a full embracing of a 'general'
understanding of Christ's gracious life and work is enough to save?
laz
Subject: Re: All I have to say... From: freegrace
To: laz Date Posted:
Fri, May 19, 2000 at 14:31:56 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Hi laz, The doctrine is there...see Isaiah 61:10...! KJV 'He hath
covered me with the robe of righteousness', etc. 'Bring forth the
BEST ROBE and put it on him'..etc. see the Prodical son story...
At the feast, those who do not have the proper 'wedding garments'
are cast out, etc. Arminianism (and any other false religion) is
a 'fig-leaf religion' ...; where imputed righteousness is not taught,
something else MUST take it's place.... human righteousness is set
up in the place of God's righteousness for justification. The same
is true of our predestination. Where election is not taught, then
the 'free will' of fickle man is set up as sovereign (in place of
God's will). This is called the 'mystery of Iniquity' when MAN is
seated on the throne AS GOD (in the temple of man's soul), or any
earthly sanctuary of 'worship'... Just a 'general understanding'
is not enough... All those who NEVER have their eyes opened to this
wonderful truth are still lost....sad to say. That is what true
conversion is all about, brother! Once I was blind, but NOW I see...!
A person can even be 'reformed' and still not see the Light on this,
and never personally embrace God's imputed righteousness for their
eternal justification. Romans 10:1-3 can refer to many people living
today who are still deceived. They may know all about Calvinism
and the 'Five Points', but may still be lost. fg
Subject: A Super-natural Faith From: freegrace
To: All Date Posted:
Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 07:18:32 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
W. E. Best writes: >>>God-given faith is beyond that which
is natural. Since God-given faith is supernatural with relation
to its origin, it must be contrasted with natural faith: 1. Supernatural
faith is not infected with depravity. Natural faith is infected
with depravity. The whole man was infected with depravity in the
fall in the garden of Eden. Therefore, every person who comes into
this world is depraved. He is dead in trespasses and sins and inoperative
in spiritual things. 2. Supernatural faith looks to the will of
God. Natural faith looks to the will of depraved man. 3. Supernatural
faith looks to the ability of God to draw the sinner (John 6:44).
Natural faith looks to the ability of the sinner to come to Christ.
4. Supernatural faith makes the will of the sinner contingent on
the will of God. Natural faith makes the will of God dependent on
the sinner. 5. Supernatural faith rests on the infallible truth
of God’s promises. Natural faith rests on what it is able to understand.
6. Supernatural faith raises the soul above physical sight. Natural
faith is restricted to the sight of the eyes. 7. Supernatural faith
is capable of calling the things not existing as existing (Rom.
4:17). Natural faith is incapable of bringing things not existing
as existing into the mind- set. 8. Supernatural faith cannot habitually
hear and follow a false teacher (John 10:5). Natural faith cannot
habitually hear and follow a true teacher (I John 2:19). 9. Supernatural
faith indwells imperfect Christians who can be deceived. Natural
faith indwells unregenerate persons who continually live in a state
of deception. Although Christians can be deceived, their deception
is not fatal. On the other hand, the nonelect live and die in a
state of deception by the Devil. 10. Supernatural faith finds satisfaction
in its orientation to God, eternity, the assembly, etc., as the
recipient prepares for eternity. Natural faith finds satisfaction
only in the things of time. Religionists talk about faith, but few
know anything about the subject of faith. Most assembly members
do not have a God-given faith. If a man says he has faith and does
not have good works, his faith is not genuine; therefore, it is
inoperative: “What profit is it, my brothers, if anyone may give
expression to be possessing faith and he may not possess works?
Is such faith being able to save him? If a brother or sister may
be poorly clothed and lacking the daily food, and one of you may
say to them: You go away in peace, you warm yourselves and satisfy
yourselves, but may not give them the necessities of the body, what
benefit is that? So also faith, if it may not possess works, faith
by itself is dead” (James 2:14-17 — translation). James was not
teaching salvation by works but salvation by faith that will manifest
itself in works. We have been regenerated for the purpose of good
works (Eph. 2:8-10); therefore, we are to maintain good works (Titus
3:8). We are not justified before God by our works, but we are justified
by works before others. There is a justification before God by the
finished work of Jesus Christ at Calvary, a justification by faith
before our own consciousness, and a justification by works before
men. The record of the faith of the patriarchs in Hebrews 11 proves
that faith is the characteristic feature of God’s people in every
age. The operation of faith is seen in those who lived before the
flood including Abel, Enoch, and Noah (Heb. 11:4-7), those who lived
from the flood to the law (vv. 8-29), those who lived from Israel’s
deliverance to the captivity (vv. 30-34), and those who lived from
the captivity to Christ (vv. 35-40). Faith is important. (1) It
is God’s gift to the elect, called “the faith of God’s elect” (Titus
1:1). (2) Faith is the fruit of regeneration. It does not produce
regeneration. (3) It is possessed from the very first with certainty,
conviction, and an insight which transcends the certainties of the
natural mind. The insight one with God-given faith has is an intuitive
understanding. Like a little bird intuitively opening its beak upon
its mother’s return to the nest, the regenerated person’s intuitive
understanding enables him to comprehend the truth of God. God’s
sheep hear His voice and follow Him, but they refuse to follow the
voice of a stranger (John 10:27). This is insight that transcends
the thoughts of the natural mind. The natural mind does not understand
the things of the Spirit of God for the reason that they are foolishness
to him. They can be only spiritually discerned (I Cor. 2:14). In
contrast, the spiritual mind knows Jesus Christ who he has believed
and is persuaded that He is able to keep that which he has committed
to Him (II Tim. 1:12).<<< Please notice number eight...
true saving faith cannot *habitually* follow a false teacher, or
false teachings....! Also, the regenerated person is enabled (by
the Spirit) to comprehend truth! freegrace
Subject: Re: A Super-natural Faith From: Eric To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 07:40:00 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
fg wrote: Please notice number eight...
true saving faith cannot *habitually* follow a false teacher, or
false teachings....!Also,
the regenerated person is enabled (by the Spirit) to comprehend
truth! Since you have yet to answer my
question, I will post it again. Given what you wrote above, you
must logically hold to the following position: **You and the vast
minority who hold your position on water baptism, have true saving
faith, and everybody else is lost because they have been following
false teachers, and hence, cannot be truly saved, for if they were,
they would have been enabled by the Spirit to comprehend the truth
of your position. Do you agree with this statement? And if not,
how do you logically seperate the knowledge of the true nature of
baptism with the knowledge of the true nature of election? God bless.
Subject: Re: A Super-natural Faith From: freegrace
To: Eric Date Posted:
Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 08:20:48 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Eric, As I said before, my views about water baptism has nothing
to do with 'laying hold of Eternal life, and believing in God's
imputed righeousness for our eternal justification in the sight
of God'... Maybe you keep bringing up water baptism because you
are really trusting in it for your salvation (rather than the imputed
righteousness of Christ alone)! Also, if 99% of the Christians would
go back to offering animal blood sacrifices - because it was once
commanded to do so, it would not make it 'right' for us today, now
would it..?! Eric, study to show thyself *appproved unto God*, not
man. Paul wrote, 'if I yet pleased men, he would not be a true minister
of the gospel, or servant of Jesus Christ'...! fg
Subject: Respond to the question From: Eric To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 09:05:03 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
fg, In essence your position is as follows: I. All who are saved
know the truth because of the teaching of the Holy Spirit and the
regenerated mind. II. All those who don't believe in Christ's imputed
righteousness, must by definition believe in a false teaching. III.
Therefore, those who don't believe the imputation of righteousness
are lost. Now, lets put your beliefs about baptism in the same formula:
I. All who are saved know the truth because of the teaching of the
Holy Spirit and the regenerated mind. II. All those who believe
that water baptism is a valid sacrament believe in a false teaching.
III. Therefore, those who believe that water baptism is a valid
sacrament are lost. Now, let's go to the biblical formula: I. All
who are saved have faith in Christ(the person, and not just facts
about Him) because of the teaching of the Holy Spirit and the regenerated
mind. II. All those that do not believe that Jesus was the Christ,
believe in a false teaching. III. Therefore, those who do not believe
in Christ are lost. As many have tried to point out to you, you
have unwittingly replaced the Person of Christ as the source of
salvation, with certain facts about him and His work. It is God
who saves. As to your pondering whether or not I am trusting in
my baptism for my salvation is insulting to say the least. You should
be ashamed of yourself, brother. As somebody who has many godly
family members who are not Calvinists, I take great offense to your
questioning their salvation. I have seen the fruit of their faith,
and their love of Christ firsthand and over many years, and through
sufferings you cannot imagine, and yet the one thing that remains
in their lives is Christ. I would gladly trade my limited doctrinal
knowledge for their faith.
Subject: Praying During Service From: GRACE2Me
To: All Date Posted:
Wed, May 17, 2000 at 21:27:03 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Last Sunday, one of the church leaders decided he wanted to pray
for the pastor during the morning service while he preached because
he said the pastor needed it. The pastor told him that he agreed
he needed prayer, and covets them from all who will pray. The pastor
just doesn't think that is the time to do it, and prefers that the
person be in the service with his wife to worship and hear the message.
But it was also new to the pastor, and he wanted some time to think
and pray about it. He also told the pastor that Christians did that
for D.L. Moody during the service. Do you think the pastor should
allow him to do that since the church leader feels 'led' to do so?
Does the church being small have any bearing? Should it be only
for certain circumstances? Would be very interested in your thoughts
on this. Thanks! GRACE2Me
Subject: Re: Praying During Service From: Eric To: GRACE2Me
Date Posted:
Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 07:43:24 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Why doesn't the leader just pray for the pastor while he is in the
service? The man's prayers will be just as effective regardless
of what room he is in. God bless.
Subject: Input Regarding Ordination From: GRACE2Me
To: All Date Posted:
Wed, May 17, 2000 at 21:15:20 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
The Assistant Pastor in training has been under the watch care of
our church for one year now, and he wants to be ordained. We know
of the qualifications of the Pastor/Elder in 1Tim.3:1-7 and Titus
1:6-9. And we know of some charges that Paul gave Timothy, and the
mention of the laying on of hands by the presbytery in 1Tim.4:14.
Does he need to be ordained to preach in our church? Is it supposed
to wait until he goes to another work? What if the pastor feels
that he is not ready emotionally due to some unstableness? Is that
covered scripturally? Are those qualifications given exhaustive?
If so, should the pastor proceed if he doesn't have 'peace' about
it? Sorry for all the questions, just looking for some advice in
these areas. Thanks! GRACE2Me P.S. Could you also lay out how and
when a preacher/pastor should be ordained biblically G2M
Subject: Re: Input Regarding Ordination From: stan To: GRACE2Me
Date Posted:
Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 20:11:00 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
The local church should ordain or what ever you want to call it.
A lot of your questions may have answers dictated in your group/denomination.
If independent then look to the word and as you have indicated Timothys
and Titus. Personal opinion, unstableness, immaturity are covered
in the qualifications and overal thought of the word 'elder' Pastor/elder/LEADER
should not go forward if there is no peace. Maybe Matt 18 applies
- go to the youngun and talk it through - if he doesn't follow take
two or three. I don't feel orination is required for preaching.
AS LONG as you know him to be the kind of man that belongs behind
a pulpit. In many independant works it is kind of customary for
ordination to take place as the man takes up his new ministry, though
not written in stone. Nothing Biblical comes to mind on the subject.
If the qualifications aren't enough you aren't looking deep enough.
They cover just about everything there is - especially when you
put them up along side the rest of Scripture and the many admonishions
to holiness ;-) stan
Subject: jsgirl, 'hit 'n' run' isn't polite From: Rod To: All Date Posted:
Wed, May 17, 2000 at 13:56:38 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
'jsgirl'...Let me see, 'Jesus' saved girl?' If so, shouldn't you
have the courage of your convictions? You came here and made sweeping
assertions (with no Scriptural backing
whatsoever) and showed yourself to be
a 'champion of the truth' and a 'light to the sovereign grace believers.'
But it was a false front. When challenged to defend your position
and to really demonstrate to us where we 'are wrong,' you just left
the scene. I felt like the victim of a 'drive by!' I'm very disappointed
that you, who claim to have all knowledge on this subject, will
not enter into an examination of the Bible to see what it does say.
After all, isn't seeking out God's truth in His revealed Word our
goal as committed Christians? It seems not to be yours.
Subject: What John Owen said ... From: freegrace
To: All Date Posted:
Wed, May 17, 2000 at 12:11:41 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
....Some interesting comments here with a reference to John Owen.....
>>>Many have a false security, thinking themselves to be
genuine believers in Christ when in fact they are under the dark
influence of the false gospel. I pray that as the truth is clarified
and the lie of human sovereignty is exposed, some among these will
be brought to a true understanding of God's grace. Of those who
trust in themselves for salvation (Arminians), the Heidelberg Catechism
says, 'They may boast of him in words, but they in fact deny the
only Savior Jesus. For one of two things must be true: Either Jesus
is not a complete Savior, or those who by true faith accept this
Savior must find in him all that is necessary for salvation'...
The statement of the Catechism reflects the Biblical antithesis
between grace and works. As the Apostle says in Romans 11:5, 6:
'Even so then at this present time there is a remnant according
to the election of grace. And if by grace, then it is no more of
works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works,
then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.' People
who embrace the false gospel embrace a doctrine of human works,
even as they speak about the grace of God. They must be warned,
and called to repentance and true faith. Many 'Calvinists' defend
Arminianism as a legitimate expression of biblical Christianity,
'rough edges' notwithstanding. By doing so, such 'Calvinists', by
their tolerance of Arminian doctrine, implicitly endorse and believe
it. The sober truth is this: whatever people may call themselves,
if they tolerate and endorse the teaching of Arminianism, they lend
support to the satanic lie of human sovereignty. When such persons
are aware of this grave sin, they need to repent and forsake it.
I pray that such repentance will ensue, and that I will continually
repent of this sin. John Owen wrote and preached several hundred
years ago. In his age as well, there were some who called themselves
'Reformed' and yet tolerated and defended the Arminian gospel as
a valid expression of Christianity. Here is what he wrote about
one such person: 'The sum of their doctrine in this particular is
laid down by one of ours in a tract entitled 'God's Love to Mankind,'
etc.; a book full of palpable ignorance, gross sophistry, and abominable
blasphemy, whose author seems to have proposed nothing unto himself
but to rake all the dunghills of a few of the most invective Arminians,
and to collect the most filthy scum and pollution of their railings
to cast upon the truth of God; and, under I know not what self-
coined pretenses, belch out odious blasphemies against his holy
name.'. (From John Owen, A Display of Arminianism). By defending
the devil's lie of Arminianism, some people today still continue
to 'belch out odious blasphemies against his holy name', as Owen
said. =================================
Subject: Re: What John Owen said ... From: Pilgrim
To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Wed, May 17, 2000 at 17:57:41 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Freegrace,
GIVE IT UP! It just so happens
that John Owen is my favourite Puritan writer and theologian. I
am more than aware of his Display of Arminianism and have read through its entirety more than once. What
Owen says in your quote is nothing contrary to that which those
of us who are opposing YOUR view hold to be true. Don't even THINK
about recruiting John Owen as someone who sides with your erroneous
contentions. For the last time, there is to be recognized that there
can be a vast difference between 'Arminianism' and someone who holds
to that doctrine; an 'Arminian'! Further, the Arminianism of Owen's
day is not the same theology as that which is labeled Arminianism
in our day. You are riding a wooden 'hobby horse' which will take
you nowhere but to perdition.
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: What John Owen said ... From: freegrace
To: Pilgrim Date Posted:
Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 07:24:42 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Freegrace,
GIVE IT UP! It just so happens
that John Owen is my favourite Puritan writer and theologian. I
am more than aware of his Display of Arminianism and have read through its entirety more than once. What
Owen says in your quote is nothing contrary to that which those
of us who are opposing YOUR view hold to be true. Don't even THINK
about recruiting John Owen as someone who sides with your erroneous
contentions. For the last time, there is to be recognized that there
can be a vast difference between 'Arminianism' and someone who holds
to that doctrine; an 'Arminian'! Further, the Arminianism of Owen's
day is not the same theology as that which is labeled Arminianism
in our day. You are riding a wooden 'hobby horse' which will take
you nowhere but to perdition.
In His Grace, Pilgrim
--- ==================== come on, Pilgrim, you are 'pulling
my leg'..! Are you saying that heresy 'improves' over the years
with the passing of time? The Bible says that in the last days,
multitudes will be deceived, and the degree of apostasy will increase,
not 'get better' or improve... We are to fight the good fight of
faith! If John Owen were living today, I am sure he would speak
out against the false teachings of Arminianism like never before!
freegrace
Subject: Re: What John Owen said ... From: Pilgrim
To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 08:42:17 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
freegrace,
Are you unable to read plain English?
hahaha.... Owen would indeed write against the heresy of Arminianism
or its modern counterpart if he were alive today, but no more than
what I have done or Rod or any other person on this Forum who embraces
the doctrines of 'Sovereign Free Grace.' But he would NOT EVER hold
to what you do; i.e., that all ARMINIANS are unregenerate. Owen
recognized no less than ANY Christian does by the Spirit, that there
are Christ's sheep in many places who hold to various errors in
doctrine. You obviously have been blinded by your zeal to promote
this heretical view you now hold. Again, I say to you: GIVE IT UP!
Pilgrim
Subject: Re: What John Owen said ... From: freegrace To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 09:27:42 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message: Pilgrim, I never said that 'All Arminians are unregenerate',
for God has His elect everywhere, and is calling men and women to
COME OUT OF HER MY PEOPLE...! what I am saying is that Arminianism
is 'another gospel' and if this teaching is followed ..it will lead
people into a false security of salvation (just as I once had)...!
Sorry, I have to disagree with you about assurance; I think that
Bible doctrine is important when it comes to giving a person full
assurance of salvation! That is like always feeding a baby nothing
but milk, and never feeding your children any meat! Only the stong
meat of the Word produces strong Christians! freegrace
Subject: Re: What John Owen said ... From: laz To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 12:54:35 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Does right doctrine really give assurance? I know tons of arminians,
mormons, jw's etc...who have full assurance of their salvation....they
are mistaken of course...but they are sure they're saved! haha laz
Subject: Church History Timeline From: freegrace
To: All Date Posted:
Wed, May 17, 2000 at 05:35:26 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Just found this link today! The church history timeline looks very
interesting! fg Look for Church History page sikkema.netfirms.com/
Subject: Imputation From: laz To: All Date Posted:
Tues, May 16, 2000 at 16:44:05 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
How's 'bout this: Feel free to correct me, ya'll! If someone flat
out rejects the doctrine of imputed righteousness after being patiently
explained in favor of a righteousness that he/she believes they
bring to the table (which is necessarily what they MUST believe
if they reject Christ's righteousness, no?), then I'd have to agree
with FG that that person has CLEARLY rejected a fundamental tenant
of the Gospel...they have rejected God's gracious provision for
sin thru His Son and His work. While they MIGHT be regenerate (i.e.,
eyes/ears opened to the idea of God in Christ) .... justification
may not have been applied since they lack the requisite fiducia
aspect of 'saving faith'...a Spirit-wrought faith. Their trust is
misplaced as both their mind and heart will not have Christ as their
sole means of salvation. Is this not what makes a pagan, a pagan?
hehe But it's altogether another matter to say that someone is still
unregenerate if they haven't fully comprehended and apprehended
the doctrine of imputed righteousness. Frankly, some haven't been
taught this doctrine....shameful but true...and if they were to
get hit by a truck after expressing SIMPLE SPIRIT-WROUGHT SAVING
FAITH (apart from understanding or even knowing about imputed righteousess)
I believe, like the thief on the Cross, they will be saved. Knowledge
doesn't save....grace thru faith in Christ...however simple the
knowledge or faith, saves! But again, I would have a hard time believing
someone is truly saved if they willfully and with forethought/premeditation
reject Christ's robe of righteousness. They MUST be clothed with
the proper wedding garment. OK, let the party begin... laz p.s.
I maintain that most knowledgeble Arminians understand and embrace
imputation. I know far too many that do!!
Subject: Re: Imputation From: john hampshire
To: laz Date Posted:
Wed, May 17, 2000 at 05:22:02 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
If someone rejects the doctrine of imputed righteousness and by
this they have rejected God's provision for sin, does this in some
way affect the outcome of God's action toward that person. This
seems to me to be much ado about nothing. If I don't believe this
or that, does God care? Does God only regenerate those who understand
imputed righteousness? With regeneration comes faith, but is it
a perfect faith, perfectly abiding in Christ? Not a chance. Like
a baby learning about the world the babe in Christ learns about
his Saviour. The idea that everyone will eventually learn of imputed
righteousness and that is some measure of one's holiness or standing
as a Christian, or a delineator of salvation is simply ridiculous.
Is a pagan simply someone with misplaced trust-- if so then I am
a pagan (which many will agree). From what I can tell, fg has taken
a piece of the gospel, separated it from the all other things, then
made that portion the gold standard of salvation. Understand it
or die. Since Arminians tend to confuse theological terms and use
fuzzy logic to express their distorted theology, they will likely
fail any test regarding difficult theological expressions, along
with no small number of professing Calvinists I might add. If they
resist learning, or cannot learn they are judged a heretic. How
many years ago was it that those who failed the theology test were
tortured, made to confess themselves heretics, then burned for admitting
it. I don't have much faith in human standards of determining who
the righteous ones are from the evil guys. And further, who cares.
If they hear the gospel then great, if they reject it then move
on. We don't need to hang around passing judgement on everyone who
doesn't 'get it'. Arminians are a mixed lot anyway, some believe
imputed righteousness but suffer a disconnect with the origin of
faith. Some think God gives faith via regeneration and our righteousness
is in Christ, not our own, and Jesus died for His elect, but we
must still accept His finished work. Who can separate the twisted
theology to decide who is lost and who is saved, and where are we
commanded to try. Again this is much to do about nothing, in my
opinion. We cannot create checklists of dogma that differentiate
sheep from goats. We cannot separate who believes from the heart
and who believes from the mind. It is not our business. (but if
it were, then I think Arminians will float in water due to their
light approach to interpretation, while Calvinist shall surely sink.
So we throw all Christians in the ocean and those who sink to the
bottom will be saved, those who float we hang). john
Subject: Re: Imputation From: laz To: john hampshire
Date Posted:
Wed, May 17, 2000 at 07:22:14 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
John - you said: We cannot create checklists
of dogma that differentiate sheep from goats. We cannot separate
who believes from the heart and who believes from the mind. In the absolute sense, you are correct...only God knows
the heart...and minds often don't jive with the heart...BUT... ...in
the earthly realm, doesn't the Church hold the keys to the kingdom?
Is not the Church to determine who is to be received into the covenant
community, to enjoy God's means of grace and brought under the loving
discipline of the Church leadership? And aren't those who are admitted
into membership to be considered, addressed as though they WERE
sheep...and not goats (though some likely are goats)? I think I'm
being rhetorical since you already know all of this. ;-) A person
who vehemently denies Christ's person and imputed work (which is
NOT mere 'dogma' but the product of Spirit-wrought faith - the heart
of Christianity) is not fit for membership into Christ's church.
I guess I'm saying that a person who rejects the Gospel is unsaved.
But I'm NOT saying that imputed righteousness is the Gospel...but
merely a very important piece. laz
Subject: Re: Imputation From: freegrace
To: laz Date Posted:
Wed, May 17, 2000 at 09:07:14 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
John - you said: We cannot create checklists
of dogma that differentiate sheep from goats. We cannot separate
who believes from the heart and who believes from the mind. In the absolute sense, you are correct...only God knows
the heart...and minds often don't jive with the heart...BUT... ...in
the earthly realm, doesn't the Church hold the keys to the kingdom?
Is not the Church to determine who is to be received into the covenant
community, to enjoy God's means of grace and brought under the loving
discipline of the Church leadership? And aren't those who are admitted
into membership to be considered, addressed as though they WERE
sheep...and not goats (though some likely are goats)? I think I'm
being rhetorical since you already know all of this. ;-) A person
who vehemently denies Christ's person and imputed work (which is
NOT mere 'dogma' but the product of Spirit-wrought faith - the heart
of Christianity) is not fit for membership into Christ's church.
I guess I'm saying that a person who rejects the Gospel is unsaved.
But I'm NOT saying that imputed righteousness is the Gospel...but
merely a very important piece. laz
--- =========== AMEN Laz..! That's the same thing that I have
been trying to say! A person will be lost without believing the
true gospel (which contains the truth of God's imputed righteousness)..!
But now I am called or treated as a 'heretic' here because after
all these years of being religious, and trying to be accepted by
God, I have now found full assurance of salvation! Everyone here
should be rejoicing with me! Calvinism IS the gospel! It really
'works' when believed from the heart. Ye have *from the heart* received
that form of doctrine that was delivered unto you. The person of
Christ is TRUTH personified. When Christ is received the truth will
be received also. fg
Subject: Re: Imputation From: Pilgrim
To: laz Date Posted:
Tues, May 16, 2000 at 17:41:46 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
laz,
I would have to disagree with
your first premise brother; i.e., someone can be regenerate yet
NOT have 'fiducia'(saving faith). Why? Because it is at the moment
of regeneration that faith is implanted/enlivened in the soul. This
'faith' is a NEED for Christ; to trust in Him and a leaning/dependency
on Him as Lord and Saviour. However, having said that there are
obvious qualifications as you well know. For example, one who is
regenerated in the womb, infants, mentally deficient individuals
cannot OUTWARDLY manifest that faith. But all others are immediately
drawn to Christ by the Spirit, since they have also been convicted
of their sin and need of Him. This is a 'double attraction', i.e.,
they flee to Him out of NEED and also out of LOVE/DESIRE. But when
such individuals do receive the Lord Christ, they still may be too
young or mentally unable to comprehend theological matters, e.g.,
the doctrine of Imputation. This is no way diminishes or denies
the truth that ALL who are in Christ are His and secure, for it
the blood of Christ justifies absolutely. Perhaps you are referring
to what the Puritans spoke of as a 'preparatory working' of the
Spirit, where a person was being ineffectually drawn through various
means; breaking down their resistance etc. before being regenerate?
Let's not ever forget, that one can surely comprehend the truth
theologically and be anything but regenerate. 1Cor 2:14 is not saying
that a natural man is incapable of intellectually comprehending
the theology of the Bible. But to the contrary, it is speaking of
one who is indeed able, but hates it, therefore they don't 'receive
it' and it is 'foolishness' to him. As Paul says in Romans 1 'they
exchange the
truth for a lie'! :-)
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Imputation From: laz To: Pilgrim Date Posted:
Wed, May 17, 2000 at 06:13:21 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Pilgrim - you said: I would have to disagree
with your first premise brother; i.e., someone can be regenerate
yet NOT have 'fiducia'(saving faith). Why? Because it is at the
moment of regeneration that faith is implanted/enlivened in the
soul. I guess I was under the false impression
that a person can have saving faith sovereignly and unconditionally
implanted (synonymous with being regenerated) but not yet express
belief unto justification...even if it's just for a moment. But
if saving faith comes by HEARING God's words, they must express
BELIEF as the proper response to God's words and prior (or simultaneous)
act of regeneration ... so, the three go hand-in-hand...that is:
- regeneration
- faith upon
hearing the Word - expression of belief in that Word ...since a heart/mind that has been granted
'faith' and therefore having been regenerate WILL undoubtedly BELIEVE
what God is communicating to them as the Gospel is being proclaimed
- for God doesn't regenerate apart from the hearing of the Word.
Is this correct? Or have I muddied the waters? blessings, laz
Subject: Re: Imputation From: Pilgrim
To: laz Date Posted:
Wed, May 17, 2000 at 07:53:58 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
laz,
I'm still trying to comprehend
what you are REALLY trying to say here.... hehehe! :-) But it is
my understanding that 'faith and regeneration' are inseparable.
As you have also said, regeneration INCLUDES the implanting of 'faith'.
And there are those who will not EXPRESS that faith before men due to their position,
e.g., a fetus yet in the womb, an infant, a mentally deficient individual,
etc. Let's take an infant who God has been predestinated to salvation
in Christ and has been regenerated at the tender age of one year.
This child indeed has 'faith'! But that 'faith' won't be recognized
by men due to
the infant's inability to express it. Yet, that faith rests in Christ
nonetheless as it does in every child born of the Spirit. As the
child progresses in physical age, this faith will surely be expressed
before men. However,
in the case of adults, the normal means by which God brings individuals to Christ is through
the means of
the Gospel; either heard in preaching or from the reading of it
in Scripture or a Gospel presentation in print. When the Spirit
regenerates that person, faith is immediately implanted in the new
heart of flesh and it is immediately expressed in conversion; i.e.,
through a profession of his/her conviction of sin and heartfelt
trust and dependency on the Lord Christ. This will of course be
first before God and perhaps also before other men IF there are some present. If not, then eventually, this
person will be lead to a gathering of saints where he/she will then
make profession of faith. So, I think you have all the parts correct,
but maybe the difficulty is in the way you have expressed it? hehe.... :-)
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim P.S.: Because you
did not mention 'Imputed Righteousness', does this mean you aren't
saved?
Subject: Re: Imputation From: freegrace
To: laz Date Posted:
Wed, May 17, 2000 at 06:42:31 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Pilgrim - you said: I would have to disagree
with your first premise brother; i.e., someone can be regenerate
yet NOT have 'fiducia'(saving faith). Why? Because it is at the
moment of regeneration that faith is implanted/enlivened in the
soul. I guess I was under the false impression
that a person can have saving faith sovereignly and unconditionally
implanted (synonymous with being regenerated) but not yet express
belief unto justification...even if it's just for a moment. But
if saving faith comes by HEARING God's words, they must express
BELIEF as the proper response to God's words and prior (or simultaneous)
act of regeneration ... so, the three go hand-in-hand...that is:
- regeneration
- faith upon
hearing the Word - expression of belief in that Word ...since a heart/mind that has been granted
'faith' and therefore having been regenerate WILL undoubtedly BELIEVE
what God is communicating to them as the Gospel is being proclaimed
- for God doesn't regenerate apart from the hearing of the Word.
Is this correct? Or have I muddied the waters? blessings, laz
--- ================ Yes, Laz, I say you are correct here...
Pilgrim is also correct in reference to elect infants and the metally
retarded people being saved -even without ever exercising their
gift of faith. However, in mature adults - which is what we are
discussing, normal faith in all the great doctrines is the rule.
Just to believe that 'Jesus is the Son of God' is not enough..,
for even the devils believe that, and tremble.. says James. Those
who *continually* reject the clear teachings of Scripture about
the doctrines of election, particular atonement, perserverance of
the saints, and of course imputed righteousness, just prove they
still are unregenerate, for they set up a human standard for their
salvation. That is why Arminianism has been called a form of 'humanism'
..and not the true gospel at all. BTW, I have never 'isolated' imputed
righteousness from all the other great doctrines of Grace! fg
Subject: Re: Imputation From: Rod To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Wed, May 17, 2000 at 13:23:26 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
freegrace, Let's look at a couple of erroneous statements in this
post. First You make this statement: 'Yes, Laz, I say you are correct
here... Pilgrim is also correct in reference to elect infants and
the metally retarded people being saved -even without ever exercising
their gift of faith. However, in mature adults - which is what we
are discussing, normal faith in all the great doctrines is the rule.'
You appear just not to 'get it,' having a false idea of what faith
is and what it is in. You continue to desire that people put their
fiath in 'great doctrines,' demonstrating that you don't understand
the most fundamental thing about faith: that it is in the Person
of the Lord God. This is a serious and grievous error. You should
renounce it immediatley. You also wrote this: 'BTW, I have never
'isolated' imputed righteousness from all the other great doctrines
of Grace!' Your own writings give the lie to this statement: Here
are some of your statements I have cut and pasted in: 'My point
is, these people are not saved at all becuase
they have never even heard of God's imputed righteousness, sad to say.' (emphasis added by me); and 'My question
for you or anyone here, is, are professing Christians - such as
(for example, good members of the liberal United Methodist church
denomination) saved - even when they never
come to trust in God's imputed righteousness
for their justification?' (emphasis added). And 'The doctrine of
our imputed righteousness is the foundation for our Christian assurance,
is it not? At least that is the way I see it now.' And finally,
'My point is, if they NEVER embrace God's imputed righteousness
for their eternal justification, they will be lost.' I think you
owe it to yourself and to us to at least be honest about this emphasis
you have placed on 'imputed righteousness.' You have spoke most
recently of the 'gospel,' but the gospel is about an all-sufficient
Savior, not about being a proper theologian. Many people have repeatedly
made that point to you, but you refuse to accept it. That gives
grave doubts about your credibility and demonstrates that your fundamental
concept of Christianity is very questionable. I repeat to you now
that the Lord Jesus Christ is the focal point of Christianity, the
only basis for salvation. Place your faith and trust in Him.
Subject: Re: Imputation From: freegrace
To: Rod Date Posted:
Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 05:44:44 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
You said......>>>Place your faith and trust in Him<<<
Rod, which one? The Arminian false Christ, or the Calvinist true
Christ? Rod, You still have not answered my question; if you were
saved as an Arminian, on what basis did you have any assurance of
an eternal salvation? fg
Subject: Re: Assurance From: Pilgrim
To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Thurs, May 18, 2000 at 07:04:38 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
freegrace,
I think ANYONE who has knowledge
of TRUE biblical doctrine could answer your question to Rod concerning
the 'basis for assurance' he had when he was saved while embracing
Arminian theology. The answer is so simple I wonder why you can't
see it yourself. The answer is: The Holy Spirit, speaking to his
soul and in the Scriptures testified to him that he was a child
of God and that he was CHRIST'S own. If THAT doesn't give a person
assurance, nothing will. Certainly you CAN'T be suggesting that
if he was unaware of the doctrine of 'imputed righteousness' or
some other doctrine he COULDN'T have assurance? If you would consult
ANY of the major Confessions and/or Creeds of the historic Christian
Church where they speak of 'Assurance of Salvation' you will not
find any mention of 'doctrine' as being a foundation for assurance.
Why? because it is not taught in Scripture and therefore heretical.
In His GRACE, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Imputation From: Pilgrim
To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Wed, May 17, 2000 at 07:31:44 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
freegrace,
So now we are introduced to the
crux of your belief system, which is NOT Biblical Christianity,
but Gnosticism in modern garb. How sad. If John Wesley and countless
others who professed to trust in Christ ALONE and His substitutionary
work for salvation are to be counted among the unregenerate who
are in hell awaiting the Judgment, are you not also to be counted
to be one of THEM? For you have made salvation to rest upon a 'KNOWLEDGE OF' rather than
in Christ Jesus the Lord of Glory. No less than any Arminian or
Roman Catholic or Orthodox, who confesses orthodoxy in the essentials
and then adds to them requirements that transcend God's perfect
plan of salvation, you have done the same. How sad! How pitiful!
But how revealing. You wrote: 'Those
who *continually* reject the clear teachings of Scripture about
the doctrines of election, particular atonement, perserverance of
the saints, and of course imputed righteousness, just prove they
still are unregenerate, for they set up a human standard for their
salvation.' There is NOTHING in all Scripture that says
only a person who understands and professes the 'Five Points of
Calvinism' can be saved. NO WHERE! Once again, it is faith in the
person of THE LORD JESUS CHRIST by GRACE that saves anyone and everyone.
PERIOD! I have said all along that I am convinced that the vast
majority of people today who claim to be Christians are unregenerate.
But I have also said and maintained that there are those of different
theological persuasions are among Christ's sheep. I have also strongly
defended the truth that doctrine is crucially important to salvation
and one's spiritual health. But DOCTRINE doesn't SAVE! Wrong doctrine
CAN lead one to destruction if one's faith is in it. Further, whether
it is Arminianism, Calvinism, Mormonism, Bahai, Buddhism, Daoism,
Deism, etc., if a person's heart is resting in the doctrines he/she
holds to be true, then they prove themselves to be outside of CHRIST
and they have spurious faith. The big question now, freegrace, is
whether or not YOU have Christ IN YOU! Have you left your first
professed love for a system of doctrine, albeit the doctrines of
Christ? Have you usurped the clear teaching of Scripture; the most
fundamental and necessary teaching — THE GOSPEL?
You have clearly created for yourself a labyrinth of errors which
without God's intervention you shall never find your way out.
In His GRACE, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Imputation From: Rod To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Wed, May 17, 2000 at 13:31:33 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message: Pilgrim, I didn't read this reply before I made mine
directly above, but I am pleased to see that you, and hopefully
everyone else, sees this fallacy correctly. freegrace's is a most
dangerous error, one to be avoided at the expense of not comprehending
what the true gospel of Jesus Christ is.
Subject: Re: Imputation From: Rod To: laz Date Posted:
Tues, May 16, 2000 at 17:34:10 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
laz, The problem is, you're trying to look at freegrace's posts
logically. :>) There is no logic in his thinking, for reasons
which you, yourself, identified days ago. He wants people to 'trust
in imputed righteousness,' emphasizing that to the detriment of
the Originator of the plan, the One Who imputes. As I'm certain
you know, 'trust' is a synonym for faith. We are absolutely never
to place our trust in anything other than a Person, the Savior.
We may and certainly should trust that we possess imputed righteousness,
as the Bible assures believers, but faith in that is misplaced faith:
'...even the mystery which hath been hidden from ages and from generations,
but now is made manifest [obvious] to the saints [the sanctified
by God], to whom God would make known what is the riches of the
glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, WHICH
IS CHRIST IN YOU, the hope of glory;
whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all
wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in
Christ Jesus' (Col. 1:26-28). Let's be
very clear that you and I mean different things from freegrace when
we discuss things; particularly the standard of faith by which we
determine brotherhood and sisterhood in Christ. As long as freegrace
willfully ignores the salvation of such men as John and Charles
Wesley, despite conclusive testimony in writing and song that they
belong to the same Lord Jesus Christ in Whom all all Christians
place their faith which God has determined will justify them by
grace, I will be very wary of endorsing any of his ideas. One characteristic
of cults is that they take a small amount of truth and run with
it. The blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, applied by
the Lord God when the regenerate person
receives the gift of faith, which comes by hearing (Rom. 10:17)
God's Word with spiritual ears, imputes righteousness to the believing
one. freegrace steadfastly and doggedly denies that faith to sincere
professors of it, such as those of us who were Arminian but came
out of the system. His clear conclusion is, if we are saved now,
we certainly weren't then! Note carefully what he wrote to me today
in another thread: 'Rod, if you think [note that I merely 'think'
I was saved] you were saved as an Arminian, on what basis did you
receive any comfort and assurance of salvation? Your church membership?
Attending services? Good works? The church dinners? The 'Christian'
fellowship? All the church socials &parties? The many banquets?
etc. etc. Thanks. Just wondering. The social gospel of Arminianism,
etc. is not the same gospel that Paul and the apostles preached.
They are in direct opposition to one another! see Galtions 1:8-9
fg' Isn't it plain that I was (and possibly still am, according
to freegrace) deluded and not saved at all, having been 'saved by
a 'social gospel?' How snide and condescending this post is! freegrace
knows nothing of my Christian walk apart from my posts here. He
knows nothing of my prayer life, my circumstances of salvation,
my relationship to the Lord at all. But he has the unmitigated audacity
to deny salvation to us all. I read that as putting yourself in
the place of God, just as is the (re)writing of Scripture. Have
you noticed that, when freegrace is presented with proof of facts,
such as my quotations from the lives of the Wesleys, he conveniently ignores those proofs? Then he comes right back with the 'big lie' of having
faith in imputed righteousness. This is a tactic and principle of
those engaged in propaganda: tell a lie often enough and someone
will believe it. Beware of spurious doctrine, brother laz.
Subject: For fg re-rightiousness From: Tom To: All Date Posted:
Tues, May 16, 2000 at 14:39:00 (PDT) Email Address:ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
fg By now you have seen Pilgrim's post to you concerning the rightiousness
we are to seek. What kind of rightiousness are we to seek? 1) Imputed
rightiousness 2) God's rightiousness and let God do the imputing.
Believe me, there is a difference. Tom
Subject: Two questions From: Rod To: All Date Posted:
Tues, May 16, 2000 at 12:38:14 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
I'm about to ask the board (everyone on the board) two basic questions
fundamental to the Christian faith. I'm not trying to be simplistic;
I'm not trying to be 'cute;' neither am I trying to be obtuse. The
manner in which these are answered goes a long way to determining
and explaining our faith. Please consider the plan and intent of
the Lord God as you answer. Question 1: For whom did the Lord Jesus
Christ shed His blood? Question 2: If a person has had the blood
of the Lord Jesus Christ shed for him, will he necessarily be saved?
Subject: Re: Two questions From: GRACE2Me
To: Rod Date Posted:
Tues, May 16, 2000 at 21:20:37 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
1. The elect/sheep/those that the Father gave Him/those who will
believe. 2. Yes John 6:37,44,65; 10:11,15; 17:2,4,6,9,11,24; Acts
13:38; 20:28; Eph.5:25; Rom 8:29-30 GRACE2Me
Subject: Re: Two questions From: Rod To: Rod Date Posted:
Tues, May 16, 2000 at 21:13:15 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
Actually this thread was born of Pilgrim's desire to look at the
Atonement of the Lord Jesus a little while back. I just thought
it was an especially good time to take a look at the sacrifice of
the Lord Jesus, given the bold assertions of jsgirl and her unsubstantiated-by-Scripture
pronouncements, as well as other posts which have been made of late
about the basis of salvation and faith. From the beginning of the
time that men sinned, there has been a crimson or scarlet thread
running through the Bible, specifically innocent blood to cover
sin in the OT and the shedding of the Lord Jesus' lifeblood in the
NT to take it away, the penalty for being lost in sin being paid
for at the cross of our Lord. I specifically didn't use the words,
'For whom did the Lord Jesus die?,' because the emphasis of the
shed blood tends to be by-passed with that for many people. Innocent
blood is the key factor in providing life for the sinner, for, 'Wherfore
Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with
his own blood, suffered outside the gate'
(Heb. 13:12). This verse is an obvious reference to the OT sacrifice
of certain animals as prescribed in the law of Moses whose ashes
and remnants were to be disposed of outside the the encampment of
Israel. It also seems certainly to be a reference to Ex. 33:7, where
the Lord was to be found, not among the 'stiff necked people' (verse
3), but the Tabernacle was placed 'outside the camp' and 'far' from
the camp, signifying the fact that the Lord Jesus, in His death
and the shedding of His blood, was estranged from the nation of
Israel whcih had rejected Him (Matt. 27:25; John19:15). Salvation
would now be found outside the Jewish nation, in His person. Having
kept the Law and fulfilled its requirements insured that His human
blood was proved innocent and a fit payment for the penalty of sin.
The penalty was paid in blood, clean, innocent, human blood, not
the blood of animals, which Hebrews makes clear was not effective
in the removal of sin once and for all time, but the final, complete,
one-time offering which was efficacious for the full and complete
removal of sin and its death sentence on the individual on whom
that blood was placed: '....when he had by himself purged our sins,
sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high' (Heb. 1:3). The
sitting down signified a work completed, a 'rest' from the labor
of purging sin--That's the accomplishment of the Lord Jesus. Now
notice this, please. The book of Hebrews describes it this way,
our sins were 'purged.' The word so translated in the KJV, is most
often translated 'made purification' or 'cleansed.' The people under
sin were not clean in God's sight; were in need of purification.
This is reminiscent of the ashes of the 'red heifer' of Number 19.
There, in the presence of the high priest, the heifer would be killed--significantly,
the high priest didn't kill her, but supervised the proceeding.
But the priest did
take the blood to the Tabernacle to offer before the Lord. Then
the heifer was burned . The ashes were to be buried in a clean place
and 'resurrected,' so to speak, to be applied for the restoration
of one who was unclean by the standard of the Mosaic Law. In that
connection of making the person clean and 'purified,' compare verses
20 & 21 of Heb. 13: 'Now the God of peace, that brought again
from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep,
through the blood of the everlasting covenant, make you perfect
in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is
well pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory
forever and ever. Amen.' That is what the resurrected Lord does
for His own: He cleanses them with blood, blood of innocence and
cleanness. In order to do that, He had to do something very significant
and essential. He had to receive the sin of those cleansed! 'For
he hath made him, who knew no sinto be
sin for us, that we might be made the
righteousness of God in him' (2 Cor. 5:21). The sin was taken away
from us and placed on Him. He literally 'became sin for us,' experiencing
in actuality the punishment due to us, as God's justice demands
it to be paid. He did that AT THE CROSS and made the absolute payment then. The payment isn't
made when one 'accepts Christ,' or 'comes to Jesus.' It was made
centuries ago, the actual burden of sin for specific individuals
being borne at that time, the death penalty being handed out as
God requires. Suffering is required; suffering, unto the shedding
of blood, was accomplished. Only those on whom that purifying blood
falls will be saved. It was God's intention that this be a specific,
select, predestinated/elect group. When Peter described those to
whom he wrote in his first epistle, he described them as, 'elect
according to the foreknowledge of God, the Father, through sanctification
of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus
Christ' (1 Peter 1:2). Did everyone get that? They are 'elect...unto...sprinkling
of the blood of Jesus Christ.' That is their 'predestination' according
to God's plan and foreknowledge. Now, remembering that and backtracking
to 2 Cor. 5:21,let's examine for whom the Lord Jesus died, as well
as for whom the blood is efficacious. When the Bible speaks of 'we'
and 'us,' I used to take the Arminian stance that it meant all people
of all the world. Study has proved that absolutely false. The Bible
writers never lump themselves, as saved persons, in with the lost.
The 'we' and 'us' are the saved, the people of the Church of Jesus
Christ. Therefore, it is inescapable that, when He was made to be
sin for us, it was for a specific group, the predestinated and elect,
those who are predestinated to sanctification and to the sprinkling
of the purifying blood. The "way of Cain" of Jude 11 is
to negate that blood sacrifice, offering before a holy God that
which could never cleanse from sin. That is the message concerning
the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ. I've only barely touched
this topic. I was hoping others would run with it in their answers
and I still hope that they do. The subject is inexhaustible, coursing
through the Bible like the red thread of Rahab's habitation which
resulted in life for her and her family out of all the city. Yes,
it's obvious that the blood of the Lord was for a specific, predestinated
group. "We love him because he first loved us" (1 John
4:19).
Subject: Re: Two questions From: JohnS To: Rod Date Posted:
Tues, May 16, 2000 at 17:53:09 (PDT) Email Address:methos1957@hotmail.com
Message:
Answers: Question 1. Jesus died for: His people (Matthew 1:21) All
that the Father gives him (John 6:39) His Sheep (John 10:14, 15)
His Bride, the Church (Ephesians 5:25) All those who were 'in Him'
before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4) All who were
foreknown and predestined to be conformed to his image (Romans 8:29,
30) Question 2: All whom the Father gives to Jesus will be saved
(John 6:37; Romans 8:30) John
Subject: Re: Two questions From: Tom To: Rod Date Posted:
Tues, May 16, 2000 at 14:31:37 (PDT) Email Address:ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
1.) Those whom the father chose in Him(Christ)before the foundation
of the world. Eph 1:4 2.)Absolutely! Tom
Subject: Re: Two questions From: Anne To: Rod Date Posted:
Tues, May 16, 2000 at 13:14:02 (PDT) Email Address:anneivy@home.com
Message: Question 1: For whom did the Lord Jesus
Christ shed His blood? Christ died for
those whom the Father had chosen for salvation from before time
began. Question 2: If a person has had
the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ shed for him, will he necessarily
be saved? Indeed, yes! Those who the Father
gave Him, can never be snatched out of His hand. Anne
Subject: Re: Two more questions From: john hampshire
To: all Date Posted:
Wed, May 17, 2000 at 05:39:50 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Question #3: If we don't accept the shed blood of Christ shed for
His elect, does it make any difference to our eternal state? Question
#4: If we do accept the shed blood of Christ, believe on all things
Biblical, does it make any difference to our eternal state? john
Subject: Re: Two more questions From: Tom To: john hampshire
Date Posted:
Wed, May 17, 2000 at 13:35:02 (PDT) Email Address:ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
John 3) Those that truly are regenerate do accept the shed blood
of Christ or His elect. 4) If one does not accept the shed blood
of Christ, it shows that they are not regenerate. Tom
Subject: Re: Two more questions From: john hampshire
To: Tom Date Posted:
Fri, May 19, 2000 at 00:53:47 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
That was what I was afearin someone might say. What difference does
it make whether we accept or don't accept the shed blood of Christ?
None. That was the answer I was looking for. God does not regenerate
BECAUSE we say this or do that. Thus, we have no input toward our
regeneration. We have no input toward our election, which also implies
that we have no input toward those Christ redeemed. Which mean:
If you follow the logic: We have no input toward our salvation whatsoever!!
Thus, our acceptance of Christ's shed blood does not affect our
salvation in any way. For that matter, what can we say, think, or
do, that would affect what we have no input to? So, the regenerate
may learn things, perhaps even learn about such Theological concepts
as God's Holiness, imputed righteousness, eternal security, God's
effectual calling, etc., but that is not in any way some proof of
regeneration nor does it bear on your salvation in any way. It does
not prove anything. It is not a sign of your salvation. It is not
the final state of every Christian. Some may attain to this knowledge,
some may not, some may learn truths that few understand, some may
not... it is not a cause/effect relationship. Plus, why is the imputed
righteousness of Christ such a hot topic for a salvation proof?
Why not say that we must understand election, predestination, perseverance
of the saints, the meaning of God's love, God's Character, God's
eternal state, God's relationship to the Son, God's relationship
to the Holy Spirit, the act of regeneration, the significance of
water baptism, the meaning of the cross, the purpose of God in creation....
Must I go on. Why do we set arbitrary standards that someone must
meet to be saved, when it is not a requirement for salvation to
know anything? I have no doubt that SANCTIFICATION is a lifelong
process in which knowledge is gained that increases faith and promotes
our love toward God. But spiritual growth cannot be measured by
spouting doctrine. If that be true, that doctine=salvation proof,
then would everyone with a PhD in Theology also have proof of salvation.
We know them by their fruits, that is, the fruits of the resurrected
spirit is manifest in deeds, words, and actions. How those deeds
are manifest belongs to God, not man. Universities do not make Christians.
Confessions of faith have nothing to do with manifesting spiritual
fruit. Saying 'I love Jesus' may impress some, but it is cheap talk.
If you love Him, then obey! What separates Arminians, or anyone
who might be unregenerate, is their desire to obey God -- they don't
have it. In the final analysis, the unregenerate obey no one but
themselves. They may cover their conceit with doctrine and religious
practices, but they lack true obedience. Forget 'accepting' Jesus.
It means nothing. Instead, obey God. The demonstration of regeneration
will be shown in the manner of life you live. john
Subject: Re: Two more questions From: Rod To: john hampshire
Date Posted:
Fri, May 19, 2000 at 16:15:04 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
john, If I understand you correctly, you are definitely off base
on this. Here is one of your earlier statements: 'What difference
does it make whether we accept or don't accept the shed blood of
Christ? None. That was the answer I was looking for. God does not
regenerate BECAUSE we say this or do that.' When you say, 'God does
not regenerate BECAUSE we say this or do that,' you appear to be
equating 'regeneration' and salvation. That would be in direct contradiction
to the Bible. Paul's pronouncement is that we are not saved until
we possess faith, though it is 'by grace' that we do come to that
possession (Eph. 2:5,8). Paul says of the Lord Jesus, 'whom God
hath set forth to be a propitiation THROUGH
FAITH IN HIS BLOOD, to declare his
righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, though the
forbearance of God; to declare, I say, at this time his righteousness,
that he might be just, and the justifier of him who believeth in
Jesus' (Rom. 3:25-26). The basis of that 'believing in Jesus' is,
as the previous verse says, that one has faith in His shed blood
as 'propitiation,' or satisfaction of God's wrath as sufficient
for the salvation of the one who believes in and accepts the substitutionary
sacrifice of His innocent blood as his Substitute for payment of
the penalty of sin. In Eph. 1:6-7, we have these things stated:
'to the praise of the glory of his grace, through which he hath
made us accepted in the beloved; in whom we have redemption through
his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his
grace.' Comparing that to 2:8, 'By grace [making us accepted in
the beloved] are ye saved through faith....' We have just seen that
the faith is in 'His blood,' referring to the fact that the saved
individual believes God that, 'even Christ our passover is sacrificed
for us' (1 Cor. 5:7). Just as the Israelites believed God, having
faith that placing sacrificial blood on the door of the house would
result in His salvation from God's death sentence, we must accept
the sufficiency of the blood of Jesus Christ, and its efficacy.
The gospel of John, particularly, goes into great detail about how
He was examined minutely (as the sacrificial Lamb): Spoken to the
religious leaders) 'Which of you convicteth me of sin?' (John 8:48).
He was, like the lamb, 'without spot or blemish,' proved guiltless
and His blood acceptable to God. Accepting the substitutionary blood
of sacrifice and believing God are inseparable: 'I am the living
bread that came down from heaven; if any man eat of this bread,
he shall live forever...Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye
eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. He
that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and
I in him' (John 6:53-56). Salvation is a process (Rom. 8:30) which
includes justification. Justification is impossible without 'believing
God' (having faith). That saving faith is inseparably tied to justification,
which is 'by faith,' which Paul says is 'faith in his blood.' His
blood is the 'blood of the new testament' (Mark 14:24), the one
basis by which men are cleansed from the guilt of sin. But, though
predesitnated, they are not cleansed until they have faith: 'And
you hath he made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins...and
were by nature the children of wrath, even as others' (see Eph.
2:1-3). Faith is necessary to salvation. Paul says that we must
have justification 'through faith,' made possible 'by grace.' That
faith is in His completed work through trusting that His blood is
for the believer and excludes us from God's wrath: 'Much more then,
being justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through
him' (Rom. 5:9). That faith in the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ
is described as having this effect in the Revelation: ...'These
are they who came out of the great tribulation, and have washed
their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore
are they before the throne of God...' (7:14-15). I invite and urge
you to rethink your postion on this critical issue.
Subject: Re: Two more questions From: Tom To: john hampshire
Date Posted:
Fri, May 19, 2000 at 15:20:32 (PDT) Email Address:ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
John Actually when I look back at my answers I see a word, that
I don't like. Please put the word 'believe' in its place. For indeed
you are correct, the belief that is shown by obedience is the mark
of one who has been regenerated by Father in Christ. Christ has
made us accepted into the beloved, not anything we have done, See
Eph 1:5-6. Thankyou for the rebuke. Tom
Subject: Re: Two more questions From: freegrace
To: john hampshire
Date Posted:
Fri, May 19, 2000 at 15:07:23 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Your are right, 'It is not a requirement for salvation to know anything',,...etc.
But, please rememeber this, TO KNOW THEE IS LIFE ETERNAL. John 17:3.
To KNOW GOD God and His truth is connected with ETERNAL LIFE ...!
Where there is no KNOWLEDGE OF THE HOLY (One) there is no salvation.
God MUST reveal Himself to us personally if we are going to become
saved. He must call us by name! WE MUST hear with the inner ear
His gentle Voice speaking to us in His Word! The only way we can
know God, is to have God reveal Himself to us in His Word...! freegrace
Subject: Re: Two more questions From: laz To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Fri, May 19, 2000 at 18:50:33 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
hmmm, no talk of IMPUTATION above.... So, why can't someone truly
'know God' and thus be regenerate/saved without knowing imputation
(i.e., infants, retarded, thief on cross)? hahaha laz
Subject: Re: Two more questions From: freegrace
To: Tom Date Posted:
Wed, May 17, 2000 at 14:55:19 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
John 3) Those that truly are regenerate do accept the shed blood
of Christ or His elect. 4) If one does not accept the shed blood
of Christ, it shows that they are not regenerate. Tom
--- =============== Tom, Good answers! May I add that the same
is also true for the imputed righteousness of Christ being placed
to our account... fg
Subject: Re: Two more questions From: GRACE2Me
To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Wed, May 17, 2000 at 20:59:14 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
FreeGrace: You said: 'Tom, Good answers! May I add that the same
is also true for the imputed righteousness of Christ being placed
to our account...' Heb.9:22 says that without the shedding of blood
there is no remission. Please show me where in Scripture, imputed
righteousness is adresses in the same manner. The imputed righteousness
doctrine could be considered 'meat' of the Word! Are you saying
that person is not saved until he/she completely understands that
the righteousness of Christ was placed on their account even though
the same person believes they were justified by God because of Christ
and the cross? Look forward to your response, GRACE2Me
Subject: Re: Two more questions From: freegrace
To: GRACE2Me
Date Posted:
Fri, May 19, 2000 at 10:58:01 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
FreeGrace: You said: 'Tom, Good answers! May I add that the same
is also true for the imputed righteousness of Christ being placed
to our account...' Heb.9:22 says that without the shedding of blood
there is no remission. Please show me where in Scripture, imputed
righteousness is adresses in the same manner. The imputed righteousness
doctrine could be considered 'meat' of the Word! Are you saying
that person is not saved until he/she completely understands that
the righteousness of Christ was placed on their account even though
the same person believes they were justified by God because of Christ
and the cross? Look forward to your response, GRACE2Me
--- ============ Greetings! The best verses (I think) are in
Romans 4:4-8. In the sight of God, our faith is 'counted for righteousness'
It is true that the blood of Christ saves us, but when we learn
that the righteousness of Christ justifies us eternally and *keeps
is saved* then the peace of God comes into our hearts AND minds.
The blood of Jesus gives us the peace OF God, Imputed righteousness
gives us Peace WITH God, both doctrines are taught for our full
assurance (and comfort) of an eternal salvation! God bless you today
with a full assurance - based on the righteousness, work, and blood
of Christ alone!. freegrace
Subject: Re: Two more questions From: Tom To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Sat, May 20, 2000 at 00:20:50 (PDT) Email Address:ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
fg Indeed the verses you gave are good. Unfortunately they prove
what we have been saying all along. Notice in verse 5 it says 'But
to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the
ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.' Notice the words
'but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly,' Doesn't that
show you that all one has to do is believe on Jesus? The result
of that belief is imputed righteousness from God. It is not dependant
on whether or not that person completely understands imputed righteousness.
One is belief and the other is result, two different things. Tom
Subject: predestination, the truth From: jsgirl
To: All Date Posted:
Tues, May 16, 2000 at 09:04:53 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
predestination is confused by many. calvinists believe that God
has chosen his people who he wants to choose and thatno matter what
others who are not chosen will go to hell. when the bible talks
about predestination, its talking about the body of christ being
predestined to go to heaven. you have a choice whether or not to
become part of the body of christ (which is choosing salvation),
after you have chosen to become part of the body then you are predestined
to go to heaven, but you have the choice. and no, just because we
have a choice whether or not to accept doesn't mean that we have
more power than God, He gave us the power to choose, therefore it
is not overpowering God. calvinists take the bible out of content,
and don't actually take the Bible for what it says. man has a free
will given by God to choose.
Subject: any proof? From: Five Sola
To: jsgirl Date Posted:
Tues, May 16, 2000 at 19:39:11 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Jsgirl, I think Pilgrim and Anne addressed you post well enough
so I don't see the need to add. The only thing I ask is if you could
be so kind to give a scripture or two to try and support your view?
I was once of that view so I know where you are coming from but
I never could come up with any scriptural support (used properly
that is). Five Sola
Subject: jsgirl, two questions--the truth? (n/t) From: Rod To: jsgirl Date Posted:
Tues, May 16, 2000 at 15:52:25 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
Subject: Re: predestination, the truth From: Rod To: jsgirl Date Posted:
Tues, May 16, 2000 at 12:32:57 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
jsgirl, I commend to you the answers of Pilgrim and Anne. I also
would ask that you be so kind as to answer the two questions I'm
about to post for you and others in a new thread. The thread will
be called just that, 'Two questions.' Thanks.
Subject: Re: predestination, the truth From: freegrace
To: jsgirl Date Posted:
Tues, May 16, 2000 at 11:26:39 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
See the interesting studies called 'Free Grace vrs Free Will' at
the above link. We are made willing in the day of God's power ..Psalm
110:3 No one will believe this great truth of our individual predestination
in Christ before the foundation of the world until God first opens
our spiritual eyes. freegrace Free Grace Vrs Free Will www.webbmt.org/Eng-bks.htm
Subject: Re: predestination, the truth From: Pilgrim
To: jsgirl Date Posted:
Tues, May 16, 2000 at 10:10:20 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
jsgirl,
Are you trying to set us Calvinists
straight in that we have 'taken the Bible out of context'? Of course
Roman Catholicism teaches exactly what you are saying, in case you
weren't aware of this. And 'Calvinism' came to its height once again,
through the providential raising up of Martin Luther to oppose what
you have stated you believe concerning predestination. Is Rome right
and historic
Protestant wrong on this issue then? You said, '.
. . He [God] gave us the power to choose. . .'
and this choice is '. . . to become part
of the body'. But where in Scripture is
it said that God has given all men the unrestricted 'power to choose'?
(cf. Joh 1:12, 13; 5:40; 6:44, 65; Matt 11:25-27; 13:11; Mk 4:10-12;
Rom 3:11; 8:7, 8; Eph 2:1-5; 4:17, 18; Jer 13:23; Gen 6:5; 8:21;
Ps 14:1-3; Eccl 9:3). Secondly, the word itself 'PRE-destination' means 'to determine beforehand'. Therefore your understanding doesn't even meet the
language the inspired Scriptures use, as you have said, 'after you have chosen to become part of the body then
you are predestined to go to heaven.'
But the Scriptures say that God 'predestination' took place in ETERNITY.
Eph 1:4 According
as he hath chosen
us in him before the foundation of
the world, that we should be holy
and without blame before him in love: 5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ
to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, . .
.
And to whom was Paul addressing
when he was inspired to write these words?
Eph 1:1 Paul, an apostle
of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to
the faithful in Christ Jesus:
God's predestination is not 'temporal'
but ETERNAL. If it were as you say, then how could one not conclude
that which you deny, i.e., that '. . .
therefore it is not overpowering God.'
This would leave God impotent to do that which He desires and His
'plans' tentative at best. The Scriptures, God's self-revelation
concerning Himself and His eternal salvation, do not picture God
sitting in heaven wringing His 'hands' wondering who will choose
to become part of the Body of Christ. He does not fret that someone
whom He has loved with an everlasting love will in fact perish,
having not made the 'right choice', and therefore He is forced to
pray day and night in the 'hopes' that everyone, someone will be
saved. I would refer you to the several articles available on this
subject at: Predestination Index.
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: predestination, the truth From: Anne To: Pilgrim Date Posted:
Tues, May 16, 2000 at 11:05:25 (PDT) Email Address:anneivy@home.com
Message:
The one entitled God's Indisputable Sovereignty is particularly good, I thought. Beautifully arranged
Scripture references! Thank you for the link, Pilgrim! Anne
Subject: Re: predestination, the truth From: Anne To: jsgirl Date Posted:
Tues, May 16, 2000 at 10:07:45 (PDT) Email Address:anneivy@home.com
Message:
It's certainly understandable why you'd think that. It's the most
pervasive POV, after all! I know I thought that for years and years.
Riddle me this, however . . . . how can God be omnipotent and omniscient,
knowing 'the end from the beginning,' if He resides in time as we
do? And for your view of predestination to work, He must exist in
time. It's the only way He can wait and see what choice someone
makes. Truly, God's eternal sovereignty is the most definitive rationale
for unconditional election, i.e. predestination. If anything at
all can occur outside of, or beyond, His will, then He isn't as
sovereign as all that. ;-> Ciao! Anne
Subject: Remaining in the the Comfort Zone From: freegrace
To: All Date Posted:
Tues, May 16, 2000 at 05:00:16 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
This girl has a wonderful testimony, I think. She speaks of 'remaining
in the comfort zone'. This is just what I am refering to! Most Arminians,
etc. are comfortable with their organized religion, and think all
is well with their soul, when all is not well. The 'Christ' that
they have received into their heart is 'another Jesus', and not
the Sovereign LORD of The Bible. fg Good testimony members.tripod.com/~kruszer/election1.html
Subject: Re: Remaining in the the Comfort Zone From: Tom To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Tues, May 16, 2000 at 11:53:19 (PDT) Email Address:ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
fg I agree with you in a sence, however your insinuating that all
Arminians remain in their comfort zone, is simply not the case.
Some like me, when I was an Arminian were and are open to the Spirits
leading. I would dare say, that some Calvinists are not open to
the Spirit's teaching. It is not an Arminian vrs. Calvinist problem,
it is a heart problem, in which Calvinists are not exempt from.
Tom
Subject: Re: Remaining in the the Comfort Zone From: Pilgrim
To: Tom Date Posted:
Tues, May 16, 2000 at 12:17:04 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
fg I agree with you in a sence, however your insinuating that all
Arminians remain in their comfort zone, is simply not the case.
Some like me, when I was an Arminian were and are open to the Spirits
leading. I would dare say, that some Calvinists are not open to
the Spirit's teaching. It is not an Arminian vrs. Calvinist problem,
it is a heart problem, in which Calvinists are not exempt from.
Tom
--- Tom,
Amen, Tom! One is not exempt from
perdition because of a theological position held. Freegrace's sweeping
condemnations against Arminians must include himself as well, and
thus he is in a frightful position at this point in his life.
Matt 7:1 Judge not,
that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye
shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be
measured to you again.
In His Marvelous
Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Remaining in the the Comfort Zone From: freegrace To: Tom Date Posted: Tues, May 16, 2000 at 12:10:45 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message: fg I agree with you in a sence, however your insinuating
that all Arminians remain in their comfort zone, is simply not the
case. Some like me, when I was an Arminian were and are open to
the Spirits leading. I would dare say, that some Calvinists are
not open to the Spirit's teaching. It is not an Arminian vrs. Calvinist
problem, it is a heart problem, in which Calvinists are not exempt
from. Tom
--- ================ Yes, I agree, Tom, the self=righteous person
has a heart problem - being a Calvinist or Arminian. It becomes
even more noticed when the doctrine of an imputed righteousness
is brought up and discussed. Regards, freegrace
Subject: Re: Remaining in the the Comfort Zone From: laz To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Tues, May 16, 2000 at 16:17:04 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
fg - you keep saying that the majority of arminians reject imputed
righteousness, yet you have failed to prove this point with a few
modern examples from 'leading' (reputable) conservative arminian
teachers/preachers/scholars. I agree that most run-of-the-mill arminians
on the street know squat about theology, and soteriology in particular...but
most would agree that imputation is biblical if carefully shown.
I really believe this. What do you think they believe and how do
they defend a non-imputation view...i.e., what do they substitute
in it's place? Some (minority) believe that one can lose their salvation...which
means that the imputation rubs off. ;-) laz
Subject: Re: Remaining in the the Comfort Zone From: freegrace
To: laz Date Posted:
Wed, May 17, 2000 at 05:33:17 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
fg - you keep saying that the majority of arminians reject imputed
righteousness, yet you have failed to prove this point with a few
modern examples from 'leading' (reputable) conservative arminian
teachers/preachers/scholars. I agree that most run-of-the-mill arminians
on the street know squat about theology, and soteriology in particular...but
most would agree that imputation is biblical if carefully shown.
I really believe this. What do you think they believe and how do
they defend a non-imputation view...i.e., what do they substitute
in it's place? Some (minority) believe that one can lose their salvation...which
means that the imputation rubs off. ;-) laz
--- ======== I would say the majority teach one can 'fall from
grace' ..just as Wesley taught it. That is just my point! What happens
to God's imputed righteousness when a chosen child of God 'perishes'..?
It has to 'rub off' all right!...:-) fg
Subject: Re: Remaining in the the Comfort Zone From: Pilgrim
To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Wed, May 17, 2000 at 08:16:19 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
freegrace,
But that the majority of Arminians
deny eternal security is simply untrue. HISTORIC Arminianism did
in fact deny such, as can be seen from the documents submitted at
the Synod of Dortrecht by the Remonstrants. But this point has been
thrown out by the majority of modern Arminian/Semi-Pelagians. This
is one of the dangers of making summary judgments based upon one's
own experience. We are unable for the most part to know what is
true on a world-wide scale. But even if we restrict our perceptions
to our own country; in the United States and Canada, it remains
true that the vast majority of contemporary professing Christians
do NOT deny eternal security. They may surely be wrong in knowing
the actual basis for this security, but then nonetheless affirm
it.
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Remaining in the the Comfort Zone From: freegrace
To: Pilgrim Date Posted:
Wed, May 17, 2000 at 10:19:08 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
freegrace,
But that the majority of Arminians
deny eternal security is simply untrue. HISTORIC Arminianism did
in fact deny such, as can be seen from the documents submitted at
the Synod of Dortrecht by the Remonstrants. But this point has been
thrown out by the majority of modern Arminian/Semi-Pelagians. This
is one of the dangers of making summary judgments based upon one's
own experience. We are unable for the most part to know what is
true on a world-wide scale. But even if we restrict our perceptions
to our own country; in the United States and Canada, it remains
true that the vast majority of contemporary professing Christians
do NOT deny eternal security. They may surely be wrong in knowing
the actual basis for this security, but then nonetheless affirm
it.
In His Grace, Pilgrim
--- ===================== OK, thanks. I was just going by what
Wesley had taught and believed, and my 'holiness' denomination that
I was raised in. When I think of all the altar calls that I have
responded to, I know that the security of the believer was not being
taught at all. I responded 'with my feet' only, but knew not the
God of the Bible nor the sovereign Lord of the Scriptures that etenally
saves the soul! regards, freegrace
Subject: Re: Remaining in the the Comfort Zone From: Tom To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Wed, May 17, 2000 at 14:49:49 (PDT) Email Address:ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
fg The Perseverance of the Saints was probably the hardest of TULIP
for me to embrace. There are many scriptures that I had a hard time
reconciling with scripture. For instance, there are many passages
in scripture that use the word 'if', as in Revelation 22:18. It
seemed to me (and I emphasize the word 'seemed') that our keeping
saved depended on our doing what it said. But I didn't realize until
very much study, to the point of depression, the context of these
verses was not about losing ones salvation. This is one of the problems
with being under false teaching, one may be a true believer, but
without being under good Bible teaching, confusion happens in that
believer's life. You said: When I think of all the altar calls that
I have responded to, I know that the security of the believer was
not being taught at all. I responded 'with my feet' only, but knew
not the God of the Bible nor the sovereign Lord of the Scriptures
that eternally saves the soul! When you said: 'but knew not the
God of the Bible nor the sovereign Lord of the Scriptures that eternally
saves the soul!' You revealed a lot about yourself, you are relating
your own experience, not necessarily all Arminian's experience.
Tom
Subject: Freegrace From: Tom To: All Date Posted:
Mon, May 15, 2000 at 23:56:51 (PDT) Email Address:ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Freegrace Much has been written to you about the subject you have
recently brought up. I don't have a lot more to say on the issue
that hasn't been said already. However, in the hopes that you will
see what others are saying. I offer an example of someone who doesn't
even know what the word theology means. This lady is mentally handicapped
and loves her Lord. If someone tried to tell her what imputed rightiousness
is, she would not be able to comprehend what that person is talking
about. But to see her simple love and faith in the Lord Jesus. One
would have to question themself as to who is actually more spiritually
handicapped, them or her? Although I would not want to be physically
handicapped, I think sometimes our minds are clouded with the world
around us, handicapping us more than that woman is. If you are consistant
with what you have said so far. You would have to say, this woman
is not yet regenerate. Am I correct? Tom
Subject: Re: Freegrace From: freegrace
To: Tom Date Posted:
Tues, May 16, 2000 at 04:19:22 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Freegrace Much has been written to you about the subject you have
recently brought up. I don't have a lot more to say on the issue
that hasn't been said already. However, in the hopes that you will
see what others are saying. I offer an example of someone who doesn't
even know what the word theology means. This lady is mentally handicapped
and loves her Lord. If someone tried to tell her what imputed rightiousness
is, she would not be able to comprehend what that person is talking
about. But to see her simple love and faith in the Lord Jesus. One
would have to question themself as to who is actually more spiritually
handicapped, them or her? Although I would not want to be physically
handicapped, I think sometimes our minds are clouded with the world
around us, handicapping us more than that woman is. If you are consistant
with what you have said so far. You would have to say, this woman
is not yet regenerate. Am I correct? Tom
--- =================== Hi Tom, Yes, I realize that God has
many such precious lambs who are regenerated by God's sovereign
Spirit and are saved. Such a person as you have mentioned does not
'go about trying to establish their own righteousness', etc. Regeneration
is another subject, really. My main concern is for those religious
people who think they are saved, but really are deceived, and do
not know they are deceived, sad to say...(be they Arminian, or whatever).
... Just about all you hear these days on radio and TV is the 'gospel'
of the 'changed life'....and doing 'good works', while the righteousness
of God that is received by faith alone is not even mentioned! Romans
10:10 ....says with the heart, man believes UNTO RIGHTOUSNESS. Another
verse speaks of the Rightousness which is of FAITH, (not works).
also See Romans 4:4-6. Regards, freegrace
Subject: Re: Freegrace From: laz To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Tues, May 16, 2000 at 04:55:50 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
fg - you seem to be fixated on 'self righteous' people who may deny
(or don't get) imputed righteousness. But self rightesnous (even
religious) people don't have a theology problem, an intellectual
impediment...they have a HEART PROBLEM. The pharisees had much of
the core theology/teachings of their day correct...yet, they were
filled with dead men's bones. Again, they had a heart problem at
the root of it all, not a head problem. God judges the heart, not
the mind for it is often still very worldly (YOURS and MINE!) -
and while a 'new mind' is something we must strive to continually
renew by the enabling power of His Spirit thru the Word...the heart
of the believer is remade of flesh upon regeneration. no? So try
not to pick on those who have less than perfect minds (i.e., theology)...
but wrestle with those that have bad hearts (unregenerate). laz
Subject: Re: Freegrace From: Just a
question To: laz Date Posted:
Tues, May 16, 2000 at 06:22:23 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
fg - you seem to be fixated on 'self righteous' people who may deny
(or don't get) imputed righteousness. But self rightesnous (even
religious) people don't have a theology problem, an intellectual
impediment...they have a HEART PROBLEM. The pharisees had much of
the core theology/teachings of their day correct...yet, they were
filled with dead men's bones. Again, they had a heart problem at
the root of it all, not a head problem. God judges the heart, not
the mind for it is often still very worldly (YOURS and MINE!) -
and while a 'new mind' is something we must strive to continually
renew by the enabling power of His Spirit thru the Word...the heart
of the believer is remade of flesh upon regeneration. no? So try
not to pick on those who have less than perfect minds (i.e., theology)...
but wrestle with those that have bad hearts (unregenerate). laz
--- or two :) What is the difference between 'mind', and 'heart'?
How would you define these? Where in Scripture does it say they
are different?
Subject: Re: Heart . and Mind.. From: freegrace
To: laz Date Posted:
Tues, May 16, 2000 at 12:17:58 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Laz, The heart of a person is the emotions and will, ego, etc. The
mind of a person is the intellect, memory, etc. Both are mentioned
in the Bible - such as the words 'soul and spirit'. They are all
related, I know that much. All those who are regenerated in the
heart and life will sooner or later be thirsty for the Knowledge
of God and His Rightousness. Seek ye first the kingdom of God and
His (imputed )Righteousness, and all these things shall be added
unto you. Just my 2 cents, not worth very much, I know..:-) fg
Subject: Re: Heart . and Mind.. From: Pilgrim
To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Tues, May 16, 2000 at 12:44:16 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Freegrace,
You have again rendered the Scriptures
wrongly and in addition inserted something which is not there to
try and support your error. You quoted the Lord Jesus' words, 'But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness;
and all these things shall be added unto you.'
(Matt 6:33) to mean that all men should seek God's 'imputed righteousness
[unto justification]' but when in fact this portion of God's Word
is addressed to BELIEVERS; those who have already been clothed with
Christ's righteousness. Secondly, you inserted the word 'imputed'
into the text (eisogesis) where it does not appear. And the context
surely doesn't allow that it be there. The point being made by the
LORD Christ, was the contrast of all that had gone before, as the
conjunction 'But' clearly indicates. CHRISTIANS are not to overly
concern themselves with the necessities of life as is the manner
of the world, but rather they are to 'be filled with the Spirit'
and to adorn themselves with a 'meek and humble heart.' THIS is
the 'righteousness' which was Christ's and to that believers are
to seek after. The passage has nothing to do with 'imputed righteousness'.
And, again, we are NEVER told to seek 'imputed righteousness' but
rather the PERSON of the Lord Jesus Christ by faith. In doing so,
God will IMPUTE His righteousness to our account. We are not to
seek 'imputation' but Christ! This is no less erroneous than the
Arminian telling people to believe that 'Christ died for you!',
rather than telling all to 'believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and
thou shalt be saved!' It's the same type of heresy! For it substitutes
the 'work' of Christ for the PERSON of Christ. I am becoming more
amazed at the lengths you will go to further your casuistry. You
are treading on dangerous ground, brother. I urge you again to meditate
on what you are ACTUALLY saying and repent of it.
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Freegrace From: freegrace
To: laz Date Posted:
Tues, May 16, 2000 at 05:27:35 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Laz, I am surprised at some of your replies! You are always right
on, it seems. Are you saying that we are not to earnestly contend
for the faith? Do we not have the mind of Christ freely given to
us? (in those that become saved)? Are we not given all things that
pertain to life and godliness? Are you saying that doctrine is not
really important, that those who just 'receive Jesus' will be saved
anyway, even while under the false teachings of apostate churches?
Think some more on this, brother. If you do not agree with me on
this now, maybe someday later on, you will...(when you get to be
my age..:-) ...That is just my point, the churches are full of *unregenerate*
church members who need to be saved! They are not on some 'spiritual
journey' that is sure to 'end up in heaven' ... Of course God gives
His elect a new heart, but the mind is also renewed. Paul does not
make excuses for his ignorant brethren in Romans 10:1-3, but prays
for their salvation! We should do the same today, and pray for the
salvation of ignorant church members who are still lost, and have
never even heard of God's imputed righteousness, election, particular
atonement, etc. freegrace
Subject: Answer this freegrace... From: Eric To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Tues, May 16, 2000 at 07:38:24 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Since you have a doctrinal position that is directly opposed to
99% of believers throughout history in regard to baptism, is it
you who has been given the mind of Christ, and all good things pertaining
to life and godliness, and everybody else hasn't been, or is it
the other way around? In answer to your question posed to laz, yes!
All who receive Christ will be saved. Every addition to that simple
truth can only lead to despair. It is not receive Christ, and...
in order to be saved. Why don't you spell out what the minimum requirements
for a person to be truly saved are, what facts must one believe
in order to be saved? God bless.
Subject: Re: Answer this freegrace... From: freegrace
To: Eric Date Posted:
Tues, May 16, 2000 at 12:30:03 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Eric. I think you are not getting the message .. No 'facts' are
to be believed before regeneration, but we do become active in conversion.
The true gospel declares God's imputed rightousness is required
for one's justification in the sight of God.. see Romans 4:4-8...
Also may I add that my views about water baptism have nothing to
do with the doctrine of imputed righteousness. It could be that
those here who keep bringing this up even when it is not the current
topic are somehow trusting in their water baptism to maintain their
religion in the sight of men. Jesus said, Ye are they which *justify
yourselves* in the sight of men, and seek not the honor that comes
from God only..i.e. a right standing before God alone, by faith
alone, without works, religious duties and ceremonies, etc.. fg
Subject: A Progressive Salvation? From: freegrace
To: All Date Posted:
Mon, May 15, 2000 at 18:46:08 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
John H. wrote in his recent message the following: >>>!
Thus, I will contend that anyone, Arminians included, can and do
travel the road from apostate gospel to Truth, as God's Spirit illuminates
their spirit.<<< This sounds to me like a 'progressive
salvation' which is not at all Biblical. Those who have believed
an apostate 'gospel' are deceived into thinking they are saved when
they really are not....sad to say. See Galations 1:8-10. They are
not on 'some spiritual journey' seeking truth! There are NONE that
seek after God, NO NOT ONE. Arminianism is not the 'first step'
of some theological '12 Step program'..etc. It is Satan's lie that
will deceive multitudes into having a false assurance of salvation!
THERE IS A WAY THAT SEEMETH RIGHT, but is not THE WAY...! freegrace
Subject: God's righteousness From: Rod To: All Date Posted:
Mon, May 15, 2000 at 16:29:55 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
To all: I don't want to say that I'm not going to answer any of
freegrace's posts after this, because he writes so many outrageous
heresies and misquotes me so often I may have to, but, as it goes
unread, uncomprehended, or unheeded, I will try to refrain. I do,
however, want to address one thing. It is his central and core issue,
the fundamental error freegrace makes, whether deliberately or not,
I truly can't tell. I am really leaning toward believing his error
being like that described in 2 Peter 3:5, something he is 'willingly
ignorant of,' based on his determined inability to consider evidence
which refutes his thinking. Here is a direct quote from freegrace
in a post addressed to me specifically, in which he challenges me
to examine Rom. 10:1-3, seemingly virtually the only verses in his
Bible, according to the bulk of his posts lately. Freegrace writes
this: 'My question for you or anyone here, is, are professing Christians
- such as (for example, good members of the liberal United Methodist
church denomination) saved - even when they never come to trust
in God's imputed righteousness for their justification?' First of
all, freegrace, as additional proof that you don't read what others
post any more carefully than you do the Bible or other people's
writings, let me say this. You wrote this just lately, 'Now that
you have someone here who has been converted from Arminianism, suddenly
this Calvinistic forum is 'Pro - Arminian'..!' Here we have additional
and definite
proof that you don't read what is written, except to seize on it
for you own purposes. NOW HEAR THIS: several of us here, including myself, are former Arminians.
We have written that a number of times, both in the last few days
and in the months past. Truthfully, one wonders how you could possibly
have missed it? You aren't exclusive here by any means. As a former
Arminian and a former member of a United Methodist Chruch, I can
assure you that I was no less saved then than now. The fact that
I was in deep and serious doctrinal error about the aspects of my
salvation in no way diminished what God had done for me and in no
way changes the fact that I was saved by grace. And yes, I know
some other United Methodists about whose salvation I have no doubt,
though I have grave doubts and reservations about the denomination.
You keep harping on Rom. 10:1-3, pointing to the fact that the nation
Israel somehow inexplicably equates to the present-day Arminians.
In another post, you equate Arminians with such unbelievers as Mormons.
You only mention Arminians as non-believers, never once acknowledging
that there are actually, at this moment, any saved Arminians whatsoever.
Hogwash! Okay, I'm going to look at Rom. 10:1-3 with you. First
of all, if you read verse one, the topic is the nation of Israel. There is no mention of 'Arminians' in that
verse. (Duh!) Paul is speaking of his fellow Israelites, ones who
still seek to establish 'their own righteousness' by keeping the
law of Israel. This is obvious to even the most casual reader of
the several verses surrounding that passge and indicative of your
penchant for lifting things out of context. I defy you to show me
one Arminian denomination which, at the expense of denying the Messiahship
of the Lord Jesus, is teaching keeping the whole law of Moses as
the way of salvation. Your application of this verse is the very
definition of ridiculous! Verse 2: (Still describing Israel) Paul
says that these lost people who openly deny the Messiahship of Christ and thereby
deny God's Word, (not Arminian characteristics) are just that, lost.
They have a 'zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.' Now
what can that mean? It means that they do not and cannot, being
lost, accept the revealed Word of God with its promise of salvation,
by grace through faith--they deny all of God's assertions and teachings
about the Lord Jesus as His Son (not Arminian characteristics).
Again, you're trying to compare two completely different groups.
Verse 3: 'For they....' Who? Israel. 'For they, being ignorant [now
don't miss this, freegrace] of God's righteousness....' Whose righteousness?
Their own? The imputed righteousness of God to His own people? No,
emphatically, NO! They, Israel, are ignorant of 'God's righteousness.'
Why is that such a significant fact? Well, the important thing is
that God is righteous and man is unrighteous. You, freegrace, keep
saying that people need 'to trust God's imputed righteousness.'
God never says that. Not once. God says that they need to realize
that He is righteous and that they are lost in sin. That's a very
important distinction and in no way the same thing. Christians are
to honor and to place their trust in the Person of the Lord Jesus
Christ, not anything else. That imputes
to them righteousness, but they don't
trust the imputation; they trust the One Who imputes. They may trust
that they possess the imputation of righteousness, but they don't
trust the process of imputation alone as you imply that they must.
Without the beloved Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, there is no
righteousness. His Spirit indwells the person whom He saves and
it is that which saves him: 'But ye are not in the flesh but in
the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of
God dwell in you. Now
if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his' (Rom. 8:9) 'He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my
blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him' (John 6:56). And consider the words of the Apostle Paul,
revealing the estate of Israel: 'But their minds were blinded; for
until this day remaineth the same [blinding] veil untaken away in
the reading of the old testament; which veil is done away in Christ. But even unto
this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart. Nevertheless,
when it shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away. Now
the Lord is that Spirit; and where the
Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
But we all, with unveiled face beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are changed
into the same image from glory to glroy, even
as by the Spirit of the Lord' (2 Cor.
3:14-18). Freegrace, your emphasis is in the wrong place. You are
glorying in your imputed righteousness, boasting in what you profess
to possess, rather than boasting in God. You should be glorifying
the righteousness of God and His Son, by Whom anyone saved, is saved
by His grace. The special ministry of God's Holy Spirit is to glorify
the Son of God. The person who has the Son will glorify Him, testifying
of Him and His greatness, not sacrificing that honor of the Son
of God to any other thing. One doesn't 'trust in his imputed righteousness
for his justification,' as you express it. The true Christian trusts
in the righteous Lord Jesus Christ to save him, resulting in justification. The trust is placed in God, not a 'thing.'
God, revealed in His three Persons is the only Object of a Christian's
faith.
Subject: Re: God's righteousness From: freegrace
To: Rod Date Posted:
Tues, May 16, 2000 at 06:58:37 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Hi Rod, Thanks for the commnents! Of course Romans 10:1-3 does not
mention Arminians..:-), but I think you are in error if you limit
these verses to refer only to Jews in Paul's time who were seeking
a justification by the works of the law! These verses can also apply
to many religious folk living today, I think. We are all 'Arminians
by nature' (or religious by nature) - at first anyway, and seek
a justification by our own efforts, and law keeping, etc. My point
is, these people are not saved at all becuase they have never even
heard of God's imputed righteousness, sad to say. fg
Subject: Upholding God's righteousness From: Rod To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Tues, May 16, 2000 at 12:17:34 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
freegrace, Scripture can be spiritualized to make it talk to anyone
you want--people do it all the time. When Someone jwalks into a
room of people and comes directly to me and addresses me by name,
I don't think he's talking to the whole group. 'My hearts' desire
and prayer for Israelis....' He has
been speaking of 'Israel' prior to this in the previous three verses
and actually before that, though not primarily necessarily. In verse
four, he speaks of Christ as 'the end of the law for righteousness.'
the evidence is conclusive about whom he's speaking and that's what
I've been saying to you about sound interpretative principles and
your wresting of the Word of God. It isn't valid; it is expressly
forbidden in the Word; and it dishonors the Lord.
Subject: Re: God's righteousness From: freegrace
To: Rod Date Posted:
Tues, May 16, 2000 at 04:28:58 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Rod, if you think you were saved as an Arminian, on what basis did
you receive any comfort and assurance of salvation? Your church
membership? Attending services? Good works? The church dinners?
The 'Christian' fellowship? All the church socials & parties?
The many banquets? etc. etc. Thanks. Just wondering. The social
gospel of Arminianism, etc. is not the same gospel that Paul and
the apostles preached. They are in direct opposition to one another!
see Galtions 1:8-9 fg
Subject: Re: God's righteousness From: Rod To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Tues, May 16, 2000 at 12:20:23 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
My comfort then, as it does now, whether deserved or not, came from
my Lord and my God. I can never thank Him enough for rescuing me
from sin.
Subject: Preach it (HIM) Brother! :-) nt From: Pilgrim
To: Rod Date Posted:
Mon, May 15, 2000 at 20:24:12 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Subject: My reply to Five Solas... From: freegrace
To: All Date Posted:
Mon, May 15, 2000 at 14:48:52 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Thanks! You are the only one here that agrees with me, it seems...:-)
Your post read: <<<'all those who are not declared to be righteous
by faith alone>
Subject: Re: My reply to Five Solas... From: laz To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Mon, May 15, 2000 at 16:32:03 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
fg - Hank Hanagraff of CRI believes in imputed righteousness ...
he taught me thru that ministry...and all of the many guests he
would have on the BAM broadcast believed that as well...it's Christianity
101 which MOST arminians believe (those that are taught in conservative
churches that is). Show me ONE well known arminian (who is not a
cultist) who denies imputed righteousness. JUST ONE! blessings,
laz p.s. i'm sure there must be dozens of arminian lurkers who can
chime in. HELLO! Any of you out there? YOu know who you are! Set
FG straight, will ya?! .....and end this nonsense....
Subject: Re: My reply to Five Solas... From: Just a
thought To: laz Date Posted:
Mon, May 15, 2000 at 17:01:21 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
fg - Hank Hanagraff of CRI believes in imputed righteousness ...
he taught me thru that ministry...and all of the many guests he
would have on the BAM broadcast believed that as well...it's Christianity
101 which MOST arminians believe (those that are taught in conservative
churches that is). Show me ONE well known arminian (who is not a
cultist) who denies imputed righteousness. JUST ONE! blessings,
laz p.s. i'm sure there must be dozens of arminian lurkers who can
chime in. HELLO! Any of you out there? YOu know who you are! Set
FG straight, will ya?! .....and end this nonsense....
--- Just one? uhh...how about Finney? Just a thought
Subject: Re: To 'Non-thought'!! From: Pilgrim
To: Just a thought
Date Posted:
Mon, May 15, 2000 at 20:18:06 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
I hate to pop your 'bubble', but Charles Grandison Finney was no
Arminian! He was Pelagian at worst and Semi-Pelagian at best. Let's
be fair shall we and call a 'Spade a spade'? :-) Pilgrim
Subject: Re: My reply to Five Solas... From: freegrace
To: Just a thought
Date Posted:
Mon, May 15, 2000 at 18:24:18 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Yeah, Finney..! That's a good one! fg
Subject: Some are wired, and others are not. From: freegrace
To: All Date Posted:
Mon, May 15, 2000 at 14:29:24 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
John H. said recently: >>>I will contend that anyone, Arminians
included, can and do travel the road from apostate gospel to Truth,
as God's Spirit illuminates their spirit. Which brings me to the
next point. You said concerning those in false gospels: 'even when
they never come to trust in God's imputed righteousness for their
justification?'. Here I am lost again. Is this a requirement for
salvation? Must every regenerated believer eventually come to an
understanding of God's imputed righteousness, and if they don't
are they 'unsaved'? I say no, at least not always. If it is God's
plan to reveal such things to the one He regenerates, then sure
they will believe EVENTUALLY. But there is a distance and time that
must be traveled to get there. For some, though they be 'saved',
they will never understand it, for they are not 'wired' in the manner
to understand such seemingly deep theological questions. We are
not all a foot, some are better suited as a hand--get my anatomical
drift. So after regeneration, an Arminian can remain as such, though
perhaps more confused and perplexed than before. <<<. are some
of god>
Subject: Re: Some are wired, and others are not. From: Pilgrim
To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Mon, May 15, 2000 at 20:10:49 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
freegrace,
What seems to be going on with
you to me is that you have read some sectarian's article somewhere
that desires to cast a dark shadow on many who are Christ's sheep
because of some distorted notion that he and others like him have
some unique 'inside truth'. But just think about what you are saying
here, whether it is from your own mind or from someone else's':
'God's elect will EVENTUALLY come to place
their trust in God's imputed righteousness!'
I would venture to say that 99% of all Christians throughout history
would find this statement as abhorrent as I do. For it casts out
GOD'S righteousness (the LORD Christ) and replaces HIM with one
of His teachings. As Rod has wisely noted, this is DAMNABLE, and
is no less an abomination that anything a Mormon, Jehovah's Witness,
Moonie or Roman Catholic would teach that is contrary to the doctrine
of salvation by GRACE through FAITH in CHRIST ALONE. This is God's way of salvation, which the Reformers,
Puritans and all those who have been given to know, both in mind
and heart of the doctrine of SOLA FIDE.
God's elect will ALWAYS come to place their trust in the LORD JESUS
CHRIST.... NOT in 'imputed righteousness'! Trusting in
that truth, ANY truth does not and cannot save. It is CHRIST and
CHRIST ALONE, who saves. If there are any doctrines which a person
must come to know for salvation it is a 1)sound, biblical Christology;
who was the LORD Christ? what did the LORD Christ do? 2) a sound,
biblical Anthropology; where did man originate from? what relationship
did he have with God originally? what happened to him? how does
what he did affect ME? how do I stand before God?. From these two
cardinal doctrines one is given to know all that is necessary to
come to faith in Christ Jesus. Surely, the more a person knows about
theology, Christology, soteriology, harmartiology; pneumatology,
eschatology, etc. the better; either to lead him/her to salvation
or to damnation. But at the end of the day, a sinner who has been
predestinated from eternity to salvation will come to trust in the
LORD JESUS CHRIST, NOT 'imputed righteousness'! I have little doubt
that there have been multitudes of God's dear children, born of
the Spirit, who have never learned of the doctrine of 'imputed righteousness'
but who were clothed with white raiment; who went to the grave with
the name of Jesus upon their lips and who now are singing praises
to God for His unspeakable grace in sending the Lord Jesus Christ
to die in their place. Dear brother, as the Christians at Ephesus,
you have 'left your first love' and substituted something appurtenant
which cannot save; nor can it be 'loved, cherished, adored, praised,
worshipped, trusted, obeyed or embraced as a brother'! CHRIST JESUS
is the 'all in all'! And it is in HIM that we are to put our trust,
for HE is the 'mystery' of the ages that is now revealed and to
whom all men must trust.
Col 1:26
'Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations,
but now is made manifest to his saints: 27 To whom God would
make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among
the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: 28
Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in
all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ
Jesus:'
God has said in many
ways that which all men must hear: 'Look
unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God,
and there is none else.'
(Isa 45:22) And again, 'Come
unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give
you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek
and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For
my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. (Matt 11:28-30). Never is it written 'Come unto the doctrine
of 'Imputed Righteousness' and be ye saved. . .' etc. It is to the
LORD Christ; God incarnate, the 'bright and morning star', the 'Lamb
of God', the 'Great Shepherd of the Sheep', the 'LORD our Righteousness',
the 'Rose of Sharon', the 'Son of God'. . . we must come and put
our trust.
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim
Subject: Well done! From: Rod To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Mon, May 15, 2000 at 20:42:24 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message: Dear brother Pilgrim, We've allowed ourselves to
be distracted from the central purpose of glorying our Lord for
too long. Thank you for this wonderful post.
Subject: The Righteousness of God Revealed From: freegrace
To: All Date Posted:
Mon, May 15, 2000 at 09:56:11 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
This morning I was reading Romans 1:16-17. Where there is no righteousness
of God revealed, then there can be no true saving faith produced.
Where there is no true saving faith produced, then there is no salvation.
Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. Laz made
a good point about the dying thief on the cross being saved without
any knowledge of imputed righteousness, etc. However, at that time,
they did not have the complete canon of Scripture and the complete
Pauline revelation either. Very true, he cried out to the Lord to
have mercy, and we should do the same today if we are not saved.
Today, true saving faith is the rule... a faith in all the promises
of God to His chosen people. Believing any other gospel will not
save a person eternally. A false gospel will 'make one religious'
or make one 'feel better' for awhile, but it does not *eternally*
save the soul. Those who 'draw back to perdition' and do not 'go
on to perfection' just prove that they are still lost and in their
sins.. Also see Romans 4:4-6...where the true gospel of God's grace
always presents the imputed righteousness of God as a covering for
lost, hell bound sinners. Without this covering, men and women are
lost, be they open sinners or self-righteous persons. freegrace
Subject: Re: The Righteousness of God Revealed From: laz To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Mon, May 15, 2000 at 13:14:06 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
FG - I hope you are taking Rod's recent post below to heart and
MIND. ;-) 'Saving faith' (a term you are using) is proven/shown
(as Paul and James tell us) by the fruit of the Spirit (i.e., spiritual
WORKS)...SO...if an Arminian shows rich and abiding fruit, adorning
his confession well in clearly glorifying God, and recognizes his/her
total unworthiness ...trusting alone in Christ's work (as I did
when I was still 'arminian') ...then who are we to determine that
they are still workers of Satan? 'He who
is not against us is for us.' Recall that
phrase? As for believing a false gospel and perishing ... don't
many believe the true gospel and are still LOST? Does not Satan
believe the gospel to be true? Believing, knowledge, doctrine, theology
doth not save.... A true believer is not guaranteed freedom from
sin (smoking, lusting, envy, etc).... anymore than he is guaranteed
freedom from wrong thinking or bad theology. We all will die with
unconfessed sin (and sinful tendecies) and erroneous ideas about
the nature of God and the Faith. Any person truly trusting in Christ's atoning work alone
for their salvation HAS BEEN BORN AGAIN by a perfect grace thru an imperfect faith. They WILL show forth the resulting ordained FRUIT
and so they are to be received with gladness! Spirit-wrought FRUIT
is the key ... NOT theology! laz
Subject: Re: The Righteousness of God Revealed From: Rod To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Mon, May 15, 2000 at 11:54:54 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
One thing about it, freegrace, you're perfectly consistent in misinterpreting
Scripture. :>) It's very telling that you didn't actually quote
Rom. 1:16-17, what most consider to be
the key to understanding the whole epistle.
Here is what it actually says, 'For I am not ashamed of the gospel
of Christ; for it is the power of God unto
salvation to everyone that believeth;
to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For in it is the righteousness
of God revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, the just [he who is justified] shall
live by faith.' By not looking at the whole of the passage and seizing,
for your own purposes, on one aspect of the glorious truths (note
the plural, 'truths') contained in those verses, you have perverted
the meaning of Scripture. God does reveal His righteousness, but
you, conveniently for your cause, failed to note that it is 'revealed
from faith to faith.' Now, you do mention 'true saving faith,' letting
us all in on your 'secret' that Arminains have not such faith, but
you don't really examine the fact that the possession of faith,
not perfect theological knowledge, is the fact of salvation and
the realization of the 'righteousness of God,' not perfect knowledge.
God says, 'The just shall live by faith.' He says it four times
in the Bible, in Habakkuk, here in Romans, in Galatians, and finally
in Hebrews. The principle is stated, if not the exact words, in
Gen. 3:20; 4:1; 7:1; 15:6; Ps. 51:17; Mark 9:23-24; John 4:29...well,
I won't go on, you get the idea; it's mentioned in these places
and in too many more to cite. The message is the same from the beginning
of man's sin through to the end of the Bible: Salvation is dependent
on God's grace to those whom He gifts with faith. In spite of that
message, you fly in the face of God's revealed truth with 'a better
idea.' You say that He changes His mind and His methods, saving
people in different ways, at various times, as He 'progressively
reveals' His truth. His truth is progressively revealed, but the
revelation is an expansion on what has been laid before as foundational;
it doesn't change.
Salvation is always, throughout all Scripture, by grace and through
faith. Yet you even go so far as to deny that and make it conditional
on 'baptismal regeneration' in the Apostolic Age! To take the simple
message of 'believe God's revealed promises and be saved' and to
change it to suit your purposes is to pronounce the unthinkable
and is to be condemned in the strongest terms. You are, in effect,
rewriting God's Word, destroying His essential message. That practice
is condemned in the revealed Word as damnable. I most earnestly
pray that God will open your eyes to your error and enable you to
renounce it.
Subject: Amost Children of God From: freegrace
To: All Date Posted:
Mon, May 15, 2000 at 05:50:56 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Rod seems to think that Arminians may be 'almost children of God'
- and so we should give them the benefit of the doubt, and not doubt
their salvation. This is a new concept for me. God has 'degrees
of children' or grey areas? One is either saved or still lost, dead
or alive. With God there is light and darkness, no middle ground
here. One is either born again from God above, or still in their
sins. Of course God can save Arminians as well as Mormans, etc.
My point is, that if they never EVENTUALLY believe in God's imputed
righteousness. they will be lost... Romans 10:1-3...!! Remember
the verse, They shall ALL be taught of the Lord...! If they are
God's elect, they will surely be saved, no matter what error they
once believed. They will repent of their dead works of Arminianism,
and serve the Living true God of the Bible! freegrace
Subject: Once again, a serious error, freegrace From: Rod To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Mon, May 15, 2000 at 11:12:14 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
I don't think they're 'almost' anything. One is either saved or
he is lost. The nautre of the two designations is that, obviously
to the thinking person, there is no 'in-between!' Here is the problem
stated in one of your posts below. In it you state your belief,
which is revelatory of what you contend we're saying, when we are
not: 'Only God can see the heart. It is not my place to say any
here are unsaved, just because they think that Arminians can be
saved. Of course God can save Arminians, just as well as anyone
else!' Your belief is that 'Arminians
can be saved,' but that they are not.
Then, yourself imputing to us that belief that they aren't saved,
you come up with this ridiculous assertion that we think they're
'almost saved.' Literally no one else on this board, whose posts
I've read, denies that there are, right now, at this moment, Arminians
who are Christians, that they possess salvation the same as the
most perfectly versed Calvinist. Yet you maintain, in the face of
overwhelming evidence that NOT ONE ARMINIAN
IS SAVED! Your obstinate refusal to
apply evidence, to look realistically at God's Word, to apply sound
interpretative principles, and to quote the members of the board
(particularly me) in an honest and correct manner--all these undermine
your credibility and make your arguments a farce.
Subject: Re: Amost Children of God From: laz To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Mon, May 15, 2000 at 06:53:11 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Dear Freegrace - but aren't you dancing perilously close to the
notion that the unpardonable sin also includes failure to understand
'imputed righteousness' or any other core doctrine? laz p.s. I bet
your head is swimming thinking...'When
did everyone on the Highway suddenly become Arminian sympathizers?' hahaha I think Pilgrim's idea of the head and heart not
always being in synch...and John's post are sufficiently clear and
show that no one has 'changed' their mind about this matter nor
compromised the Gospel of Grace.
Subject: Re: Amost Children of God From: freegrace
To: laz Date Posted:
Mon, May 15, 2000 at 08:50:01 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Dear Freegrace - but aren't you dancing perilously close to the
notion that the unpardonable sin also includes failure to understand
'imputed righteousness' or any other core doctrine? laz p.s. I bet
your head is swimming thinking...'When
did everyone on the Highway suddenly become Arminian sympathizers?' hahaha I think Pilgrim's idea of the head and heart not
always being in synch...and John's post are sufficiently clear and
show that no one has 'changed' their mind about this matter nor
compromised the Gospel of Grace.
--- ++++++++++++ Hi Laz... I thought that all of God's elect
would be 'taught of the Lord' as promised, so there is no danger
of God's chosen to commit an 'unpardonable sin'.. Paul prays for
the salvation of his brethren in Romans 10:1-3 does he not? He does
not make excuses for them, and say - Oh, well, they might learn
about imputed righteousness at a later date or time, I won't worry
about them!..etc. No, he prays for their salvation, so they must
still be lost. fg
Subject: Re: Amost Children of God From: Pilgrim
To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Mon, May 15, 2000 at 11:04:54 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Freegrace,
The text says, 'And
all thy children shall be taught of the LORD; and great shall be
the peace of thy children. But it does
NOT say, 'And all thy children shall be taught EVERYTHING of the
LORD. . .'!! In fact, if you would search the Scriptures, you will
see that this 'teaching' of God is mostly a reference to the conviction
of the heart and a yearning and trusting in Christ for salvation.
It is NOT referring to DOCTRINE!! (cf. Joh
6:45; Matt 11:25-29; 16:17; Joh 6:65;
etc.). There are a few texts which might appear to teach that believers will come to know all things, but taken in
context, they do not teach that all believers will be taught complete
and/or perfect doctrine (cf. Joh 14:26; 1Cor 2:10; 1Joh 2:20, 27).
Others speak of the Spirit of Christ teaching believers concerning
sanctity of life (cf. Eph 4:21; Heb 8:10), loving the brethren (cf.
1Thess 4:9), etc. What all these texts show is that aside from the
sinner 'learning' of Christ unto justification, the 'teaching' of
the Spirit comes gradually and is never complete in this life. There
is no mention whatsoever about the doctrine of 'Imputed Righteousness'
in any of those passages, nor in the ones I haven't listed that
could be included. A man who simply utters, 'Once I was blind but
now I see!' (Joh 9:25) is not less destined for glory than a man
who was filled with biblical knowledge, e.g., John Owen, Jonathan
Edwards or John Gill. They ALL were taught of God and taught ALL
that was decreed for them to know to do what was required of them
for the glory of God and the furtherance of the Kingdom.
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Defending the truth From: Rod To: All Date Posted:
Sun, May 14, 2000 at 15:20:01 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
To all: It's interesting and ironic that, after spending so many
years debating Arminians and refuting their doctrine, I (and others
here) now find myself (ourselves) in the position of defending their
Christianity against freegrace's misinterpretations. Freegrace is
unable to differentiate between a true believer and one who is in
error. To him, one who is an unbeliever and one who is a believer
in docrtinal error are one and the same; each is lost, according
to his pronouncements. If one accepts his assertions, he would have
to conclude that Peter, who, along with Barnabas, showed signs of
returning to Jewish tradition and laws, was lost, though an Apostle
of the Lord Jesus! (Cp. Gal. 2:11-14). But that isn't the point
of this post. The point is that there have been many Arminians here
and elsewhere who have accused us who espouse sovereign grace as
being unreasonable and unfair as far as they're concerned. It seems
to me that the fact that literally NO ONE ELSE here has challenged
the salvation of Arminians in this exchange proves that allegation
false. The issue between the Arminians and the 'sovereign gracers'
isn't over the fact of salvation, but the means and source of that
salvation and how it is 'achieved' or realized. The fact that righteousness
is 'imputed' demonstrates several things. First, it is outside the
individual in its origin, being both the plan and action of God.
That is important to remember because it means God decides who possesses
it, and enables them that possession, not any man. Second, and tied
directly to the first thought, is this: imputation is first by grace
and then by faith. Justification is achieved because God gifts the
person with faith by His sovereign grace (Eph. 2:8-10). God's Spirit has Paul pen these telling
words, '...being justified freely by his grace through
the redemption that is in Christ Jesus'
(Rom. 3:24). The redemption is in the Lord Jesus Christ and through
Him. It rests on what God does in causing faith in the Lord Jesus,
not on whether the saved person is correct in all aspects of his
doctine. If it were founded on being absolutely correct in doctrine,
none of us would make it to glorification; we would all be lost!
Though the Arminians have grossly overworked the misapplication
of this verse, taking it out of context, it is necessarily true
that 'whosoever believeth [in the only begotten Son of God] should
not perish, but have everlasting life' (John 3:16). The question
then becomes: What is the extent of the necessary 'belief?' We have
discussed that here before, and I've seen it discussed before elsewhere.
I've never seen it adequately resolved. Does the fact that we have
a hard time pinpointing exactly where one is a Christian and another
is a non-believer really bear on the question of 'imputed righteousness?'
Obviously. But just as obviously, one who is truly a believer and
'never perishing' undeniably has imputed righteousness. To deny
that to one who is judged by godly men to be a Christian is both
ill-advised and short-sighted. People who are truly children of
God tend to recognize their siblings, being able to see the fruit
of the Spirit displayed. I suppose one reason I feel so strongly
on this issue is that I have been accused by one Arminian board
owner of being a non-Christian, all the while confessing my Lord
Jesus and upholding the salvation of Arminians while simultaneously
denouncing their doctrine. This got me banned from his board. I,
believing, was denied the status of the Biblical pronouncement of
'whosoever believeth.' That seems to me to be the height of inconsistency
and hypocrisy. Yet I still believe that Arminians can be and are
saved. We bat about terms like 'easy believism' and 'lordship salvation,'
etc.. We do this rightfully. We must examine what a true believer
is and know how to recognize one. In all this, however, we must
be careful to be certain not to deny salvation to one who is a true
believer, whether he accepts sovereign grace or not. I don't espouse
'easy believism' and I do advocate that one must recognize that
the Lord Jesus is just that, the sovereign Lord of all. But, possibly
paradoxically, maybe inconsistently, I want to be very cautious
about 'official requirements.' My extreme caution is based on such
statements as this one by John the Apostle: 'Whosoever shall confess
that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God'
(1 John 4:15). Now, please don't read into that verse and my quoting
it that I believe every 'professor!' I also believe we will know
them by their 'fruit' (Matt. 12:33). But one indwelt by the Spirit
of God is God's child, not to be denied by myself or any other Christian.
I am unconfortable 'defending' Arminians because I find Arminianism indefensible.
But I find denouncing those who are almost assuredly 'sons of God'
completely unjustifiable. I call on all Christians to examine their
beliefs in this area and to stand for the truth of the revealed
Word of God.
Subject: Re: Defending the truth From: freegrace
To: Rod Date Posted:
Sun, May 14, 2000 at 23:01:43 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Rod, That is almost as funny as Anne's good joke about the Baptists!
:-) Now that you have someone here who has been converted from Arminianism,
suddenly this Calvinistic forum is 'Pro - Arminian'..! Let's forget
about the Arminians for awhile, and give them some peace with their
'I hope I am saved' false religion. Let's think about the Isralites
in Romans 10:1-3. if they were saved, then why Paul's prayer for
their salvation? My question for you or anyone here, is, are professing
Christians - such as (for example, good members of the liberal United
Methodist church denomination) saved - even when they never come
to trust in God's imputed righteousness for their justification?
Again, I refer you to Romans 10:1-3. Still no answer on this. If
I have misinterpreted anything, please correct me! You say I have
misinterpreted things, but do not show me where I am wrong! Please
show me the correct interpretation of Romans 10:1-3. That's only
three verses, Rod. Thanks! freegrace
Subject: Re: Defending the truth From: john hampshire
To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Mon, May 15, 2000 at 04:07:28 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Freegrace, Sorry, but I must have got confused amongst the various
levels of dialog going on here. You contend that Arminians are probably
not saved because, why? I missed that part. Is it because they have
a false doctrine of salvation? Then why do you call yourself 'freegrace',
if salvation is not 'free' and by God's 'grace'. So they have a
false doctrine of salvation, yet can God not save them: is there
some prerequisite for salvation, or is it truly free? I say truly
free! Thus, I will contend that anyone, Arminians included, can
and do travel the road from apostate gospel to Truth, as God's Spirit
illuminates their spirit. Which brings me to the next point. You
said concerning those in false gospels: 'even when they never come
to trust in God's imputed righteousness for their justification?'.
Here I am lost again. Is this a requirement for salvation? Must
every regenerated believer eventually come to an understanding of
God's imputed righteousness, and if they don't are they 'unsaved'?
I say no, at least not always. If it is God's plan to reveal such
things to the one He regenerates, then sure they will believe EVENTUALLY.
But there is a distance and time that must be traveled to get there.
For some, though they be 'saved', they will never understand it,
for they are not 'wired' in the manner to understand such seemingly
deep theological questions. We are not all a foot, some are better
suited as a hand--get my anatomical drift. So after regeneration
an Arminian can remain as such, though perhaps more confused and
perplexed than before. I know many who are Arminian in name, but
are searching and willing to know truth, though not without some
hesitation. I also know many who reject the truth and cling to their
various Arminian doctrines. The different spirit's yield different
results upon confrontation with truth. That is how we can get some
glimpse of the inner-workings of men, by their outward reaction--disdain.
But again, as was mentioned, outward disdain may not reflect the
inward confusion that is going on. We don't know if the angry Arminian
may indeed have been regenerated earlier and is inwardly changing
his mind, though outwardly antagonistic. Time would tell. Bottom
line: all Arminians are not unregenerate. Some are searching due
to the regeneration that God has done. Some are searching on the
inside but outwardly in opposition to truth. Some, if not most,
are hostile to the gospel of Christ and truly manifest hate for
God, that finds its roots in a dead spirit, and remain that way
until they die. It isn't just Arminians, it isn't any one group...
it is the nature of fallen man living apart from God. Though the
unregenerate assemble themselves into defined groups, denominations,
and faiths... their beliefs are all self-centered, despite the many
names bestowed upon their ideas. It is the occasional one that breaks
away from the herd and questions what he is told (the seeker) that
God has prepared beforehand. He might be an Arminianist, or a Catholic,
or a JW, or a Mormon, or an Atheist…. doesn’t matter which title
he owns or what false beliefs still fill his head. The key is: does
he seek truth and will he not rest until he finds it. That is the
evidence of regeneration, not some particular theological doctrine
no matter how true it might be. My two cents, john
Subject: Re: Defending the truth From: freegrace
To: john hampshire
Date Posted:
Mon, May 15, 2000 at 05:40:46 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Yes, if God elect, they will embrace imputed righteousness EVENTUALLY.
But my point is that since ALL of God's children are taught of the
Lord, those who never DO embrace God's imputed righteousmess are
still lost. Romans 10:3. Of course, any Arminian or Calvinist can
be saved if they eventually (good word) in God's own time see the
Light of their own sinfulness and embrace God's imputed righteousness!
freegrace
Subject: Re: Defending the truth From: laz To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Mon, May 15, 2000 at 06:43:52 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Yes, if God elect, they will embrace imputed righteousness EVENTUALLY.
But my point is that since ALL of God's children are taught of the
Lord, those who never DO embrace God's imputed righteousmess are
still lost. Romans 10:3. Of course, any Arminian or Calvinist can
be saved if they eventually (good word) in God's own time see the
Light of their own sinfulness and embrace God's imputed righteousness!
freegrace
--- ************** ...like the thief
on the Cross? ...did he understand 'imputed
righteousness'? I suspect many OT elect never got 'imputed righteousness'
square in their minds...probably never entered their mind...it therefore
CAN'T be a CONDITION of salvation now! YES? Freegrace...you know
me and many others to be VERY emphatic about defending 'truth' as
we understand free and sovereign grace to represent...but might
you be insisting on something not wholly warranted by the clear
testimony of Scripture? Does theology save? You been hanging around
Vern? haha blessings, laz laz
Subject: Re: Defending the truth From: Rod To: laz Date Posted:
Mon, May 15, 2000 at 10:42:15 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
Talk about going directly to the heart of the matter! That's precisely
what you did, laz, with this question: 'Does
theology save?' That's it exactly!
freegrace seemingly refuses to understand that having a 'perfect
theology' isn't God's requirement for salvation; that does, from
all I can read from him, seems to be freegrace's 'salvation yardstick,'
the standard by which he (not the Lord God) judges men and their
eternal destination regarding the Lord. It's interesting that in
the post directly answering you on this, freegrace denies your assertion,
but then comes back and immediately affirms
that it truly is his standard of judgment.
Here is the statement affirming the inconsistency: 'My point is,
if professing Christians NEVER see [note particularly that word
'see,' meaning, apparently, 'realize'] the light on their election,
imputed righteousness, and particular atonement, and the security
of thebeliever, are they really one of Christ's sheep at all?' Of
course, freegrace's answer is, 'No.' My answer is, 'No,' also, but
not in agreement with freegrace. All true Christians, those whom
God makes believers and followers of His Son in faith, will have
their doctrine purified in His presence. I'm certain that there
isn't one among us, even of the most learned and godly, who don't
possess doctrinal error. The key is to grow in God's truth, being
open to His revealed Word and allowing His Holy Spirit to lead us,
'guiding us into all truth,' as the Bible promises. I believe that
many Arminian Christians are really 'closet Calvinists,' at least
in part of their theology. And they are that without even realizing
it. I offer as proof these two paragraphs from Eric's post below
concering the 'inconsistencies' of Arminians: 'At the end of the
service, they had an altar call, but all throughout the the invitation,
the speaker made reference to the fact that nobody is here by accident,
and that God has directed people to be sitting in this church today
to hear this message, etc. One person responded to the call and
came forward. After much prayer and talking with the gentleman,
the pastor in his closing remarks mentioned that the individual
was not even planning on attending church that morning, but was
just driving around, and he said that he had a strong feeling come
over him that he should be in that church.' This is a direct, but
unwitting admission by the speaker of the sovereignty of God and
deals with Providence and Predestination/Election. The fact that
such a person can't see the inconsistencies in his views doesn't
affect his salvation one whit. One of my favorite Bible teachers
once said that Charles Wesley's hymns were approved by his brother,
John, before being finalized, that John Wesley often forced Charles
to revise his work until it was 'suitable.' If that is so, hymns
by this man are very revealing of the 'theology' of both these Arminians. I offer
these verses from one Wesley hymn for your consideration about whether
they had, as freegrace puts it, renounced self-righteousness or
not: And can it be that I should gain an interest in the Savior's
blood! Died he for me? who caused his pain! For me? who him to death
pursued? Amazing love! How can it be that thou, my God, shouldst
die for me? Amazing love! How can it be that thou, my God, shouldst
die for me? He left his Father's throne above (so free, so infinite
his grace!), emptied himself of all but love, and bled for Adam's
helpless race. 'Tis mercy all, immense and free, for O my God, it
found out me! 'Tis mercy all, immense and free, for O my God, it
found out me! Long my imprisoned sprit lay, fast bound in sin and
nature's night; thine eye diffused a quickening ray; I woke, the
dungeon flamed with light; my chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed thee. My chains fell off, my heart
was free, I rose, went forth, and followed thee. No condemnation
now I dread; Jesus, and all in him, is mine; alive in him, my living
Head, and clothed in righteousness divine, bold I approach th' eternal
throne, and claim the crown, through Christ my own. Bold I approach
th' eternal throne, and claim the crown, through Christ my own.
I don't affirm that the hymn is perfect theologically, but much
of it is very good indeed! I leave it up to the board, can we deny
the salvation of those who make such a confession and live lives
based on that belief and confession?
Subject: Re: Defending the truth From: freegrace
To: laz Date Posted:
Mon, May 15, 2000 at 09:03:24 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
No, theology alone does not save, but the true gospel embraces and
contains sound doctrine. Under normal conditions, as Kuyper writes,
true saving faith is exercized by all of God's elect... My point
is, if professing Christians NEVER see the light on their election,
imputed righteousness, and particular atonement, and the security
of the believer, are they really one of Christ's sheep at all? They
are not just 'almost' God's children, but are still lost, sad to
say, and are in need of salvation. That's my point. Of course, A
head knowledge does not save. God must change a person's heart,
so that they will thirst for the living God, and not just be content
with doing religious exercises, duties, etc. It is a very difficul
thing to renounce one's own righteousness! We shall through much
tribulation enter the kingdom of God.. At least that is what I have
experienced, laz. And I will be 65 this year, so have had many trials
because of leaving my 'home Arminian denomination'.. but I would
not change a thing....Romans 8:28. fg
Subject: Re: Defending the TRUTH From: Pilgrim
To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Mon, May 15, 2000 at 10:34:25 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
freegrace,
You have denied Whitefield's own
conviction concerning the salvation of the Arminian, yet you quoted
him as being reliable and a true regenerate man of God. Now you
quote from Kuyper, with the intent of bolstering your error. But
Abraham Kuyper stands against you also for this is what Kuyper said
on this subject:
'Religion on earth
finds its highest expression in the act of prayer. But Calvinism
in the Christian Church is simply that tendency which makes
a man assume the same attitude toward God in his profession
and life which he exhibits in prayer. There is no Christian,
be he Lutheran or Baptist, Methodist or Greek, whose prayer
is not thoroughly Calvinistic; no child of God, to whatever
Church organization he may be- long, but in his prayer he gives
glory to God above and renders thanks to his Father in heaven
for all the grace working in him, and acknowledges that the
eternal love of God alone has, in the face of his resistance,
drawn him out of darkness into light. On his knees before God
everyone that has been saved will recognize the sole efficiency
of the Holy Spirit in every good work performed, and will acknowledge
that without the atoning grace of Him who is rich in mercies,
he would not exist for a moment, but would sink away in guilt
and sin. In a word, whoever truly prays ascribes nothing to
his own will or power except the sin that condemns him before
God, and knows of nothing that could endure the judgment of
God except it be wrought in him by divine love. But whilst all
other tendencies in the Church preserve this attitude as long
as the prayer lasts, to lose themselves in radically different
conceptions as soon as the Amen has been pronounced, the Calvinist
adheres to the truth of his prayer, in his confession, in his
theology, in his life, and the Amen that has closed his petition
re-echoes in the depth of his consciousness and throughout the
whole of his existence.'
It is obvious that Kuyper is saying
exactly what I and the others on this forum have been trying to
get across to you; there can be and often is an inconsistency between
what a person TRULY BELIEVES and what he formally holds to be true
theologically. Salvation is a matter of the heart; that which has
been renewed by the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. It may
be that an Arminian may NEVER come to understand the doctrine of
'Imputed Righteousness', yet his heart is surely embracing the Lord
Christ, 'Our Righteousness'. And thus this individual is no less
a child of God than one who is able to articulate biblical doctrine
more than any man.
Without getting into further discussion
concerning the place of doctrine, which I believe is a necessary
element in the life of a Christian, it must be firmly maintained
that a sinner is justified by GRACE through FAITH in the LORD JESUS
CHRIST, and not when or if he/she comprehends a doctrine; even Imputed
Righteousness, with the mind. It is CHRIST who saves!!
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: AMEN! n/t From: Rod To: Pilgrim Date Posted:
Mon, May 15, 2000 at 10:51:53 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
Subject: Re: Defending the truth From: Rod To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Mon, May 15, 2000 at 00:06:08 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
freegrace, I answered you on this before. Please read the whole
post: Sunday May 14, 2000 @ 13:08:13 below.
Subject: Re: Defending the truth From: Joel H
To: Rod Date Posted:
Sun, May 14, 2000 at 20:24:27 (PDT) Email Address:jh6@muw.edu
Message:
FreeGrace, I agree with you that those who truly believe in Arminianism
with their whole heart and mind without contradiction and fully
understand the implications of such theology are not saved. However,
if you mean that all those who understand themselves as 'Arminians'
are not saved, then I do not agree. Many of them possess contradictions
between their heart and mind, and we can not know if they are saved
or not. You can be saved and have an imperfect knowledge of doctrine.
Thank God! Perhaps when you spoke of Arminians in the terms of salvation,
you only meant those who fully grasp this doctrine and firmly believe
unwaveringly with no contradiction that they are the 'authors' of
their faith which makes them 'worthy' of salvation. Joel H
Subject: Re: Defending the truth From: stan To: Joel H Date Posted:
Sun, May 14, 2000 at 21:17:12 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Before one can fully know and believe in the system and not be saved
they must go through a time of not knowing for sure of their doctrine
and being unsure in their mind/heart and be saved - for surely you
must go through a period of 'mperfect knowledge of doctrine' to
get to fully persuaded. INTERESTING! Seems the logical end of what
you say - just observing. stan
Subject: Example of Arminian inconsistency From: Eric To: stan Date Posted:
Mon, May 15, 2000 at 07:29:13 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
I attended an Arminian church on yesterday morning. Now this church,
I believe is led by godly men and the members of the church seem
to be strong men and women of God. However, the church is unashamedly
Arminian in all their doctrines. The congregation sang many songs
that mentioned God was sovereign over all things, and the like.
At the end of the service, they had an altar call, but all throughout
the the invitation, the speaker made reference to the fact that
nobody is here by accident, and that God has directed people to
be sitting in this church today to hear this message, etc. One person
responded to the call and came forward. After much prayer and talking
with the gentleman, the pastor in his closing remarks mentioned
that the individual was not even planning on attending church that
morning, but was just driving around, and he said that he had a
strong feeling come over him that he should be in that church. Well,
if the man was truly converted yesterday, it should be plain to
all that it was God who caused that man to be saved, and orchestrated
the events of the day to cause that man to hear the gospel message
and 'accept' Christ. God Bless.
Subject: Imputed Righteousness From: freegrace
To: All Date Posted:
Sun, May 14, 2000 at 05:07:15 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
This week I learned that 'all Arminians believe in an imputed righteousness'.
If this is true, then how can they also teach that a saved person
can fall from grace and become lost? Evidently their imputed righteousness
is not eternal, and does not work very well for them! The doctrine
of our imputed righteousness is the foundation for our Christian
assurance, is it not? At least that is the way I see it now. The
reason that none of the chosen sheep of Christ shall never perish
is because they have a covering - the Robe of God's righteousness
placed to their account! God's righteousness is eternal, and so
our salvation is eternal! This is good news for any Arminian who
thinks that they can 'fall from grace'... It was sure good news
for me many years ago! freegrace
Subject: Re: Imputed Righteousness From: Five Sola
To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Sun, May 14, 2000 at 20:16:40 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Freegrace, You said 'This week I learned that 'all Arminians believe
in an imputed righteousness'. ' You never answered Pilgrim, asking
where you learned this but I assume you say this from a post I made
to you in another thread. Is this right? if so you misqoute me,
I never said 'all' I just said Arminians. You assume too much. You
also said something strange: 'then how can they [arminians] also
teach that a saved person can fall from grace and become lost?'
First, I am aware that the Arminian 5pts has 'fall from grace' as
one of its points but I will be honest with you. I have NEVER met
an Arminian who believed in 'fall from grace' (nor did I when I
was Arminian) everyone I have met believes in 'once saved, always
saved'. So if that is your justification that if someone believes
in 'loss of salvation' then you cannot say Arminian. Second,(Pilgrim
has voiced this before) just because someone voices that they believe
in loss of salvation does not negate their salvation. I am dealing
with a CHRISTIAN brother who thinks he can lose his salvation. I
am trying to show him is inconsistencies of his view. He is just
cofused intellectually on the topic. I think you are continually
confusing Regeneration with Sanctification. When we are saved we
have all kinds of false teachings and beliefs (unless you think
you were doctrinally error free at salvation). Our sanctification
begins our 'journey' and the Spirits work in us to make us more
like Christ. Just look at the early church fathers, they were full
of some errors that they began to work out as heretics challenged
their views, etc. Five Sola ps. you still refuse to answer my question:
do you consider all of us unsaved because we believe Arminians can
be saved?
Subject: Re: Imputed Righteousness From: freegrace
To: Five Sola
Date Posted:
Mon, May 15, 2000 at 06:19:41 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Only God can see the heart. It is not my place to say any here are
unsaved, just because they think that Arminians can be saved. Of
course God can save Arminians, just as well as anyone else! My point
is, if they NEVER embrace God's imputed righteousness for their
eternal justification, they will be lost. The self righteous person
is just as lost as the down and out sinner. Both kinds of persons
are in need of God's so great eternal salvation! Now is the DAY
OF SALVATION - (not damnation). freegrace
Subject: Re: Imputed Righteousness From: Tom To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Mon, May 15, 2000 at 09:11:14 (PDT) Email Address:ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
freegrace We both know that God saves, not anything an individual
does (work) to gain salvation, correct? You keep mentioning Romans
10:1-3, you seem to be wielding it in a way that proves the opposite
of what you espouse. Since God is the one that does the work of
salvation, these verses are not talking about a work we must do,
but rather it is an indication of a truly regenerate person. Ie.
they have submitted themselves unto the rightiousnes of God. This
doesn't mean that they have full knowledge of the theology behind
it. Just that they have put their faith in Christ and not going
about to establish their own rightiousness. I believe some Arminians
have indeed done that. They do submitt to God and do change their
understanding of theology as light is shed on the issue. Nobody
does that who is not truly regenerate, because the natural man does
not submitt to the things of the Spirit. Romans 8:5 Tom
Subject: Re: Imputed Righteousness From: laz To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Mon, May 15, 2000 at 07:07:38 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
OK, I think I see the problem... If you are saying that only those
trusting FULLY in Christ's work and THAT alone for salvation are
saved...then AMEN! This 'salvation' is soley based on CHrist's righteousness
imputed to us. No argument from me. But since when does someone
unable to understand (or yet to be taught) this concept (retarded
person, new/unlearned believer, infant, etc) preclude them from
FREE GRACE...from going from the kingdom of darkness into the Kingdom
of Light? Or is your beef with those UNWILLING to embrace the biblical
doctrine of imputed righteousness? laz
Subject: Re: Imputed Righteousness From: freegrace
To: laz Date Posted:
Mon, May 15, 2000 at 10:12:18 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Please see message above on the righteousness of God Revealed. All
of God's people are 'made willing in the day of God's power'...Psalm
110:3. I think the problem is ignorance. It the clergy would preach
this truth, the self-righteous religious folk may quite giving and\or
coming to church, etc. But this ignorance God does not 'wink at'.
In that day, we will be judged according to Paul's gospel of sovereign
free grace alone. As Kuyper says, normal faith is the rule for all
of God's elect. fg
Subject: Re: Imputed Righteousness From: laz To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Mon, May 15, 2000 at 12:39:45 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
fg - but aren't you on the slippery slope whereby you make knowledge
of doctrine the OBJECT of faith...instead of Christ? laz
Subject: Re: Imputed Righteousness From: freegrace
To: laz Date Posted:
Mon, May 15, 2000 at 14:08:32 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
fg - but aren't you on the slippery slope whereby you make knowledge
of doctrine the OBJECT of faith...instead of Christ? laz
--- ============ No, I did not say that theology is the 'object
of our faith', of course Christ Himself is the object of faith;
What I am saying is, 'The Lord God will *perfect* that which concerneth
me'. Trusting in the gospel that Arminianism teaches saves no one.
God says, Come out of her, my people. Those who are called by God
will leave heretical churches with their false idol shepherds! My
sheep HEAR MY VOICE (regeneration), and they follow Me, our conversion
and sanctification. fg
Subject: Re: Imputed Righteousness From: Pilgrim
To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Sun, May 14, 2000 at 09:06:29 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Freegrace,
You wrote: 'This
week I learned that 'all Arminians believe in an imputed righteousness'.' Pray tell, just WHERE did you learn that? I know for a fact that it wasn't here on this forum.
Nor was this error found in anything on The Highway web site. Further
if you have indeed, learned this, then why are you disputing it? Again, this type
of statement reveals the sad truth that you have not LEARNED sound theology
and/or how it all fits together biblically. The antithesis of the
doctrine of 'Imputed Righteousness' is NOT 'free-will' but rather
the doctrine of 'Infused Righteousness' whereby a person is actually
changed in soul to possess God's perfect righteousness in whole
or in part unto JUSTIFICATION! There is no contradiction between someone
holding to the Arminian doctrine of 'free-will' and 'Imputed Righteousness'.
The REAL issue with the doctrine of 'free-will' is the CAUSE
of apprehending the 'Imputed Righteousness' of the Lord Christ.
This CAUSE then becomes an ADDITION to God's free justification
and thus it nullifies its efficacy and substitutes faith as a 'work'.
But again, you wantonly ignore the doctrine of Total Depravity as
true Calvinism holds to be true from the Scriptures. And this is
certainly an irony on your part, as you are consigning all Arminians
to hell, for you contend that they deny 'Imputed Righteousness'
which Calvinists hold dear. What an anomaly this is. For a TRUE
Calvinist knows of all men, the horrid affects which the Fall has
on their hearts, minds and souls, especially his own heart. I could
easily use your 'logic' and thus conclude that you hold to Weslyian
'Perfectionism' for if a person is truly saved by the 'Imputed Righteousness'
of Christ, then his/her doctrine will then be without error. For,
in your condemnation of all those who don't embrace Calvinism, you
will not allow any dysfunction between the 'mind' and the 'heart'.
And this 'condemnation' of yours has NEVER been shared by HISTORIC
CALVINISM. Doubtless there are little sectarian and narrow-minded
groups which do hold this to be true, but they are not representative
of Calvinism nor of the view of John Calvin himself. What is more
revealing is that for one who insists that the only true 'baptism'
given to the Church is 'Spirit Baptism', your summary condemnation
of PEOPLE who hold to errant doctrine is not of the Spirit. For
the Spirit has taught us that the LORD God ALONE knows
the hearts of men.
1Cor
4:5 'Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord
come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness,
and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then
shall every man have praise of God.' Rom 2:1 'Therefore thou
art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for
wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou
that judgest doest the same things.' Jas 4:12 'There is one
lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that
judgest another?' Matt 7:1 'Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with
what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3 And why beholdest thou the mote that
is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is
in thine own eye? 4 Or
how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out
of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5 Thou
hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and
then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy
brother's eye.'
Again, I exhort you
to examine your own heart to see if what you are saying comes
from the Spirit of God or from the flesh. Have you fallen into the
odious habit of some wherein they 'follow cunningly devised fables',
which will if allowed to continue will show you as being 'not one
of us'? Here, you might again distort what I am saying and assert
that I am holding to the possibility of one 'falling from grace,'
even knowing that I hold no such view. But rather what I am saying
is that there are those who say they belong to Christ and even outwardly
manifest 'fruit' to the eye, but inwardly are ravenous wolves; never
having tasted of the goodness of God in Christ Jesus. Take heed
therefore unto THYSELF brother... lest you fall!!
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Imputed Righteousness From: freegrace To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Sun, May 14, 2000 at 10:52:42 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message: Pilgrim... If the self-righteous person (who is a
Calvinist or Arminian) is not lost, then why did Paul pray THAT
THEY MIGHT BE SAVED in Romans 10:1...? Jesus came not to call the
(self) righteous, but sinners to repentance... Why do you seem to
be angry with me? Is it because i now have full assurance of salvation
based on God's imputed righteousness, and not my own 'filthy rags?'
It seems that way, brother. freegrace
Subject: Re: Imputed Righteousness From: Pilgrim
To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Sun, May 14, 2000 at 15:57:00 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Freegrace,
You have yet misjudged another
item again; that being the tenure in which I have replied to you.
There is no anger whatsoever in my heart toward you. But rather
there is much concern and sadness. There is no disagreement on your
general statement concerning the 'self-righteous'. The disagreement
lies in your making judgments concerning the condition of a person's
heart who holds to a different theological view than you do, which
you are not given the ability nor the right. Apparently you didn't
even take the time to let what I wrote to you penetrate your mind,
never mind your heart. It appears to have gone 'in one ear and out
the other.' What you are doing is exactly what you have rightly
said was condemning... i.e., being 'self-righteous.' For only one
who is guilty of 'self-righteousness' would take it upon himself/herself
to boast of being able to discern the thoughts and intents of another
man's heart. Therefore what you are doing is 'self-condemning'!
Prov 11:2 ¶ 'When
pride cometh, then cometh shame: but with the lowly is wisdom.'
Prov 16:18 ¶'Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty
spirit before a fall.'
Brother, I think I have said all
I can to you in this matter. I leave you to the Spirit of God to
bring conviction and enlightenment to your soul.
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: For your possible interest. From: stan To: All Date Posted:
Fri, May 12, 2000 at 09:39:13 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Just scanned in ON THE BAN: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS By Menno Simons;
1550. If there is interest I can post it or can email if that would
be better. (about six pages)
Subject: Deacons and Elders From: GRACE2Me
To: All Date Posted:
Thurs, May 11, 2000 at 14:28:06 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
What do you see as the difference in the functions of Deacons and
Elders? What about the 'seven' that were chosen in Acts 6 that included
Philip and Stephen? Do you think they were Deacons? And what do
you believe is intended in the term 'waiting on tables?' Having
read through the posts in the the thread below, I am not convinced
Scripturally that Elders are seperate from Pastors ans that there
must be more than one Pastor and/or Elder. Especially if it is in
a very small church like mine :-). Is Paul talking about a different
office when he tells Titus about the qualifications of an Elder
in 1:5-10? And is Elder and Bishop used interchangeably in that
passage (5-7)? Thanks for taking the time to respond. In Christ,
GRACE2Me
Subject: Re: Deacons and Elders From: Rod To: GRACE2Me
Date Posted:
Thurs, May 11, 2000 at 15:09:59 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
GTM, Let me turn the tables on you and ask you a question or two,
or twenty. :>) First, what do you make of Acts 6, verses3-4?
Keep in mind that the Apostles were just that, 'apostles,' not 'elders.'
The function of an Apostle was different from an elder today. Is
a precedent set or implied? Remember also that the Apostle Paul
instructed Titus (1:5) to appoint 'elders' [not apostles] in every
city.' Deacons aren't mentioned in that connection, apparently being
selected in some other manner. Second, have you considered the root
meaning of the word 'deacon?' How does it differ from "elder?"
Next, Peter refers to himself as an 'elder' in 1 Peter 5:1 (an apparent
indication that the gifts of an apostle were passing away and diminishing,
as other Scripture indicates), but there is no indication in Scripture
I can see to indicate that he 'pastored a church,' as people today
like to say. How does this bear on your thinking? Finally, have
you read the Murray article Pilgrim put up? It's very interesting
on the matter of elders.
Subject: Cain and Abel both very religious From: freegrace
To: All Date Posted:
Thurs, May 11, 2000 at 08:07:56 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Both Cain and Abel were both very religious and sincere, but one
was saved, and the other was not. Cain and Abel www.heritagebooks.org/rad-20.html
Subject: Re: Cain and Abel both very religious From: Rod To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Thurs, May 11, 2000 at 14:02:26 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
fg, Yes, I recognize your point to me, but you've, once again, missed
something very important. Cain's problem, at its root, and in its
essence, wasn't 'religion,' or improper worship, but the fact that
he didn't believe God's revelation to man. He didn't believe God.
He had a 'better way' of salvation, works, not faith. What is the
'way of Cain' of which Jude speaks (verse 11)? It is the rejection
of redemption by blood, as God had revealed
it to him. Arminian Christians do not
reject the redemptive value of the blood of Jesus Christ and His
substitutionary work on their behalf. Why do you insist on missing
that point? Have you considered Matt. 12:25-30 and Luke 9:49-50
in conjunction with one another and in this regard of who really
is "for" the Lord Jesus?
Subject: Re: Cain and Abel both very religious From: freegrace
To: Rod Date Posted:
Fri, May 12, 2000 at 11:58:19 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
fg, Yes, I recognize your point to me, but you've, once again, missed
something very important. Cain's problem, at its root, and in its
essence, wasn't 'religion,' or improper worship, but the fact that
he didn't believe God's revelation to man. He didn't believe God.
He had a 'better way' of salvation, works, not faith. What is the
'way of Cain' of which Jude speaks (verse 11)? It is the rejection
of redemption by blood, as God had revealed it to him. Arminian
Christians do not reject the redemptive value of the blood of Jesus
Christ and His substitutionary work on their behalf. Why do you
insist on missing that point? Have you considered Matt. 12:25-30
and Luke 9:49-50 in conjunction with one another and in this regard
of who really is "for" the Lord Jesus?
--- =============== The way of Cain was 'for reward'... Reminds
me of many Arminians I have known over the years, who (I have heard
say) 'If anybody makes it, surely I will' My question is, do Arminians
(who believe in a universal atonement) really have the blood atonement
of Christ applied to them individually? I say no. They may speak
of grace, and speak much of salvation and redemption, but as long
as they think they must 'do something' (in order to be saved) they
make salvation a matter of works, or enduring unto the end, etc.
And so place themselves among those who try to come to God just
as Cain did. Ye shall know them by their 'fruit'. Cain thought that
surely he would be accepted, but was not, because he made it a matter
of 'reward', and not a gift by grace alone. freegrace
Subject: Proper understanding of the "way of Cain" From: Rod To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Fri, May 12, 2000 at 16:53:55 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
freegrace, I haven't even read but one sentience of your post yet,
but in reading your first statement, I discovered a prime example
of your erroneous interpretative principles! You simply are not
allowed to play fast and loose with the Word of God. That is a serious
and most dangerous error. Here is your statement and then God's
statement. You wrote: 'The way of Cain was 'for reward'...' You
lifted that phrase out of context, misapplying it. Here is what the Holy Spirit of God
actually said, 'Woe unto them! For they have gone the way of Cain,
and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward...' (Jude
11). Now its obvious to anyone reading that and comparing the histories
of Cain and Balaam that Cain didn't do what he did in sinning for
'reward' (definition and synonyms: 'pay for service,' 'hire,' 'wages').
Balaam, however, was clearly enticed to disobey the direct command
of God not to prophesy against God's people by the lure of financial
reward; the Bible states that in Numbers 22, 23, 24, where Balaam
keeps dealing with Balak in defiance of God's order and suggesting
payment (as in 22:18; cp. Is. 29:13) for his services. Cain, on
the other hand, disbelieved God and was moved largely by jealousy
of his brother. There is no mention of finances in Cain's story--certainly
no one 'hired' him to do what he did. Simply applying the usual
interpretative principle that a phrase or clause modifies the noun
nearest it and having considered the actual
events as recorded by Scripture would
have eliminated an error in this case. It's the type of error which
reflects tellingly on your ability to interpret Scripture. It also
casts doubt on your whole doctrine, which, in many ways, is similarly
flawed, being based on equally unsound interpretative principles.
The depth of your error and prejudice is demonstrated by this statement:
'My question is, do Arminians (who believe in a universal atonement)
really have the blood atonement of Christ applied to them individually?
I say no.' What a fantastic statement! Hear the words of the Arminian
John Wesley: 'In the evening I went very unwillingly to a society
in Aldersgate Street, where one was reading Luther's preface to
the Epistle to the Romans. About a quarter before nine, while he
was describing the change which God works in the heart through faith
in Christ, I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust
Christ, Christ alone, for salvation; and an assurance was given
me that he had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from
the law of sin and death.' Compare that statement with this one
made earlier in his same 'Journal of John Wesley': "He said
[speaking to Wesley], 'My brother, I must first ask you one or two
questions. Have you the witness within yourself? Does the Spirit
of God bear witness with your spirit that you are a child of God?'
I was surprised, and knew not what to answer. He observed it and
asked, 'Do you know Jesus Christ?' I paused and said, 'I know He is Saviour of the world'
[emphasis added]. 'True,' replied he, 'but do you know he has saved
you?' I answered, 'I hope He has died to save me.' He only added,
'Do you know yourself?' I said, 'I do.' But I fear they were vain
words." We see in these two instances the unsaved man who doesn't
understand the nature of God's salvation (he mentions his fear and
dread of his being lost repeatedly in this time period in other
places) and then we have contrasted with that the man who, when
presented with the sound interpretation of the salvation of God
by one who believes in His sovereignty (Luther), comes, by God's
grace, to the personal realization of God's salvation of himself
by the blood sacrifice of 'Christ alone,' not as the 'Saviour of
the world,' as the unsaved man put it, but had 'saved me [individually
by His blood] from the law of sin and death.' It seems to me that
no reasonalbe, thinking person could deny that was Wesley's meaning.
This 'Arminian of the Arminians' was a saved man who, on the testimony
of a 'Calvinist,' (to use the term very loosely) came to realize
the gift of saving faith in Jesus Christ given by God: 'assurance
was given me,' testifies Wesley. Whatever his later grievous doctrinal
errors, this man was, by his own compelling testimony, given the
revelation of God which saved people receive. I think it is extremely
dangerous to deny that fact in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Here is another of your errors: 'Cain thought that surely he would
be accepted, but was not, because he made it a matter of 'reward',
and not a gift by grace alone.' Though you've shown no inclination
previously to look at the Bible's clear presentation, I'll say this
again. Cain was 'a tiller of the ground' (Gen. 4:2), while his brother
was a shepherd. Cain brought his own produce to God, not willing
to go to his brother and get an animal worthy of sacrifice BY BLOOD to present
to God, due to jealousy of his brother and disbelief in the direct
revelation of God. The context of these surrounding verses make
it mandatory to believe that God had revealed to both brothers what
was required (blood sacrifice), but that Cain was unwilling to make
the proper sacrifice. Blood is the only accpetable means of salvation--Cain
knew that, surely, having been told of the redemption of God for
his parents after their sin by the clothing them by God with animal
skins (requiring blood), rather than the 'fruit of the ground' (verse
3), leaves, to cover their sin. He failed to heed the direct Word
and the example of God--That is the 'way of Cain.' I repeat my previous
words to you and urge you to consider God's truth as revealed to
you in Scripture, 'Cain's problem, at its root, and in its essence,
wasn't 'religion,' or improper worship, but the fact that he didn't
believe God's revelation to man.' No man, disbelieving God, will
ever be saved, Arminian or not. You, freegrace, are very far from
realizing the truth of the matter, focusing on the wrong things,
giving a false interpretation of the Bible, as well as erring in
your information about what Arminians, such as Wesley, believe.
Subject: Re: Proper understanding of the From: freegrace
To: Rod Date Posted:
Sat, May 13, 2000 at 11:42:30 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Hi Rod, Sorry, maybe I did not make myself very clear - (I said
nothing about money). Coming to God 'for reward' has nothing to
do with money, but is a heart attitude - such as 'If I do such and
such, then God will surely 'reward' me with the blessing (of salvation).
Cain (in type) was the first 'Arminian' who thought God would 'reward
him' with the blessing (for all of his labors, etc). It is approaching
unto God in a humanistic way, by man's own free will - if you please...
etc. 'They take delight in approaching unto God', but really are
not called by God's sovereign grace at all. If they were , they
would submit to the doctrines of election, imputed righteousness,
particular redemption, etc. I say Cain's problem was his false 'religion'
and 'form of worship' which as you correctly say was a result of
not taking heed to God's revelation and God's own Words. regards,
freegrace
Subject: Re: Proper understanding From: Rod To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Sat, May 13, 2000 at 20:30:34 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
freegrace, Sadly, your position has become very clear. Your various
posts of the last several days have confirmed what your previous
ones of the last several weeks have caused us deep suspicion about.
You are either simply unfortunately misled, or deliberately and
willfully ignorant of God's Word, twisting it for your own purposes.
Your doctrinal postion is full of fundamental and serious error
and your teachings are unworthy of serious consideration, except
to warn others about the errors therein. Frankly, you seem to have
ignored, apparently deliberately, evidence that Wesley was saved
and that an outstanding contemporary Calvinist (Whitefield) knew
it; that the clear teaching of the Word is that Cain was motivated
by jealousy, 'the way of Cain,' and the separate 'error of Balaam'
was that he was motivated by "reward," a clear reference
to money, as the word used refers directly to "wages."
Their common error
was simple, direct disobedience of the truth of God, not accepting
His direct revelation to them. Additionally, you have 'blown off'
Pilgrim's well-worded and reasoned replies to you, which are full
of truth and sound advice, offered in a brotherly manner. You have
similarly rejected others' objections to your errors. In short,
you have demonstrated not only an 'unteachability,' but an unworthiness
of serious consideration by your false teaching and doctrinal stance,
because of unsound application of verses taken out of context and
your using your own definitions of what words mean, not bothering
to consider the Spirit's use of them. This is both sad and disconcerting
to me, as I had viewed some of your posts in the past as very thought
provoking and promising in their handling of Scripture. If you have
recently fallen under the 'spell' of some false teaching and cult-like
group, may the Lord see fit to deliver you.
Subject: Re: Proper understanding From: freegrace
To: Rod Date Posted:
Sun, May 14, 2000 at 04:43:48 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Rod, since you are always right, and I am always 'wrong' you tell
me what Romans 10:3 means. OK? Thanks. So far, you or Pilgrim have
not even mentioned this verse that I have refered to several times
now. According to your views, millions of Catholics, etc. who never
submit to God's imputed righteousness by faith alone for their eternal
justification in the sight of God 'will be saved anyway'. If this
is true, then why bother to defend the faith once delivered unto
the saints? Why have this HIGHWAY website? If Arminians who believe
in 'free will' are 'saved anyway' (in their self-righteous ways)
then let's forget about defending Calvinism! The Arminianism that
I was raised in (from a child) never even mentioned imputed righteousness!
If they believed it years ago, they sure don't now! freegrace
Subject: Re: Proper understanding From: Rod To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Sun, May 14, 2000 at 13:08:13 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
freegrace, Your snide remark about my 'always being right' ignores
the fact that you very conveniently ignore every proof that remarks
and assertions you have made are clearly wrong. You have been shown
irrefutably wrong about Wesley and Whitefield--not a word of acceptance
of that proof or any acknowledgement whatsoever. You have been given
other evidences of misinterpretations and you refuse to accept them,
even though the orthodox (small 'o') Christian Church has never
accepted your aberant view of baptism, for example. In short, you
don't want proof or real, sound interpretation, you want 'converts'
to your spurious views. Incidentally, in a post to Eric below, you
'chastize' Wesley for a view of 'baptismal regeneration,' while
you yourself believe that it was true, but
only in passing, that God does change
His mind! That's very inconsistent
to my way of thinking. And basically dishonest to boot. When you
want truthful discussion, I will be glad to have a discussion with
you about the entire thrust of the Book of Romans or any other subject.
Until then, there is no fruit in it. There is no profit when one
wants to 'win' a debate. The only profit is when all seek to honor
God in the search for the actual and absolute truth of His Word.
Subject: Re: Cain and Abel both very religious From: Five Sola
To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Thurs, May 11, 2000 at 10:43:24 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Yes, and interestingly that the judgement passed onto Cain was not
due to not worshiping but worshipping in a non-prescribed way. He
was sincere but wanted to do things in his own way and not the ways
commanded by God. That alone should give us pause. Five Sola
Subject: Bottom Line From: Tom To: All Date Posted:
Sat, May 06, 2000 at 14:52:39 (PDT) Email Address:ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
I was wondering what answer you would give someone who said the
following to you? Bottom Line You know Tom; I don’t want to trivialize
the issue of whole argument of who is correct, Calvinists or Arminians.
To be sure only one can be correct; however, the bottom line to
me is not how one comes to believe. It is whether or not they truly
believe in the first place. John 3:16 is an example of this, Arminian’s
believe one thing about this verse, and Calvinists another. But
one thing both can agree on is belief on the Son is the issue. To
be sure we should study to find out all that this verse says in
the context of the chapter and the rest of scripture. But in the
end the only ones who are saved are the ones who believe. Now if
you want to discuss what it is to believe on the Son, I will discuss
that, because that is the most important aspect. I think easy believism
is the enemy of the Church and should be fought tenaciously. But
I find that when we as believers can not agree to disagree on certain
issues, it becomes very divisive and Satan is well pleased. I believe
you are a brother in the Lord, because based on the things we have
discussed you truly do believe in Jesus. I also believe that there
are certain facets or groups within both Calvinism and Arminian
that are very heretical. But I for the most part believe that most
Calvinists and Arminians are within the pail of orthodoxy.
Subject: Re: Bottom Line From: freegrace
To: Tom Date Posted:
Wed, May 10, 2000 at 14:53:14 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Hi Tom...I think that the situation is more serious than what you
seem to think. If Balaam (Jude 11) just made an 'error' and proved
that he was an apostate, it does not look too good for the Arminian
'brothers' who believe in 'another Jesus' and 'another gospel' and
have 'another spirit'. Those who are deceived by Arminianism (as
I once was) all 'love the Lord' and think that they are 'correct,
and on their way to heaven', etc. There is a way that 'seemeth right'
the Bible says, but in due time , they will be seen to have taught
the 'error of Arminianism'. The bottom line will be the Lord's own
words 'Depart from Me, I never knew you'. freegrace
Subject: Re: Bottom Line From: Rod To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Wed, May 10, 2000 at 15:15:55 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
fg, So we're back to the 'Arminians aren't and can't possibly be
saved' debate, huh? Well, as a former Arminian, I'm here to dispute
your stance. Just because I had an incomplete understanding of the
LORD Jesus in whom I had faith, I nevertheless had saving faith
as 'the gift of God'
though it was not recognized as such at the time. To compare Balaam's
error to the Arminian's who has faith in the Lord Jesus is a very
serious misinterpretation, indeed.
Subject: Re: Bottom Line From: freegrace
To: Rod Date Posted:
Wed, May 10, 2000 at 19:28:38 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
fg, So we're back to the 'Arminians aren't and can't possibly be
saved' debate, huh? Well, as a former Arminian, I'm here to dispute
your stance. Just because I had an incomplete understanding of the
LORD Jesus in whom I had faith, I nevertheless had saving faith
as 'the gift of God'
though it was not recognized as such at the time. To compare Balaam's
error to the Arminian's who has faith in the Lord Jesus is a very
serious misinterpretation, indeed.
--- =========================== I am sure there are some Arminians
that are God's elect, and they will come to see the light in due
time by the leadings of the Spirit of Truth... However, The Arminians
that I knew and worked with did not even believe in the imputed
righteousness of Jesus Christ for justification; are you saying
that these will be saved anyway, even without a certain knowledge
of God's imputed Righteousness? Are they not just 'going about to
establish their own righteousness'..? see Romans 10:3...? This is
more than 'just an error' in doctrine, I think... Are you saying
that God will 'overlook' this ignorance at the day of judgement?
I think not; however, you are free to think what you will. freegrace
Subject: Re: Bottom Line From: Five Sola
To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Thurs, May 11, 2000 at 17:15:18 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Freegrace, I have not read all of this thread and do hope I am not
repeating a point brought up by someone else.... You are confusing
regeneration with sanctification in a sense. An Arminian may be
saved if he truly believes the truths of scripture in his heart
(a distinction Pilgrim brought up I believe) and yet still voice
an incorrect view in his 'mind'. God sanctifies us from our errors
and misunderstandings. Just because God has brought you further
along in that understanding and opened you eyes to His truth much
sooner then an Arminian brother that gives you no right for pride
to codemn the Arminian to Hell. Of course we do need to confront
our mistaken brothers in love and attempt to be a tool of God to
bring them to a better understanding of Him. This forum is a perfect
example. If we as christians were to throw out arminians as unsaved
then the monitors here would remove everone at first glimpse of
heresy, but from what I have witnessed they continue to try and
teach and show the 'brothers' the truth in scripture and if after
a time they prove themselves not to be brothers or just plain unteachable
then they seem to be removed. I think we must remember that not
all are at the same point in their sanctification. I personally
would have voiced many of the same views in Reformed theology as
I do now if a Refomer were to force me to search my answers out,
but on the surface I voiced arminian banter. :-) (I was saved at
the time by the way), but praise God a brother didn't give up on
me and was used as a vessel to open my eyes to a clearer truth.
Five Sola ps. Do you also hold to the common view of those who voice
what you have voiced? That is they say that any Calvinist who thinks
an Arminian can be saved is himself unsaved? are you willing to
throw out most of us as unsaved? I surely hope you don't take on
that heresy. In
Subject: Re: Bottom Line From: Rod To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Wed, May 10, 2000 at 21:41:31 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
fg, I am free to think what I will, and I think, based
on the Scriptures, that one who trusts
the Lord Jesus as his Savior is just that, saved by God, not by
his own righteousness. Every real Christian understands the substitutionary
nature of the cross, having been convicted of sin and recognizing
his need for a Savior, that is a given. No one can do that and trust
his own righteousness. The fact that a Christian may be in serious
error doesn't negate what God does on his behalf. The people you
are speaking of are not 'Arminians,' the term itself assuming one
is a believer in Christ. If one is an unbeliever, he is a lost person,
not an 'Arminian.' These are the people you are describing, the
lost. That they may profess to be Christians doesn't change that.
Though I hate his doctrine generally, I'm not prepared to put John
Wesley in that 'lost' catagory and neither, for example, was the
great George Whitefield. You wrote, 'Are you saying that God will
'overlook' this ignorance at the day of judgement?' Please don't
put ridiculous words in my mouth. I'm certain there are Baptists
or Presbyterians, for example, who are lost, but when we discuss
them, we generally assume their salvation. (I might point out that
most Baptists I've met are only '2 or 3 pointers,' not buying all
the aspects of sovereign grace.) Sadly, many Presbyterians have
gone the same way.
Subject: Whitefield Letter to Wesley From: freegrace
To: Rod Date Posted:
Thurs, May 11, 2000 at 07:44:57 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
The way I understand it, Whitefield preached sound doctrine, Wesley
did not. Surely you are not saying that it makes no difference,
as long as they 'preach Jesus' etc. - both of theses men are 'saved
anyway'...? See Whitefield's Letter to Wesley at the link posted.
freegrace Letter from Whitefield to Wesley www.geocities.com/Heartland/9170/WHITE1.HTM
Subject: Re: Whitefield Letter to Wesley From: Rod To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Thurs, May 11, 2000 at 13:32:54 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
fg, You wrote, 'Surely you are not saying that it makes no difference,
as long as they 'preach Jesus' etc. - both of theses men are 'saved
anyway'...?' I've asked you previously not to put words into my
mouth, please don't ignore that request
again. It's not only rude, it's unfair
to do so, and unworthy of your intelligence. For the record, I do
regard Wesley as a saved man, based on reading several of his writings,
though, as I say, I disagree with and hate much of his doctrine.
I am equally certain that Whitefield regarded him as a brother also,
doing all he could to avoid a split among the brothers over the
issue of sovereign grace. I have read that letter before, but I
question whether you've ever read it carefully. In addition to Pilgrim's
remarks below, I would point out several things to you: 1) There
is nothing in the letter to indicte that Wesley isn't saved, and
every evidence to the contrary; 2) When Paul rebuked Peter for unsound
doctrine and error of practice, he wrote this about the incident--''But
when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because
he was to be blamed' (Gal. 2:11). He was 'to be blamed,' because
he was mistaken, not deserving to be damned to hell!; 3) Though
Whitefield is greatly saddened by the turn Wesley has taken, he
refers to him in friendship and addresses him as 'dear sir,' and
'dear Mr. Wesley,' far beyond the convention of the day for such
things; 4) the conclusion of the letter is most revealing. In it
Whitefield refers to Wesley as a 'brother' in the faith of Jesus
Christ, 'Yours affectionate, though unworthy brother and servant
in Christ, George Whitefield.' And be certain, freegrace, to read
the paragraph preceding that closing, which nails the issue down:
'There, I am persuaded, I shall see dear Mr. Wesley convinced of
election and everlasting love. And it often fills me with pleasure
to think how I shall behold you casting your crown down at the feet
of the Lamb, and as it were filled with a holy blushing for opposing
the divine sovereignty in the manner you have done.' Whitefiled
expects to see Wesley in the presence of the Lord Jesus Christ with
other saved men and women, doing what the saved will do, casting
their crowns at His beloved feet! Hardly the position of a lost
man, I'd say. You are wrong on this and some other issues, freegrace.
I say that without fear of contradiction, based on the evidence
presented and the Scriptures. I urge you to do two things. First,
carefully re-examine your principles of interpretation and stop
seizing on bits and pieces of Scripture and other writings. Second,
re-read Pilgrim's post below, particularly the last paragraph. That's
some very good advice and well-meant, as is this.
Subject: Re: Whitefield Letter to Wesley From: Pilgrim
To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Thurs, May 11, 2000 at 11:33:10 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
freegrace,
It is sad to read your view concerning
the salvation of men. No one here, to the best of my knowledge,
at least the 'regulars' would deny that doctrine is important, and
even essential. And it is also true that if one TRULY BELIEVES heresy,
depending upon what that heresy is, they cannot be saved. But as
I have laboured on many occasions on this forum to explain, due
to the sin nature which we have ALL inherited, there is inconsistency
between what one TRULY BELIEVES in his/her heart and what is held
to be true in the head. I would be the first to agree that IF one who holds to Semi-Pelagianism
(what is currently considered Arminianism) or historic Arminianism
theologically TRULY BELIEVES that it was 'their faith' that is the
proximate CAUSE of their salvation, then they are lost. It is also
true that it is often most difficult to discern what a person TRULY
BELIEVES, and thus it is prudent to not try and judge a person's
heart in these matters, but to leave that to the Living God, Who
will judge all men by His own standard which is Christ Jesus and
His righteousness. What we should do, however, is to warn every
man of the dangers entailed in holding to these unbiblical views.
Lastly, in regards to Whitefield's letter to John Wesley: Whitefield
wrote what he did with a broken heart and great humility to a man
whom he greatly admired for his godliness. The issue was 'Election'
and NOT Wesley's salvation, for it was Whitefield's solemn belief
that John Wesley was a true child of God and was in fact, 'in Christ'.
For when he was asked if he thought he would see John Wesley in
heaven, his reply was something to the affect, 'No, I don't think
I will. Because Mr. Wesley will be so far to the front in the throng
of worshippers that I won't be able to see him.' Apparently and
obviously, George Whitefield had a totally different conviction
concerning John Wesley's salvation than you do. I would exhort you
to consider from whence you came and why you are no longer there.
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Whitefield Letter to Wesley From: freegrace
To: Pilgrim and
All Date Posted:
Fri, May 12, 2000 at 08:47:57 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Pilgrim, Of course we all can hope that Wesley was a saved man,
but from what he taught and believed, we have good reason to doubt
his salvation. You defend Calvinism and the doctrines of grace so
well, and then turn abound and seem to say that 'people will be
saved anyway' - even if they embrace a false gospel that does not
even teach God's election and imputed Righteousness (for their eternal
justification). Sorry, I just don't understand that. In Romans chapter
ten, Paul gave no assurance or hope to those who (as Arminians and
many others do today) only had a 'zeal for God', but were just going
about to esatblish their own righteousness, and were really ignorant
of God's imputed Righteousness. Those of us who are truly converted
from Arminianism have come to realize that we were really *lost
Arminians*...going about to 'esatablish own own righteousness in
the sight of God' - just as those Paul speak about in Romans 10:3.
Now i count all my 'good works' as DEAD works, and only dung in
the sight of God. The doctrine of God's imputed righteousness is
the most important part of the true Gospel of sovereign Grace! Those
are are found to be without this covering are still lost, sad to
say. freegrace
Subject: Re: Whitefield Letter to Wesley From: Pilgrim
To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Fri, May 12, 2000 at 13:08:17 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
freegrace,
I perceive that you are greatly
confused concerning salvation. You have many of the right 'words
and terms' but apparently you haven't learned how they all fit together
biblically. I will give you a clear example from a statement you
made above: 'even if they embrace a false
gospel that does not even teach God's election and imputed Righteousness
(for their eternal justification).' The
doctrine of 'Election' Sola Gratia is an entirely different matter than 'imputed righteousness'
Sola Fide. Do
I need remind you that historic Arminianism, that which was presented
at Dortrecht by the 'Remonstrants' firmly held to an Imputed Righteousness?
You are making sweeping and false accusations against many who are
innocent of what you claim they believe. This smacks of a prideful
sectarianism; that which I love to coin as the 'Elijah Syndrome'.
For it was in WEAKNESS of faith that Elijah cried unto God, 'I have been very jealous for the LORD God of hosts:
because the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, thrown
down thine altars, and slain thy prophets with the sword; and I,
even I only, am left;' (IKgs 19:10). Do
you seriously believe that heaven and thereafter the New Heaven
and New Earth will be solely populated with nothing but 'Calvinists'?
You arrogantly protest that George Whitefield, who knew John and
Charles Wesley personally for many years was mistaken about Wesley's
salvation. This would be rather comical if it weren't so pitiful,
for there is little doubt that George Whitefield was far more of
a Calvinist and understood the doctrines of grace far beyond what
you comprehend of the grace of God. Mr. Whitefield, albeit reluctantly,
contended for the doctrines of grace, in particular the doctrine
of election, publicly with John Wesley for several years. Yet, he
was convinced with an unwavering assurance that his opponent in
the matter of the doctrine of election was not only saved, but a
man who excelled in godliness and passion for sinners in excess
of his own. Brother, you have allowed a spirit of pride and judgmentalism
to be your guide. And no doubt much of this has come from those
web sites which you have referred us to and of which I have taken
the time to visit. What I saw there was shameful in part, for they
are 'gods' unto themselves and speak as if all others are of the
Devil. Praise God that His GRACE is sufficient to save the vilest
of sinner, even those who never come to understand and/or embrace
the blessed doctrine of Divine and Sovereign Election. May I strongly
suggest you cease this 'straining of gnats' for you may indeed end
up choking on a camel. Abraham Kuyper was another outspoken defender
of what we call Calvinism but this is what he said about 'Arminians'
and their ultimate salvation:
'Religion on earth
finds its highest expression in the act of prayer. But Calvinism
in the Christian Church is simply that tendency which makes
a man assume the same attitude toward God in his profession
and life which he exhibits in prayer. There is no Christian,
be he Lutheran or Baptist, Methodist or Greek, whose prayer
is not thoroughly Calvinistic; no child of God, to whatever
Church organization he may be- long, but in his prayer he gives
glory to God above and renders thanks to his Father in heaven
for all the grace working in him, and acknowledges that the
eternal love of God alone has, in the face of his resistance,
drawn him out of darkness into light. On his knees before God
everyone that has been saved will recognize the sole efficiency
of the Holy Spirit in every good work performed, and will acknowledge
that without the atoning grace of Him who is rich in mercies,
he would not exist for a moment, but would sink away in guilt
and sin. In a word, whoever truly prays ascribes nothing to
his own will or power except the sin that condemns him before
God, and knows of nothing that could endure the judgment of
God except it be wrought in him by divine love. But whilst all
other tendencies in the Church preserve this attitude as long
as the prayer lasts, to lose themselves in radically different
conceptions as soon as the Amen has been pronounced, the Calvinist
adheres to the truth of his prayer, in his confession, in his
theology, in his life, and the Amen that has closed his petition
re-echoes in the depth of his consciousness and throughout the
whole of his existence.'
I have little doubt that there
are a goodly number of men, women and children, although their numbers
be small when compared to the whole, who profess with their mouths
what we call 'Arminianism' but believe in sovereign grace and in
the efficacious blood of the Lord Jesus Christ no less than you
or I do in their 'heart of hearts'. If you are not careful brother,
it will be these very same brethren, who you have consigned to everlasting
hell who will be YOUR judge at the last day. God's ways are NOT
your ways! 'Wherefore let him that thinketh
he standeth take heed lest he fall.'(1Cor 10:12).
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Whitefield Letter to Wesley From: freegrace To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Sat, May 13, 2000 at 14:54:46 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message: Pilgrim...Now *you* speak as an Arminian! Are you
saying that I might 'fall from grace' and become lost? It sounds
that way, brother. Also, I have consigned no one to hell. The Scriptures
alone can do that, and the Word of Christ will judge all men in
that day. All I have said is, that all those who do not have God's
imputed righteousness (for their eternal justification in the sight
of God) are lost. Those who go about to establish their own righteousness
Romans 10:3 are lost - that is what Paul says, so I must agree with
the apostle Paul! freegrace
Subject: Re: Whitefield Letter to Wesley From: Pilgrim
To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Sat, May 13, 2000 at 16:33:16 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
freegrace,
You would accuse me of 'speaking
like an Arminian'? You would deduce from what I said that one can
'fall from grace'? No wonder you write such things; evidently not
having the ability to comprehend even the simplest things. But to
your unwarranted judgment concerning Mr. Wesley, can you show me
where the godly John Wesley ever denied 'Imputed Righteousness'?
And if not, he shall be indeed as his brother George Whitefield
was confident to say, 'In the front of the throng of heaven, singing
praises to God.'
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: wrong! From: Five Sola
To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Sat, May 13, 2000 at 16:17:41 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Freegrace, Don't mix up your words! If all you said was 'All I have
said is, that all those who do not have God's imputed righteousness
(for their eternal justification in the sight of God) are lost',
then everyone on this site would have agreed with you. What you
have tried to twist the Bible into saying is that only those who
understand justification as imputed are saved... well actually you
haven't said that (because Arminians believe in imputed righteousness).
You have tried to say that those who do not understand the Reformed
view of salvation are unsaved. If you are going to try and defend
your extreme view at least be consistent in it. Five Sola Ps. I
ask again... do you also hold (as most in your 'camp') that even
those who are Reformed and think Arminians can be saved are themselves
unsaved???
Subject: Re: wrong! From: freegrace
To: Five Sola
Date Posted:
Sun, May 14, 2000 at 04:34:20 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Sorry....I never used the word 'understand'. All those (Calvinist
or Arminian) who are not declared to be righteous by faith alone
(by God's imputed righteousness) will be lost. In other words, self-righteous
'Christians' are really lost and not saved at all. I did not say
that there is 'no hope for them', or that they never could become
saved. It is that simple, because the Bible declares that to be
so. Romans 10:3. freegrace
Subject: I agree! From: Five Sola
To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Sun, May 14, 2000 at 19:53:34 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
'All those who are not declared to be righteous by faith alone (by
God's imputed righteousness) will be lost. In other words, self-righteous
'Christians' are really lost and not saved at all. ' Amen! I agree
as I imagine all on this forum do with that statement. Where lies
your error is in saying Arminians do not believe in imputed righteousness.
In that you have the burden to show the proof that Arminians do
not hold to that (in their hearts). Five Sola
Subject: Re: I agree! From: laz To: Five Sola
Date Posted:
Mon, May 15, 2000 at 13:30:43 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
I always believed in imputed righteousness, even as an unweary Arminian...in
fact, the only difference between me NOW and THEN is that I now
understand that the imputation was purely the result of unconditional grace (thru
faith of course)...and not applied synergistically. The end result
is the same....proper (but never perfect) faith in Christ's atoning
work can be made efficacious by the Spirit despite a flawed soteriology.
laz
Subject: Re: I agree! From: freegrace
To: laz Date Posted:
Mon, May 15, 2000 at 14:35:44 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
I always believed in imputed righteousness, even as an unweary Arminian...in
fact, the only difference between me NOW and THEN is that I now
understand that the imputation was purely the result of unconditional grace (thru
faith of course)...and not applied synergistically. The end result
is the same....proper (but never perfect) faith in Christ's atoning
work can be made efficacious by the Spirit despite a flawed soteriology.
laz
--- ================= Laz, the reason you got it right is, you
are 'wired'... and others are not.... :-) fg
Subject: Re: Whitefield Letter to Wesley From: Eric To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Thurs, May 11, 2000 at 09:02:35 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
So you are saying that one must have perfect doctrine to be saved?
If not, where do you draw the line? And, can you give a scripture
reference to support that line. If I am not mistaken, you neglect
a sacrament instituted by the Lord Christ himself, and yet nobody
here questions your salvation because of it. I have yet to meet
an Arminian who denys salvation by grace alone. They may be illogical
in their views, but that does not mean that they aren't saved. And,
I have met some Calvinists who profess sound doctrine, but show
no fruits of salvation in their lives. God bless.
Subject: Re: Whitefield Letter to Wesley From: freegrace
To: Eric Date Posted:
Fri, May 12, 2000 at 08:53:45 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Hi Eric, Yes you are correct; we shall know them by their fruit.
However, I would think that my view of the one baptism of the Spirit
as Paul taught it in Ephesians is more scriptural (and safe) than
Wesley's view of baptismal regeneration! Best regards, freegrace
Subject: This joke seems applicable..... From: Anne To: Eric Date Posted:
Thurs, May 11, 2000 at 11:24:33 (PDT) Email Address:anneivy@home.com
Message:
Y'all have probably heard it, but I just read it today: I was walking
across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about
to jump off. So I ran over and said, 'Stop! Don't do it!' He said,
'Why shouldn't I?' I said, 'Well, there's so much to live for.'
He said, 'Like what?' I said, 'Well, are you religious or atheist?'
He said, 'Religious.' I said, 'Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?'
He said, 'Christian.' I said, 'Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?'
He said, 'Protestant.' I said, 'Me too! Are you Episcopalian or
Baptist?' He said, 'Baptist!' I said, ' Me too! Are you Baptist
Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?' He said, 'Baptist
Church of God!' I said, 'Me too! Are you original Baptist Church
of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?' He said, 'Reformed
Baptist Church of God!' I said, 'Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist
Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of
God, reformation of 1915?' He said, 'Reformed Baptist Church of
God, reformation of 1915!' I said, 'Die, heretic!', and I pushed
him off.
Subject: Re: This joke seems applicable..... From: Rod To: Anne Date Posted:
Thurs, May 11, 2000 at 13:34:25 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
Hey, Anne, I hadn't heard that one before! And I didn't know there
were so many sorts of 'Baptists.'
Subject: The hole point is... From: Bro. Charles
To: Rod Date Posted:
Sat, May 20, 2000 at 01:48:36 (PDT) Email Address:BNFLD3@juno.com
Message:
What I think this 'joke' (I don't think it is funny) is trying to
say is that a lot of us nit-pick on every little detail. Saying
that anyone who disagrees with our beliefs is wrong and are going
to burn in hell (although that is an extreme case). We don't say
that out right but some times that message is conveyed. Especially
when it comes between the Calvinist and the Armenian views.
Subject: Re: The hole point is... From: laz To: Bro. Charles
Date Posted:
Sat, May 20, 2000 at 17:49:50 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
BC - if you ask me, ArmInians have never had it better on this 'reformed' website
than in the last week! Us Calvinists have been cutting them all
kinds of slack! LOL! laz
Subject: Kinds of Baptist..... From: Five Sola
To: Rod Date Posted:
Thurs, May 11, 2000 at 17:52:51 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Rod, Well growing up Baptist I can tell you that's only the start.
:-) I can name at least a dozen or so, but as a Presbyterian I can't
say too much since we are sometimes called 'Split P's' :-) Five
Sola
Subject: Re: Kinds of Baptist..... From: Rod To: Five Sola
Date Posted:
Thurs, May 11, 2000 at 19:45:53 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
Hi, Five Sola, I'd heard of some different Baptists, but I know
a few Primitives by cyber-space, and I was a Southern for a time
and have been around the SBC types all my life, they dominating
the little community where I grew up and some others where I have
lived. As for the 'Split P's,' :>) it seems that any group which
has been around for a time has split, often more than once. That's
probably just a sad fact of our depravity, unfortunately. Christians
seem to have a harder time getting along than 'regular people.'
:>) I suppose we forget our goal: '...but speaking the truth
in love, may grow up into him in all things, who is the head, even
Christ; from whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted
by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual
working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body
unto the edifying of itself in love' (Eph. 4:15-16). The example
of Whitefield and Wesley we've been batting around demonstrates
the problem.
Subject: Re: This joke seems applicable..... From: Anne To: Rod Date Posted:
Thurs, May 11, 2000 at 13:37:16 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message: I hadn't heard that one before! And I didn't
know there were so many sorts of 'Baptists.' Glad
it wasn't redundant for at least one person here! And I didn't know
that about Baptists, either. So much I don't know! Ciao! Anne
Subject: Re: This joke seems applicable..... From: freegrace
To: Anne Date Posted:
Sun, May 14, 2000 at 05:20:07 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Hi Anne, the joke was really out of place here, I think. May I ask
you, what righteousness are you trusting in for *your* justification,
your own, or God's imputed righteousness? It has to be one or the
other, the two can not be mixed together... God bless you. freegrace
Subject: Re: Bottom Line From: laz To: Rod Date Posted:
Thurs, May 11, 2000 at 06:17:28 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
...'many Presbyterians'?
Being one...I believe MOST presbyterians have gone astray.... blessings,
laz
Subject: Re: Bottom Line From: Rod To: Tom Date Posted:
Sat, May 06, 2000 at 17:27:01 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
Tom, The first thing I'd say is 'Quit trying to weasel out of the
debate!' :>) Not really. While it is true that 'whosoever believeth
shall not persish but have everlasting life' and that is the starting
point of the Christian life, it is not true that we can simply stop
there and not mature in the faith. Both Arminians and Calvinists
can't possibly be right. Both may be wrong in a few, or many, respects,
but I don't think the sovereign grace position is wrong at all,
being the only one to let God be God. If God gave us His entire
revealed Word, with the 'hard' passages included, did He not intend
to have us understand it? Particularly since He has given us His
Holy Spirit with the accompanying promise that He will guide us
into 'all truth?' (see John 16:7-8; 13-15). Now if that is true,
and it is NO LESS a believable promise than John 3:16 , or
any other promise of the Lord God, on
what basis do we say that we can't agree, if we are believers each,
and each indwelt by the Spirit of God, that Spirit of promise? Isn't
it incumbent on us to constantly seek the truth on all issues pertaining
to God and His Word and to seek to understand all He has given us?
The only reason that we can't agree is that someone, or everyone
involved in a theological disagreement, isn't truly open to the
leadership of God's Spirit and the revelation of the Word. Frankly,
there is no excuse not to seek resolution in this matter, no reason
that the truth can't be found by spiritual people. Do I expect all
Christians to agree? No. Do I expect all Christians to diligently
seek the Spirit of God's guidance into 'all truth?' Yes, I do. I
don't think the Arminians have done that realistically. I say that
as a former Arminain, whom God has delivered from that error.
Subject: Dr. Boice. From: Five Sola
To: All Date Posted:
Sat, May 06, 2000 at 12:10:21 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Dear friends, This is NOT theological in manner but I ask the monitor's
here be patient with me in this post. I have just been informed
(through a cancellation of his speaking scheduled at my church)
that Dr. James Montegomery Boice has been diagnosed with liver cancer.
We need to lift this hero of the faith up in prayer. His ministry
has impacted many of us and if God decides to take him home then
Dr. Boice with be missed. Thank you for your prayers in this matter.
Five Sola
Subject: ACE Update on the Web re Dr. Boice From: Theo To: Five Sola
Date Posted:
Sat, May 06, 2000 at 15:21:30 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Greetings: This is a Web site provided by ACE that has information
about Dr. Boice: Dr. Boice update I certainly
share your feeling about Dr. Boice and pray God's healing on him.
In Christ the King, Theo
Subject: Re: Dr. Boice. From: Pilgrim
To: Five Sola
Date Posted:
Sat, May 06, 2000 at 12:53:47 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Five Sola,
Thank you for making this news
known to us. Without doubt Dr. Boice has been a mighty man of God
over the years in making the wonders of God's sovereign grace known
throughout the world. It was my privilege back in 1978 to hear him
lecture in Wheaton, Ill. at a 'Presbyterian Conference on Reformed
Theology'and I was greatly blessed by him. Further, I was able to
hear him preach several times at his home church 'Tenth Presbyterian
Church' in Philadelphia some years later, and again I was deeply
moved by this man's exposition of the Scriptures. May the Lord uphold
him and all his family as he struggles through this difficult time
in his life. I sometimes express my own weakness of faith when I
hear of such things in that I wonder who will step up to take such
a man's place once they have gone to be with the Lord. But invariably
the LORD raises up another Elisha to herald the truth of Christ
in His own time for the edification of the saints and for the calling
of sinners to the Lord Christ to receive remission of sins. I would
encourage you to post this information in the Prayer Forum also,
as that is what it is intended for. :-)
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Quiz for our Arminian Friends From: Tom To: All Date Posted:
Thurs, May 04, 2000 at 13:02:19 (PDT) Email Address:ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Hi I found this quiz at another site, and thought it would be interesting
to post it here. A Quiz For Your Arminian Friends, by Jay Banks
Eph. 1:11 ...[W]ho [God] worketh all things after the counsel of
His will. Q. If God works all things after the counsel of His will,
how much does He work to the will of you, me, Satan, etc.? A. None.
B. 20% C. 50% D. 85% Is. 14:24 Jehovah of hosts hath sworn, saying
, Surely, as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I
have purposed, so shall it stand. Q. How much of what He wants to
come to pass, doesn’t? A. All of His thoughts will come to pass
B. Some of His thoughts will not come to pass C. A few of His thoughts
will not come to pass D. A lot of His thoughts will not come to
pass Rom. 8:29 For whom He foreknew, He also foreordained to be
conformed to to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn
among many bretheren: and whom He foreordained, them He also called:
and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom He justified,
them He also glorified. Q. How many do you think have been called,
justified, or glorified that He did not first foreknow or foreordain?
A. Write in your answer: ___________________ John 10:14 I am the
good shepherd; and I know my own, and mine own know me, even as
the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father; and I lay down my
life for the sheep. Q. Where does this scripture say that Jesus
laid down his life for the sheep and the goats A. It doesn’t B.
It doesn’t, but I just know He meant the goats, too John 6:65 No
man can come unto me, except it be given unto him of the Father.
Q. How many come to Jesus that were not first given to him by the
Father? A. 0 B. 5,000 C. 5,000,000 D. 10,000,000 John 6:37 All that
the Father giveth me shall come unto me Q. How many that the Father
gave Him will not come to Him? A. Two B. A couple of thousand C.
A couple of million D. Trick question, it says they will all come
unto him John 10:28 I [Jesus] give unto them the (true followers,
or ‘sheep’) eternal life; and they shall never perish, and no one
shall snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who hath given them
unto me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them
out of the Father’s hand. Q. How many sheep do you think have been
snatched from either God’s or Jesus’ hands? A. None B. 50,000 C.
500,000 D. 1,000,000 Rev. 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth
shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life
of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Rev. 20:15 And
whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into
the lake of fire. Q. Considering this, and other related scripture,
God having to blot out a name from the book of life would mean:
A. God makes mistakes. B. Some have been snatched from Jesus’ hands?
C. God didn’t know that some of His sheep were really goats. D.
None of the above. Q. Could a person whose name was written in the
book of life from the foundation of the world not have become a
Christian (or have saving faith in God if born before Jesus)? A.
No B. Yes C. This confuses me, but I’m going to believe the Bible.
D. This confuses me, and I’m going to pretend this isn’t in the
Bible (be honest). Matt. 13 10 And the disciples came, and said
unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? 11 He answered
and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries
of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. Q. Jesus
himself declared that one of the reasons why He spoke in parables
was that the truth might be concealed from whom it was not intended.
Is this fair? A. No. B. Yes. C. Who are we to question God? D. I’m
going to pretend I didn’t see that verse. Rom. 8:28 To them that
love God all things work together for good, even to them that are
called according to His purpose. Q. How many things do not work
for the good of those who love God? A. 10% of all things B. 40%
of all things C. 85% of all things D. Trick question, the Bible
says all things work for the good of those who love Him Mark 14:30
And Jesus said unto him (Peter), Verily I say unto thee, that thou,
today, even this night before the **** crow twice shall deny me
thrice. Questions: A. Could Peter not have denied Jesus three times
before the **** crowed twice? Answer here: ____________________________
B. Did Jesus make Peter deny him, or did Peter do it of his own
free will? Answer here: ____________________________ Exodus 4:11
[God Himself asks the rhetorical question] Who gave man his mouth?
Who makes him deaf or dumb? Who gives him his sight or makes him
blind? Is it not I the Lord? Q. Is this fair? A. Yes. B. No. C.
Who are we to question God? D. I’m going to pretend this isn’t in
the Bible.
Subject: Re: Quiz for our Arminian Friends From: Ambassador
To: Tom Date Posted:
Tues, May 23, 2000 at 14:03:57 (PDT) Email Address:do_a_uturn@hotmail.com
Message:
That's very funny (and true) where did it come from? I would like
to know the name of the guy who wrote that. (If I could send a hand
shake through the E-mail I would)
Subject: Re: Quiz for our Arminian Friends From: freegrace
To: Tom Date Posted:
Sun, May 14, 2000 at 10:37:08 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Tom...Why give them a quiz about their Bible doctrine? They are
all going to be 'saved anyway' according to almost everyone here
at this forum. freegrace
Subject: Re: Quiz for our Arminian Friends From: Tom To: freegrace
Date Posted:
Sun, May 14, 2000 at 14:56:56 (PDT) Email Address:ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Freegrace I don't know what posts you have read. But nobody at least
on this board that I am aware of, believes that all Arminian's are
going to be saved. If that is what you got from their posts, you
better read them again! Tom
Subject: Good One!!! N/T From: GRACE2Me
To: Tom Date Posted:
Thurs, May 04, 2000 at 15:04:14 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Subject: The 'problem' of church government From: Rod To: All Date Posted:
Wed, May 03, 2000 at 21:22:41 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
To all: These remarks were directed to me in a thread below by Pilgrim:
'Perhaps you would be so kind as to begin a new thread, if you are
so inclined, to start a discussion on church government?' Well,
brother Pilgrim, my first reaction was to say, 'Well, thanks a lot!'
This is really a 'hot topic' and I'm not at all certain I want to
be the one to kick it off! :>) But you were so nice in the way
you asked, and in your remarks prefacing the new topic, that I became
'inclined' to delve into the subject. And all the more so after
I read Iain Murray's article. You see, as Murray indicated he was,
and Plgrim has indicated he is, I am hesitant to say that I have
all the answers on this topic as well. I do have some ideas that
I'm convinced are Biblical, but there is room for doubt on others.
(I commend the Murrary article to all for consideration, reluctance,
doubts, and all. :>)) I should say, by way of introduction, for
those who are unaware, I am of the opinion that the 'Brethren' are
the most correct that I have seen in following the Biblical model.
That isn't to say that they are perfect in their application of
church govt., but I think their model is very good. I should also
stress that, in that system (and in my belief system), there is
no 'clergy' or 'laity.' ___________ In the face of all this hesitancy
by myself, and by others more godly and more learned than myself,
is there anything which can be generalized and said with certainty
about 'elders?' I believe there are some things. Foremost among
them is this: An elder 'rules' or 'governs.' As simple as that sounds,
it becomes most complex when one attempts to define the type of
leadership entailed. Personally, I think it is a a leadership which
must be founded on the fundamental principle that these men must
be appointed by God to the role. As such, they are sort of 'federal
heads,' in the sense that they are 'spiritual' and, therefore, qualified
by God to make decisions and to provide leadership in the name of
the entire assembly. They are in tune with God's Word and submissive
to His will and leadership, never forgetting that 'Christ is the
head of the Church' (Eph. 4:15; 5:23; Col. 1:18). Such people, identified
and appointed by God's leading, the assembly will have no trouble
submitting to, even as a godly wife has no trouble submitting to
a husband who is seeking with all his heart to serve His Lord. A
great many problems within the churches could be solved if the local
churches made absolutely certain men of God's choosing were made
elders--and those of God's choosing alone! A community leader might
not be the kind of man God wants in His office! And the local assembly
must understand the 'principle of submission.' If these men are
God's leadership choices and they are spiritual men, then they will,
necessarily, make choices and decisions which will be 'right' for
the church. It's a high calling, but one which can't be forgotten,
either by the elders or by the rest of the congregation. Another
generalizaton I think we can make is that all elders must be 'teachers.'
If the qualification is that they be 'apt to teach,' isn't it necessary
that they should be expected to teach? The question becomes, are
all elders to be preachers and teachers in the pulpit? That is something
which I'm not fully persuaded about yet. I tend to think that some
may be more adept in the 'witnessing' arena than in the formal pulpit
ministry. They can give 'an answer' for their faith both well and
decisively when the circumstances call for it, whether in personal
evangelism or in dealing with questions and challenges from those
outside the Church of Jesus Christ. Yet another area about which
we can be certain, to my way of thinking, is in that there must
be a plurality of elders. There are some texts which indicate that
more than one elder existed in each local church of the NT. One
which comes most readily to mind is Titus 1:5, where it is not 'an
elder for every church,' but 'elders in every city.' Acts 14:23
seems to be even more definite: 'And when they had ordained elders
in every church....' Other passages support this conclusion. _____________
Who is to rule or lead among the elders? Is one specific or particular
person to rule over the elders? We're now getting into a hard area.
Is there to be one 'pastor,' 'THE pastor,' who is to be the 'head
shed,' the CEO of the local church? I say emphatically, NO! For one thing,
the word translated 'pastor' is an obscure one whose meaning is
not entirely clear. It is so translated rarely, most often being
rendered 'shepherd.' The main job of the shepherd is 'care of the
flock,' it is true, but a 'pastor,' can also be easily said to be
the one who does what the root of the word suggests, 'to provide
pasturage' (spiritual nourishment). In Eph. 4:11 the word 'pastors'
is so closely and intimately linked with 'teachers' that they seem
to be welded inseparably together. It is no doubt significant in
this respect that the shepherd of that part of the world in that
day 'led forth' his sheep and took them where they could graze and
drink the 'still waters' rather than driving them. It seems doubtless
significant also that the words of the Lord Jesus bear directly
on this subject: 'But Jesus called them to him and saith unto them,
Ye know that they who are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise
lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon
them. But so shall it not be among you; but whosoever would be great
among you, shall be your minister; and whosoever of you would be
the chiefest, shall be servant of all' (Mark 19:43-44). Could that
be why Peter, who is the acknowledged unofficial 'leader' among
the Apostles, refused to stand on his apostleship in his epsitle,
instead referring to himself as a fellow 'elder' in 1 Peter 5:1,
rather than insisting on his apostleship? I think that's at least
part of the reason. ___________ The reason for the strong leader,
'THE pastor.' For this I have to rely on observation and speculation
and evidnece outside the Bible. We really have no answer from the
Scriptures. It seems that many people want a 'strongman,' a person
who has dictator-like qualities in leadership in the local church.
Part of the reason, I suspect is that it's just easier to let someone
who's willing take the charge and do the work. After all, if a person
is willing to take the leadership and the responsibility, it absolves
others of the duties that they might not relish. That some people
are naturally inclined to take that role and to 'get the job done'
makes the acquiesence in that pattern easier. Yet the Biblical example
seems to argue against that sort of thing. Turning again to the
passage of Eph. 4:11-16, we find a cooperation between the various
offices and the membership of the body of Christ. We see that nothing
is to be done exclusively by or for the individual, but that all
things are to be done to 'edifying' of the body due to 'the effectual
working in the measure of every part' (verse 16). It is 'easy' to
fall into the trap of letting a strong natural leader take charge
and forge ahead, but it is contrary to the pattern of the Lord.
With the passing of the Apostles and the fading away in their lifetime
of the apostolic gifts, the Bible really doesn't tell us a great
deal about exactly how
the local churches were governed, but there seems to be nothing
to support the 'CEO mentality.' Likewise, it's also easy to do things
as the world does them. A strong leader in business is the norm
in a successful endeavor. Why not do it that way in the church?
After all, it's effective in getting things done, right? I need
not point out the fallacies inherent in regarding spiritual things
as the world sees things. Another factor to consider is that many
local churches hire 'the pastor' to be a Christian for them, a substitute.
He is a sort of 'hired man' to do what the membership is supposed
to do. He is to do all the preaching and teaching, preside over
the business of the church, counsel anyone who needs it, visit the
sick, be diligent and constant in prayer, slap backs, attend luncheons
and dinners, drive the van or bus when necessary, etc.. After all,
it's been said, he's paid to be good and the rest of the people
are 'good for nothing!' (I have actually heard a pastor say that
proudly!) ____________ Murray argues that multiple preachers and
teachers can be rather chaotic. And that is true. When I was preaching
and teaching in a 'Brethren' assembly, I was often frustrated that
I couldn't achieve continuity, not being given a 'block of time,'
to develop a particular topic, but limited to one message at a time
on a rotational basis. But, it was also a good thing not to be 'under
the gun' all the time to preach every time the doors opened, so
that I could read, pray, and study, as well as have some family
time. I can tell you that, for me at least, message preparation
was intense and long work, involving prayer, research, and a lot
of Bible reading. Possibly ideally, shared duties in the pulpit
and in teaching could be done with one person developing a topic
and carrying it through, then relinquishing the duty for a time
to prepare more and let another develop a subject on his own. I
do think the 'shared' approach can be carried too far; that there
can be too many teachers. If a local assembly really has that many
good preachers, it seems likely that God will see fit to move some
of them to where they're needed more. Actually, if there are some
very good preachers and some who are merely mediocore, some should
be encouraged to step aside. In our assembly some men who had been
teaching recognized that they should allow others to take up the
duties and stepped back voluntarily. The body of elders should be
very careful to make certain that the congregation is receiving
the best in Word ministry which is available, it's my conviction.
The revelation of the Lord God to His people would seem to be, necessarily,
the heart of the worship of a local church, the basis on which the
other activities thrive because of sound teaching and preaching.
One Bible teacher once said that every church should be (among other
things, of course) 'a theological school.' I think that is a sound
presumption.
Subject: Re: The 'problem' of church government From: Pilgrim
To: Rod Date Posted:
Thurs, May 04, 2000 at 07:51:34 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Rod,
Well said brother. I am not a
'Brethren' but neither am I officially a Presbyterian. I am a 'Vacillitarian',
hahaha. There is little that I could disagree with in what you wrote,
but there is a little. And those things are simply in the area of
application or perception rather than in the fundamental principles
of which you set forth. It seems to me that the godly Iain Murray
has written his article with spiritual wisdom and humility. He is
not ashamed to admit that the Scriptures are less than dogmatic
in the area of church polity, and more particularly in how the Eldership
is to function among themselves. But as you said in your initial
remarks, the function
of the elder which is set forth in the qualifications and by biblical examples is sufficiently clear. They are first of all to be MEN, who are enraptured with
the Lord Christ and are fully submissive to HIS Lordship. They are
to be MEN of
knowledge; apt
to teach and to be able to make a defense of the faith to those
who would oppose Christ and His inerrant and infallible Word. They
are to be MEN
of the Scriptures,
from which they obtain both their own spiritual meat and then deliver
it up to those whom God has put under their care. They are to be
MEN of prayer whereby they are able
to gain wisdom, strength and guidance for the awesome responsibility
put upon them. They are to be MEN of passion,
both for the honor of God's name and the supremacy of Christ over
all things as well as for the spiritual welfare of all those who
have been brought to repentance and faith by the Holy Spirit and
desire to serve the Lord Christ in all righteousness. They are to
be MEN who possess
those gifts which
are required for the office of Elder. These are doubtless varied
and distributed as the Spirit wills for the edification of the Body
of Christ. They are MEN who have been vested with authority to maintain both order and discipline within the church
thereby holding fast to the unity of the faith and purging sin from
their assemblies even to the point of excommunicating those who
are unrepentant; for the good of all and the honor of God. You wrote:
'It is no doubt significant in this respect
that the shepherd of that part of the world in that day 'led forth'
his sheep and took them where they could graze and drink the 'still
waters' rather than driving them.' It
is here, albeit a small point in itself, that I would tend to disagree
with your analogy. For the picture and actual practice of a shepherd,
which is graphically seen in the Old Testament and Psalms is I think,
not consistent with your view of the role of a shepherd. The heart of the shepherd is
surely one that is focused upon the welfare of the sheep. It is
that of one who desires to provide nurture and protection at all costs, even if that means the forfeiting of his
own life. However, the manner in which he does this includes the aspect of driving them when necessary.
This was, and still is accomplished by the use of the rod and the staff. King David saw nothing negative about their use whatsoever,
for he himself said of his Shepherd (the LORD), 'thy
rod and thy staff they comfort me.'. And
the prophet Micah also was instructed, 'Feed
thy people with thy rod, the flock of thine heritage, which dwell
solitarily in the wood, in the midst of Carmel: let them feed in
Bashan and Gilead, as in the days of old.'
(Mic 7:14). The 'rod' was often used to ward off wolves and other
predators which would attack the flock from without. And the 'staff'
was used to hook the necks of errant sheep to pull them back to
the main group. For a wandering sheep was in serious danger of being
devoured by wild dogs, wolves and other hungry beasts. There was
safety in the numbers of the flock. Further, a shepherd was never
to be see 'leading' the sheep by standing in the front of the flock
and allowing them to follow. If you have ever tried to do this with
sheep, you would know how silly this really is. The shepherd invariably
stood behind the sheep and 'drove' them to the desired destination.
Sheep are stubborn animals and lack 'good sense', hehehe, and therefore
it takes much prodding and effort to get them to where they need
to go. Leadership I believe is to be seen in this sense; i.e., the
undershepherd will be the one who is last among the sheep, but one who is a driving force that
is exercised with both tenderness but also firmness. It is the loving discipline of the
shepherd that guides his sheep. There is of course, another sense
that the shepherd can be said to 'lead' his sheep, and that is by
example. It is here that the shepherd is to be visible to the flock (speaking of people and not animals here).
He is to be an example to those under his care; a model of righteousness,
strength, compassion and godliness. A man of the Word; one who is
obedient to the Head Shepherd and seeks only to please God in all
things. Thus I believe that BOTH aspects must be recognized as being
an integral part of the Eldership. I therefore lean a bit more toward
the first of the three views that Rev. Murray mentioned as being
the biblical choices given. I also agree that I Tim 5:17 is rather
'weak' as a proof text for it, hehehe. But if it is indeed a viable
option, I think it can be one that works well, at least in principle.
Thus to sum up my own position: it would be one that is a combination
of Presbyterianism and old, i.e., historic Congregationalism whereby there is a plurality of elders,
among whom one or two are gifted to the pulpit ministry and therefore
upon whom is given the responsibility of the preaching of the Word.
The elders all share in equal authority in the 'ruling' of the church
in conjunction with
the deacons. And this last office, that of deacon, I believe has
been wrongly relegated to an 'inferior office' by the modern church.
But that's a subject for another thread! :-) Thanks again for your
input. It was well received by this brother at least. I look forward
to the comments of others.
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: The 'problem' of church government From: GRACE2Me
To: Pilgrim Date Posted:
Thurs, May 04, 2000 at 15:51:28 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
I noticed an emphasis on 'MEN' in your post, AMEN! By the way, my
church is small, has one pastor that is bi-vocational, an assistant
pastor that is in training, no elders and no deacons. Actually there
is only one there that is qualified to be a deacon, but does not
feel called to that office. Also, thanks to you and Rod for the
excellent posts. GRACE2Me
Subject: Re: The 'problem' of church government From: Tom To: GRACE2Me
Date Posted:
Sat, May 06, 2000 at 14:57:21 (PDT) Email Address:ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Look at the qualifacations of deacons, other that a deacon should
be male. I would have to say that any mature christian should qualify.
Or am I missing something? Tom
Subject: Re: The 'problem' of church government From: Rod To: Tom Date Posted:
Sat, May 06, 2000 at 16:31:55 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
Tom, I'll let others comment on the deacons for now, but that word
'mature' is very important. How many new Christians or even theologically
unsound Christians who have been in the faith for awhile, but haven't
learned or haven't been properly taught, have we done the disservice
of pushing into roles and offices for which they are, as yet, unsuited?
'Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's
sins; keep thyself pure' (1 Tim. 5:22).
Subject: Re: The 'problem' of church government From: Tom To: Rod Date Posted:
Sun, May 07, 2000 at 09:31:51 (PDT) Email Address:ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Rod I agree wholeheartedly. That is actually why I used the word
'mature'. The reason why I posted that message is that some people
who are mature in the faith,(at least in knowledge) are not doing
the roles such as deacon. In the original post of this thread, although
I do not want to judge the particular church mentioned. It seems
to me that they should be able to find more than just one person
in the whole church, that is qualified to be a deacon. Tom
Subject: Re: The 'problem' of church government From: GRACE2Me
To: Tom Date Posted:
Tues, May 09, 2000 at 13:52:28 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Dear Tom: As I mentioned in my ealier post, it is a small church.
Maybe, considering the 10,000 member churches out there, I should
have been more specific. My church averages about 40-50 on Sunday
mornings, and 20 on Sunday and Wednesday nights. There are about
25 members. There are more women than men at the church. Literally,
there is only one male that is qualified to be a Deacon. Again,for
whatever reason, he does not believe he is called at this time to
that office. I'm not sure, but I think it has something to do with
some typical language about Deacons having that office for life.
Is that a baptist thing? What do some of the other folks here think
about Deacons being so for life??? GRACE2Me
Subject: Re: The 'problem' of church government From: Tom To: GRACE2Me
Date Posted:
Tues, May 09, 2000 at 23:28:45 (PDT) Email Address:ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
GRACE2Me Deacon for life? That isn't a Baptist thing, however it
could be in some Baptist churches, since I do not think it is something
mandated against by the various orginizations that a given Baptist
church belongs to. Our deacons have 2 year terms, in which they
must be nominated and interviewed, then elected by the members of
the body. Did you notice how few posts have been added lately? I
have been posting for nearly 4 years and have never seen it this
way. Tom
Subject: Re: The 'problem' of church government From: Pilgrim
To: Tom Date Posted:
Wed, May 10, 2000 at 11:17:24 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Tom,
This is where church polity comes
in and gets rather confusing. I non-Presbyterian churches, the offices
recognized are different, and thus Deacon is sometimes recognized
as being 'like' an elder, and therefore would be ordained to that
office for a life term. In some of the Dutch churches, which are
Presbyterian in government, the elders serve for only 2 or 3 years
and then must be voted in again. In others, there is a required
'fallow' period of time where they cannot serve. But in both of
these cases, they are still officially Elders and retain that office
for life. Thus, it is very hard to try and apply the 'life time'
term to Deacons. In my opinion, if a man is ORDAINED to ANY office
in the church, it is for life, whether he serves directly or not.
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: The 'problem' of church government From: laz To: Tom Date Posted:
Wed, May 10, 2000 at 09:33:28 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
In Presby circles, I know elders are for life (unless they get defrocked
of course) ... in the PCA, some churches force them to become inactive
a year or two after a certain number of consecutive years of being
'on duty'. Not sure about deacons. But as for elders, how can someone
be called by God to serve and then STOP serving God in that unique
capacity? How is a man of God 'uncalled'? laz laz
Subject: 'term limitation' and lack of leaders From: Rod To: laz Date Posted:
Wed, May 10, 2000 at 11:24:00 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
laz, I think your post is right on target. Either a person is called
and qualified of God and serves, or he isn't and doesn't. I read
nothing of term limitations (or men electing church oficers either,
for that matter) in the Word. GraceToMe, sorry to be blunt, but
the Baptist practice concerning elders and deacons is, to my interpretation,
not Biblical. (I commend to you the recently added article by Iain
Murray, if you haven't already read it.) For those who don't know,
the Baptist congregations have one elder, if any, (it is the pastor)
and they have a board of deacons. The deacons actually serve in
the function (if things are going as they should and the elder/pastor
isn't a dictator) of 'elders.' That is, they would be called 'elders'
anywhere else because of the leadership roles, but they aren't charged
with the responsibility of preaching/teaching from the pulpit. In
effect, if a Baptist local church were functioning as they intended,
there would be no "deacons" as described in the Bible
functioning in the church. (My apologies to my Baptist friends out
there, not for the truth as I see it, but for having to be so forthright
in my assertions.) In regard to your man who is qualified, but doesn't
want to serve: I think his unwillingness to 'get into harness' disualifies
him. One so gifted from God should desire to exercise the gift,
actually having a hard time restraining himself from doing so. It
is hard for small churches, especially where the spiritual condition
is such that women dominate (in numbers) the make-up of the church.
The spiritual condition of the men of the church has to have a long,
maybe painful, look taken at it in such a case. Why is it so? Is
it God's judgment for past actions of the church, some corporate
failing, a 'group sin'?--for example, is the church small because
of a church 'split' over a petty issue? Is it merely a young church?
Is the preaching such that people should be attracted to it and, thereby, the Lord Jesus? This
is a matter of much prayer and soul-searching, but I think there
is an underlying reason why men aren't active, having either fallen
away or not being drawn to the service of the Lord by His Spirit.
Prayerful petition to the Lord for revelation and restoration to
a right condition in terms of number and quality of leaders for
the church seems to be in order. (Incidentally, I've seen a lot
of small churches like the one GTM describes. I've been a part of
one or two.)
Subject: Re: 'term limit... From: Tom To: Rod Date Posted:
Thurs, May 11, 2000 at 00:51:15 (PDT) Email Address:ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Rod You are partly correct that Baptist churches only have one elder/pastor
and a board of deacons. Some have more than one pastor, depending
on the size of the congragation. I am on a board of deacons, but
in a way other than the fact I don't preach(some do)I do function
as an elder at times. Therefore, I hope it is correct to call myself
an elder? But then again, Laz's statement about elders being called
of God, makes me wonder. Deacons on the other hand are elected.
Hmmm, now I don't know what to call myself. Tom
Subject: Re: 'term limit... From: Rod To: Tom Date Posted:
Thurs, May 11, 2000 at 13:41:11 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
Tom, The Baptist churches I have known about and have been associated
with are all small and have only one pastor, hence, my mistake.
(I used to belong to a SBC local church.) But the principle remains
the same. Maybe you can tell me where you find Biblical justification
for the election (by votes) of any church officer? :>) As to
whether or not you are an elder: The 'Brethren' don't 'ordain' elders,
but 'recognize' that God has ordained them. They do so by observing
that one is exercising the God-given gifts of that office and functioning
as an elder should. It seems like a good system to me.
Subject: Re: 'term limit... From: Tom To: Rod Date Posted:
Thurs, May 11, 2000 at 15:22:29 (PDT) Email Address:ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Rod I hesitate to give you an answer because I don't have time to
look up scripture(heading to work). But I think of the apostles
choosing the deacons so they wouldn't be burdoned with having to
serve the church in the capacity that a deacon now does. Not exactly
electing, but it is choosing and electing is a way of choosing.
The only possible thing I may have a problem with. Is I think it
should be the elders who choose the deacons not the members. Tom
Subject: Apostles, elders, and deacons From: Rod To: Tom Date Posted:
Thurs, May 11, 2000 at 16:35:29 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
Tom. Let me refer to the passage in Acts 6 to which you undoubtedly
refer: 'Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples [I
take that to be essentially all the believers] unto them and said,
It is not fitting that we should leave the Word of God and serve
tables. Wherefore, brethren, [Is it fair to assume that he/they
are speaking to the men only?] look among you for seven men of honest
report, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint
over this business.
But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry
of the word' (verses 2-4). Several things to note here. Since the
Apostles were full of the Holy Spirit and knew many things at His
direct revelation at this point, we can, I think, safely assume
that they were instructed by Him to tell the people to do this.
Though the Apostles did the 'appointing' (verse 3), it appears that,
since the people picked (somehow--we aren't told how) spiritual
men, these would be endorsed by the Apostles as an official stamp
of approval, not the actual selection. Apostles differ from elders--are
we to assume that elders have the same 'appointing authority?' Are
deacons to relieve the elders in the same
way as these spiritual men were to relieve
the Apostles in this specific task only, apparently? In regard to
this instance, some people make a big thing of the number 'seven,'
but I'd tend to think it is based on the large number of people
involved in the feeding, coupled with the diversity of the people
involved--also it's an "odd" number (Did they vote?).
Additionally, I'd point out that later groups of Christians (churches)
didn't hold all things in common as these Jerusalem believers were
doing, in the main. All of this (and more) would probably bear on
the situation of 'deacons' in this particular instance. I actually
think that, in the time I've been involved in these discussions
here, the only concrete things we can say are these: 1) There are
to be elders and deacons, according to the Scriptures; 2) Elders
should 'rule' and 'be apt to teach,' being a plurality; 3) The Bible
is very non-specific in many areas concerning these offices, resulting
in much disagreement and disputation about them. I may have left
something out, but these things I believe are true. (I have omitted
Scriptual references, as we've been over this ground before.)
Subject: Re: Apostles, elders, and deacons From: Tom To: Rod Date Posted:
Fri, May 12, 2000 at 00:20:43 (PDT) Email Address:ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Rod That was indeed the scripture reference I was thinking of. From
that I don't think it is wrong(because it doesn't explicitly say
how they chose them) for the members to choose potential deacons,
as long as they are approved by the pastor/elder. In the church
I attend the pastor does indeed interview a potential deacon candidate.
I have been in a few of these interviews and some of the questions
pry into the person's heart. Tom
Subject: Re: Apostles, elders, and deacons From: Rod To: Tom Date Posted:
Fri, May 12, 2000 at 01:19:05 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
Tom, my brother, May I point out that you didn't answer the questions
asked? You have simply stated what you 'think,' not citing Scripture
as your basis, nor delving into it. From what you wrote, we have
to assume that you equate the appoint/ordaining power of the one
'pastor/elder' you mention with that of the apostles. We further
have to assume that you don't accept the Scriptural necessity of
a plurality of elders. We also have to conclude that, though the
term 'deacon' is not applied by the Spirit of God to the men in
that passage in Acts, that they, nonetheless, are definitely 'deacons'
as described in other places in the Bible. Not because I'm saying
you're right or wrong at this point, but because
you haven't really addressed the issues raised
from the perspective of the Bible's own pronouncements, I have to
tentatively conclude that you merely replied 'as a Baptist should'
and have not deeply examined the Scriptures on this subject al all,
brother Tom. The 'official line' of a particular denomination may
well be correct Scripturally, but it isn't necessarily so--after
all, there are too many divergent views on this issue of church
government for everyone to be correct.
Subject: Re: Apostles, elders, and deacons From: Tom To: Rod Date Posted:
Fri, May 12, 2000 at 13:08:21 (PDT) Email Address:ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Rod you said: May I point out that you didn't answer the questions
asked? You have simply stated what you 'think,' not citing Scripture
as your basis, nor delving into it. For me to spend the time delving
into this issue that I should, it would mean that I would have to
neglect my responcibilities in other areas. I already have too many
other things on the burner, to get into this more than I am. That
being said, I have read the scriptures that you sited and don't
think I said anything contrary to the scriptures. You said yourself
in another post that Peter called himself an elder. I realise that
he wasn't a pastor, but as any elder I believe he is referring to
himself as an overseer. Much the same way as a pastor, not that
a pastor is equal to an apostle. As to your alogation that I am
just plying the Baptist line. I think I understand why you are saying
that, but I am not saying I totally agree with Baptist practice.
I am just saying that based on those scripture referrences and others.
I don't have a huge problem with Baptist practice in this area anyway.
I was also just trying to show what is the practice, trying to show
what the practice of the Baptist church is, regardless as to whether
or not it is biblical or not. I will admit right now that since
I don't have the time at the momment to delve into the scriptures
deeper in regards to this topic, I probably shouldn't have given
my oppinion on the issue. After all we are more interested in scriptural
facts than oppinions, and even though in my mind I don't see a problem
with what I said when put against scripture. You cannot read my
mind and therefore I should be silent until I am able to give more
time to the issue. Tom
Subject: Re: Apostles, elders, and deacons From: Rod To: Tom Date Posted:
Fri, May 12, 2000 at 17:31:36 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
Tom, You are my cyber-friend and brother. I have absolutely no desire
to offend or upset you, but for one in your leadership position
in your church to be 'too busy' to delve into the issues on such
a vital matter is unjustifiable. No one expects you to abandaon
job or family, and I, of course, don't know the trials you're facing,
but you really should, when it is practical, really do an in-depth
study of the issues. I repeat, I have not said you are right or
wrong, according to Scriptures and my understanding of them yet,
wanting to allow you the opporturnty to really examine the Bible
on this issue and to be fair. I have made no real arguments, but
have tried to probe your beliefs with questions and to prod you
into a close examination of the Bible, not by denominational views,
but by sound interpretation as a dedicated man of God, as I perceive
you to be. In view of your position in your church, I urge you to
search out these issues with what I know from you will be an attitude
of extreme prayerful searching, in the manner of the Bereans of
Acts 17:11. May our God relieve you of the pressures you're under
and allow you to discover additional valuable truth from His Word!
Peace.
Subject: Re: Apostles, elders, and deacons From: Tom To: Rod Date Posted:
Fri, May 12, 2000 at 23:28:47 (PDT) Email Address:ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Rod Before I got into this discussion with you, I thought I understood
this matter better than I do. I have done some study in this matter.
As a matter of fact, I only excepted my nomination as a deacon after
I had studied the matter. One of the faults I have when I read scripture,
is I form an oppinion of what the word of God is saying on a given
scripture. But when I am challenged on the matter, all I am able
to give is my oppinion on the matter. Unless of course the matter
is fresh on my mind, then I am able to give scripture references.
I think what I am going to have to start doing, when I am studying
an issue such as this one. Is write indepth notes with as much scripture
as possible. Then at least that way I can refer to them, instead
of relying on my memory. Again sometimes if I spent as much time
as is necessary whenever I see a topic such as this one, at that
particular time. Then I would be neglecting other responcibities.
Boy do I learn lessons hard! Thanks Bro Tom
Subject: Re: From: stan To: Rod Date Posted:
Wed, May 10, 2000 at 22:07:15 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Most Baptists are as Rod describes though the CBA (conservative
bap. of america) have been teaching elder rule for a number of years
- at least in the Portland OR seminary. They are not quite as Rod
describes. They usually hold to the elders being the paid staff
:( which has caused a number of church splits as the ranchers out
here don't like being told what to do :) Actually except for that
one fluke they teach pretty good line - used to anyway - haven't
been around any of them of recent. stan
Subject: Re: From: Rod To: stan Date Posted:
Wed, May 10, 2000 at 22:33:08 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
Stan, Thanks for the info. I'm guilty of assuming all the Baptists
are like the ones I know, the SBC and Primitive.
Subject: Re: The 'problem' of church government From: stan To: GRACE2Me
Date Posted:
Thurs, May 04, 2000 at 20:15:37 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
you said: Actually there is only one there that is qualified to
be a deacon, but does not feel called to that office Kind of points
up the item that Paul mentioned in the qualifications - a man that
DESIRES the office ;-) Spose that leaves out electing em when they
didn't show up for the congregational meeting eh? stan
Subject: Re: The 'problem' of church government From: Rod To: Pilgrim Date Posted:
Thurs, May 04, 2000 at 09:01:43 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
Pilgrim, Thanks for your kind words, brother. :>) I think we
have no serious disagreement, except on how a shepherd of that day
in the 'Middle East ' functioned. I have no firsthand knowledge
of that type of shepherding, but I grew up in the vast ranch country
of West Texas (an average ranch was over 20 sections, more than
12,000 acres, many much larger) and have been around sheep all my
life. I don't like them--they are snotty-nosed, silly, flighty,
defenseless against predators--well, I'll stop there. In that rough
ranch country sheep were herded horseback, often in conjunction
with dogs, like cattle and there was no intimacy between the one
'caring' for them and the sheep. They were fed, sheared, moved when
necessary, but mainly left to fend for themselves. But we get a
glimpse of the contrast between a shepherd who leads his sheep in
the picture presented by the Good Shepherd in John 10. I have, as
I say, no firsthand knowledge of this, but am told that the picture
presented here is accurate of the shepherd of that time and place:
the shepherd calls his sheep forth from the sheepfold and those
sheep only, from among all the sheep gathered there come out to
him, to follow him as he leads them away to pasturage. 'To him the
porter openeth [the door], and the sheep hear his voice; and he
calleth his own sheep by name and leadeth them out. And when he putteth forth his own
sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep
follow him for they know his voice' (verses
3-4). It seems reasonable to me that the Lord has used a very real
picture from the life of a shepherd with his sheep to portray what
He does when He calls forth and leads His own sheep. It is a vastly
different scene, if accurate, than what I'm used to in relation
to sheep. In this scenario, there is loving care, exercised authority,
leadership, and trust of that leadership, and an intimate relationship
of all involved, the sheep and the shepherd. As I say, I have to
rely on the testimony of others, but my infomation is that the shepherds
of that area still can call their sheep out with a sort of lilting
chant to follow them out to pasture. There is no doubt of the use
of the 'rod and staff,' but the key word is 'they comfort me.' What
form does this 'comfort' take? I can't verify it, but I've heard
it said that a shepherd sometimes, but rarely, has to take an unruly
sheep (a young one, a lamb not yet grown) and actually use the rod
to break the sheep's leg. That lamb, unable to travel and take care
of itself would then be carried by the shepherd and cared for intensely
for its needs of feed and water, etc. until the leg healed. By that
time, the trusting intimacy and obedience to the leadership of the
shepherd would be firm and established. The sheep would then function
as a sheep of that flock should, following and staying with the group, not straying.
Likewise, the 'crook' of the staff is obviously to bring a sheep
back into line by being employed about the neck--surely not a pleasant
experience at best. But the ultimate benefit is for the sheep and
his welfare. That welfare is the sole concern of the shepherd, because,
if the sheep suffer or are lost, they are not profitable at all. The difference is that the shepherd of the church
who rules and disciplines is not to be a 'lone ranger.' It is a
shared responsibility among all those designated with that authority.
There is to be unanimity when such action must be taken and unity
of purpose: to correct the sheep and bring him back into the fold
(cp. 2 Cor. 2:1-11). Actually, however, what I had in mind when
I was speaking of 'leading out' at that point in the previous post
was mostly the idea of providing 'pasturage' or spiritual food in
the form of the Word ministry. Isn't 'exegesis' the act and art
of taking a passage and 'leading out' the meaning to the benefit
of the ones being taught? The exegete is a 'guide' who takes those
who are willing to be led by him into the true meaning of the Word
for a deeper understanding for a more full application of the principles
in the life of the sheep of God. The fact of 'leading' into understanding
is not possible without an actual leader. That means one who is
trusted and actually found trustworthy to be an accurate, effective
leader in providing 'good pasture' (rightly dividing) for the sheep.
It's also impossible without the cooperation and attention of the
person being taught. It is very much a 'group effort.' If every
memeber of the 'body' is functioning according to his particular
gift and 'office,' the task becomes easy. The rub is that Christians,
being yet in the flesh, don't often function that way, and discipline
is necessary. But the inescapable fact is that the goal of the elders and preachers and teachers is that the
individual Christian fulfill his particular function as the Lord
intends, becoming an effective part of the body of Christ and doing
the 'good works which God hath before ordained that we should walk
in them' (Eph. 2:10). I think that is the highest calling of a church
leader, to urge, to assist, and to enable the man or woman of God's
flock to identify his gift and to utilize that gift as God intended,
always growing in appreciation and understanding of the Word. [BTW,
I liked that about the 'Vacillitarian.' :>) I'm probably in the
same camp. I technically shouldn't have capitalized 'Brethren,'
the guiding priciple of the movement being that all true members
of the body are 'brethren,' and that there is not a 'denomination'
by that designation. I only capitalized it and referred to it in
that way because it helps to let people know where you're coming
from. I belong to no church or denomination except the Church of
the Lord Jesus Christ, the universal body of all believers. I don't
think of myself as a 'Brethren,' but a brother of all believers
in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. My doctrine is my own and not
that of a 'church' or denomination--many 'Brethren' might be at
odds with me, I'm not certain. My concern is to be right and true
to the teaching of the revealed Word of God. I think that is the
essence of what a member of the 'brethren,' (note the lack of capitalizaton)
the followers of the Lord Jesus should be.]
Subject: Re: The 'problem' of church government From: laz To: Rod Date Posted:
Thurs, May 04, 2000 at 10:42:46 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Rod - not to change the subject, but can you clarify what you mean
by 'your doctrine being your own'? laz
Subject: Re: The 'problem' of church government From: Rod To: laz Date Posted:
Thurs, May 04, 2000 at 11:55:07 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
'Rod - not to change the subject, but can you clarify what you mean
by 'your doctrine being your own'?' Hi, laz, This is my second attempt
to answer you. My browser is acting up and I had to switch to another
one--hopefully this will work. I suspect, reading between the lines,
that you suspect me of something 'sinsiter' and of having developed
doctrines, not by study of Scripture and the writings of godly men,
but by contemplating my navel or something equally off the wall!
:>) I would hope that I'd written enough here over the last year
or so to have escaped that suspicion. I think if you view the context
of the entire post, you would never get the idea that my ideas are
independent either of the Bible or others who are, in my judgment,
based on the Scriptures, in tune with God. I frankly admired the
Murray article because he frankly and honestly dealt with a subject
in a completely open manner, seeking the Scriptures first as the
only yardstick of whether men's applications of the Bible were correct,
and openly admitting that there are many 'grey areas' in the issue
of church leadership. To clarify, hopefully unnecessarily for everyone
else :>), when I say that my doctrine is my own, I mean I owe
no allgeiance to blindly following any teaching of men or denominations.
I feel free to shamelessly steal what is good from anyone or any
group, in the time-honored traditon of Bible teachers everywhere
of taking from others and rarely giving credit to them! :>) There
are many good things that differing individuals and groups have
ascertained over the years. I want to and do feel free to endorse
any of them, without feeling bound to one person or group over another,
not being on a 'membership roll' anywhere, but merely being a 'brother'
of other Christians everywhere. I don't sit around and contemplate
my navel and arrive at off the wall doctrines. I try to 'synthesize'
what is best from many sources of wrtings and teachings of godly
men, judging doctrine always by what the Bible says, the only real
standard of truth, the revealed Word of God. If a doctrine squares
up with that, I will endorse and espouse it, but I am not obligated
to any person or group to endorse any statement just because they
make it and I 'belong' to them. In that sense, my doctrine, though
coming from the Word of God and based primarily on what others have
taught me by books and the spoken word, is 'my own.' I trust there
is nothing 'sinister' in that.
Subject: Re: The 'problem' of church government From: Pilgrim
To: Rod Date Posted:
Thurs, May 04, 2000 at 12:32:53 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Rod,
Not that I need to speak for 'laz',
for he is surely capable of speaking for himself and maybe sometimes
he shouldn't, hahaha! But knowing 'laz' quite well, I can assure
you that he wasn't thinking anything of the kind toward you that
might be considered 'off-the-wall doctrine and/or navel gazing'.
I think it was simply a sincere question of interest. From what
you have said, it seems to me that you are simply a biblical Christian,
no different than the minority of us who are historically
called 'Calvinists'. Our frame of reference is Sola Scriptura. Our
identity is in Solus Christus. Our hope is in Sola Gratia. Our salvation
is in Sola Fide and our entire lives are dedicated to Soli Deo Gloria.
Yep, just plain old fundamental Bible believing sinners saved by
grace! :-) Many blessings to you.
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: The 'problem' of church government From: Rod To: Pilgrim Date Posted:
Thurs, May 04, 2000 at 12:45:27 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
Pilgrim, Thank you, brother. You know, that's all I aspire to be,
'simply a biblical Christian.' I know of no higher calling. :>)
Subject: Help needed From: Eric To: All Date Posted:
Wed, May 03, 2000 at 09:45:53 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
I am looking for some book recommendations to give to one of my
employees. Let me explain her situation. She is a non-Christian,
but she does beleive in God. Her mother committed suicide when she
was 7 years old, because she found out her father was having an
affair with her mother's sister. She is 25 years old, and has 3
kids by 2 different fathers. The father of her youngest child has
recently broken into her house and raped her. She is going out each
night and partying and leaving her kids with a baby sitter. If that
wasn't enough, she has had at least 7 abortions in her young life.
She came into my office crying today, and said that she felt so
overwhelmed, and that she just wanted to quit everything and give
up. I am really concerned about her, and her kids. Does anybody
have any ideas for books that I can give her to read, that will
at least get her thinking about the right things, and the real solution
to/cause of her problems? God bless.
Subject: Re: Help needed From: Rod To: Eric Date Posted:
Wed, May 03, 2000 at 13:24:45 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
Eric, First of all, be very careful of how close you get to this
woman. As a man, given her background and emotional instability,
temptation between the two of you, though not even in your mind
and even though you are a fine, upstanding Christian man, is a possibility.
She needs a strong woman of faith to come along side of her just now, as she is
feeling so vulnerable and is open to suggestions--possibly the Lord
is preparing or has prepared her heart. A woman can do this much
better than any man. Any man counseling her should never do so alone.
I am praying that God will enable you to direct her to the person
she needs and that she will be saved by His will.
Subject: Re: Help needed From: Tom To: Rod Date Posted:
Wed, May 03, 2000 at 14:39:02 (PDT) Email Address:ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Rod I could not agree with you more! My own sister, ended up married
to a man with problems. Simply because she believed this man needed
help in a situation, and the pastor would not give him any. What
she didn't know, is the pastor saw right through this guy, he didn't
really want Godly advice he wanted sympathy and whatever else he
could get from the church. This person, prayed on my sister's nievity.
He ended up moving the family 3000 miles away to get away from family,
and promptly began drinking, and abusing her mentally and physically.
They are now seperated, with one child out the marriage and even
though she would like to move back to be with family. The law will
not let her, without his concent, which of course he will not give.
She had to learn the hard way, and though she was very new in the
faith at the time. I don't think it is a stretch to say that Satan
is very deceptive. I for one think there is a lesson in my sister's
story, that all of us can learn from. Tom
Subject: Re: Help needed From: laz To: Eric Date Posted:
Wed, May 03, 2000 at 09:58:28 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
hmmm, I got one suggestion...not sure you're gonna like it as my
first choice....it's a tough read...not for the squeamish, may not
be well received ... yet, it's words never return void.... ;-) Besides
the Bible and your friendship and ministering her...not sure what
else I'd recommend. She needs the pure unadulterated milk of the
Word (and someone who understands it...preferably someone with a
great and orthodox grasp of ORIGINAL SIN, hahahahahha!! I just couldn't
resist! ). Sorry, let me get serious... In my limited experience,
even great 'intro level' books written by godly men/women are no
match for God's own handiwork. Something about the Bible....people
take notice. Something about a twoedged sword cutting bone marrow
and all.... ;-) No matter what books/magazines you give her...she
will need to turn to Scripture (as I'm sure you will encourage her
to do) ... in the vital interest of Sola Scriptura. Also, depending
on your work situation, marital situation, etc...consider Inviting
her to your Church. Inviting her to your home. blessings and prayers
are forthcoming, laz
Subject: Re: Help needed From: john hampshire
To: laz Date Posted:
Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:18:50 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Eric, Here is my suggestion: 1. There is a direct connection between
her life today, and the trauma she received as a young child prior
to her mother's suicide. Those painful events, whatever they may
have been, have left their imprint on her. 2. When she was confronted
with her parents wickedness toward her and each other, she resented
them. This resentment has bound her, and she grew up needing, desiring,
clinging to the spirit that implanted that seed of resentment. 3.
The law of human ego is: you will seek forgiveness and peace from
the trauma giver, or its suitable replacement. This means, while
she surely will say she 'loved' her father and mother, she did not.
She seeks out the similar failings found in her parents, seeking
resolution to the pain in her through men who resemble her father.
4. Instead of seeking an honorable man, she bound herself to whomever
would 'love' and accept her, whomever could make the wrongness inside
her seem right. Basically she is forced by her resentments to need
the love of a wicked man. 5. The solution to her dilemma is for
her to understand why she behaves as she does. When she understands
the secret game she is playing, she will see the effect her parents
had on her. If she is able to forgive her parents, who were also
affected by their wicked parents, and in understanding the cause,
she should one day be able to forgive those who hurt her and attempt
to hurt her today. 6. Right now she is confused, she doesn't know
why she acts the way she does, why she is easily used, or how to
fix her problem. Her mother found the wrong solution. If you e-mail
me at hampshij@ppp.kornet.net I will give you a website that can
help her immensely. Of course, if she isn't interested, then pain
will continue to be her teacher. john
Subject: For john hampshire From: Eric To: john hampshire
Date Posted:
Thurs, May 04, 2000 at 07:47:45 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Hi john, The e-mail address did not work for some reason. Can you
e-mail me the website at EricScott24@aol.com. God bless.
Subject: Honor Your Mother and Father From: Mark To: All Date Posted:
Tues, May 02, 2000 at 14:38:42 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
My wife comes from a very staunch Roman Catholic family. Until recently
she had strictly followed that line of belief. She is now floating
in between the Roamn church and my church which is Presbyterian.
She is Reformed at heart confessing the tennants of the Reformation
but she is struggling to decide where she should belong. Her difficulty
rest in what he parents want. I have trouble responding to this
becasue of the commandment to honor your mother and father. There
of course is more too it than this one issue but this by far is
the biggest one. Please offer some suggestions. In Christ, Mark
Subject: Re: Honor Your Mother and Father From: GRACE2Me
To: Mark Date Posted:
Tues, May 02, 2000 at 15:07:33 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Hi Mark: Certianly we are to honor our parents as long as they or
we are alive. But the limits of that change somewhat when the children
form their own family: 'Therefore shall a man leave his father and
mother and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh'
(Gen.2:24). Sons and daughters are not expected at that point and
beyond to be obedient in all things: where you live, do you work/where
you work etc. Remember the word of the Lord Jesus when He said 'If
any one come unto Me, and hate not his father, mother, wife, children,
brethren, sisters, yea, and his own life also cannot be my disciple'
(Lk.12:26). When it comes down to whether she should go to the false
teaching Catholic Church to honor her parents verse not going to
that church, the latter wins hands down biblically in my humble
opinion. Well, that's my take on it. Hope you get more responses!
GRACE2Me
Subject: Re: Honor Your Mother and Father From: Rod To: GRACE2Me
Date Posted:
Tues, May 02, 2000 at 17:45:42 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
Maybe this analogy will help, Mark. A woman is supposed to be obedient
to her husband and follow his leadership. But If he wants her to
steal, to engage in sex with other couples, or to commit some other
clearly immoral action, she is not bound to do that. I think Grace2Me
is correct in his assessment. Your wife is now aware she is in violation
of God's will in the RCC. She will never have peace as long as she
is doing so. I know that this isn't an easy situation, but your
wife owes her first allegiance to God. She cannot honor her parents
by disobeying Him and His precepts. The witnessing to her parents
of her new revelation is the best way to honor them, though they
will undoubtedly be hurt and upset. Ultimately, she may be the instrument
by which they may be delivered also, as you were for her. May God
grant that it be so and that your wife will honor Him in trusting
obedience.
Subject: Re: Honor Your Mother and Father From: laz To: Mark Date Posted:
Tues, May 02, 2000 at 17:31:35 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
AMEN, Grace2me! Marriage changes things! ;-) Mark, 'Leave and cleave'....which
doesn't preclude honoring your parents in any way, shape or form.
Honor God by obeying Him and 'LEAVE AND CLEAVE' as He has commanded....and
learn all you can about what the Bible has to say (and learned men/women)
about the hallowed institution and art of marriage....where two
become ONE. Marriage mirrors our eternal union with Christ. It's
BY FAR a relationship more holy than that of parent/child. In fact,
I dare say that you are no longer accountable to your parents...anymore
than they are accountable to you. You have flown from the nest.
You have attained autonomy from them. But always maintain deference
towards your parents. You obey God, your boss, your elders,...but
no longer your parents for you are now responsible for your own
actions before God and men. Seek your parents counsel (if they be
wise) ....hold them in high regard (even if they are pagans)...but
you now belong to your spouse...you are to serve him/her. Again,
your parents shouldn't be telling you where to worship anymore than
what to have for dinner. Your wife should worship with you....not
with mommy and daddy. She is accountable to you....not her parents.
If they can't handle that....'tough'. ;-) In fact, if you want a
healthy marriage, you (and your bride) must establish firm boundaries
with your inlaws...you BOTH must do this. They must not be allowed
to interfere in family matters. PERIOD! You must hang together...or
surely you will hang separately... WAIT!...that's something someone
said during the War for Independence....ooops...hehehe They may
be miffed at first...but trust me, you will ALL be better off later!
laz My folks are staunch RC...I understand the Madonna complex and
all that.... ;-)
Subject: Heidelberg Catechism, Lord's Day 4 From: Tom To: All Date Posted:
Tues, May 02, 2000 at 14:04:45 (PDT) Email Address:ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
I have a question regarding the Heidelberg Catechism, Lord's day
4. Q9: Does not God, then do injustice to man by requiring of him
His law that which he cannot perform? A9: No, for God so made man
that he could perform it;[1] but man, through the instigation of
the devil, by wilful disobedience deprived himself and all his descendants
of this power. [2] 1. Eph.4:24 2. Rom.5:12 My question is this,
is Eph.4:24 the verse that they really wanted to prove this? If
so, what am I missing? Also is there a verse that is a little clearer
about this point? I agree with the point, but not sure they are
the best scripture referrences. Tom
Subject: Faith From: Jennifer
To: All Date Posted:
Mon, May 01, 2000 at 10:30:55 (PDT) Email Address:jennifer_butler@email.com
Message:
A question was posed in a group that I meet with once a week that
striked some very different opinions. I would like to post this
out to you and find out what you think. How is your faith different
from your religion?
Subject: Re: Faith From: john hampshire
To: Jennifer
Date Posted:
Wed, May 03, 2000 at 06:33:47 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Hello Jennifer, Could it be that religion is what man does externally
to please God. The assumption being that God is not pleased by man's
actions that are apart from faith. So when we act, that is express
our religion, from faith or out of faith, then it is pleasing to
God. But what is faith? Is not faith the acting out of an inner
agreement that something is true. To have faith in God is to agree
with what we realize to be true, and then act on that knowledge.
If we act out our religion apart from faith then we act according
to ourselves, by our own will, which is not walking with God, but
perhaps walking ahead of God. The only religion, and there are many,
that God will find pleasing is that done in God's will. But how
do we know God's will? Because we have God's Word and we have a
spirit which is able to recognize the harmony in truth. Sometimes
it is a struggle to get it right, but the more involved with God's
Word the more attuned we become, and the more objectionable discord
is to our spiritual ears. So God's Word yield knowledge of truth,
which resonates in our soul in belief, and when belief is acted
upon we demonstrate faith, and with our faith we worship God in
external expression, which is our religion made manifest, all according
to the foundation which is the Word. By the way, faith is a gift,
just as salvation is a gift. With regeneration we gain life in our
spirit, and with it spiritual ears to hear harmony and spiritual
eyes that perceive the hidden mysteries in God's Word. No regeneration,
no ability to see or hear, except physically-- which is all the
Bible will be-- a book of history, stories, rules, and morality.
Thus, the religion that the unregenerate find themselves attracted
to will be an obedience to history, stories, rules, and morality.
None of which can please God, for we must worship Him in spirit
and in truth. Thus, religion and faith are connected and one expresses
the other. That's my two cents. john
Subject: Re: Faith From: Eric To: Jennifer
Date Posted:
Mon, May 01, 2000 at 13:42:59 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Hi Jennifer, I would guess the reason this topic was brought up,
was by the recent trend that is used to describe all types of religious
people, as 'people of faith.' This label is used on Muslims, Christians,
Jews, etc. This label is often used to blur the lines of distinction
between two different belief systems. I have heard many times on
TV, someone saying that such and such, is something that 'all people
of faith' can get behind and support, or whatever. It is a variation
on the 'it really doesn't matter what you believe, as long as you
are sincere' mentality. So, what it comes down to, is that many
people believe that their act of faith is worth something distinct
from what it is they have faith in. The Christian would say that
our faith, in and of itself, is worthless, it is only the object
of our faith that provides any 'value.' God bless.
Subject: Re: Faith From: Chris To: Eric Date Posted:
Tues, May 02, 2000 at 21:41:00 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Hello, Could this help, could we say that ones religion is based
upon ones belief(faith). As a Christian, our belief is in Christ
Jesus the Messiah and because of that belief, Religion would be
as that mentioned in James 1:27? This is of course just one example.
There are many throughout the Scriptures. Hope this helps
Subject: Re: Faith From: laz To: Jennifer
Date Posted:
Mon, May 01, 2000 at 12:37:02 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Jennifer - hmmmmm I guess I would start by defining 'religion'....and
then defining 'faith' so as to ensure a common frame of reference
for any ensuing discussions. Care to start? hehe blessings,laz
Subject: Regulartory Principle of Worship + From: GRACE2Me
To: Pilgrim/All
Date Posted:
Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 20:14:05 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Pilgrim: Down below you mentioned the 'Regulatory Principle of Worship'
as a concern on where to attend church. I 'might' have an idea on
what you mean there, but could you explain to the dumb ole sinner
saved by grace? :-) I was also visiting another Chrisian Church
Board and some questions came up about segregating children during
Sunday School and Services. Do you believe the word of God addresses
that per se? And could you share what the church has done historically
down through the years? Did children's own services corresponded
with the changes in the school system (different grades etc)? Thank
you. BTW, I of course understand what you are saying about the lack
of choices of a bible-believing, complete-gospel preaching, grace
embracing church. But let's for the sake of argument eliminate that
scenario and deal with whether we should be in church or not. Hey,
kinda like asking the pro-abortionists what they think about outlawing
abortion in all situations except rape, incest and mother's life
being in certain danger. And we know what they usually say...haha
GRACE2Me
Subject: Children in worship From: Five Sola
To: GRACE2Me
Date Posted:
Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 21:39:41 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Grace, Our church has a 4 and under rule. This gives new parents
and visitors (with babies) a chance to adapt to a practice considered
abnormal by the general populace. At the age of 5 all children must
be in service with parents. It is great. In fact we just began bringing
our daughter (3 1/2) into worship with us even though we had a few
more years. We thought this would also give us time to ease her
into it if she was having trouble (ie stay with us up till sermon)
but she did great. And let me tell you something, as a dad, when
I looked down the pew and saw my daughter, wife and baby son sitting
beside me...tears welled up in my eyes. I praised God for the ability
to worship Him as a family and not excluding my children from His
presence because 'they are too young to understand'. Five Sola
Subject: Re: Children in worship From: Tom To: Five Sola
Date Posted:
Mon, May 01, 2000 at 13:51:54 (PDT) Email Address:ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Five I think that is great! In the church I attend we do have a
childrens church for the simple reason that in some cases, some
children get too fidgety to attend the regular service. We encourage
those who want to keep their children in the the regular service,
to do so. But personally, I am glad that we do have an alternative
for children that are just not ready for the regular service. An
example of this, that I can think of right now is a young girl(about
5), who comes with her mother. That child when forced to stay in
the regular service, will yell. One time the little girl got loose
during a sermon and much to the dismay of the mother ran up to the
pulpit. The pastor, made light of the situation, thus making the
situation a little easier on those in the service. But never the
less, it did interupt the proceedings. When one is serious about
worship, and they are trying to worship God, they don't need little
children interupting the proceedings. I love children, and like
it when they are worshipping with their families, but if that child
interupts the worship, that is a different matter. Tom
Subject: Re: Children in worship From: Rod To: Tom Date Posted:
Mon, May 01, 2000 at 15:15:01 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
Tom, Assuming this child has no mental/emotional defects and isn't
under the influence of some medication, I (putting on hard hat and
flame suit) think this is a parent problem, rather than a problem
child. The parent(s) hasn't dealt with her and the parent may need
education in helping the child develop properly. Some parents aren't
up to teaching and disciplining their children and need to be shown
the way and wisdom of doing so. [P.S., The relationship between
the word "discipline" and "disciple" is noteworthy.
As one is instructed in the ways of Christ, he becomes "disciplined"
in the true sense. And before one is instructed meaningfully, one
must be instructed in the proper attitude of and for receiving instruction.]
Subject: Re: Children in worship From: Tom To: Rod Date Posted:
Mon, May 01, 2000 at 19:37:57 (PDT) Email Address:ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Rod I don't think one can generalise with something like this, every
child is different. Some develope at slower rates than others, and
are not ready to do things that other children should be able to
do. Yes I agree that sometimes it is a parent problem rather than
a child problem. I have personally seen parents who always give
in to a child who is obviously trying get as much attention as possible.
The problem though in some cases is that sometimes when the parents
finally realise what is going on. A pattern has already developed
with the child, and it is very hard to break. Therefore in some
cases, some children need to be gradually introdused to a regular
worship service. Tom
Subject: Re: Children in worship From: Rod To: Tom Date Posted:
Mon, May 01, 2000 at 19:53:09 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
Tom, Please re-read my first sentence. A normal child is not, at
5, required to
act like this (and shouldn't be allowed to). A cowardly parent who
is afraid to take control is at fault, if the child is normal. The
elders should investigate, and, if appropriate, get the woman some
help with her child before it's too late for both. This can be in
the form of informal counseling by more adept parents, or help in
determining if the child has a serious problem which needs professional
attention. It is a disservice to both the child and those with whom
she comes into contact to allow inappropriate behavior. If this
is an isolated case (read "one time") of inappropriate
behavior by the little girl, it's probably no big deal, but I suspect,
given your bare bones recital of the incident, that it probably
isn't. A person under 3 feet tall shouldn't be allowed to rule over
adults and to disrupt any "formal activity." As I say,
my flame suit is on, but I don't care to argue about this. I'm so
old and set in my ways, my mind is made up. :>)
Subject: Re: Children in worship From: Tom To: Rod Date Posted:
Mon, May 01, 2000 at 20:15:51 (PDT) Email Address:ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Rod Actually I like the advice you gave, I don't have any idea on
whether or not in this particular case help was given to the parent.
But never the less, it sounds like good advice, and since I am am
elder in the church I attend, if I see something like that again,
I will not hesitate to see what can be done about it. Tom
Subject: Re: Children in worship From: Rod To: Tom Date Posted:
Tues, May 02, 2000 at 08:19:50 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
Thank you, Tom, for the kind words. The goals here are simple, but
important. The paramount thing is the principle endorsed and explained
by Paul in 1 Cor., where unruly adults were the problem: 'Let all things be done decently and
in good order' (14:40). And it's important for the child and the
parent(s) to be helped also. After all, the assembly is composed
of brothers and sisters of a family which is supposed to seek the
best for one another. Loving concern and correction, not judgment,
is the operative principle. Finally, a bit of advice that you, a
brother who is astute and has sound judgment has already realized:
kid gloves (no pun intended) will be needed in dealing with these
matters. People don't like it when others tell them about raising
their children and some resentment is almost certain. (If there
is none, then this parent is a true sister in the Lord, with the
proper attitude.) In spite of that possibility, there can be no
deterrent to doing the right thing for all concerned. I praise your
attitude and pray that the Lord will take care of the situation.
I pray that He will give you personally blessing and guidance as
a ruling elder and that your family will be greatly blessed.
Subject: Re: Children in worship From: GRACE2Me
To: Tom Date Posted:
Mon, May 01, 2000 at 20:51:41 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
What do you brethren think about those children that are either
bussed in or dropped off without parents or guardians present? GRACE2Me
Subject: Re: Children in worship From: Five Sola
To: GRACE2Me
Date Posted:
Tues, May 02, 2000 at 19:38:48 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Grace2me, I personally would not accept them. Or at least I would
not attend a church that supported a 'bus ministry'. Church is not
for children solely. It is for families. With how many churches
we have performing the dreaded 'children's church' and 'bus ministry'
it is no wonder that the christian 'church' creates more athiest
then the world does. If we lower God so the children can understand
Him then they will understand a childish god, and then 'grow out
of it'. This is an area that is very touching with me. I think children
should be brought up in church sitting with their parents not babysat
in childrens church so the parents can go about their business.
And to those who may scoff and say 'Some children are too young
to understand worship' etc. I will only say that those children
do not 'understand' because the parents have refused to teach them.
I have seen churches where the parents took their job seriously
and raised thier children in fear and admonition of the Lord. They
were catecized, taught the precious doctrines of our faith, and
allowed to participate in worship. I saw the blessing God gave to
these covenant children (and their parents). Young children (who
supposedly could not understand deep subjects) were discussing intricate
aspects of Justification, Sanctification and God's Soveriegnty (they
were about 7-9 years old). WOW. Let us all train our children to
worship the Almighty God with us and stop prohibiting them from
this blessing. Five Sola
Subject: Re: Regulartory Principle of Worship + From: Pilgrim
To: GRACE2Me
Date Posted:
Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 21:22:34 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
GRACE2Me,
Actually, the RP doesn't directly
address the question you raised about children being segregated
from the main worship service. It is has more to do with the content
and manner in which the people of God are to worship God. However,
I do have an opinion on what you have raised in your post. It is
of my personal conviction that children are to be with their parents
during the communal and public worship of our Lord God. Fathers
are responsible for their children's training in the Lord and to
pawn them off to a volunteer 'baby sitter' who will give little
training or discipline to those in her care is hardly fulfilling
that mandate. Secondly, little children are to be exposed to the
preaching of the Word, no less than adults. They are to be surrounded
by the prayers of the saints and the singing of praises unto the
Lord. One need not be able to intellectually follow a sermon to
benefit from it, for a child learns as much, and perhaps more by
perceiving the example set by those whose care they are under. If
a child thinks that 'going to church' is just another 'play time'
then how will they conduct themselves as they grow older? When I
look and see how the majority of 'worship services' so-called are
being conducted in the vast number of churches today, I cannot help
but see adults who have never grown up. Their 'services' are 'emotional
happy hours' and offer more entertainment than sober reflection
of God and His majesty. And yes, you were correct in your last analysis
of what I might say. :-) All true believers should make every available
effort to belong
to a church, and not just attend one just to be able to say, 'Oh yes! We go to church
every Sunday.' But as I replied to FiveSola, one must be discerning
in under whose care one puts himself and/or his family.
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Regulartory Principle of Worship + From: GRACE2Me
To: Pilgrim Date Posted:
Mon, May 01, 2000 at 14:53:15 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
PILGRIM: Thank you for your reply. I tend to agree with you regarding
the children. Now I will admit, I have always been involved with
a church that had/has seperate services and Sunday School classes
for children. My church has a Primary Class, Junior Class and Teen
Class for Sunday School. And those 11 years old and under go to
Junior Church during the service. You never did comment on 'Sunday
School.' What's your take on that? BTW, I didn't mean to link the
RP with children in services. So can you elaborate on the Regulatory
Principle some? I assume this deals with the Preaching of the word
of God, the Sacraments and Music? Plus anything else I'm not thinking
about. 1Cor does say to remember Him in Communion as often as we
will. My church has Communion about once every 2-3 months. Do Reformed
Churches usually have it more often? Also, when you referenced the
Belgic(?) Confession it said something about the 'right administration
of the sacraments. You also said something about it being a 'light'
thing. Can you elaborate please? Finally, what do you think about
churches that have foot washing? My church used to have it every
time there was Communion. Now the Pastor has it every 2nd or 3rd
time with Communion :-). Thanks again for all your advice and instruction.
GRACE2Me
Subject: Re: Regulartory Principle of Worship + From: Pilgrim
To: GRACE2Me
Date Posted:
Mon, May 01, 2000 at 21:08:20 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
GRACE2Me,
Gee! What is this '20 Questions'?
hahaha Fine, I'll try and run through the entire list for you: 1)
QUEST: You never did comment on 'Sunday
School.' What's your take on that? BTW,
ANS: I for 'em! Especially for adults. 2) QUEST: So
can you elaborate on the Regulatory Principle some? ANS:
The Westminster Confession of Faith,
Chapter XXI'
I. The
light of nature showeth that there is a God, who hath lordship
and sovereignty over all, is good, and doth good unto all, and
is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted
in, and served, with all the heart, and with all the soul, and
with all the might.[1] But the acceptable way of worshiping
the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his
own revealed will, that he may not be worshiped according to
the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan,
under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed
in the Holy Scripture.[2] 1. Rom. 1:20; Psa. 19:1-4a; 50:6;
86:8-10; 89:5-7; 95:1-6; 97:6; 104:1-35; 145:9-12; Acts 14:17;
Deut. 6:4-5 2. Deut. 4:15-20; 12:32; Matt. 4:9-10; 15:9; Acts
17:23-25; Exod. 20:4-6, John 4:23-24; Col. 2:18-23
QUEST: My church has Communion about once every
2-3 months. Do Reformed Churches usually have it more often?' ANS: For decades after the Protestant Reformation,
most of the Reformed Churches administered (notice: not 'celebrated')
the Lord's Table weekly, sometimes more often depending upon the
number of communicants and the number of preaching services held.
Calvin, e.g., preached at least 3 times on the Lord's Day. There
are still some Reformed Churches and some Lutheran Churches that
hold to the weekly Lord's Table. But it varies greatly from denomination
to denomination and in each local assembly. QUEST: Also, when you referenced the Belgic(?) Confession
it said something about the 'right administration of the sacraments.
You also said something about it being a 'light' thing. Can you
elaborate please?
The Belgic
Confession of Faith, Article XXIX
We believe
that we ought diligently and circumspectly to discern from the
Word of God which is the true Church, since all sects which
are in the world assume to themselves the name of the Church.
But we speak not here of hypocrites, who are mixed in the Church
with the good, yet are not of the Church, though externally
in it; but we say that the body and communion of the true Church
must be distinguished from all sects that call themselves the
Church. The marks by which the true Church is known are these:
If the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; if it
maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted
by Christ; if church discipline is exercised in chastening of
sin; in short, if all things are managed according to the pure
Word of God, all things contrary thereto rejected, and Jesus
Christ acknowledged as the only Head of the Church. Hereby the
true Church may certainly be known, from which no man has a
right to separate himself. As for the false Church, it ascribes
more power and authority to itself and its ordinances than to
the Word of God, and will not submit itself to the yoke of Christ.
Neither does it administer the sacraments as appointed by Christ
in His Word, but adds to and takes from them, as it thinks proper;
it relies more upon men than upon Christ; and persecutes those
who live holily according to the Word of God and rebuke it for
its errors, covetousness, and idolatry. These two Churches are
easily known and distinguished from each other.
When I referred to
the practice of many of the contemporary churches in regards to
the sacraments as a 'light thing', I was referring to the irreverent
manner in which God is brought low and Christ's name regarded as
not much more than 'my buddy next door'! They have turned the blessed
sacrament of the Lord's Table, [wherein a sinner, who has been redeemed
by the precious blood of the Lord Christ, will approach the Table
with a humble spirit and a broken heart in sober reflection of their
own sinfulness which drove the nails into our beloved Saviour's
hands and feet and what great suffering He endured that we might
be made whole] into a 'party-like' celebration. Likewise in Baptism,
it is often 'performed' as some form of entertainment rather than
the Gospel portrayed visually and the symbol of a public recognition
of a believer's incorporation into the Body of Christ. The true
essence of these sacraments and their spirituality has been given
over to whatever way a particular Pastor, or 'worship leader' thinks
is 'neat'! QUEST: Finally,
what do you think about churches that have foot washing? ANS: In the past I have made reference to
a man called Robert Sandeman, a Welsh preacher from the late 1700's
and early 1800's. He was probably the main impetus for the introduction
of what we now call 'Easy Believism' In his little schismatic church
flowed many aberrant teachings besides the damnable heresy of a
'Historic Faith' being salvific. Among those teachings was their
making of 'Footwashing' an Ordinance, equal in importance to Baptism
and the Lord's Table. It is not the practice itself which is wrong
but in the importance given it I suppose. 'Footwashing' in the days
of Christ was not much more than a courtesy offered to traveling
guests who had walked the dusty roads to get to the home of the
host. The Lord Jesus used this normal practice [like here taking
off your shoes before walking into a person's home] to emphasize
that '. . .the Son of man
came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his
life a ransom for many.'
(Matt 20:28; Mk 10:45). This He did out of His great love for His
own. And so I would ask of anyone practices 'footwashing' within
the Church, if they are doing this out of the same heartfelt sense
of love for the person whose feet they are washing as a symbol of
their role as a servant to them as did our LORD Jesus. But let's
be certain, that we understand that 'footwashing' was NOT mandated
by the Lord Christ as something which should be practiced in the
Body of Christ.
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Regulartory Principle of Worship + From: GRACE2Me To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Tues, May 02, 2000 at 14:47:57 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message: I know I'm probably driving you crazy. But I am eager
to know and learn, and believe much can be gained by you and others
on the Site (by the grace of God of course). So the Regulatory principle
is limited to what was said in Ch. XXI Section I of the Westminster
Confession of Faith? At my Church, Communion is offered to all professing
believers present; an opportunity is given for the participants
to examine themselves before the Lord is remembered; and reminded
that the Sacrament itself does not save them. It is done in the
sanctaury while folks are in the pews during the A.M Service. Does
this seem to you to be biblical and God-glorifying? Also, having
discussed and and seen your position on this, is there a way, based
on the word of God, examples and church history to know how a typical
service should be? I realize that the Lord probably gives us some
latitude. But as it relates to music, preaching, communion, if someone
needs to be baptized, offering, etc. And what of Liturgy? What is
it exactly in meaning and practice, and what place does/should that
have in the service? I have only been a part of two churches since
the Lord so graciously saved me and therefore know nothing of Liturgy.
Also, do we know based on church history, how long and often services
were? The pastor at my church :-) has been going to 12:30pm most
days (12:45 the last two Sundays)and some folks seem to grumble
about that. However he has been in 2Th.2:13-17 the last two Sundays
preaching on the doctrines of Sovereign Election, Effectual Call,
and God's love being for those He gave the Son. Plus there was Communion
Easter Sunday. Is it true that down through the centuries many in
the true church would preach, teach, perform the sacraments, sing,
etc for hours into the afternoon? Thanks for all your help Pilgrim,
I'm about finished driving you crazy in here. GRACE2Me
Subject: Re: Regulartory Principle of Worship + From: Pilgrim
To: GRACE2Me
Date Posted:
Tues, May 02, 2000 at 21:08:17 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
GRACE2Me,
Hehehe.... okay, let's go over
these questions, but briefly. :-) 1) QUEST: 'So
the Regulatory principle is limited to what was said in Ch. XXI
Section I of the Westminster Confession of Faith?' ANS: Let's be sure we understand what is being addressed
in Chapter XXI, Sec. I of the WCF. It is the purpose of the framers
of the Confession to address the general and biblical guidelines
that pertain to the corporate and public worship of God in the church.
The basic principle is, 'If God hasn't commanded it; you can't do
it!'. Lutherans, on the other hand work from the opposite, 'exclusionary
principle' which basically says, 'If God hasn't forbidden it; then
it is permissible!'. The current and widely practiced 'principle'
in most churches today is, 'If it brings in more people and it makes
then happy; then that's proper worship!' The Regulatory Principle
can be cogently defended from the Scriptures by both direct commandment,
by example, principle and by a proper understanding of the nature
of the Triune God (theology). However, having said that, the full
scope of the Regulatory Principle of Worship has historically also
been applied to the believer's everyday life, and seen in the Reformation
clarion, Soli Deo Gloria. 2) QUEST: 'At my Church, Communion
is offered to all professing believers present; . . . Does this
seem to you to be biblical and God-glorifying?'
ANS: There is much latitude given in the Regulatory Principle as
to the exact manner that the Lord's Table is to be administered,
how often, etc. The RP itself will of course govern the 'attitude'
and meaning of the sacrament. Therefore, the way you have described
what takes place in your particular congregation is neither 'right
or wrong' and thus I cannot judge whether it is biblical and/or
God glorifying. Your description is far to general. But, for example,
if there was a Rock and Roll band and the sacrament was treated
as a time to 'celebrate' in a 'party like' atmosphere, then there
would be no doubt I would have serious objections. :-) And I have
no doubt you would too! I do have my own personal preference as
to how I like the Lord's Table to be administered. But again, as
long as the essentials of the RP are being held to, the actual manner
of administration can vary widely and still be 'acceptable'. QUEST:
'Also, having discussed and and seen your
position on this, is there a way, based on the word of God, examples
and church history to know how a typical service should be?' ANS: I would sincerely suggest that you begin by reading
the Old Testament and take note of the worship of God recorded therein.
This will set the 'tone' of worship as well as establishing a firm
biblical theology in regards to worship. The 'implements' used in
the O.T. worship of God were of course types and shadows or the
reality of that which was to come, it is in the O.T. that we are
given the 'big picture', drawn out in details which the N.T. mainly
applies and in many cases assumes that the reader is familiar with
all that has gone on before. As to examples in history, I am sure
there are books that have records of typical services during the
period in which it was written, but for the most part, the sermons
and prayers of the saints are what have mainly been preserved for
our edification. And I think there is good reason why this has been
providentially governed by God. One need only look at the Roman
state church and the Orthodox churches and see what manner of superstition
has been attached to relics, apparel, etc. and the Word of God for
the most part ignored and contradicted for the precepts of men.
On this same note, today, getting someone to read one of the Puritan
sermons is like asking someone to have their wisdom teeth pulled
without novocaine. I have little doubt that the vast majority of
modern church-goers would be 'bored out of the minds' if they had
to attend a typical worship service of 200 years ago; perhaps even
as recent as 75 years ago! The 'awe' and 'wonder' of the Holy One
of Israel is rarely found in today's 'celebration services', never
mind in the individual lives of those who attend them. The prophet
Isaiah's indictment against his contemporaries is just as apropos
today as it was in 760 B.C.:
Isa 30:9 That this is a rebellious people, lying children,
children that will not hear the law of the LORD: 10 Which say
to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto
us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits:
11 Get you out of the way, turn aside out of the path, cause
the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us.
You may appreciate an article
written by Rev. Don Kistler of 'Soli Deo Gloria Books' which you
can access from here: Why Read the Puritans Today? This will be a great introduction to the spirituality
and the mentality of those great men of God who went before us and
who were most instrumental in defining worship according to the
Regulatory Principle. Another fine set of sermons which address
the personal preparation and participation in the Lord's Table can
be found here: FIVE SACRAMENTAL SERMONS - Sermon
1 by John Willison. Remember always, that
TRUE worship is a matter of the heart's perception of God in the
manner which HE has revealed Himself; aka 'spirit and truth'.
'All men become
like the objects of their worship. Our inward character is being
silently moulded by our view of God and our conception of him.
Christian character is the fruit of Christian worship; pagan
character the fruit of pagan religion; semi-Christian character
the fruit of a half-true understanding of God. The principle
holds good for us all: we become like what we worship
for worse or for better. 'They that make them are like unto
them' (Psa. 115:8).' — Maurice Roberts
QUEST: 'And
what of Liturgy? What is it exactly in meaning and practice, and
what place does/should that have in the service? ANS: The Greek word, leitourgia originally meant a public or state duty. In the Septuagint
(LXX) it is applied particularly to the services of the temple in
Jerusalem. In its usage in the N.T. it often bears the meaning of
priestly service (e.g. Lk 1:23; Phil 2:17; Heb 8:6). In ecclesiastical
usage, the word is often employed (1) in a general sense with reference
to any of the prescribed services and offices of the church's worship;
(2) in a specific sense with reference to the formularies used at
the administration of the Lord's Supper, and in the RCC the eucharistic
office being commonly referred to as the liturgy. What is commonly
understood today by 'liturgy' is a set form or pattern of worship
with particular items/elements being varied from week to week, but
with some elements being static, eg., the corporate recitation of
the Lords' Prayer or the Ten Commandments, etc. Even the most contemporary
churches have a basic 'liturgy' they adhere to. So we might say
there is actually some order to their disorder! :-). The biblical
record shows clearly, that God established a set liturgy in the
worship of the people. This can be seen in the O.T. writings but
also in the many references of the N.T. where, for example, the
Lord Jesus entered into the synagogue on the Sabbath Day (Lk 4:16;
cf. Num 1ff; 1Sam 2:13; 1Cor 11:16). The Puritans often preached
the entire day, breaking only for lunch. :-) Calvin preached sometimes
3 or 4 times on the Lord's Day and many times during the week as
well. One has to wonder when he found the time to write all that
he did? hehe. Because of the content of the preaching, the people
were often forgetful of the time element. Today, if preaching is
doctrinal, people begin to fall asleep after the first 10 minutes
and many vow to never return to that 'cerebral and boring church.'
I do think discernment is most necessary in determining how long
sermons and the entire service should be, but I have difficulty
imagining a 'good service' that does not take at least an hour from
Prelude to Benediction. But again, it must be stressed that there
is no SET time given by God in the Scriptures on this matter. I
do appreciate your questions! :-)
I just wish there was more time to answer them
more fully. In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim
Subject: Atonement/Propitiation From: Rod To: All Date Posted:
Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 13:28:42 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
I've been reluctant to tackle this topic, as we have been challenged
to do by Pilgrim, because I am neither learned nor a theologian.
However, since I've challenged others to do so, in the spirit of
'getting things started,' I offer the following. The primary problem
for me in examining this topic is where to begin...and where to
end. I think Pilgrim's post was an effrot to alleviate that problem
by suggesting areas of concentration, listing four: 'Sacrifice,
reconciliation, ransom/redemption, and propitiation.' These are
so inter-related that it is difficult to separate them out, but
I will try to concentrate on 'reconciliation.' My treatment will
be limited, being confined to certain aspects and passages of the
NT--the OT aspects of this topic will have to be left to others,
due to the nature and scope of these posts. Romans chapter 5 would
seem to be the obvious place to start on this subject, but before
we go there, let's examine the use and meaning of the word 'reconciliation.'
My old dictionary gives this English meaning: 'reduction to congruence;
removal or explanation of inconsistency.' A synonym is listed as
'harmony.' As it is employed in the NT in terms of 'The Atonement,'
it is used in three basic and various ways, it seems, when the term
is employed specifically. The first is that of Romans 5 and 2 Cor.
5:18-19. It is used in these passages in essentially the same manner,
signifying a conformation of the believer to the standard which
God requires. The thought primarily emphasizes here justification
for the individual based on the principle and fact of imputation
of his unrighteousness to the Lord Jesus and the imputation of the
righteousness of God through His Son to the believer in 'the ministry
of reconciliation' (2 Cor. 5:18) given to Paul and other ministers
of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. A 'conformation' is involved;
conformity to God's ideal. Not to be realized actually by the person,
but only as a recipient of grace, his existence is now 'harmonized,'
or brought into proper relationship with the Lord God. It is, obviously,
as Paul's whole message emphasizes in the NT, a gift of grace to
those who deserve condemnation. In this utilization of the term
by Paul, the 'harmonious' aspect of the English definition is portrayed.
It is also very necessary to mark out that there is a specific relationship
between a perfectly just and holy God and the 'new man' affected
and effected by the reconciliation of God. God is the Prime Mover,
the Actor, the Initiator, the Achiever, the solely Responsible Agent
for the accomplishment of the fact of reconciliation. Man is the
beneficiary, the recipient, the receptor of a divine gift. He is
passive as far as the reconciliation of God is concerned, until
and unless God acts upon him by means of justification by grace
through faith. Then he responds to the grace of God by receiving
the gift of faith from the application of the Word of Truth made
possible by the new life of the new birth received by the power
and motivation of the Spirit of God now indwelling. God effects
the whole change, granting a new spiritual existence with a will
for God in Christ, providing justification, securing faith by provision
of the truth of God's revelation in the Bible, and creating a newly
sanctified person, destined to conformation to His own Son. Therein
lies the secret of 'reconciliation'--the person redeemed is 'predestinated
to the conformation of the image' of the Son of God (Rom. 8:29)
by God's "adoption," by the work and attributes of the
Lord Jesus Christ, on no other basis than 'the good pleasure of
his will' (Eph. 1:5). God is not moved or changed in all this. He
is eternally the same. But GOD MOVES
MEN, changing them, 'creating them
in Christ Jesus' (Eph. 2:10), bringing them into right relationship
with Himself and steadily working in progressive, personal sanctification
until they achieve, through His actions of grace, glorification
with Himself at their final destination in eternity (Rom. 30). And
he does this, as we've noted, 'according to his good pleasure which
he hath purposed in himself' (Eph. 1:9). Note carefully the expressions
used in Rom. 5:1-11: 'For when we were without
strength, in due time Christ died for
the ungodly' (verse 6). 'But God commendeth
his love toward us in that, while we were
yet sinners, Christ died for us' (verse 8; note the specificity
of the Atonement--'us'). Look also at these expressions describing
the state of the believer and note the nature of the believer as
a recipient, not an actor: 'being now justified by his blood, we
shall be saved from wrath through him' (verse 9); 'we were enemies,' but because of God's work
and provision, 'we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son,'
and 'being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life' (verse 10).
It is significant that our only action (beyond reception of grace)
is mentioned in verse 11, and that itself
is a reaction, 'we also joy in God' (our
proper response and attitude), and that 'through our Lord Jesus
Christ,' and that purely because it is He Who is the One, 'by whom
we have now received
the reconciliation' of God (verse 11). That same theme of the activity
of God on behalf of His elect ones is carried out in the similar
usage of the term in Eph. 2:14-18, quoting 15-16, where the Apostle
speaks of the new relationship in Christ of the redeemed Jew and
Gentile believers: 'having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even
the law of commandments contained in ordinances, to
make in himself one new man, so making
peace; and that he might reconcile both
unto God in one body by the cross, having
slain the enmity thereby....' Once again, God initiating and acting;
man responding and reacting, and benefitting
immensely because of God's prior work.
I never cease to marvel that my Arminian friends cannot see these
things! But there are a couple of other senses in the Epistles in
which the expression 'reconciliation' is applied. The first is discovered
in Col. 1:20-23. Here, though the idea is very similar to the formerly
discussed concepts of conformation and harmonizing, the 'realignment'
of the other passages, there is the additional thought of the 'absolute
completion' of the fact. There is no doubt of it; it is unquestionably
an accomplished fact--'And having made peace through
the blood of HIS cross, by him to reconcile
all things unto himself--by him, I say, whether they be things in
earth, or things in heaven' (verse 20; pretty inclusive and definite,
I'd say!). The same word, stressing permanency, is used in the Eph.
2:16 passage; the change is effective and permanent because it pleases
God and accomplishes His purpose. Finally, we come to another word,
an important and precious word of hope and encouragement and assurance.
Far more than being just a fact and a legal transaction, the reconciliation
of God is grounded in love and mercy for His people: 'Wherefore,
in all things it behooved him to be made like his brethren [that
is us believers by His grace], that he might be a merciful and faithful
high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation
for the sins of the people' (Heb. 2:17). Jesus Christ, God in the
flesh, the Lord, the Second Person of the glorious Trinity, is the
expression of God's exact image (Heb. 1:3). As such, He is 'merciful
and faithful' in His activity on behalf of His 'brethren' who are
made so by His actions in that merciful and faithful action of propitiation.
How great a thing is it to 'make reconciliation for the sins of
the people?' So great and so far above and beyond us that it can
only be comprehended in relation to the endless mercy grounded in
the love of God: 'But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love with which
he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath made us alive
together with Christ (by grace are ye saved)' (Eph. 2:4-5). How
boundless and wonderful a concept of the grace of God is His reconciliation!
Based on His love and mercy; founded on a decision of His will to
save us; grounded in the precious shed blood of the Savior, the
necessitated Sacrifice demanded by God's holy justice; how can we
exhaust this subject? We can't. One must simply quit and stand in
awe of God's work on his behalf. For it is only the redeemed who
can realize the depth of our collective and individual debt and
the extent of the work of God to our benefit. The lost will scoff
yet again, never realizing the gratitude we feel for His Majesty,
the Lord God of all the universe. Oh, God, of our salvation, we
praise and thank you! Amen.
Subject: Re: Atonement/Reconciliation From: Pilgrim
To: Rod Date Posted:
Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 15:11:05 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Rod,
First, let me extend my appreciation
to you for entering into this discussion of the glorious atonement
of our Lord Jesus Christ. I too am no theologian nor am I learned,
but a simple believer in the Lord Christ due to the mercy and grace
of the love of God for me from before time. It is indeed an 'awesome'
thing to comprehend the love of God in Christ Jesus for us poor
needy sinners, who are by nature the wretched of the earth, casting
off God's everlasting kindness toward us for our own 'vain imaginations'
and trusting rather in our own 'foolish hearts'. It is our constant
effort to 'exchange the truth of God for a lie' (Rom 1:25) and to
dishonor the name of the Creator, Who is blessed over all. Amen!
Our indigenous love of sin and hatred of God has created an immeasurable
and impassable gulf between ourselves and He Who sustains us in
life, giving us even the very air we breath. (Rom 8:7; Ps 10:1).
It is our inherent hatred of God which is expressed in our loathsome
and licentious living that has brought about the enmity which stands
between us and God and has evoked His wrath upon us. (Rom 1:18;
Jam 4:4). And so, out of His great love which He loved us, for no
reason in ourselves; including some imagined 'foreseen faith', but
rather as those who were His enemies and destitute of any holy desire
whatsoever, He sent His only begotten Son, made in human flesh to
reconcile us to Himself by the blood of the cross.
Rom 5:10 'For if,
when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death
of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by
his life.'
It is this 'reconciliation' that
was of such importance, for there could never be a union with holiness
to unrighteousness; God and man. Doubtless we as sinners are by
nature estranged from God by our own wickedness of heart, yet more
so is God by nature estranged from us and thus our mortal enemy,
Who will some day be our Judge and Executioner. Therefore it was
of necessity that God be reconciled to us by the removal of the
offense. It is here that so many good Christian men and women have
lost focus. We are taught from the vast majority of pulpits, over
the radio, on television, books, tapes, etc. that Christ's death
has made it possible for us to 'get to heaven' as if THIS were the
'pièce de resistánce' of Christ's atonement for sinners.
How far this has missed the mark in understanding the glory of the
cross!! It is to HIM
that we have been reconciled!
Eph 2:15 'Having abolished
in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained
in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man,
so making peace; 16 And that he might reconcile both unto God
in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: 17
And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and
to them that were nigh.'
Through Christ for us, we have
received in part and principle that which Adam once had in the Garden
of Eden and lost for himself and all mankind: blessed communion
with our Creator GOD. What sweetness there is in God and His love
for us. How anti-climatic is it therefore to focus our attention
on 'heaven'! and not on the ONE to whom reconciliation has been
accomplished for us through Christ's own humiliation?! Heaven must
be remembered is but a 'way station' wherein will dwell our departed
spirits to await the grand return of our Lord Christ. It is but
a temporary place and will pass away in an instant for the establishment
of the New Heaven and New Earth, where righteousness dwells. What
an incomprehensible truth it is to realize that now, EVEN NOW, we
have been reunited to God and the doors of that precious communion
once nonexistent, restored. How large is our portion to know HIM
and to be counted as sons; heirs of the kingdom of our Father and
God!
'Behold, what manner
of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be
called the sons of God: . . .' (1John 3:1a) 'Oh how great is
thy goodness, which thou hast laid up for them that fear thee;
which thou hast wrought for them that trust in thee before the
sons of men! 20 Thou shalt hide them in the secret of thy presence
from the pride of man: thou shalt keep them secretly in a pavilion
from the strife of tongues. 21 Blessed be the LORD: for he hath
shewed me his marvellous kindness in a strong city.'(Psa 31:19-21)
Reconciliation has been made in
our behalf and thus our hearts should be overflowing with joy and
amazement. Should not our own hearts echo the desire of the Apostle
Paul's own heart which was to:
'. . .be found in
him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law,
but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness
which is of God by faith: That I may know him, and the power
of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being
made conformable unto his death; if by any means I might attain
unto the resurrection of the dead.' (Phil 3:9-11)
Have we truly considered our RECONCILIATION
to God through the great sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ in our
behalf? To do so will surely move us to confess:
'Whom have I in heaven
but thee? and there is none upon earth that I desire beside
thee. My flesh and my heart faileth: but God is the strength
of my heart, and my portion for ever.' (Psa 73:25, 26)
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim
2Cor 5:18 'And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to
himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself,
not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto
us the word of reconciliation. 20 Now then we are ambassadors for
Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's
stead, be ye reconciled to God.' Heb 2:17 'Wherefore in all things
it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might
be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God,
to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. 18 For in that
he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them
that are tempted.'
Subject: A question for the board From: Rod To: All Date Posted: Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 11:00:59 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message: Here is a post by Pilgrim of a short time back which
has gone largely unnoticed or ignored. Compare all the spilled cyber-ink
on the topic of schools. I think it's a shame that we can so easily
brush aside a topic like this and I was interested in seeing what
the theologs here would have to say on the subject. I invite you
to consider this subject again and to give it your best shot. Pilgrim's
post: 'I would like to see a discussion concerning the atonement
of the Lord Jesus Christ. There are 4 specific terms used in the
New Testament to describe what His saving work entailed: 1) Sacrifice
2) Reconciliation 3) Ransom/Redemption 4) Propitiation Perhaps we
could have a separate thread dedicated to each of these terms so
that they could be discussed in detail individually. I think it
would be rewarding and provide a blessing to all, including are
many 'lurkers'. :-) In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim
Subject: Grown Daughters From: laz To: All Date Posted:
Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 07:30:22 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
'Grace2Me' (no doubt a MacArthurite, hehe) suggested we might start
a new thread about where grown daughters should be living. I have
an opinion. Thought you were gonna get away without hearing it,
huh? ;-) Here goes: As Christians, it's all about covenants as they
have been made by God thru men (father, husband, church (men elders)).
So, a woman should always be under the protective covering of either
her daddy, her hubby, or the Church elders. NOT 'out and about'
sowing seeds, discovering herself and/or the world ... left to her
own devices to ward off the wolves single handed. Once raised by
Mom and Dad ... covenant daughters are 'given away' (handed off)
to their next covenantal home headed by a loving covenant-minded
husband. Are they not the weaker, more gullible sex? hahaha (now
I've started more than just an new thread...hehe) As for the 30
yrs spinster, I suppose she can eventually leave the home if she
has the economic means to support herself (but still be loosely
under her father's 'authority') but should have already aligned
herself with a solid Church family where the eldership can attend
to her spiritual needs...much like a widow. Thoughts? blessings,
laz
Subject: Re: Grown Daughters From: GRACE2Me
To: laz Date Posted:
Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 20:48:51 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Hi Laz: I guess I would be considered a MacArthurite, but that did
not enter my mind when coming up with this 'handle.' I agree with
what you are saying, and have held to it of late. But have not been
able to dogmatically pinpoint Scriptural backing (actually just
never took the time to dig). Would like to know more about this
covenantal covering you brought up. There is a woman that I know
that has used that term 'covering' to support her not coming to
our church without her husband. As I mentioned before, my oldest
daughter went to bible college for 1 year (96-97). Then finaces
prevented her from going back the first semester of the following
year. When she went to go back in December 1997, she had an accident
on the way there. She totaled the car she was using, and the police
thought he would find her dead. The Lord speared and protected her,
as she only had minor cuts and bruises on her face and wrist. I
believe the Lord intervened to both prevent her from going back
from some reason, yet at the same time, in His woderful grace and
mercy spare her fronm death or serious injury. I have reminded her
of that as she prays about whether it is God's will for her to go
back to bible college. She has been considering 2 in Tennessee.
Bryan College in Dayton, and Tennessee Temple in Chattanooga (both
are close to her maternal grandparents. And yes I do agree with
you about the woman being the 'weaker vessel.' That's biblical ain't
it? :-). Thanks for the input...............GRACE2Me
Subject: Re: Grown Daughters From: laz To: GRACE2Me
Date Posted:
Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 07:06:07 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Dear Grace2me - I try to come up with a good biblical defense of
this idea of covering. ;-) I'm fixing to start Doug Wilson's new
book, 'The Federal Husband' (as Jeff goes 'AAAAACK', hehe)...he
might have some insights. I do know that the OP's Horizon magazine
had an interesting rebuttal by a lady to a recent book review the
magazine did on Doug's book. Gonna have to read the book to see
if the lady's rebuttal was sound (sounded like it though). As for
your lady friend using the 'covering' idea to not go to church (because
her husband said NOT to?). Well, she is commanded first by God to
go to Church. Period. She is to obey her husband 'as unto the Lord',
yes,....which precludes her obeying him if he's asking her to sin.
blesssings, laz
Subject: Re: Grown Daughters From: Anne To: laz Date Posted:
Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 18:45:37 (PDT) Email Address:anneivy@home.com
Message:
Laz, what is the OP's Horizon magazine, please? I am unfamiliar with what OP stands
for, I fear. I loved Wilson's book, Reforming
Marriage, and am looking forward to hearing
how you like Federal Husband. As someone pointed out down below somewhere, Wilson's
magazine does tend to be a bit over-the-top, but the writing is
so good, I just love it! Trouble is, when one is that entertained,
it can be easy to automatically fall in with what is being said,
without using necessary discernment. Well, that's what happens with
me, anyway. Pax! Anne
Subject: Re: Grown Daughters From: laz To: Anne Date Posted:
Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 20:32:48 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Anne - Orthodox Presby (OP). At this point, I hesitate to say ANYTHING
about the Wilson's... hahaha...especially any comments about 'Reforming
Marriage'. LOL!! blessings, laz
Subject: Re: Grown Daughters From: Pilgrim
To: laz Date Posted:
Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 07:37:56 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
laz,
Where in God's Word is the commandment from God that
all Christians MUST attend church? I know of some indirect commandments
that would have true believers to read the Scriptures. But I have
never come across a command, either direct or indirect that says
that Christians MUST attend church and that if they don't, it is
SIN. And this is exactly what you at least implied above, 'Well, she is commanded first by God to go to Church.
Period. She is to obey her husband 'as unto the Lord', yes,....which
precludes her obeying him if he's asking her to sin.' I smacks of 'Doug Wilsonism' and his unbiblical and extreme
views on marriage, covenants, etc.. Yes, hehehe, I was going 'AAAAACK'
when you brought his name up. His magazine used to be delivered
to my home and it didn't take more than 2 issues to realize that
this man is an extremist. Notice I did NOT say he is unregenerate,
apostate, or any other type of thing.
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Grown Daughters From: laz To: Pilgrim Date Posted:
Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 18:13:27 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
...I must be a sucker for rebels, eh? Maybe I'll go see if Matt
Slick needs any help on his site. ROFLOL!! laz
Subject: Re: Grown Daughters From: GRACE2Me
To: Pilgrim Date Posted:
Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 13:17:40 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Hello Pilgrim' You wrote: 'Where in God's Word is the commandment
from God that all Christians MUST attend church? I know of some
indirect commandments that would have true believers to read the
Scriptures. But I have never come across a command, either direct
or indirect that says that Christians MUST attend church and that
if they don't, it is SIN.' It is my limited understanding that the
word of God in dealing with worship, studying, ministering with
the gifts that Christ gives, and fellowship, instituted the local
new testament church. Whether it is in homes, or a building contructed
for assembling, are we not to assemble together as believers. Does
God not care one way or the other if we gather together? What of
Heb. 10:25 that says: 'Not forsaking the assembling of yourselves
together as the MANNER OF SOME IS; but exhorting one another, and
so much the more as we see the Day approaching.' Are you advocating
that we just close the church doors? Or have a cavalier attitude
about people attending? And what has the church done and thought
historically down through the centuries regarding this? I will not
even pretend to know regarding the latter question. Look forward
to your reply, thank you! GRACE2Me
Subject: Re: Grown Daughters From: Pilgrim
To: GRACE2Me
Date Posted:
Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 17:01:28 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
GRACE2Me
I heartily agree that Christians
should not 'forsake the assembling of themselves', but this is hardly
a 'fixed commandment', but as I read it an exhortation. For example
when the Law says, 'Thou shalt not kill (murder)', it is a universal
mandate and it applies in all situations with no exceptions. Thus,
if one would make the text in Heb. 10:25 a 'universal commandment',
would this not preclude the taking of vacations or any other set
of circumstances a person or family might find themselves in by
God's providence? I would offer you a particular circumstance where
an individual/family is living in a rural community where there
were only 2 'churches'; one being a Jehovah Witnesses' hall, and
the other a Unitarian Church. Is it therefore obligatory upon that
individual/family to attend one of these two places for worship?
How about a town were there are only churches that are Arminian
and/or Charismatic/Pentecostal? Should a person who has come by
God's grace to embrace biblical Calvinism and the Regulatory Principle
of Worship attend one of these types of congregations? thus putting
themselves and all their family members under the teaching and authority
of these types of churches?
Now I sincerely await your reply! :-) In His Grace,
Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Grown Daughters From: Five Sola
To: Pilgrim Date Posted:
Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 19:37:35 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Dear brother, This is the last place I would ever expect to see
you take a stand against? I guess I can see you wanting to be cautious
not to give a blanket 'thou shalt' but am I mis-reading you as to
say that regular church attendance is not necessary? I know I do
not have the intelligence nor the years in study as you do but something
just doesn't sound right. I understand both scenerios you give and
I agree that nether of those situations would be acceptable for
church attendance. And while we cannot find a perfect church (for
all of them have man within them) :-) we must seek out an assembling
of saints to give us accountability, authority over us, etc. Sometimes
that is a great burden on ourselves. There are two families in our
church that live in other small towns outside our city, one drives
45 minutes, the other 2 hours, but they know the need for a solid
church is necessary and worth the sacrifice. Would not the 4th commandment
and the practice of the New Testament church give good reason to
believe we need this?? Many of the proof text we use to show the
change in the sabbath from Saturday to Sunday give examples of regular
meeting places. If I remember right, Paul on one occassion did not
leave town so that he could visit with the church one more time.
I really don't know how to 'challenge' your statement on this. I
guess I am just trying to understand your view. A stumped Five Sola.
:-)
Subject: Re: Grown Daughters From: Pilgrim
To: Five Sola
Date Posted:
Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 21:08:23 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Five Sola,
I think you understood me correctly
brother. I am a firm advocate of believers attending an organized
church. But I cannot approve of attending just 'any' church for
the sake of attending. We are to gather with the saints at a place
that meets the biblical criterion for a 'Church'. I think the Belgic
Confession has rightly summarized the biblical teaching of discerning
Christ's true church:
1) The pure preaching
of the Word. 2) The right administration of the sacraments.
3) The application of church discipline.
Given these three essentials as
being the qualifications of the true church, the examples I offered
would not qualify. Why would the head of a household expose himself
and his family to 'wolves'? Just because he should be in the field
grazing? I certainly agree that there is no perfect church and if
should find it, by all means don't join it, for you'll ruin it!
:-) Perhaps my 'years' and travels have exposed me to more of what
happens when people get involved with a church that doesn't have
sound teaching, makes the sacraments a 'light' thing, and/or doesn't
apply proper church discipline. Even the strongest of the strong
can and often is negatively affected by such a place. I hope I have
made my position a bit clearer for you, regardless if you choose
to agree or disagree. I am first concerned that you understand me
aright. :-)
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Grown Daughters From: Five Sola
To: Pilgrim Date Posted:
Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 21:30:24 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Pilgrim, I don't think I would be the best at discussing this. I
guess my only point would be is that if there are no 'good' churches
in the area or a driveable distance, then make one. :-) Hopefully
not too simplistic and you may have done this and I'm assuming too
much. But as in the case of the Reformation, Luther, Calvin, et.
al. did not stop going to church because the Roman church was wrong,
they establish a more correct church. Of course I know up in Canada
there may not be anyone to attend other then your wife and you,
but then you guys have always done things oddly. :-) (just kidding)
Five Sola ps. I probably won't 'get into a discussion' of this (I
say since I have already started one) :-) I just was shocked by
your statement and had to verify if I read right.
Subject: We live in igloos too n/t From: Tom To: Five Sola
Date Posted:
Fri, May 12, 2000 at 00:34:29 (PDT) Email Address:ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Subject: Re: Grown Daughters From: Pilgrim
To: Five Sola
Date Posted:
Mon, May 01, 2000 at 11:55:30 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Five Sola,
One just doesn't take it upon
himself to 'start a church'! There are proper and biblical principles
that one must adhere to. The failure to do so has spawned literally
hundreds of little 'churches' and denominations that have been established
by unauthorized and incapable men and/or women. As I tried to point
out to GRACEtoMe, I believe it is far worse to put oneself and those
to whom the Lord has entrusted to your care to subject them to a
false church and their aberrant teaching and authority just for
the sake of 'attending church'. Call me radical! Call me wrong!
Call me what you will, but as Luther once said before those who
believed themselves to be 'in the right', I will not recant, nor
can I for unless you can show me from the Scriptures what God has
clearly commanded I shall continue to believe, teach and practice
those things which I now know what God has laid down in His inspired
Word, and for His honor and glory. Just something for you to consider
also, the Jews were forbidden to mingle with the idolatrous nations
or to enter into the worship of their false gods. Yet not one Jew
can be found to have gone out and established another religion which
was better. The TRUE religion and worship of God has ALREADY been
established. Another sect we do not need. We need unity in the truth,
not little independent assemblies who are a law unto themselves.
Yes, I am CONFESSIONAL and therefore of the mind to believe that
although different denominations are of a necessity, they should
be few in number, for the essentials are to be held in common among
ALL Christians, which is in my mind, THE REFORMED FAITH. Thanks
for listening. :-). In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Grown Daughters From: Tom To: Pilgrim Date Posted:
Mon, May 01, 2000 at 12:57:52 (PDT) Email Address:ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Pilgrim Out of curiosity(you don't have to answer if you feel it
is none of my business) since you do not attend a Church, do you
concider this forum and this ministry the congragation that you
attend? I realise that the Church is made up of believers all over
the world, but is it not also true that it can not take the place
of assembling together for the common goal of worshipping God in
Spirit and in truth? How are you meeting that command? Tom
Subject: Re: Grown Daughters From: Pilgrim
To: Tom Date Posted:
Mon, May 01, 2000 at 17:01:15 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Tom,
I don't mind answering at all,
for God is my Judge and not the people who post their opinions here.
:-) First of all let me make it very clear, that IF was a local
church in my area that qualified as a true church according to the
Scriptures in the essentials, and one that was of reasonable distant
where my infirm wife could withstand the ride, we would be there
in an instant! Okay? Do we have this straight now? hehehe..... I
DO NOT acknowledge nor condone absenteeism from corporate worship
when there is a biblical congregation located in a person's area.
Further, I do not condone a modern counterpart to that either that
says it is fine to attend Sunday services of a church, but be a
member of that church. 'CHURCH' is not a place to go where you can
get your 'felt needs' fulfilled and then go home and to the work
place for 6 more days before returning again. The CHURCH is the
'assembly of the saints' over which Christ is the Head and under
Whose authority and instruction a believer belongs. This is NOT
an option. Thus to be in union with an assembly which is not preaching
the biblical Gospel, rightly administering the Sacraments, and/or
exercising proper CHURCH DISCIPLE, is to be in league with a group
that is guilty of idolatry and false teaching. To put it in perspective,
would you allow your children to read ANY kind of book, out of the
principle that reading is necessary to one's maturity in life? Would
you not be very careful as to what it was that your children took
into their minds? Then how much more should one take care of their
soul? How little thought and humility is displayed by so many people
today who profess to be 'Christians' as to first, that we are but
'sheep', 'spiritual children' who are easily deceived by the wolves;
the purveyors of lies when it comes to the things of God, and even
God Himself. 'Wherefore let him that thinketh
he standeth take heed lest he fall.' (1Cor
10:12). Do you not find it amazing that with all the numerous warnings
exhorted by the Apostles throughout their Epistles to beware of
false teachers, false prophets, deceivers, wolves in sheep's clothing,
etc., etc. discernment is sorely lacking or completely absent in
Christendom today? Isn't this lack of discernment that which has
infected the queries directed toward me and Church attendance? 'It
doesn't really matter WHERE you go to church, just as long as you
GO!' And of course there are those who will certainly make exceptions,
e.g., 'Well I'm not saying attend a Mormon Tabernacle or a Seik
Temple, but SURELY there is a 'decent' Arminian church around you
could attend?' Let's get serious here shall we? If the irreconcilable
differences which we see in this little Forum between Arminians
and Calvinists is a fair representation of what differences there
are in a typical 'good' Arminian church and a faithfully Reformed
church, what man who holds tenaciously to the doctrines of Sovereign
Grace; those doctrines passed on by the blood of the Martyrs; the
truth of God's Word, would join with such a church never mind deliberately
set his family under its authority and teaching? If I stand alone
in this, so be it! But I would not nor could I EVER subject myself
or my family to the heretical views of that man-centered theology
known as modern Arminianism. You think the little Dutch boy had
his problems trying to plug up the leaking holes in the dike? My
friend, that is child's play compared to what would be required,
both in knowledge and time of a man to counter all the wrong teaching,
models, examples and pressures and so much more that man's family
would be exposed to in a church that was teaching a false Gospel
and biblical ideology. Lastly, I am rather taken back by your first
question to be honest Tom. Actually, its quite insulting both of
my biblical knowledge and of my Christian character. But to answer
your question as to whether I think that this Forum and/or The Highway
web site to be 'my congregation', NO! The internet is not a church, a congregation or the body
of Christ. It is a medium on which the truths of Christ can be made
known to the world. My Ecclesiology is beyond your ability to comprehend
at this point to be honest with you. You have much to learn. :-)
And I have been encouraged that you are progressing both in knowledge
and godliness. May God continue to bring you to a deeper maturity
of the faith and that you may be continually transformed into the
image of Christ Jesus our Lord.
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Grown Daughters From: Tom To: Pilgrim Date Posted:
Mon, May 01, 2000 at 20:01:47 (PDT) Email Address:ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Pilgrim You said: Lastly, I am rather taken back by your first question
to be honest Tom. Actually, its quite insulting both of my biblical
knowledge and of my Christian character. But to answer your question
as to whether I think that this Forum and/or The Highway web site
to be 'my congregation', NO! The internet is not a church, a congregation
or the body of Christ. It is a medium on which the truths of Christ
can be made known to the world. My Ecclesiology is beyond your ability
to comprehend at this point to be honest with you. You have much
to learn. :-) And I have been encouraged that you are progressing
both in knowledge and godliness. May God continue to bring you to
a deeper maturity of the faith and that you may be continually transformed
into the image of Christ Jesus our Lord. Pilgrim, I can assure you
that I meant no harm by my questions. In fact I wish I had worded
that a little better. But to be frank I am not all that good at
words. Please except my apology, like you said this is not a church
and I really didn't expect you to say it was. You have no arguement
from me about me having a lot to learn. In fact the more I learn,
the more I realise just how much I have to learn. I suppose the
bottom line for me, is at this point in my life, I could not go
without the church I attend. That is not to say that I agree with
everything they do there. But until I am convinced by God that I
should leave this church I can not do so. I think I would backslide,
in the faith. Tom
Subject: Re: Grown Daughters From: Pilgrim
To: Tom Date Posted:
Mon, May 01, 2000 at 21:23:02 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Tom,
Apology heartily received! :-)
The WISE man knows that which he doesn't know! And at this stage
of my 'learning' I too have realized that I have barely scratched
the surface. The knowledge of God is as the horizon. You can be
standing on the shores of a beach in Florida and see the horizon
far to the West. Yet if you were to travel the 3000 miles to reach
the shores of the Pacific Ocean in San Diego and peer out over the
water the horizon would be no closer to you than it was when you
saw it on the East coast. The knowledge of God is infinite and we
cannot even begin to comprehend the depth, breadth nor height of
His being. But even though this is true, our 3000 mile journey is
a reality and we do accumulate some knowledge of Him in our lifetime.
I know very little of the church you attend and thus I didn't make
any reference to it in any of my messages contained within this
thread. I would truly be a fool for even trying to do so. I wasn't
aware that your church was under consideration? :-)
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Grown Daughters From: Tom To: Pilgrim Date Posted:
Tues, May 02, 2000 at 12:05:53 (PDT) Email Address:ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Pilgrim I only brought up my particular church, because that is
where I attend, and I can not fathom how someone can go without,
being a member of a particular church.(I hope I am saying that correctly?)
As much as we are dependant on God, we are also dependant on each
other for exortation, building up and instruction in rightiousness.
Also it is a lot different when we come together for worship, than
when we worship God on our own. I understand from some of your other
posts, how you feel about the topic of worship. But don't understand
how you can go with out attending a local body. You once told me
about a church in Vancouver, that you believe is worshipping God
in Spirit and in truth. From where I stand (not saying that I am
right) I would make the trip in order to be a member there. If that
was the closest one that I in good conscience could worship at.
I hope you understand what I mean? Tom
Subject: Re: Grown Daughters From: Pilgrim
To: Tom Date Posted:
Tues, May 02, 2000 at 12:23:51 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Tom, I fully understand what you mean. :-) Fellowship of the saints,
although secondary is a very important aspect of church membership.
As to the church in Vancouver you mentioned, let's just say that
physical disabilities prohibit making the near hour long journey
one way, sitting through 1 1/2 hours of worship and then another
near hour drive home. I'm sure God does not hold this in judgment
against my family, and I hope you do not either. :-) In His Grace,
Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Grown Daughters From: Tom To: Pilgrim Date Posted:
Tues, May 02, 2000 at 13:15:20 (PDT) Email Address:ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Pilgrim Sorry I totally forgot about the physical disabilities that
you mentioned. That does indeed shed some light on your particular
situation. :-) Tom
Subject: Re: Grown Daughters From: laz To: Tom Date Posted:
Tues, May 02, 2000 at 13:28:28 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Pilgrim Sorry I totally forgot about the physical disabilities that
you mentioned. That does indeed shed some light on your particular
situation. :-) Tom
--- ...I don't think being folically challenged is considered
a physical disability. lol laz
Subject: Re: Grown Daughters From: Tom To: laz Date Posted:
Tues, May 02, 2000 at 13:45:55 (PDT) Email Address:ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Laz I think what Pilgrim is referring to, is his wife has a physical
disability. Though I could be wrong. Tom
Subject: Re: Grown Daughters From: laz To: Pilgrim Date Posted:
Tues, May 02, 2000 at 12:31:55 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
hmmm, then ask that church to have sunday school and 2-1/2 hour
worship services and make it a day! haha laz p.s. you can be listening
to great contemporary christian music while commuting to/from church.
lol coming from the Wash DC area...an hour (one-way) commute 5 days
a week is peanuts.... hey, I'm not badgering you....just encourging
you. ;-)
Subject: Re: Grown Daughters From: Pilgrim
To: laz Date Posted:
Tues, May 02, 2000 at 19:29:38 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
laz, If you hadn't written, 'hey, I'm not
badgering you....just encourging you. ;-)'
That would have escaped my notice! :-) In His Grace, Pilgrim FYI,
there was a PCA church in Vancouver that we did attend regularly
for about 6 months a few years ago. However, they were starting
to implement a contemporary 'worship' service using the 'mindless
mantras'; exchanged the NASB for the NIV, and even allowed dogs
to enter the sanctuary during the 'service'. It has been my practice
to come before the Lord in prayer about 20 minutes before the beginning
of the service to prepare my heart and mind to hear what the Lord
would be saying to me and to ask that I be willing to put into practice
whatever it was that was needful of me. However, at this particular
church, the people entering the church made such a clamour and their
worldly conversations so distracting, I was unable to do this there.
After about 6 months, I put forth two basic questions to the pastor,
who said he would gladly answer that which I wanted to know. And
so I asked him if he thought the contemporary, seeker-friendly change
was consistent with the Westminster Confession of Faith, to which
they of necessity gave subscription to, and its teaching on the
Regulatory Principle of Worship. Secondly, I asked if he was aware
of the fallacy of the Dynamic Equivalence used to 'translate' the
NIV. (One of my former Greek professors was on the committee). His
answer was, If you don't like the way we
do things here, then why don't you just go some place else!'. End of conversation.... and the end of our attendance.
And to put the final 'nail in the coffin', we attended their 'mission'
church which was much closer to us, and I was appalled to see what
was going on there; in a church sponsored and under the authority
and supervision of this PCA church. The sermon was blatantly Liberal,
the rock band was deafening and one of the 'songs' was blasphemous
as one of the stanzas referred to the blessed Lord Christ as a 'FOOL'!
And this place is one of the more conservative congregations in
our immediate location. Hey! I've got an idea.... why don't you
bring your family out here and join one of these GREAT churches.
After all, it is of necessity that one attend a church, even though
'it ain't perfect'!! :Þ In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Grown Daughters From: Tom To: Pilgrim Date Posted:
Tues, May 02, 2000 at 23:28:33 (PDT) Email Address:ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Pilgrim Wow! I can hardly believe a man of God saying , 'If you
don't like the way we do things here, then why don't you just go
some place else!'. Based on what you have said about this situation
and the fact that you were willing to discuss this issue with him.
I think you were very justified in leaving. When I discuss matters
with my pastor, that I don't nessasarily see eye to eye with him.
He would never say something like that, regardless of whether or
not we end up agreeing with each other. I always know that he does
things out of his understanding of the word of God, and from what
I know about him, if he found out he was wrong about something.
He would humbly bow to what the word of God says. That doesn't sound
anything like the pastor you talked about. It is not hard to be
lead astray, but the truly Godly person will when they are convinced
that they have gone astray. Will do whatever it takes, to get back
on the right track. Tom
Subject: Re: Grown Daughters From: Rod To: Tom Date Posted:
Wed, May 03, 2000 at 00:12:21 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
Tom, From a couple of clues in your recent posts, I get the idea
your pastor operates somewhat as a 'CEO' of a corporation would,
running the show at your local church. Is that assessment unfair?
Subject: Re: Grown Daughters From: Tom To: Rod Date Posted:
Wed, May 03, 2000 at 10:23:55 (PDT) Email Address:ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Rod I am not sure why you said that. I believe my pastor thinks
of himself as a shepherd of a local flock. Responcible to God for
the building up of the sheep. Does that sound like a CEO? Maybe
you could explain what you mean? Do you not think a pastor should
concider things that people bring to him? Knowing that he does not
know it all, and that he could use all the help he can get. Tom
Subject: authority in the local church From: Rod To: Tom Date Posted:
Wed, May 03, 2000 at 13:17:13 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
Hi, Tom, It just seems that you, who have identified yourself as
an elder of your local assembly, defer in all things to your pastor
as if he is the final authority. Most churches today have a 'THE'
pastor who rules the church with everyone else in a subordinate
role, including the board of elders. I think this is counter to
the Bible. I also noticed that you seem to have used the expression
'man of God' (as has Pilgrim, I think) to denote someone somehow
different from and above the rest of the people of the Church of
Jesus Christ. This I also believe is contrary to Biblical teaching.
I don't want to be unfair and impose beliefs/practices on you to
which you don't subscribe, so I thought I should ask. :>)
Subject: Re: authority in the local church From: Pilgrim
To: Rod Date Posted:
Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:42:01 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Rod,
There are various doctrines of
church polity held among the different denominations as you know.
And to be sure, many are unbiblical. Personally, I am not convinced
that the Scriptures are all that clear on what type of church government
is THE right one. Yes, I know it seems logical that it should, and
perhaps, in fact does. But I haven't been able to settle on one
specific one in my own mind. As providence would have it, this month's
'Article of the Month' tackles this very issue. :-) It can be read
here: The Problem of the ‘ELDERSHIP’
and its Wider Implications,
by Iain Murray. Perhaps you would be so kind as to begin a new thread,
if you are so inclined, to start a discussion on church government?
This thread is getting a bit off track and rather lengthy as well,
hahaha.
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: authority in the local church From: Tom To: Rod Date Posted: Wed, May 03, 2000 at 14:56:49 (PDT) Email Address:ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message: Rod I think I understand where you are coming from.
But I hope I can aleviate your concerns by saying that my pastor
does not rule the church. He does however believe that since God
has called him into the ministry of our local body, he is accountable
to God, for what happens in the local body. Although our pastor
is somewhat the head of the board of elders. He does not decide
what is going to happen in the church, he is subject to both the
board and membership. I use the term 'man of God' not as a term
that means someone above or different from other believers. But
as someone who is called to build up believers in the faith. The
difference is in role and giftedness only. Tom
Subject: Re: authority in the local church From: Rod To: Tom Date Posted:
Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:18:48 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
Tom, Thanks for the reply. :>) I'm not certain I'm completely
understanding all you say or that I can agree with it all, but the
situation doesn't sound exactly like I was beginning to perceive
it.
Subject: Re: authority in the local church From: laz To: Rod Date Posted:
Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:23:38 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
If I'm not mistaken, in presby circles, the teaching elder (pastor)
is part of the Session (along with the ruling elders) but he does
NOT have a vote. He's there to be the preacher and a key example
to the rest of the congregants. laz
Subject: Re: authority in the local church From: Rod To: laz Date Posted:
Wed, May 03, 2000 at 21:37:18 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
laz, The Murray article has some things to say about that situation
which seem very appropo. Have you had a chance to look at it?
Subject: Re: authority in the local church From: laz To: Rod Date Posted:
Thurs, May 04, 2000 at 04:51:15 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
not yet but plan to soon! thanks and blessings, laz
Subject: Re: Grown Daughters From: laz To: Pilgrim Date Posted:
Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 17:58:18 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Pilgrim - I would agree that not going to church is NECESSARILY
sin (the jury is still out on the scenario you posited, LOL!)...just
as attending a Jehovah's Witness Church ought not be considered
to be an act of obedience. I could maintain that one would get SOME
gospel even in many Arminian churches ... which might be better
than nothing. After all, show me the perfect church? Now, the situation
of being under the authority of Arminians is problematic (especially
if you know more than they to include the grossness of their error)...but
then again, how many Arminian churches practice biblical discipline?
LOL! As for Wilson, you may be right....but I still like alot of
his stuff. naaa naaa! LOL! Laz the Amil Wilsonite
Subject: Re: Grown Daughters From: Tom To: laz Date Posted:
Mon, May 08, 2000 at 13:20:30 (PDT) Email Address:ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Laz You said: ...but then again, how many Arminian churches practice
biblical discipline? LOL! Actually Laz, over the years I have attended
many churches, and I have found that one can not generalise about
that. Some do practice discipline, I have wittnessed first hand
a few times, members of the church being disiplined. One in particular,
during service was publicly rebuked in front of the whole church
for his behaviour, that he had been warned about on more than a
few occasions. This man was asked to promptly leave. The very next
Sunday, he was protesting in front of the church, with an article
in which he was giving to anyone who would take one in hand denouncing
what had happened to him. I understand that this man, became a radical
and not long after, his marriage ended. But that is another topic.
Tom Tom
Subject: Re: Grown Daughters From: laz To: Tom Date Posted:
Mon, May 08, 2000 at 19:24:59 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Tom - you the only person left? haha Your example is sad...but also
NOT what I consider proper discipline from what I can tell based
on what little you shared. The man should have been approached in
private initially...and then if he refuses to tow the line...he
gets his walking papers with an announcement made after-the-fact
to the congregation without being too specific about his sinful
and impenitent behavior to preclude unnecessarily embarrasing the
man...but allowing room for him to consider his actions, his discipline...that
perchance God might grant him repentence and eventual restoration.
But then again, I never met the man nor fully understand what he
was doing and how he was going about making his concerns known to
the church. blessings, laz
Subject: Re: Grown Daughters From: Tom To: laz Date Posted:
Tues, May 09, 2000 at 00:23:27 (PDT) Email Address:ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Laz Actually Laz looking back at that particular church, as I think
about what that pastor did. It was one of the things that I can
say he did biblically. I didn't give you the whole situation, but
this man had been approached in private and on other occasions for
that matter before more than one wittness. I can criticize, many
things that were done in that church, but that definitely wasn't
one of them. I guess the most possitive thing I ever learned from
that particular pastor, was when during a sermon, he said. 'Don't
believe something simply because I said it! Believe it because the
word of God says it.' I guess you could say that although inside
I knew that at the time. This really made me stand up and take notice,
it has been a moto of mine ever since. Tom
Subject: Re: Grown Daughters From: Tom To: laz Date Posted:
Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 10:36:42 (PDT) Email Address:ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Laz I guess that would rule out going to college or univercity,
wouldn't it? Tom
Subject: Re: Grown Daughters From: laz To: Tom Date Posted:
Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 10:39:42 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
No, not at all. My daughter plans to be a doctor....she just doesn't
know it. hehe laz
Subject: Re: Grown Daughters From: Tom To: laz Date Posted:
Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 10:50:59 (PDT) Email Address:ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Laz My daughter plans on becoming a physiotherapist, and I can tell
you that there is no way she can do that by staying home. Of course
God may have other plans for her life. Tom
Subject: Re: Grown Daughters From: laz To: Tom Date Posted:
Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 14:40:02 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
No one said anything about staying home...just ensuring 'covering'
at all times...and YOU are going to be held responsible for that
covering (or delegation thereof)...either by giving it to another
man (by marriage) or by making darn sure when she leaves your house...a
great Church family with strong elders is waiting to receive her
as their daughter. laz
Subject: Re: Grown Daughters From: john hampshire
To: laz Date Posted:
Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 22:45:35 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Laz, Not that it matters, but the idea expressed of maintaining
a proper male authority as protector of the female is a great idea.
It is somewhat possible to control the marriage aspects. It is worse
when it comes to church leaders who would be a protector. The type
of honorable men you suggest are few and far between. Even fewer
are churches that have 'strong elders waiting to receive her'. Though,
it is a great idea just the same. 'But where shall wisdom be found?
and where is the place of understanding?' Job 28:12 john
Subject: Re: Grown Daughters From: laz To: john hampshire
Date Posted:
Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 06:59:30 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
...yeah, the thought scares me too! I guess I will have to train
my daughter(s) up to be VERY strong women of faith (even though
that may make it THAT much harder to find a husband, hehe)...knowing
that 'solid' churches are few and far between. But I also know that
the Lord will provide. blessings,laz
Subject: Weaker Sex From: Tom To: all Date Posted:
Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 07:38:34 (PDT) Email Address:ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
While we are on this topic, I thought it might be helpful to look
into what the Bible means by the woman is the weaker sex. Is this
just a physical thing or does it include other aspects? Judging
from Christian people I know, I would have to say I know more strong
woman of faith, than strong men of faith. Tom
Subject: Re: Weaker Sex From: laz To: Tom Date Posted:
Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 18:00:43 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
While we are on this topic, I thought it might be helpful to look
into what the Bible means by the woman is the weaker sex. Is this
just a physical thing or does it include other aspects? Judging
from Christian people I know, I would have to say I know more strong
woman of faith, than strong men of faith. Tom
--- ************* ...which only proves that you(we) have MUCH
to lament over.... laz p.s. actually, the degree of faith is immaterial...what
counts is that men and women fulfill their respective and ordained
roles within the church and family. My daughter SHOULD have just
as much 'faith' as my sons...they are both getting the same 'education'.
Nevertheless, women are more susceptible to the wiles of the evil
one and so God has given men the job of shepherding the flock and
family....don't ask me why. ;-)
Subject: Re: Weaker Sex From: john hampshire
To: whomever
Date Posted:
Mon, May 01, 2000 at 04:26:16 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
The woman is a weaker vessel according to 1Pe 3:7. Obviously physically
weaker, but also second in creation to the man. Eph 5:23 says 'For
the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head
of the church...'. Implying there is a spiritual relationship in
which the man has authority over the wife. When we look at the proper
relationship between wife and husband we see that the wife, by nature,
looks to her husband for support. It is the man's role to guide
the affairs of the household, correct the wife when needed, and
maintain discipline. The authority is given by Christ to the man,
not the woman, in the creation order. If a man truly honours his
wife, then he is careful to obey his Head, which is Christ, and
not look to the woman for support. The woman's role is as a help-mate,
an advisory role. She is weaker in position, and weaker in responsibility,
and weaker in authority. Because a woman leans upon the man, she
is psychologically dependent upon the man to guide her. When a man
forgoes his responsibility, casting aside his role, the woman fills
the void, becoming the tyrant Queen. If a man understands how to
handle the weaker vessel, he will act toward his wife with wisdom,
maintaining himself in an honorable position such that his wife
will not find fault. While Christ was friends with His disciples,
He wasn't their buddy-buddy. A husband should maintain his office
carefully. The most wholesome relation would be for the man to treat
his wife, not as a sexual object, not as an inferior object, not
as someone who serves him, but as he would treat his sister. There
is nothing more obscene than a husband who needs his wife's approval,
blessing, and emotional support--he is a puppet king, in name only.
When the wife is honored by the husband, the husband will be powerful
and calm, strong but gentle, able to stand alone yet considerate
of his wife's advice. He will love her by doing whatever is best
in accordance to the authority he is under, that is to obey Christ
(and not his wife). It is a difficult thing to do, even harder to
do well, and most have long ago handed their authority and headship
over to the wife--to keep the peace and avoid strife. This they
mistakenly call 'noble', and pretend that they are equals, sharing
all 50-50. There can be only one authority, if not the man, then
the wife. The wife will be an usurper, and the strife caused will
bring resentment from the wife toward the husband (for being weak),
the husband toward the wife (for making him weak), the children
toward the father (for not correcting the woman), and the children
toward the wife (for her not obeying). When the weaker vessels rules
the stronger, the children rebel, the husband is angry, confused,
and needful of his wife's approval that he is OK (when he is not),
and the wife will become re-create herself as a man (that is, she
will become her vision of what a man is --a violent, cruel dictator).
What do you think. Know anyone who has a wife ruling over him and
doesn't even know it? I know plenty. john
Subject: John, may I copy/paste a part of this? From: Anne To: john hampshire
Date Posted:
Mon, May 01, 2000 at 06:15:05 (PDT) Email Address:anneivy@home.com
Message:
I wold like to be able to C&P a bit of your post to the CBMW
group, if I may. With or without attribution . . . . your call!
Of course, if you'd prefer I not, that's fine. This gem'll stay
here. Perhaps I'll give 'em the link to this board, instead! Maybe
get us some new posters (many of the CBMW list members are Reformed
in their theology). Ciao! Anne
Subject: Re: Weaker Sex From: Anne To: john hampshire
Date Posted:
Mon, May 01, 2000 at 05:49:12 (PDT) Email Address:anneivy@home.com
Message:
Marvelous post, John! May your tribe increase. She
is weaker in position, and weaker in responsibility, and weaker
in authority. This is an interesting reading
of the term 'weaker', as applied by Paul to women. It has been,
over on the CBMW board, a topic of some discussion, yet I've not
seen it interpreted just like that before. Very good! I like that
rendition. She Who Could be Tyrant Queen, But Settled for Peevish
Princess, Anne
Subject: Re: Weaker Sex From: Pilgrim
To: Anne Date Posted:
Mon, May 01, 2000 at 07:30:31 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Anne,
I think a more biblically accurate
description of the reference to women as the 'weaker sex' would
be Functional Subordination. As has been John's position all along, men are to be
essentially 'aloof' from their 'weaker wives' to a certain measure.
And to this I must protest LOUDLY. This entire line of thought of
being a non-emotional, untouchable 'pillar of impenetrable strength'
I think this clearly denigrates women to a place of being mere 'chattel'.
One need only read of Abraham's deep love and DEVOTION to Sarah
his beloved wife, and the spiritual BOND, having become 'one flesh'
to realize that this entire line of thinking is off base. Women
are called the 'weaker sex', but not an 'inferior sex'. It is true
that the man is given the sole responsibility within a family covenantal
structure. But this does NOT preclude the husband from looking to
his godly wife for input, wisdom and advice. It is out of this UNION
and SPIRITUAL BOND that the man is to then base his decisions. The
term 'help meet' means exactly as it infers; one who is SUPPORTIVE
and an AID in ALL things. A wife should be far more than a SISTER! I am saddened and
appalled that brother John could think of his own wife as a sister!
If that is all he has in a wife, he is to be a man most pitied.
I love my sister dearly, but we are NOT ONE
FLESH. To suggest that women
in general are incapable of discerning spiritual things, are empty
of godly wisdom or are in general INFERIOR to men in spiritual things
is to be blind to the precious TRUTH that Christ has blessed ALL
of His precious sheep with those gifts. Men are given to occupy
certain POSITIONS in society, the home and in the Church, but this
does NOT mean that they are wiser, more righteous, more holy, more
godly, more knowledgeable, or possess spiritual virtues more than
women. God grants those gifts to each as the Spirit wills for the
positions and responsibilities each is appointed to. And it is my
firm belief that women have been given gifts of the Spirit which
men do not have. Thus the
two shall become ONE FLESH
and thus Adam, who when alone was 'incomplete' was given a 'help
meet' for in the bond of the two becoming ONE, God's perfections
are displayed and He is then glorified in His perfect creation.
Well, take these humble words and do with you want with them....
you have two apparently opposing positions. May God grant you wisdom,
even though you are but a lowly woman! :-)
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Weaker Sex From: john hampshire To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Tues, May 02, 2000 at 06:36:17 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message: Actually, I agree with your position, but disagree
with your assessment of my position. : o Men are not to be 'aloof'
from their 'weaker wives' to any measure. I am reminded of many
conversations I have had over the role of women in marriage. It
is far too easy a story to distort. It would take pages to explain
what I believe are improper Christian attitudes toward marriage.
I'll spare you that. I will not bother to re-explain myself, or
dissect my posts to refute this and that assertion that I think
men are to be 'non-emotional, untouchable 'pillar of impenetrable
strength''. If someone 'gets' it, fine, if not then there are a
hundred ways to make a mockery of what I believe. You have said
before that the role of a man as I have stated 'clearly denigrates
women to a place of being mere 'chattel''. Of course you are entitled
to your view, even more as the owner of this forum (hehe). A wife
is not chattel. Do you not agree that men who are strong in Christ,
must obey Christ above all others, including their wife's desires?
Do you not agree that a man shows kindness, and honors the weaker
vessel by looking out for her highest good, including spiritual
needs? Do you not agree that a wife should find support in her husband,
or does the authority given the husband have no reality? If Christ
loved the church in a manner that He gave all, including His life,
should that model not also be the husband’s way of caring for his
vessel? Abraham? I am sure Abraham loved his wife, who would deny
that? But notice what Sarah’s reaction to God’s announcement that
she will bear a child… she laughed. The laugh was a denial of God’s
ability, and God said 'is any thing too hard for the Lord'. Which
Sarah denied 'I laughed not…'. Notice, if nothing else, Sarah is
not beyond mocking God, then lying to cover it. Notice later Abraham
pretended his beautiful wife was only his sister, thus, avoiding
the threat that someone would kill him to get her. Every husband
and wife is faced with these basic challenges: the wife is challenged
to obey authority, the man to govern his household wisely. In these
examples, both spouses were amiss in their duty. Yet they were one
flesh. Marriage does not automatically cause us to love properly,
or to want to be under the headship of another person. The problems
that arise in marriage are the result of the conflicts in levels
of authority, and it is not something that will go away by ignoring
it. The result of my posts should bare out that I believe in honoring
a women, and have never held, except by the opinion of others, that
women are an 'inferior sex'. Nor, if one looked carefully, will
you find me saying the husband is not to look to his godly wife
for input, wisdom and advice. (Key word here is 'godly') Is a wife
more than a sister? You bet, but that is not the end of it. When
a man looks improperly upon his wife, as many, many men do, then
it is the reminder of her as a sister in Christ that remains a stark
reminder she is not to be an object of lust. If men were to treat
their wives AS IF they were indeed their sisters, how much less
damage would be done, how much better if those who know only lust
could love their wives as they would love their sisters. But, there
are a thousand ways to make a mockery of what are actually spiritual
and psychological effects that, if understood, can help husbands
and wives understand why the marriage is not what it should be.
I leave you to whatever images you have decided are right for you—if
you are appalled, then you might think a moment longer and wonder:
why would ol brother John hold to such silly concoctions as you
have deduced from my writings. Lastly, if there can be a last… what
I have said is exactly what I believe to be the proper Christian
position on the role of a wife and husband. It is completely Biblical
in all respects, and to its fullest extent helps understand the
problems common to the marriage union. As an aside, several weeks
ago, I was speaking to two girls on this subject. They sought to
misunderstand, misrepresent, and mock at every step. Though they
tried their best to make it all seem crazy, and beneath their scowls
and talk of 'you want a submissive women so she can be your slave',
or 'you think its OK for a man to beat his wife', and many similar
straw women, they understood. Eventually, they conceded that it
made some sense, but I don’t have three hours to discuss this subject
today just to get a hesitant approval. Suffice to say, I believe
there is more to understand about the cause-effect of husband-wife
relationships than simply saying 'the husband is to love the wife'
or 'the wife is to be submissive in all things lawful'. The answer
to the 'how' of this is where the rubber meets the road, so to speak,
and in this I have found agreement in Scripture and in practical
experience. I have found the thing to be true, and in agreement
with all Scripture, what would you have me do? If you have specific
bones of contention beyond sweeping statements that involve me being
a complete idiot, I’d listen to you. john
Subject: Re: Weaker Sex From: Pilgrim
To: john hampshire
Date Posted:
Tues, May 02, 2000 at 07:57:44 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
John,
First off, if I have misunderstood
your view, then please forgive me. And thanks for sparing me from
the 'many pages' that could have been written in reply. :-) But
let me grace you with a correction as well, and that being your
insinuation that I or some others possibly have 'made mockery' of
your view. To be sure, I have a right and do at this point disagree
with what you seemed to hold in regards to women and emotions. The
fact that I am the owner of the Forum has no bearing on whether
my disagreement is correct or no. But you then asked: 'Do you not agree that men who are strong in Christ,
must obey Christ above all others, including their wife's desires?
Do you not agree that a man shows kindness, and honors the weaker
vessel by looking out for her highest good, including spiritual
needs? Do you not agree that a wife should find support in her husband,
. . .' No argument here whatsoever on
my part. This is sound biblical teaching! But in the midst of these
sound statements you included, 'or does
the authority given the husband have no reality?' Of course the authority of the husband has a reality
but it is in the expression and/or application of that reality where
we apparently have a disagreement. You then wrote, 'But
notice what Sarah’s reaction to God’s announcement that she will
bear a child… she laughed. The laugh was a denial of God’s ability,
and God said 'is any thing too hard for the Lord'. Which Sarah denied
'I laughed not…'. Notice, if nothing else, Sarah is not beyond mocking
God, then lying to cover it.' Although
it is possible to extrapolate from this event that Sarah was guilty
of unbelief in the power of God to rejuvenate the ability to bear
children in an aged woman, I think the passage focused more upon
an unbelief in Sarah that she would experience the joy of intimacy
with her husband and especially in bearing yet another child in
her old age, for she said, 'Therefore Sarah
laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have
pleasure, my lord being old also?'Although
'prudish' people will balk at the idea that Sarah was referring
to enjoying the 'act' of conceiving and then bearing a child, I
am convinced that this is exactly what was predominantly in the
mind of Sarah when she laughed. Let's not be too quick to cast aspersions
upon Sarah in her laughter and then conclude that this is but another
expression of a woman's 'weakness' for it was Abraham, the man who
first laughed at the announcement that Sarah would bear a child,
'Gen 17:16 And I will bless her, and give
thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be
a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her. 17 Then Abraham
fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a
child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah,
that is ninety years old, bear?' Abraham's
resultant reaction to this 'good news' can certainly be seen as
that as an act of faith, albeit not one born out of spiritual knowledge,
for he took Hagar as was his 'right' according to the Levirate law,
not comprehending that the promised child would be of God's doing
through miraculous means and not through the 'normal' means which
was then the custom and acceptable practice. Thus if Sarah is in
your eyes 'guilty' of being 'weak and unbelieving', Abraham was
doubly so. As for Sarah's lying about her laughing, indeed she is
without doubt guilty of doing so. As to Abraham's pretending that
his wife was only his sister, this is irrelevant to the issue at
hand. In that event, he was guilty once again, NOT of being a man
lacking in authority, but one who out of fear for his own life (Gen
20:10), fell into Situation Ethics as did his son after him, in
almost identical circumstances and with the same King, Abemilech
(Gen 26:8, 9). Now moving on to this matter of a man looking upon
his wife as a 'sister'. There is much to be commended in what you
wrote, but there are things which I believe are 'unhealthy' and
almost 'paranoid' in your view as well. This matter of 'lust' as
being a negative and bad thing altogether is certainly not supported
in Scripture. To be sure, there is a lust which is sinful. But the
Scriptures also refer to this 'lust' as a normal and healthy 'burning'
(cf. 1Cor 7:9). This sexual attraction of both men and women for
each other is wholesome and good and part of God's perfectly created
man in His own image. To be sure, this attribute is not shared in
the Godhead, as God is spirit and not flesh. But we are not created
to 'become God', but rather to be perfect 'men/women' as God created
us. This 'arousal' is not and should not be relegated to the realm
of some psychological and/or spiritual defect. I think to do so
would be to mock God in what He deemed to be the perfect man, made
in the imago dei. I would ask that you subsist from the using of
hyper-extended superlatives which do not serve to give any more
credence to your beliefs. Such terminology can be seen in your use
of, 'mockery,' 'appalled,' 'me being an
idiot,' etc. Me thinks THIS is a negative
'psychological' expression! :-) The fact that men and women who
are otherwise conservative and biblical in their theology DO question
what you hold on this particular issue SHOULD give YOU reason to
reflect on these matters and not simply cast us all into the fire,
as it were. Lastly, you will again get no argument from me in the
matter of the man being given by God to have authority over his
wife. I would also agree that manifold problems arise when a man
relinquishes that authority for whatever reason. However, it is
not wrong for a man to DELEGATE some of that authority to his wife,
as Christ has also done to the Church and its officers. He remains
the final authority in that covenantal structure no less than does
a man in the covenant of marriage. Further, 'blame' should not and
cannot be put on the head of men summarily for having a wife that
refuses to submit to his loving and Christ-like authority. Now,
without making any reference to you whatsoever, there ARE those
who would teach that if there is a problem in the home between the
husband and wife, the man is ultimately culpable for it. What they
more than infer in this irrational position, is that if a man were
to live perfectly as a husband as God has instructed him to do,
then there would be nothing but 'peace and harmony' in the home.
This is falsehood! Perfection is not to be realized in this life
for one thing. For another it fails to take into account the noetic
affects of the Fall and that ALL men, women and children, even the
most faithful believer retains a portion of depravity in their souls.
Thus as the perfect God-man spoke to sinners and even to His own
disciples, there was rejection, rebellion and unbelief in their
hearts. If their premise was true, then it would seem reasonable
to me, at least, that what they are saying would have been existent
in the ministry of Christ; that all who came under His authority
would have become totally loving, and submissive to His every word.
To hold such an extreme and false view serves to do nothing more
than to heap an unwarranted guilty upon the heads of men, who in
their deepest desires are striving to be like unto Christ in all
things, including in their own homes. I think it is not an inappropriate
analogy to see this view as being like that which exists in many
Pentecostal circles, where a person who has been prayed over for
healing but does not experience the healing, the 'blame' is immediately
placed upon this poor person's head for they are told that God is
faithful to heal, but the reason that it has not taken place is
because 'their faith isn't strong enough!' I cannot describe the
awfulness of this type of behaviour and how it dishonors the name
of our blessed God. So, as you can see, I DO agree with many of
the things you hold to be true and biblical. But I also must disagree
with some others. Peace to you brother John. :-)
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Weaker Sex From: laz To: Pilgrim Date Posted:
Tues, May 02, 2000 at 11:02:32 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Pilgrim - your reference to Wilson is duly noted. I started reading
his latest book last night, 'The Federal Husband' and you are correct
in saying that as the federal head of the family...while my wife's
sins are hers alone ...the RESPONSIBILITY is mine - according to
Douglas. In otherwords, she may fail in her duties as a housekeeper,
for which God will hold her accountable for this sin, but that God
also holds me RESPONSIBLE for dealing with this sin problem and
carrying the burden of having to seek FAMILY forgiveness and try
to find a FAMILY solution to the housekeeping problem/sin. I still
don't fully understand his view...but I'm only on Section 2 of his
book. I think you raised an excellent point about a godly man being
thus left guilt ridden because according to Wilson, he SHOULD have
a perfect family life/marriage/kids/dog/etc. I also agree with lusting.....hey,
my wife loves it when I lust for her! If anything, I am totally
remiss in this area!! lol! That's what she's there for...so that
I don't go elsewhere. Am I not to remain satisfied with the breasts
of my youth? blessings, laz
Subject: Re: Weaker Sex From: john hampshire
To: laz Date Posted:
Wed, May 03, 2000 at 05:59:53 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Well, there is enough in Laz and Pilgrims posts to write a library
of books in reply, but I will not. We agree in many things, and
I have no doubt we would agree more if there was more discussion.
But there is one statement that does leave me cold. That is the
idea expressed that 'lust' for one's wife is healthy and good. I
couldn't disagree more, it is in my opinion absolutely not proper.
I understand that men lust for women, and that marriage and monogamy
curbs what could be a very damaging vice (correction: is a damaging
vice). I do not find lust or sexual burning to be natural, however,
but rather unnatural, a by-product of Adam's sin. With Adam’s rebellion
came a new dynamic that was not present in the garden before. He
noticed he was naked, and sought to remedy the shame he felt by
covering himself. His eyes were not fixed on God’s will anymore,
he was beginning the life of living to himself. He now saw himself
as inferior—or as we might say, a loser. Where did his bright, shiny
body go. Eve’s role took on a new sadistic dimension, to serve Adam,
to help make Adam feel right, and to help him forget what he had
become. All these changes in Adam are centered in his soul. He was
under a compulsion to be deluded, and the woman supported that need.
The woman is pleased to be exalted, and the man is pleased to absorb
himself in her. Where does it say all that in the Bible? It doesn’t
have chapter and verse, but we CAN see the effect. Sex is not necessarily
sin; sex is the symptom, the outcrop, the evidence of original sin.
Certainly God used this to populate the earth, but it is the drug
of choice for men, a means to gain ‘love’ feelings, which help fill
the vacancy that was love toward God. It is a simple ‘law’ of fallen
creation. We all, me included, desire to make the woman fall lower
than ourself, using her to accept our failing self and to reinforce
the lie. But married to a good man, the good woman does not serve
the husband, for in him she sees the reflected qualities of virtue
and wisdom, these things in a good man point back to its source—which
is God. She can be a helpmate in the truest sense, working with
her husband for what they both see as sensible and good. The loving,
sensible woman recognizes, and is attracted to nobility in man.
She can feel secure in marriage, because she knows he will never
take advantage of her or use her. Most women find themselves obligated
to trade sex for security, but a sincere woman feels miserable with
her bargain, she becomes resentful toward her husband, because he
is a bad influence, teaching her foul practices to keep him selfishly
happy. A seemingly passive, un-ambitious little housewife may live
entirely in her fantasies of being worshipped. Women con their husbands,
using them for their purpose, desiring to be to them what only God
should be: their all-in-all. I’ll stop here. For some this is foolishness,
for others they see themselves. By the by, sex is not sinful, it
is its misuse that is sinful. There is a proper time and place for
everything, just as there is a proper time to rest, eat, sleep,
talk, or not talk. We can make anything improper by utilizing it
in the wrong time by a motivation from the wrong source. That is
where pride and ego gain strength. OK, I’m stopping again. john
Subject: Re: Weaker Sex From: Rod To: john hampshire
Date Posted:
Wed, May 03, 2000 at 16:11:30 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
Wow, john! Though it's very difficult to discuss these things, the
necessity of propriety and modesty prevailing, let me point out
a few things. I'd have to say that it seems you're way off base
here. There seems to be implicit in your post the denial that Adam
and Eve, though married, and that marriage being, by
God, didn't enjoy sexual relations in
the Garden before sinning. God presented Eve to Adam and they were
to 'correspond' to one another and to enjoy God's gifts. The physical
make-up of men and women make it obvious that sex was intentional
and is a gift, mankind not being limited to sex at certain times
and seasons for procreation only, as animals are. Also, I think
you and Pilgrim have a very different view of 'lust' and 'arousal.'
When the Lord Jesus pronounced on 'lusting after a woman in the
heart,' He made it synonymous to adultery. One cannot 'commit adultery'
with his wife. The action of physical union is the same whether
with a spouse or not, but the critical difference is not the arousal
that prompted the union, but the relation of the people involved.
That is, are they married or not? This quotation from Heb. 13:4
seems to speak directly to that issue: 'Marriage is to be held in
honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge' (NASB). Surely one can see that sex within marriage
is protected by God and not condemened at
all, but whoever violates what God has
blessed and ordained will be judged. That's perfectly in keeping
with what the Lord Jesus spoke about in describing lusting. 'Lusting'
is after someone forbidden to you. It is born of a desire to possess
and to use that
person merely to gratify one's own desires. By contrast, marital
sex is designed to be mutually pleasurable, an expression of union
in the most unique sense, promoting a bond between the couple of
sharing something with one another that can be expressed with no
other person in the world. That children may be produced from this
union puts a whole new spin on becoming 'one flesh,' though I think
that isn't the whole or even primary meaning of that expression.
Sex is even 'commanded' within marriage, as one person's right over
the other's body ('one flesh'). In 1 Cor. 6:13-20, Paul spends much
time speaking of rightful union (referring to the spiritual union
in the relationship with the Lord Jesus) and 'becoming one flesh'
with 'an harlot.' One relationship is born of purity and the other
of sin. Likewise, he goes on in the next chapter to explain that
'every [person should have his/her] own' spouse in
order that sexual diesires may be expended on them: 'Nevertheless, to avoid fornication...' (verse 2). He
speaks in verse 3 of what 'is due' to the wife, and to the husband,
frankly speaking of access and use of the other's body. He clearly
means that the 'burning' of verse 9, which is for many beyond 'self-control'
is to find its outlet within marriage, so that sin will not occur
among the people of God. That 'burning' is spoken of in the NASB
as coupled with the phrase, 'with passion.' Such desires outside
marriage would clearly be wrong, according to the context, but,
also according to the context, is clearly not only permissible in
marriage, but a primary reason for that marriage. I suggest that
you need to rethink this whole situation in light of God's express
Word.
Subject: Re: Weaker Sex From: Tom To: john hampshire
Date Posted:
Wed, May 03, 2000 at 10:30:37 (PDT) Email Address:ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
John Sounds like you think sex is only for the population of the
earth. Not for the concensual pleasure of both the husband and wife.
Tom
Subject: Re: Weaker Sex From: laz To: Tom Date Posted:
Wed, May 03, 2000 at 11:40:05 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
John Sounds like you think sex is only for the population of the
earth. Not for the concensual pleasure of both the husband and wife.
Tom
--- Tom - I don't think John knows what pleasure is! I am reminded
of an old 80's song by 'Adam Ant'... hahaha It's a good thing he's
not the emotional type...otherwise he might get mad at my sophmoric
humor.... hehe laz
Subject: Re: Weaker Sex From: Tom To: laz Date Posted:
Wed, May 03, 2000 at 15:14:00 (PDT) Email Address:ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Laz You are not talking about a lust for your wife that is selfish
and seeks it's own way are you Laz? I just thought just maybe (giving
John the benefit of the doubt) that he sees the word 'lust' as having
a very worldly conotation of self seeking pride. Instead of a giving
out of love, in order to please your wife. That is a lot more than
just the act of sex. The problem I have with John's view, is that
without emotion and passion involved. The act of love is not all
it could be. Boy are my words ever inadiquite, lol. Tom
Subject: Re: Weaker Sex From: john hampshire
To: all Date Posted:
Thurs, May 04, 2000 at 04:02:25 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
I don't think we'll pursue this topic anymore. [well you can if
you want] I will say, for those who can bear it: When Truth is not
uppermost in the mind of a man, sex is. And as long as it is, he
cannot see or find the truth. And as long as he abandons himself
to sex, he becomes increasingly addicted to woman. The woman comforts
the man's lust, and in doing so, she provides him with more temptation
and more support for a faulty way of life that leads to more lust.
So that while a man gains the ego ideals and illusions about himself
that he craves, a woman quite often assimilates the entire man,
all that he is and all that he has. The woman is not only tempted
by his weakness and the advantages to be gained from playing on
it, but she is further excited by the reflection of herself in him;
because he has taken on some of her nature by responding to her.
Sadly, and foremost, as woman comforts the man's fallen nature and
hardens man in the course of his conditioning, she also fills the
void in him that would otherwise have caused him to cry inwardly
for identity. In effect, she is saying, 'If you want my support,
if you want me to help you be something, if you want relief for
the pain and burning that my presence produces in you, get me the
things of the world and/or love me, glorify me'. It pleases the
ego of a woman to see a man responding to her like a trained seal,
and her acceptance to his excitement, so that he lusts for her like
an animal when she seems to withhold it. If each of them should
try to become independent, he would lose his ego support, and she
would lose the security found in his deteriorating presence. Without
the other, each feels the presence of shame (sin) and guilt and
must escape again and again to the false security of the other's
arms. One of the signs of the sickness of our society is the fact
that people can sing and enjoy listening to the constant drumbeat
of men weep, gnashing their teeth, and dying to have a women need
them. Why are not people retching at the thought of our society’s
infatuation with females, and the howling of weak, sick, men to
have one. I suppose it is not a surprise that Christians can find
honor in dishonoring their spouse, it is after all the way of the
world. 'Pleasure' is a substitute for happiness. When you provide
morphine to a man in pain the pain is replaced with a feeling of
pleasure. It is not that he really is better, it is the lack of
pain that corresponds in the mind to pleasure. We all have a background
threshold from sin that is pain. Anything that can be used to take
away pain will give pleasure, at least for a moment. The list of
distractions is endless: TV, music, drugs, alcohol, and worst of
all: sex. We are not called to be distracted toward things, or people,
as Christians. Quite the opposite. We are not to escape away from
sin, guilt, and troubles into a wife eagerly waiting to act as a
bottle of morphine. In trade we will give her our life, power, and
authority. Our improper use of her breeds her resentment toward
the weakling she is creating. Try an experiment. I know you will
not for fear of 'defrauding' you wife, or even worse, upsetting
her. But for the sake of discussion, try this: without explanation,
do not permit yourself to do those things which you consider to
be 'loving'. That is, no sex, no touching, no sex talk. Do this
for 1 week and examine your spouses reaction. Then, if this were
possible, ask yourself why you needed her comfort so much, and why
she needed you to need her. If you will say you need her because
you 'love' her, then you have not understood. First learn what love
is not. Take the time to understand your compulsions. They certainly
will control you otherwise; don’t pretend your weakness is your
strength. john
Subject: Re: Weaker Sex From: laz To: john hampshire
Date Posted:
Thurs, May 04, 2000 at 20:27:39 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
John - I too will let this rest since I really can't bear what you
are saying...don't understand most of it actually. But I have been
approached about my overly playful, yet condescendingly sarcastic
replies towards you on this dicey thread for which I owe you an
apology for my 'fresh mouth'. I don't really know you that well
or your family....it was not appropriate...demeaning perhaps...even
towards someone like you with a great sense of humor. Sorry brother...forgive
my rudeness? Blessings, laz
Subject: Re: Weaker Sex From: Anne To: john hampshire
Date Posted:
Thurs, May 04, 2000 at 05:43:05 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message: . . . . for the sake of discussion, try
this: without explanation, do not permit yourself to do those things
which you consider to be 'loving'. That is, no sex, no touching,
no sex talk. Do this for one week and examine your spouse's reaction.
Then, if this were possible, ask yourself why you needed her comfort
so much, and why she needed you to need her. This
strikes me as the start of a downward spiral. Were Don to suddenly,
sans explanation,
ignore me sexually for a week, I can easily imagine it leading to
exchanges that would lead to additional ignoring (this time, probably,
on my part),
which would lead to even more celibacy, and so on. Attitudes indicative
of 'See? I don't need
you! Heck, I don't even want you!' are not compatible with God's design for Christian
marriage. Mr. Hampshire, I truly feel sorry for you, and even more
sorry for your wife, assuming there is one. Anne P.S. Okay, fine,
Pilgrim, you were right and I was wrong! Drat.
Subject: the sinfulness of sin From: Rod To: Anne Date Posted:
Thurs, May 04, 2000 at 07:57:00 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
Anne, I was very sad for john as I read his post. It seems to reveal
that he has no understanding of the Biblical design for marriage
and the God-ordained intimacy within it. Moreover, john seems to
have fallen into the trap of assuming that some sins are more sinful
than others: sex is worse than drugs or alcoholism, etc.. A person
given over to sin is given over to sin, john. Period. I'm afraid
that, in this particular case at least, john just doesn't get it.
'Let thy fountain be blessed, and REJOICE
WITH THE WIFE OF THY YOUTH. Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant
roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times, AND BE THOU RAVISHED
WITH HER LOVE' (Prov. 5:18-19).
Subject: Re: the sinfulness of sin From: Pilgrim
To: Rod Date Posted:
Thurs, May 04, 2000 at 12:45:08 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Rod,
What a great text eh? :-) One
cannot escape from the sensuality of the 'Love Book' of the Song
of Solomon either without completely misunderstanding the writer.
To be sure, I am without doubt of the Puritan mind in regards to
the Song of Songs in that it is in my mind a most beautiful description
of the love relationship between Christ and His church. However,
the spiritual depth of that book stems from the reality of life
and the love and passion that existed between Solomon and his bride
to be. Many pastors and counselors including myself have often used
this scintillating book as a pre-marital handbook for instruction
in both the physical and spiritual love which should be present
in all marriages. Hey Anne! I never doubt my 'red flags'. . . :-)
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: 'The Love Book' From: Rod To: Pilgrim Date Posted:
Thurs, May 04, 2000 at 12:54:26 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
Hi, Pilgrim, Yes, I too believe the Song of Solomon deserves the
attention and interpretation you give it. In fact, I started to
quote from it, but I figured, in john's regard, it would be 'overkill,'
as he seems prepared to dismiss all evidence, regardless of its
being Biblical, of the error of his stance. That's really sad, in
view of his insight and astuteness on some other areas of the Bible,
but typical of the extremes of some of his other 'theories.'
Subject: Re: 'The Love Book' From: john hampshire
To: all Date Posted:
Fri, May 05, 2000 at 00:25:02 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Now that we have labeled all this as extremist, and have dismissed
whatever we cannot stomach with the Song of Solomon (how many wives
did he have anyway, 700 with 300 concubines) and we all feel real
sad for me and the wife, you feel justified one and all. Good for
you! While you may not agree, though I doubt you understood what
I said (actually I know you did not), despite your best condescending
replies, this display is to me exceedingly immature and not atypical
of those who disagree because they cannot agree. The last time I
got such a sorry reply was when I posted a proof of 'hell' on a
'no hell' forum. How they howled. They were all 'sorry for me',
they all knew I was misguided, with an extreme position which they
all pitied, and they all whined on about my sorry condition. You
see, they could not accept whatever was said, they were in opposition
because the premise was rejected from the start. My premise is,
among other things, that lust is undesirable effect of the fall.
This premise was rejected, not because the Song of Solomon says
this or that, not because logic is against me, not because Scriptures
say this or that, but because it is against the circumstances that
people have accepted for themselves as allowable. If I am a womanizer,
then I will not be offended by things a womanizer does. If I've
had an abortion, I will not be likely to be corrected over the issue,
having previously cast my lot on the other side. On the flip side,
the fact that people resist new ideas, fear change, and refuse to
see their own faults as faults does not mean that I am automatically
correct in what I state. If Pilgrim and others see the manner of
a husband-wife relationship differently (though I actually agree
with his assessment), and base that on certain Bible verses, that
is fine. I do not feel sad for him because he does not understand
things as I do. Whether I am wrong or right, one thing I do know,
all the pretentiousness and mocking tones for my pity, and my wife's
supposed poor quality of life is laughable (which it is) and certainly
better suited for the folks on the 'no hell' site. I know, I know,
you are all trying to help and I must acknowledge your sincere efforts
to re-educate me and keep me from the errors of my (your) ways.
But still, despite all your sorrow, I can clearly see harmony in
my beliefs with Scripture and find a working agreement with the
current condition of men and women as I wrote of. I cannot blind
myself for your sakes. I cannot pretend it is extreme, or just a
wild theory, or against all kinds of biblical proof when I understand
better that it is exactly on target and validated each day that
I live. If nothing else, learn something here. The next time you
discuss something you don't really understand, and that you don't
want to understand, stop and think if you are offended because it
is blatantly unbiblical and offensive to Christ, or offensive to
you personally? Have you considered the difference? The above question
was rhetorical since the ability to judge in matters personal has
not been demonstrated here. Perhaps you can show more restraint
and wisdom next time around. I await your helpful rebuke, john
Subject: Re: 'The Love Book' From: Pilgrim
To: john hampshire
Date Posted:
Fri, May 05, 2000 at 07:46:11 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
John,
Aside from the fact, which you
astutely perceived, that some responses were unacceptable in their
mocking of you, which even I was embarrassed to read, the fact is
that you have NOT presented either logic or biblical evidence for
your view. In all the years I have been the recipient of grace and
in the plethora of books I have been privileged to be able to read
from the pens of a wide scope of authors, I must admit that I have
never come across anything, not even close, to what you are proposing
is 'the biblical view'. Yes, there have been some Pietists, Monastics
and Ascetics that have advocated such things as you have in the
areas of 'emotions,' 'women,' etc., but no Christian writer have
I read that holds to these things. In fact, it seems to me to have
a definite Platonic flavor to it. When I read your responses to
some of our objections, even though some are objectionable in their
manner, they are no less condescending than what you claim they
are. I see lots of self pity and hints of a self-Martyrdom complex.
But what is noticeably absent is BIBLICAL SUPPORT. There is plenty
of post priori argumentation and presuppositions but again, good
solid exegetical proof? Such responses as you have offered are not
uncommon, but rarely do I read such things from Christians, but
rather from cultists, etc., who hold to unbiblical and 'strange'
views on certain things that are foreign to what most historical
Christians have believed. Yes, you are certainly 'entitled' to have
your own mind about anything to be sure. But independent thinking
isn't something that automatically gives credence to that which
you believe. My main objection is your 'psychological' premises
which I just cannot find in Scripture. I find your view has much
more in common with Stoicism than healthy Christian doctrine. Again,
you are entitled to believe what you want, but I am not under any
obligation to accept it unless you can present clear BIBLICAL evidence
to support it. And to this point, you have offered nothing more
than long rambling pontifical opinions. To compare pagan opposition
to the doctrine of hell to what you hold to in regard to emotions,
women and the marriage relationship is hardly warranted. Further,
if I remember correctly, your view of hell is rather unorthodox
as well. Don't you hold that 'hell' is not a 'place'? but rather
a 'state' or something? In contrast the vast majority of Christian
thought has clearly believed that hell is in fact an actually place
where the souls of the unregenerate await the Judgment and who will
eventually be cast into the Lake of Fire. Perhaps I have misread
you on this point? And if so, then I stand corrected. The fact that
Solomon had 700 wives does not in any way negate the beauty or truth
of what is written in the Song of Solomon. If it did, then I suppose
nothing written by any inspired writer would be worthy of acceptance,
for who among them was perfect? I think this line of reasoning leads
to far more problems than even you would care to be burdened with?
hehe. To wind this up, I would encourage you to present EXEGETICAL
support for your view if you are so inclined to do so. Or, you can
just look condescending upon us poor folks who just don't have 'ears
to hear' what John the 'prophet' has to say and accept your view
just because YOU say its true. I don't follow any man my friend,
but I am not one to think that the entire citizenry of Christendom
for the last 2000 years has erred either. There are things of which
there is room for disagreement among the brethren to be sure. But
that doesn't mean we are to advocate putting 'a screen door in a
submarine' either! :-) Open the Scriptures and show me 'a better
way' if you can. If it is there, I'll be the first to embrace it.
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: 'The Love Book' From: Rod To: Pilgrim Date Posted:
Fri, May 05, 2000 at 11:36:13 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
john, I don't know if Pilgrim thinks my response to you was out
of line or not. It seems he does. Allow me to show you some things,
john. I have condemned your lack of understanding, but I did it
after, and only after,
your refusal to look at the facts of the Bible. And I do perceive
it to be a flat refusal. There were some very real and very valid
passages presented to you (not solely by me) which were totally
ignored--one can only assume that 1) you don't consider them relevant
to the truth of God; or 2) they conflict with your position/assumptions
and aren't valid at all. We can made no other conclusion when you
simply ignore what is presented. As Pilgrim pointed out, those who
are cultic and in false religions often take a part of the truth
of God and run with that, building false doctrine. This, it appears
to me, based on the evidence of your several posts on the matter,
which are basically consistent with one another, coupled with your refusal to deal with the opposition's Biblical
evidence, something you have done on this particular subject. Based
on that fact, we must reject your protestations that you have been
treated unfairly or mistreated. I would point out to you that Anne
praised one of your posts greatly and even asked permission to re-post
it elsewhere, a request that, apparently, unless you answered her
by e-mail, went rudely ignored. Anne then defended you in another
post when Pilgrim pointed out to her that you were off base. I contend
that she, and other Christian brothers and sisters were and are
willing to give you and others a fair hearing. I also contend (fervently)
that people are not willing to sit idly by when someone puts forth
outlandish premises which will not stand the test of Biblical scrutiny.
I am sad for you as I read what you wrote, for the very reasons
Pilgrim outlined above--your position is
not Biblical. You've not refuted or examined
the Biblical passages offered, but merely complained that you haven't
been understood. Well, when you say that one type of sin is worse
than another, I think I completely understand. I also find it indefensible
in the Word. That's for starters. When you show no real understanding
of the word 'lust' as it's applied in the Bible, or even a willingness
to examine that usage, I also understand that it appears you're
aloof from and above such considerations. Need I go on? I have been
impressed with many of your writings and contentions over the months,
to be honest. They have showed a depth of research and understanding
which was very significant. But many of your doctrines, such as
what you have put forth in the regard to this issue of sex and sin,
as Pilgrim's post above illustrates, come completely from left field
and are, very frankly, not only not admirable, but to be condemned.
You say that you 'agree with Pilgrim' about something (not really
specified), but I have never been able to ascertain that you agree
with his position on anything on this subject as I examine your
posts. If this and my other posts are 'unChristian,' it wasn't my
intent. I do pity your lack of understanding because it seems to
be willful, and not out of ignorance. I do think you 'don't get
it' on this subject. Not because it isn't shown to you from God's
Word, and not because you aren't intelligent and aren't capable,
but because you, apart from all the great Bible teachers and preachers
of the past (as Pilgrim again points out), have 'a better idea.'
Yes, john, I do pity that mindset; I am saddened by it. I make no
apology for telling you so. BTW, you yourself have made a completely
offensive and irrational charge against those of us who disagree
with you when you imply that we are approvers of and partners of
sinners in a particular regard. You said this: 'If I am a womanizer,
then I will not be offended by the things a womanizer does.' And
you go on to say a similar thing about one who has an abortion.
The clear implication is that those who don't agree with you are
partners in terrible sins. To imply that I approve of womanizers
and abortions is both ridiculous and offensive. You've made it clear
that you intend to receive no 'rebuke' while yourself delivering
the most offensive type of 'rebuking attack' imaginable. What a
ridiculous charge and how short-sighted and unBiblical of you to
make it! You don't know any of us or how we live our lives; nor
do we you. All we know of one another is what we can glean from
what is posted. But to shore up your position, you assasinate the
character of the other posters. That too is indefensible, john.
To conclude, I don't desire to attack you or belittle you, and I
don't think anyone else does either. Neither do I want to, nor will
I, side with you in error. If the error is persistent and no evidence
of trying to resolve conflict with established and orthodox Christian
views is shown (your pattern so far, as I see it), I will be frank
and honest in pointing that out. I will point out that I entered
this discussion late, after you had already thoroughly established
your positon, holding off till then. I don't think that 'wrongs
you' in any way. In fact, I think it is wrong not to point out these
things when one demonstrates he is in serious error and isn't receptive
to opposition based on the Word of God.
Subject: Re: 'The Love Book' From: laz To: Rod Date Posted:
Fri, May 05, 2000 at 13:01:33 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Hey Rod - as Pilgrim pointed out...you are innocent of beating up
on John. My apologies to John for MY treatment of him are posted
above. I can let him slide for the comments he made about some of
us as you've mentioned. I really wasn't offended by it...too much.
hehe blessings, laz
Subject: Re: 'The Love Book' From: Pilgrim
To: Rod Date Posted:
Fri, May 05, 2000 at 12:50:24 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Brother Rod, You jumped to a wrong conclusion about whose replies
I was referring to! :-) Go in peace! In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: 'The Love Book' From: Rod To: Pilgrim Date Posted:
Fri, May 05, 2000 at 13:07:06 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
Pilgrim, Peace it is, my brother! :>) Thanks. Yet I really was't
responding to you in that post. My sole intent was to let john know
that disagreement is not the same as personal attack. The issue
involved is God's revealed truth and our handling of and perception
of it--the main thrust of your prior post. A very good post, I might
add. :>)
Subject: Re: Weaker Sex From: Anne To: Pilgrim Date Posted:
Mon, May 01, 2000 at 08:48:20 (PDT) Email Address:anneivy@home.com
Message: May God grant you wisdom, even though you
are but a lowly woman! :-) Ooooh, you're
just beggin' for it, aren't ya, Pilgrim? ;-> Now isn't that funny,
you and I read his words quite differently. I've always thought
the assertion that women are fundamentally more likely to be suckered,
are more gullible from the get-go, etc. (which is the typical non-physical-weakness
interpretation) is far more likely to promote the 'inferior female'
POV. It seemed to me that John's interpretation was one that showed
our functionally subordinant status (to employ your terminology). Not inferior in
essence, but with an inferior status. Which is not a bad thing . . . . the vice-presidency is not as strong
a position as president, but it ain't to be despised, either. They
are just functionally different positions, is all. As to the bit
about treating one's wife as one's sister. That did give me pause,
and I considered writing a slightly risque response, but nixed it. I am a lady, after all. Rereading
it,though, it appeared that he was referring to giving his wife
the respect and honor due to a sister in Christ, as opposed to a
sex object (i.e., the old wife-as-legal-prostitute angle), or a
servant (the wife-as-cheap-help angle), etc. Even if, in fact, she
is not yet a believer, she would still be treated as one by her
husband. If I'm in error, I am confident he will correct me. If
you're in error, I'm confident he'll correct you, too.
Suffice it to say that I certainly agree with your post, as well.
I don't see where they (yours and John's) are necessarily in opposition
to each other. One thing possibly for us to keep in mind, is that
each woman is different, and some are undoubtedly more suited as
a reservoir of counsel than others. If she isn't very commonsensible,
then her husband may have to essentially behave as a lone oak, as
John suggests. That's the weakness in generalizations, isn't it?
God created so very many different, unique people that trying to
come up with rules governing their respective marital relationships
is always going to be difficult. It's probably why the rules laid
down for the family structure, while firm, are also broad in scope
and interpretation. The husband is to be the head of his wife, and
the leader of his home. Fine. But within that context reside varying
degrees of individual behavior. I'm pretty much of the 'whatever
you want, dearest' persuasion. Don tells me what we're gonna do,
and I say, 'okay.' If I see a problem with his proposal, I'll certainly
mention it, but I don't normally make a big deal about much of anything.
For one thing, the older I've gotten, the more apparent it is that
man has his plans, but God has his way! Stuff I thought would turn
out awful, didn't, and stuff I thought would be great, was a disaster.
As a Prognosticator of Prognosticators, I'm a dud. Sorry, I digress.
Other women possess far greater capacity for evaluating all sides
of a knotty problem than their husbands, and if he has two brain
cells to rub together, he'll listen carefully to her advice. If
he tries to be
a lone oak, they're goin' down. Thanks for the input! I can always
count on you for sound discussion. Ciao! Anne
Subject: Public Schools From: scott lewis
To: All Date Posted:
Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 07:10:21 (PDT) Email Address:navyrdc1@megsinet.net
Message:
Just received this from a friend and thought it might start a thread
about our Education System and its failures. The New Schools Prayer.
This was written by a teen in Bagdad, Arizona. This is incredible!!
Now I sit me down in school Where praying is against the rule For
this great nation under God Finds mention of Him very odd. If Scripture
now the class recites, It violates the Bill of Rights. And anytime
my head I bow Becomes a Federal matter now. Our hair can be purple,
orange or green, That's no offense; it's a freedom scene. The law
is specific, the law is precise. Prayers spoken aloud are a serious
vice. For praying in a public hall Might offend someone with no
faith at all. In silence alone we must meditate, God's name is prohibited
by the state. We're allowed to cuss and dress like freaks, And pierce
our noses, tongues and cheeks. They've outlawed guns, but FIRST
the Bible. To quote the Good Book makes me liable. We can elect
a pregnant Senior Queen, And the 'unwed daddy', our Senior King.
It's 'inappropriate' to teach right from wrong, We're taught that
such 'judgments' do not belong. We can get our condoms and birth
controls, Study witchcraft, vampires and totem poles. But the Ten
Commandments are not allowed, No word of God must reach this crowd.
It's scary here I must confess, When chaos reigns the school's a
mess. So, Lord, this silent plea I make: Should I be shot; My soul
please take! Amen
Subject: my 2 cents :-) From: Five Sola
To: scott lewis
Date Posted:
Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 19:51:33 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
I didn't feel like addressing any of the particular replies so far.
This tends to be a touchy subject sometimes and I have seen it get
'canned-vegetable-throwing' violent. :-) My perspective might be
unique for I work in the public school system :-) or at least until
the end of this school season. I have been for the past 7 years.
Originally I saw nothing wrong with sending my children to public
school, maybe sending them to private school to get them away from
'all those gangs and stuff' :-) but since working in elementary/middle
school for two years of that time and seeing the teachers purposefully
teaching and mentoring the children to doubt and distrust their
parents. Even directly telling & illustrating to the students
how little their parents knew, and openly chastizing them (in front
of class) if they put trust in their parents or went to them for
help on homework. (and this is from the best district out of dozens
in town) I decided that public school was not an option at that
point. We have decided that homeschooling is the best option for
our children to better educate and train up in fear and admonition
of the Lord. Now I will not as some of the homeschool people I have
met (no necessarily anyone in this thread) codemn parents who send
their children to public or private schools. I have even seen some
(Greg Harris) give the biblical proof text why christian parents
sending their children to public/private school is wrong, etc. I
do personally wonder why but it is not for me to chastize. They
are those children's covenant heads and they will face any 'chastizement'
from the Lord (if there is any to be given). I personally then think
the public education system we have in present day is anti-educational
(ironic), and anit-christian (no surprise) and would like to see
it still intact for those pagan children :-) we need some training
grounds for those people who are going to cook my French Fries at
McDonalds. :-D Five Sola
Subject: Re: my 2 cents :-) From: Tom To: Five Sola
Date Posted:
Mon, May 01, 2000 at 13:34:44 (PDT) Email Address:ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Five You said: but since working in elementary/middle school for
two years of that time and seeing the teachers purposefully teaching
and mentoring the children to doubt and distrust their parents.
Even directly telling & illustrating to the students how little
their parents knew, and openly chastizing them (in front of class)
if they put trust in their parents or went to them for help on homework.
I can tell you if I found out that a teacher told one of my kids
something like that, I would be down at that school complaining.
If that didn't work, my kids would be promptly taken out of the
school. As it is now, my wife and I are involved with our children's
eduacation. In fact, I work in the same school my youngest child
goes to school and talk to her teacher all the time. She encourages
us as parents to stay involved with our children's education, and
says she can tell the difference between parents who are involved
and those who are not. She recently told me that it is a delight
to have (name ommitted) in her class. She is very cooperative, well
behaved, a good listener as well as a good student, who is a self
learner. Personally I believe the child teacher makes a big difference
in a child's education. If the teacher genuinely cares about their
students. Then they make good educators, but if all teaching is
to them, is a job, then chances are they will be lousy teachers.
A parents job is to make sure their child is getting the education
that they deserve. If that can be done in a public school system,
then by all means it is ok. But regardless of where their children
get an education, whether in a public school system or home school
setting, etc..., the parent needs to stay involved with their child's
education. I realise they will not get the spiritual training in
a public school setting. But it is my experience, that if that is
being done at home, the child should turn out ok. An example of
this, is my youngest recently telling a friend of hers at school
that she didn't appreciate the language he was using. Tom
Subject: Keeping our perspective From: Rod To: scott lewis
Date Posted:
Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 12:59:27 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
To all: Let's remember that our schools have myriad problems because
our society has myraid problems. We can't section off one area and
say, 'Look how bad it is here.' The fact that it 'is bad' in this
or that area certainly needs to be addressed, but we have to remember
we're dealing with a 'people problem,' not an institutional difficulty.
Subject: Re: Keeping our perspective From: Anne To: Rod Date Posted:
Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 18:21:32 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
' . . . . .we have to remember we're dealing with a 'people problem,'
not an institutional difficulty. ' So true, Rod! This article by
A. W. Pink, entitled 'Vile,' speaks to the innate depravity of all
people. Here is but one paragraph: Does
the reader object against our appropriation of the Psalms and Proverbs,
and say, We in this New Testament age occupy much higher ground
than those did. Probably you have often been told so by men, but
are you sure of it from the Word of God? Listen, then, to the groan
of an eminent Christian: 'I am carnal, sold under sin' (Romans 7:14).
Do you never feel thus, my reader? Then we are sincerely sorry for
you. As to the other part of the description of fallen man, 'half
devil': did not Christ say to regenerate Peter, 'Get thee behind
Me, Satan: thou art an offense unto Me' (Matthew 16:23)? And are
there not times when writer and reader fully merits the same reproof?
Speaking for myself, I bow my head with shame, and say, Alas there
is. The article in its entirety is available
at: http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pointe/4495/vile.html So,
to expect any group of sin-steeped humans to manage to run an institution
up to God's high standards is a lost cause, whether it is a school
system, or a single school; a department store chain, or a single
mom-and-pop shop; a General Motors assembly plant, or a guy with
a lawn mower. For instance, if the 'Christian school' is made up
of people who teach the prosperity, health-and-wealth gospel, I'd
pass. Or if it is 'socially upscale', I'd head for the hills. Fort
Worth has an Episcopalian school that costs upward of $10K a year,
and its roster shows it. If you see the school's sticker, it's likely
stuck on the back of a Lexus SUV. Charles attends the local middle
school, where I'm on the site based management committee, the PTA
board, etc. I know the teachers, and the kids. Several attend our
church, in fact. Doug Wilson may criticize me all he wants, but
I know Charles is doing well at his school, and is growing in his
walk with the Lord, to boot. ;-> To God be the glory, now and
forever. In all situations, His will will be done . . . . it CANNOT be thwarted! No matter how
hard we try. Anne Vile! www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pointe/4495/vile.html
Subject: Re: Keeping our perspective From: Rod To: Anne Date Posted:
Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 01:29:03 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
Anne, Thanks for the reply! I think you are right on target.
Subject: Re: Keeping our perspective From: Prestor
John To: Rod Date Posted:
Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 20:52:58 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
You may have something there Rod I suggest this excellent article
by David Chilton. What's Really Wrong with Public Schools reformed-theology.org/html/issue08/whats_wrong_with_schools.htm
Subject: Re: Keeping our perspective From: scott lewis
To: Prestor John
Date Posted:
Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 21:33:47 (PDT) Email Address:navyrdc1@megsinet.net
Message:
Hey Prestor John, Great article I really like this paragraph. The
real problem with public schools is that they exist in the first
place. They are an ungodly, unlawful, collectivist institution.
The many evils now spewing out of them derive from the curse of
God inflicted on all institutions that defy Him. He has commanded
parents to educate their children in terms of His law; that cannot
be done in a public school. If we want our children to fear Him,
to grow into diligent workers for His kingdom, we cannot afford
to train them in an institution which has as its fundamental presupposition
that I am entitled to as much money as I can vote out of my neighbor's
pocket. What a good way to put it :) scott lewis ps Doesn't the
Bible tell us that its our(the parent's) RESPONSIBILITY to teach
our children, not the public schools?
Subject: Re: Keeping our perspective From: Pilgrim
To: scott lewis
Date Posted:
Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 06:31:56 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Scott,
If I were you, I wouldn't be too
quick to assimilate David's Chilton's every word against Public
Schools. For one good reason alone is that he was a radical Reconstructionist,
if that means anything to you? But since you 'really liked' that
paragraph of Chilton's would you then posit that the Public School
system should be completely removed? If so:
1) What would you substitute in its
place if anything? 2) Are you advocating that all children should
be homeschooled?
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Keeping our perspective From: Prestor
John To: Pilgrim Date Posted:
Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 08:58:48 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Pilgrim,
Now I am not suggesting that we
adopt all of Chilton's views, yes he was a Reconstructionist (are
all who are Reconstructionists radicals? I don't know just asking.)
however, public schools were originally created by the Unitarians
so that schooling could be separated from religious training. It
was at this time too that schools were funded by taxes placed upon
the entire community. Up until that time the people who wanted their
children schooled would get together hire a teacher, approve of
the curriculum and those children would be educated by that teacher.
If the teacher was deficient in any way he/she would be fired and
the children would be taught at home until a better teacher could
be found. Total control was given to the parents. Do we have this
now under public education? I don't believe so, and I also don't
believe that the curriculum now being taught is conducive to education
a a person. To this end see the attached link.
To put it briefly (too late I
know) school must be separate from government and placed once again
into the hands of the parents. Lost Tools of Learning by Dorthy
Sayers www.gbt.org/text/sayers.html
Subject: Re: Keeping our perspective From: Pilgrim
To: Prestor John
Date Posted:
Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 11:35:42 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Prestor John,
Ah, my Post Millennialist friend
and brother. It is this type of distorted 'reasoning'? that if for
no other reason I would reject Post Millennialism. :-) First: Chilton
before he died had adopted 'Hyper-Preterism' as his own. I hope
the red flags are showing at this point! Second: If education in
general and the selecting of teachers in particular was left to
the parents of the world, do you really think that things would
be any different than they are now? Do you seriously think an agreeable
consensus could be reached among the various people of even a small
community, never mind a large metropolitan city like New York, Chicago
or Los Angeles? What are you supposing is so different in the ideologies
of parents from what is held by the politicians who control the
Public School system now? Thirdly: Public education was NOT devised
by Unitarians. Even in Calvin's day there was 'Public Education'
and to which the vast majority of the Reformers and Puritans supported.
Why? Because who wants to go to the public market and wait for the
clerk to count fingers and toes so as to return the right amount
of change for a purchase? The fact is, society couldn't function
without an educated populace. I grant you that the entire ideology
that undergirds Public Schools is corrupt: But
that's simply the expression of the depravity that all men are born
with. One and one is two, regardless if
you are a Christian or a pagan. The truth is, an ignorant society
is a threat to humanity far more than one that is indoctrinated
in what they already believe: e.g., secular humanism, evolution,
immorality, etc., ad nauseam. Lastly: Contrary to your eschatological
views, the world is NOT going to be nor are we instructed to Christianize
it in such a way as to overthrow the government, force all people
to bow before the Living God, etc. When the Lord Christ returns,
it is clear, that there will be little faith to be found on the
earth. The ELECT are a REMNANT and not a majority. They never have been and never will
be. We are to promulgate the Gospel of Christ and make Disciples
of all those whom the Lord calls. And the HOLY
SPIRIT will create the change of hearts
and minds of His own. This will serve to be a testimony against
the world and its godless ideology. It will of course in some cases
exact a change in government, education, etc. But it isn't even
going to be close to Calvin's Geneva, which had its own problems
and eventually it failed. Here the words of the LORD of the Kingdom
of God:
Luke 17:20 'And when
he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should
come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not
with observation: 21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo
there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.'
I am convinced that Christians
should make sure their children receive a 'Christian' education,
whether in a private institution or at home. But if neither is feasible,
despite what Douglas Wilson says, a child of Christian parents will
not turn into a demon if he/she attends a public school.
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Keeping our perspective From: Prestor
John To: Pilgrim Date Posted:
Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 12:48:41 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Pilgrim,
Ah, my Ammillennial brother and
friend }:^{). You know that I reject most if not all the ideologies
of reconstructionism, although because I read Credenda Agenda I
have been lumped into that camp. And I am with you in the fight
against Hyper-preterism and I was saddened when I read of Chilton's
falling into that camp. But let us not make this a talk about Millennial
views that has been done and over done in this forum and I for one
am more than ready to say that we disagree but can still agree on
the main points of our belief.
Even if the ideologies of the
parents of large metropolitan cities like New York, or Los Angeles
are the same as the politicians that control the Public School system
I still say that is no reason why I should be taxed for their children.
Let them pay for their own children. Likewise, if a group of like
minded people and I want to start up a school so that our children
may be educated in the curriculum that we deem fitting that should
be available to us. What I object to is my money being used to teach
other people's children a something that I personally find offensive.
Schools should be separate from the government.
As to the 'Public Education' in
the time of the Reformers and Puritans well I have seen the curriculum
of that time and I also would support that system of 'Public Education'.
I'm not calling for the end of education, on the contrary if anything
Christianity is the biggest supporter of that system, without a
doubt society is better off educated, but what their educated in
is also important.
And lastly Pilgrim I am not calling for the overturn of the government I am calling for the reformation of the people, I am
calling for a repentance, and a turning back to God. People need
to return to a biblical world view. Will that effect our government?
Perhaps, but I am not putting my hope in the government. My desire
is for the kingdom of God, that is what you and I belong to.
Not by might , nor
by power, but by My Spirit, says the LORD of hosts.
That is my motto Pilgrim. The
kingdom of God is built up by the Spirit of God, I don't force anyone
to bow or believe.
Prestor John
Servabo Fidem
Subject: Re: Keeping our perspective From: Pilgrim
To: Prestor John
Date Posted:
Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 14:14:26 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Prestor John, Doubtless we agree
on a vast majority of dogma! :-) And I can sympathize with your
desire to not discuss eschatological views in relation to this thread.
However, I would suggest, that one cannot separate the two, especially
where a Post Millennial view is adhered to. For as you said, 'My desire is for the kingdom of God, that is what
you and I belong to.' And it is not one
of the main tenets of Post Millennialism that the 'Kingdom of God'
will virtually dominate the nations of the earth? With your own
personal application of this view, it has been my experience to
note that the vast majority of Post Millennialists advocate most
everything and anything to bring this about all the while also quoting,
'Not by might , nor by power, but by My
Spirit, says the LORD of hosts.' But as
an A Millennerian, I must disagree as I stated above, that the Kingdom
of God is a spiritual kingdom and that which the Post Millennialists
are looking for is a manifestation of the New Heaven and New Earth
before Christ returns. Why avoid the obvious and necessary result
of taking government out of education and letting the common man
decide how it is to be organized, what curriculum will be used and
what teachers are best suited to teach that curriculum? As I pointed
out be way of a query, 'Do you honestly think that the common man
would do anything essentially different than what the government
is doing currently?' Are not the politicians who have control over
education presently been elected to office by the DESIRES of these
same people you suggest would do a better job? The politicians are
men/women after their own choosing to do that which they themselves
would do. As to the taxes collected by the government from those
like yourself and in some measure myself as well, this is a 'red
herring' if there ever was one. I ask, How many myriad other programs,
etc. are funded by the government which Christians oppose? To quash
this misuse of public funds would indeed demand the overthrow of
the entire government. 'Government' is not a 'system' as much it
is a assembly of representatives of the people. And it is THEY (people)
who are the ungodly. God Himself has established ALL governments
and the Lord Christ clearly said
Matt 22:17 'Tell us
therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute
unto Caesar, or not? 18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness,
and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? 19 Shew me the tribute
money. And they brought unto him a penny. 20 And he saith unto
them, Whose is this image and superscription? 21 They say unto
him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto
Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things
that are God's.'
Now from this I am not in any
way advocating Christian passivism when it relates to the corruption
and ungodliness which dominates all nations and in their governments.
But until the Spirit of God would bring worldwide revival and reformation,
the changes of policy you and others are looking for will never
take place. And again, I suggest that a Christian world is not to
be. There are many so-called Christian schools which are doing actually
far more harm in the educating of children than some Public Schools.
So perhaps, and doubtless there is far more immediate need for Reformation
in the Church of Jesus Christ than there is in the quickening of
politicians? :-)
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Keeping our perspective From: Prestor
John To: Pilgrim Date Posted:
Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 22:45:19 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Pilgrim,
You know I am just going to have
to start reading the same Post-mills that you are, because for the
life of me I can't remember Boettner saying that. In fact let me
quote from Boettner's Postmillennialism:
There seems to be
a general impression that when we speak of a Millennium we mean
a time when the world will be sinless or practically so. We
do believe that a time is coming when the people of the world
in general will be Christians, a time when Satan will no longer
be able to 'deceive the nations' (Rev. 20;3). But we do not
believe that the Kingdom in this world, even in its millennial
fullness and power, will be a perfect or sinless state. Nor
do we believe that every person will be a Christian. Yet it
is not uncommon to find pre- and amillennial writers inferring
or declaring that such are the tenets of Postmillennialism,
and using such terms as 'ideal perfection,' 'a perfect world,'
'convert every individual,' and 'sinless perfection,' to describe
the postmillennial position. No representative Postmillennialist
teaches those things. Certainly such was not the teachings of
Hodge, Dabney, Shedd, Strong, Snowden, or Warfield. Nor is it
the teaching of Scripture. Sinless perfection belongs only to
the heavenly life. As long as the person remains in this world,
even though he is a truly born again Christian, remnants of
the old nature still cling to him, and he falls victim to some
extent to such things as selfish desires, envy, jealousy, impatience,
etc. All of us still have occasion to say with Paul, 'The good
which I would I do not; but the evil which I would not, that
I practice' (Rom. 7:19). Sanctification is a process which is
not complete until death. As long as the present world continues
all those born into it are born members of a fallen, sinful
race. They can be brought to a state of saving knowledge of
God and be turned to a righteous life only through the regenerating
and sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit. Some experience regeneration
in early childhood, others in middle life or old age, and some
never experience it at all. There will always remain problems
to vex the saints. In a Christian environment temptations do
become much more limited in scope and intensity, but they are
never completely eliminated. The wheat and the tares continue
to grow together until the harvest, which is the end of the
world.
Now this is what I would call
the Kingdom of God's spread over all the earth. Without a doubt
it is a spiritual kingdom but it will have an effect upon the world.
This isn't the 'New Heaven and the New Earth' I suspect that is
in actuality the teachings of some of the Reconstructionist Posties.
Well as I've said before I am not of that particular viewpoint.
As for the desire to remove government
from the process of education. Well part of the reasoning is the
forcing of these self same politicians to make my children fit into
their mold. For instance, there is currently a NEA sponsored test
that all public school children must pass so not only to graduate,
or even get into college. But also to get jobs! Now I'm sorry, but
what right do they have to dictate to my children what classes they
must take and what tests they must pass to seek employment? I have
heard and read many NEA comments about what they consider homeschooling
(which is what I do) and Christians to be: namely the major threat
to their established rule. Their goal is not education in the original
sense but indoctrination of their beliefs and their training upon
my children, with the ultimate goal of undermining the principles
I have spent years schooling them in.
Now as to your last comment about
some 'Christian Schools' well your right! (Didn't see that one coming
did you }:^P) They are not up to the standards, we do need a reformation
of the Church of Jesus Christ. Prestor John Curmudgeon in
Residence
Subject: Re: Keeping our perspective From: Rod To: Pilgrim Date Posted:
Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 15:34:34 (PDT) Email Address:na
Message:
Pilgrim, Your words: 'There are many so-called Christian schools
which are doing actually far more harm in the educating of children
than some Public Schools. So perhaps, and doubtless there is far
more immediate need for Reformation in the Church of Jesus Christ
than there is in the quickening of politicians? :-)' This is a most
interesting thought and very much in keeping with the 'proper perspective.'
We often consider anything 'Christian' in name to be 'good, true,
and right,' when, as we've seen over and over, there are many aberrant
views and that very little of what is called 'Christian' really
honors the Lord.
Subject: Re: Keeping our perspective From: scott lewis
To: Pilgrim Date Posted:
Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 08:39:09 (PDT) Email Address:navyrdc@megsinet.net
Message:
Scott, If I were you, I wouldn't be too quick to assimilate David's
Chilton's every word against Public Schools. For one good reason
alone is that he was a radical Reconstructionist, if that means
anything to you? But since you 'really liked' that paragraph of
Chilton's would you then posit that the Public School system should
be completely removed? If so: 1) What would you substitute in its
place if anything? 2) Are you advocating that all children should
be homeschooled? I am saying that Christian parents had better take
a hard/long look at why they are sending their children into the
public school system. The public school system has failed. Period.
The schools teach your children that they come from animals(evolution)
and society teachs everyone that life has absolutely no value(abortion)
so when the children finally act like the animals they have evolved
from we all stand around and scratch our heads and say HOW COULD
THIS HAVE HAPPENED? How many children have to die in america before
christian parents realize it too late, do you have to wait until
its YOUR child? Now i realize that the public schools have many
problems but i would have to say that those 2 factors have had the
most detrimental effect on the american children. So in all that
no I dont believe that christian parents should send their children
in the public school systems. Home school or find a good christian
school. scott lewis
Subject: Re: Keeping our perspective From: Pilgrim
To: scott lewis
Date Posted:
Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 11:11:48 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Scott,
Thanks for the reply, but you
didn't address my actual questions. Here they are again for your
consideration with my prefatory remark/qualification:
Would you then posit
that the Public School system should be completely removed?
1) What would you substitute in its place if anything? 2) Are
you advocating that all children should be homeschooled?
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Keeping our perspective From: scott lewis
To: Pilgrim Date Posted:
Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 19:18:51 (PDT) Email Address:navyrdc1@megsinet.net
Message:
Would you then posit that the Public School system should be completely
removed? 1) What would you substitute in its place if anything?
2) Are you advocating that all children should be homeschooled?
YES YES YES Proverbs 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should
go, Even when he is old he will not depart from it. How can you
train a child when even before 1st Grade the first thing they learn
about science is this statment' MILLIONS and MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO
and this is drilled into your children from the first page of a
science book. Now this and the creation account cant both be correct.
And for the next 12 years of elementary and high school, the science
book repeat this lie and build upon it. So I would have to say yes
we should scrap this system, but since that is going to be impossible
the only alternative is to pull your children out of this system
that is completely against CHRISTIANITY. I am ADVOCATING that a
christian parent should never allow their children to go to public
schools, since the system cant be scrapped. Hope that answer's your
question. scott lewis
Subject: Re: Keeping our perspective From: Pilgrim
To: scott lewis
Date Posted:
Tues, May 02, 2000 at 08:21:12 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Scott,
Since it is not 'I' who is advocating
the complete eradication of the Public Education System, the question
as to what I would 'substitute in its place' is a mute issue. I
hold that the Public School System is necessary and must be retained.
I am NOT advocating that it be applauded either in its administration,
nor in its curriculum. :-) To the question, 'Are you advocating
that all children
should be home schooled?', you replied, 'YES
YES YES'. If this were to actually be
implemented, may God have mercy on us! But to the more salient points
and the questions which must be asked and answered, if EVERY child
in the world is to be home schooled: 1) Who would determine the
curriculum? And further, on what authority would this curriculum
be lawfully mandated to be used? 2) What supervision if any should
be implemented to be sure that parents are fulfilling their obligation
to their children? Further, who would do this supervision, and under
what authority? 3) How would you suggest the entire economic structure
of the various countries be restructured to accommodate this radical
change? Obviously, over 50% of the work force would be absent as
to what it is currently. 4) How would you suggest that single parent
homes survive and gain the bare necessities of life when the only
parent is to be home schooling his/her children? 5) Too many to
mention. :-) You also seem to reject the idea of an organized Christian
Educational System, since this alternative is clearly absent from
your reply. And it seems that you have departed from your original
mandate that ALL
children be home schooled and the current Public Education System
be 'scrapped' entirely. For in the latter part of your reply you
seem to be referring only to children of Christian parents? Historically,
it was the Church that was in control of the schools and which determined
and supplied the curriculum. For who else is more qualified to determine
the theological correctness of teaching materials than those entrusted
with responsibility to 'labor in the Word'? But you mentioned nothing
about this either. So the questions here also must be asked: 1)
Who IS to design and distribute the educational materials to the
parents? Will this not even further exacerbate the similar anomaly
that we have in modern Denominationalism? 2) What of 'higher education'
which provides the necessary advanced instruction for those seeking
positions in science, research, law, medicine, etc., etc.? Should
these Public and Private (secular) Institutions also be discarded
and this responsibility put upon parents as well? 3) Enough for
now! :-)
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Keeping our perspective From: john hampshire
To: Pilgrim Date Posted:
Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 22:28:39 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Hmmm, Would a Calvinist go into a false-gospel, Arminian church
and reform it? How would you reform something that is entirely corrupt?
How do we reform public schools, what is left that could remain
un-reformed. Apart from voting for politicians who represent your
views, leave the world to them that are perishing. What next, shall
we reform abortion clinics? By the way, it is possible to utilize
some parts of public school and home school the rest. Most schools
are willing to work with parents. It does not have to be an all
or nothing proposition unless you want it that way. I have seen
that even a few hours a day of pulic schools causes kids to become
more violent, wild, and disobedient. Bad company corrupts good morals,
which is the risk you take. As for taxes, has anyone received an
itemized account of where taxes are used? I haven't. My money pays
for abortions, welfare, drug needle handouts, condoms, and a host
of social programs that make Democrats drool. Give to our corrupt
Caesar what is his. There are some who advocate not paying ANY taxes,
as they find it un-Constitutional, which really goes to the heart
of the matter. Here is a plan: we make everyone home school!! To
keep it organized we elect a board of supervisor and a president.
Then we get everyone to meet together each day to home school in
a convenient location. Then we make certain qualified parents become
subject-matter experts, they can teach the subjects other parents
are unqualified in. Then we can standardize the course subjects,
prepare standardized tests that meet the boards requirements. To
keep the parents advised we will form parent-teacher conferences.
We will charge all parents a tax to fund the school. We will only
teach subjects approved by the Superintendent of Education for our
school. We will make it mandatory that every parent send their child
to our conveniently located home-schools. Oh, wait, we already have
that... it's called public school. john
Subject: Re: Keeping our perspective From: Pilgrim
To: john hampshire
Date Posted:
Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 07:24:01 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
John, Was this 'soap boxing' of yours addressed to me personally,
as I see my name affixed to it? Or were you just spouting off with
some of your inner feelings you deny having? hehe Either way, I
fail to grasp just what it is you are trying to get across here.
Could you try and explain your thoughts in another manner for me?
Thanks. Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Keeping our perspective From: laz To: Pilgrim Date Posted:
Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 18:09:41 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
...yeah, I thouht I sensed a touch of emotion in brother John's
last post also ....kinda gave me chills! It's just not like him...
LOL!! laz
Subject: Re: Keeping our perspective From: john hampshire
To: laz Pilgrim,
anyone Date Posted:
Mon, May 01, 2000 at 04:44:30 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Yes, You both are right, I wrote that post with tears in my eyes.
(hehe) No, there is really no point to it, nor is it aimed at you
Pilgrim (just an observation on the vainity of reforming a pig by
dressing it up in Sunday clothes). However, behind the sarcasm,
there is more sarcasm, but behind that, there is a basic question.
And what is that, you ask? How much meddling and opposing the affairs
of this world is acceptable for a Christian, where do we draw the
line? Is it OK to picket an abortion clinic, is it OK to block a
clinic, is it OK to blow up a clinic. What is the Christian duty
in this world? Back to my emotion strewn life...sob :{ john
Subject: Re: Keeping our perspective From: Pilgrim
To: john hampshire
Date Posted:
Mon, May 01, 2000 at 07:40:29 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Brother John,
Unfortunately my time is very
short and I can only make a few fleeting remarks in regards to you
question(s). I think picketing abortion clinics does more harm than
good. But this is not to cast aspersions upon the righteous indignation
those who do such things have for the heinous abomination committed
by women and doctors against the unborn. As to how much involvement
a Christian should have in society? To answer that properly would
take far more time than is allotted to me today. But in a nutshell,
he/she should be involved as much as the law permits. We are to
let our light shine before men. And this does not mean that Christians
are to go stand on some hill and let the sun reflect of their, in
my case hairless heads, for the world to gape at. We are to be vocal.
We are to vote. We are to run for political office and try to write
laws which are based upon God's Word for the betterment of all men.
ONLY those who hold offices in the church are forbidden to be involved
directly with 'civilian pursuits' says Paul. But the remainder of
believers are certainly free to do so and I believe should do so.
But NOT to try and 'Christianize the world', but rather to see all
men in general protected from the wiles of wicked men against their
fellow man. Gotta run.....!
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Keeping our perspective From: laz To: Pilgrim Date Posted:
Mon, May 01, 2000 at 12:34:39 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Pilgrim - you said officers of the church are precluded from formal
civil affairs/offices? Can you show me this in scripture? I know
a teaching elder who is also a state delegate.... blessings, laz
Subject: Re: Civilian Pursuits From: Pilgrim
To: laz Date Posted:
Mon, May 01, 2000 at 17:10:13 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Pilgrim - you said officers of the church are precluded from formal
civil affairs/offices? Can you show me this in scripture? I know
a teaching elder who is also a state delegate.... blessings, laz
--- 2Tim 2:3 'Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier
of Jesus Christ. 4 No man that warreth entangleth himself with the
affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him
to be a soldier.'
Subject: Re: Civilian Pursuits From: Tom To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Mon, May 01, 2000 at 20:30:04 (PDT) Email Address:ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message: Pilgrim Since the verse says 4 'No man that warreth
entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please
him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.' When it says 'No man'
isn't it referring to all believers since we are all supposed to
be good soldiers of Jesus Christ? Tom
Subject: Re: Civilian Pursuits From: Pilgrim
To: Tom Date Posted:
Mon, May 01, 2000 at 21:28:13 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Pilgrim Since the verse says 4 'No man that warreth entangleth himself
with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen
him to be a soldier.' When it says 'No man' isn't it referring to
all believers since we are all supposed to be good soldiers of Jesus
Christ? Tom
--- Tom,
See my reply to laz below. The
context is clearly restricted to 'ministers/elders' and to Timothy
specifically as a young minister of the Gospel. This word 'all'
has been the downfall of the Arminians due to their lack of understanding
that the world 'all' rarely refers to 'all' without exception, but
is most always qualified by the context in which it is found. Thus
'all' here does not refer to 'believers' in general. If it did,
then no one would be able to work for a living! That might seem
great to some but unfortunately, it isn't the case here! :-)
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Civilian Pursuits From: Tom To: Pilgrim Date Posted:
Tues, May 02, 2000 at 13:42:22 (PDT) Email Address:ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Pilgrim In this case I used the word 'all', did I miss that word
in the passage? Anyway your point is well taken and makes perfect
sence, but didn't even Paul work for a living in order not to be
a burdon on anyone? I think however it would be better said that
if it did, then no believers would be in public office. Which of
course is what JW's would have us believe. Tom
Subject: Re: Civilian Pursuits From: Pilgrim
To: Tom Date Posted:
Tues, May 02, 2000 at 19:31:44 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Pilgrim In this case I used the word 'all', did I miss that word
in the passage? Anyway your point is well taken and makes perfect
sence, but didn't even Paul work for a living in order not to be
a burdon on anyone? I think however it would be better said that
if it did, then no believers would be in public office. Which of
course is what JW's would have us believe. Tom
--- Tom, Good point concerning Paul and his 'tent making' enterprise!
See my reply to laz below where I cover that exact point. :-) In
His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Civilian Pursuits From: laz To: Pilgrim Date Posted:
Mon, May 01, 2000 at 18:45:31 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
hmmm, you saying that only civil affairs are an entanglement with
the affairs of this life? Can't just about ANYTHING be an entanglement?
Or is it because the civil and 'religious' spheres/administrations/institutions
(both dealing with peoples lives and conduct) are so similar in
purpose/nature/function that one can't serve 'two masters'...especially
God's interests properly since conflicts will certainly arise? laz
Subject: Re: Civilian Pursuits From: Pilgrim
To: laz Date Posted:
Mon, May 01, 2000 at 20:20:30 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
hmmm, you saying that only civil affairs are an entanglement with
the affairs of this life? Can't just about ANYTHING be an entanglement?
Or is it because the civil and 'religious' spheres/administrations/institutions
(both dealing with peoples lives and conduct) are so similar in
purpose/nature/function that one can't serve 'two masters'...especially
God's interests properly since conflicts will certainly arise? laz
--- laz,
Read the context of what Paul's
counsel is to Timothy a young pastor. :-) Is he not telling him
that a man called to serve Christ in an official office, particularly
that of elder is not to get himself involved in the 'business-pursuits
of civilian life'. The Greek word used here for affairs is 'pragmateia'. This word can either have a restricted
meaning 'business which provides a livelihood,' or a more general
meaning 'matter,' 'affair.' And the word used for life in the Greek is 'Bios', which may have one of several
meanings depending upon the context: 'mode of life,' 'livelihood,'
'the world we live in,' biography,' 'settled or civilian life,'
etc. Here in II Tim 2:4 the context seems to draw a contrast between
military and civilian life; hence, a proper translation of 'business-pursuits
of civilian life' seems more than reasonable. It is either that
or 'livelihood.' And if is translated as this latter possibility,
the entire phrase would be 'business of making a livelihood.' Paul
compares the Christian minister (here with particular reference
to Timothy, but (cf. Phil 2:25; Philemon 2) to a soldier, an athlete,
and a farmer. 1Cor. 9:6, 7, 24-27 presents the same threefold figure
but with a different application. The resemblance, here in II Tim
2 is as follows: a) First, like a soldier on active duty, perhaps
even engaged in a campaign, Timothy must perform his task wholeheartedly. If a soldiering
person should pursue a business on the side, one that would really
absorb his interests, so that he becomes 'implicated' in it, he
would not be able to really 'give' himself to his appointed task
as a soldier. b) The soldier in the filed has just one purpose, namely, to satisfy the officer who enlisted
him. Similarly, Timothy - and , for that matter, any 'minister'
- must realize that his exalted task 'demands his soul, his life,
his all.' One
holy passion must fill his frame. He must devote himself completely
to his Lord who appointed ('enlisted') and qualified him for his
task. Every true and faithful servant of the Lord Christ will actually devote himself thus
wholeheartedly to his task, in order to
please his Master (cf. I Cor 7:32-34;
cf. I Joh 3:22 and I Thess. 2:4). 'no enlisted soldier,' says Paul,
will do differently! The thought is implied: by way of reward, Timothy's
Superior will surely provide for him! Now I'll let you make the
application as you see fit. :-)
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Civilian Pursuits From: laz To: Pilgrim Date Posted:
Tues, May 02, 2000 at 06:25:22 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Pilgrim, call me dense, but I still don't follow. YOU said: Is he not telling him that a man called to serve Christ
in an official office, particularly that of elder is not to get
himself involved in the 'business-pursuits of civilian life'. So, a ruling elder can have a job...just not run a business?
That ruling elders are also to be provided for by the Church? I
really don't take issue with that. Is this your point? laz
Subject: Re: Civilian Pursuits From: Pilgrim
To: laz Date Posted:
Tues, May 02, 2000 at 08:32:25 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Pilgrim, call me dense, but I still don't follow. YOU said: Is he not telling him that a man called to serve Christ
in an official office, particularly that of elder is not to get
himself involved in the 'business-pursuits of civilian life'. So, a ruling elder can have a job...just not run a business?
That ruling elders are also to be provided for by the Church? I
really don't take issue with that. Is this your point? laz
--- laz,
Hmmmmm!? What the Apostle is saying
is that if a man is called to the office of Elder, and it is his
responsibility to shepherd the flock of God, which requires his
full attention (especially the preaching elders), then that man
should not be involved in a business enterprise, nor ANYTHING, which
demands his time and or efforts that take him away from his calling.
As an example, Paul did 'tent making', but this was supplementary
work. In his unique situation, he was not supported by the church,
not was his itinerant ministry conducive to holding down a full-time
job. This principle is surely applicable to a man who is called
into the ministry where he is serving a very small congregation
which is unable to provide adequate financial remuneration. It is
then no violation of what Paul is counseling Timothy for that man
to work part-time for supplemental income to provide for the necessities
of life for himself and for his family, if he have one. Another
caveat in this whole matter is the current distinction made between
'ruling elders' and 'preaching/teaching elders'! Is this really
a right division of the eldership? But to the point, the original
question was in regards to an elder pursuing a political office.
It was my contention that he should not. I didn't offer the many
reasons why he shouldn't except for the exhortation given my Paul
in 2Tim 2:4, but there are in fact many other reasons why he shouldn't
IMHO and indeed couldn't, especially within the current political
milieu in both the United States and in Canada. :-)
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Keeping our perspective From: Tom To: scott lewis
Date Posted:
Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 10:47:11 (PDT) Email Address:ahardy@rapidnet.net
Message:
Just a thought, in the church I attend, we have about 5 public school
teachers. I doubt they teach things like evolution in a way that
says we evolved from monkeys. They may say something like, the theory
of evolution says ... I know if I was a teacher, I certainly couldn't
teach evolution as though it was a fact. Then again I may get myself
fired, lol. Tom
Subject: Re: Keeping our perspective From: stan To: Rod Date Posted:
Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 20:17:20 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Good point, but could it be that we are having the society problems
because the institution has been teaching humanism for so many years?
:-) Naaaahh its probably the parents fault all over the country
becasue they won't okay more taxes for more programs that don't
work. stan
Subject: Re: Public Schools From: Pilgrim
To: scott lewis
Date Posted:
Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 08:04:29 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Scott,
Can one not help but see the similarities
in the public schools, in fact throughout the U.S. and Canada, and
that which was existing in Babylon in the days of Daniel? :-) In
the United States, I understand that the Ten Commandments are permanently
affixed to the walls of the Supreme Court building. In the House
of Representatives and Senate, prayers are offered to various 'gods'
before each session is opened and on the paper money in the U.S.,
there is written, 'In God we trust'. Yet the name of the Christian
God is blasphemed and prohibited to be uttered in this same government's
publicly funded schools. However, I must agree with Eric, that there
should be no mandate to forcibly administer public prayers in public
classrooms. Yet, I don't think prayer and Bible reading should be
outlawed. There are some public institutions whose attendees are
predominantly professingly Christian, and thus if they chose to
pray before classes or to have the Bible as one of its textbooks,
I think it should be allowed. A further question to this entire
matter would be, 'Knowing the philosophical base of the curriculum
which is being used and the same basis which the administrators
and teachers adhere to, should a Christian parent send their children
to these institutions at all?'
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Public Schools From: laz To: Pilgrim Date Posted:
Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 08:32:49 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
I was waiting for someone to stick their foot in their mouth, to
offend the sensibilities of christian parents who have opted to
send their innocent children to public school, to call into question
their love of God and committment to raising godly children. To
cast a subtle aspersion to the well-intentioned idea that kids need
to be about discipling the nations too,...etc Yep, you done did
it, bubs! Expect some 'UNfan mail' in the coming days.... LOL!!
laz
Subject: Are you suggesting From: Eric To: laz Date Posted:
Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 13:26:14 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
that Christian kids shouldn't go to public schools? There is a danger
if parents shirk their responsibility and do not find out what their
kids are being taught, but I have found that it provides a good
way to explain exactly where Christians differ from the rest of
the world, and a chance to point out the errors of the modern mindset.
My nine year old and I had a great discussion about evolution and
the logical fallacies behind the theory, which led into a discussion
of why people believe such an obviously false idea, which in turn
led to going through sections of Romans with him--what a thrill!
I have seen parents who send their kids to Christian schools and
assume that they have done their duty, and don't need to educate
at home. God bless.
Subject: Re: Are you suggesting From: laz To: Eric Date Posted:
Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 14:14:01 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Eric - I don't think it's any of my business where parents send
their kids to school. We happen to HS. It's worked well for us.
As for opportunities to discuss the 'ways of the world' in contrast
to the ways of the Bible and the people of God, well, TV, books,
magazines, radio, newpapers, friends, family...all provide this
and ALL THE TIME ....so, do I need to send my kids to JW or Mormon
school for 8 hrs a day, 180 days a year to effectively teach them
about cults? Just a thought. ;-) I will admit that as a whole and
over the last 8 yrs, (there are exceptions)...I've noticed a marked
difference btwn public taught and home taught (Christian) kids across
many areas...maturity/socialization, love of learning, conformity,
knowledge of scripture, basic behavior/self-discipline, sibbling
rivalry, closeness to/respect for parents, and more.... again, there
are few exceptions as there are ALWAYS a few bad apples regardless
of the barrel. The secular HSed kids in our area are being brought
up in very permissive environments and tend to be rude and fairly
undisciplined. We taken to avoiding joint extracurricular activities
with non-Christian HSing families in the local Chapter. We've had
problems with a few of their kids in the past. What do you expect
when their parenets reject the fundamental truth believing HSing
families embrace that 'the fear of the Lord is the beginning of
knowledge/wisdom'! Training/instruction in righteousness is VERY
important to successful HSing ... IMHO. We HS for character development
a much as for anything else. The bottom line for me is that it's
up to the parents to decide based on their unique familial situation,
theological beliefs, and parenting styles, and not for others to
judge. God gives each a measure of faith/conviction. Who am I to
judge? Have I? laz
Subject: Re: Public Schools From: Eric To: scott lewis
Date Posted:
Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 07:19:26 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
On a similiar topic, what are everybody's opinions of school prayer/ten
commandments being posted in schools? I find it just silly. The
argument seems so ridiculous to me. The last thing I want is my
son reciting a school sponsored prayer to some higher power. Talk
about blasphamey! (sp?) If my son wants to pray or read his bible
in school, there is no law preventing him from doing so. Same thought
on the ten commandments being posted. What in the world difference
will it make? IMHO, it is just another proof that 'modern Christians'
just don't get it. It is not about outward form/appearance but what
is in the heart that matters. God bless.
Subject: Re: Public Schools From: Prestor
John To: Eric Date Posted:
Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 12:58:03 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
I agree, I too think its just plain silly. First what they refer
to as the Ten Commandments (what they display anyway) isn't the
Decalogue its just some water downed form of it. Second I don't
know what 'god' they're praying to in public schools but it sure
isn't the LORD GOD.
So I don't want my kids praying to it. Prestor John
Subject: Re: Public Schools AND PARENTS From: stan To: Eric Date Posted:
Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 08:44:27 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
We have a situation in the Northwest that shows that the schools
aren't all bad but that the parents are a tad daffy. A high female
school validictorian took a shower with five guys in the high school.
She and her buds were barred from all senior activities and removed
as validictorian by the principal and backed by the entire board.
Parents? The think it is ridiculous - nothing wrong with what she
did. Townspeople are very upset with the school. Go figure! She
is recieving numerous tabloid offers so you will most likely be
seeing it soon if you haven't already.
Subject: Re: Public Schools AND PARENTS From: Prestor
John To: stan Date Posted:
Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 21:01:29 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
No stan your wrong, in fact the schools are all bad. The fact that
they basically slapped her hand and the boys' hands and said ' Bad
go to your room' The correct way to have handled the situation would
have been to expell her and say that she can not graduate with her
class. The same for the boys. As for the parents well they are exhibiting
the classic signs of total depravity as far as I can tell. So I'm
not really too suprised (and just for the record so is the girl
and the boys). If you want my opinion (and Laz if you thought Pil
was going to get hate mail wait for this) public schools must be
abolished totally. Schools have to be seperate from the government.
Schools and government do not belong together. Now lets talk about
the curriculm! :) Prestor John Curmudgeon in Residence
Subject: Re: Publik Skools AND PARENTS From: john hampshire
To: Prestor John
Date Posted:
Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 06:49:19 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Scott and friends, Ferst, let me sae, their is reely knothing rong
with publik skool, I wint two won, and I terned out gust fign! Sew,
I cant undurstande wye everrywone is sew upsett. I waz graduatted
top in my klas. I gotte all 'A's' in soshal develupmint and thincking
skils, plus I am a good coopurater and plae whell with othurrs.
I hoppe two bee a brane surjeon somme day or a jet airplain pilit,
I cant deside. I am relly luckie my parant's kared enouf two send
me two publik skool. Like the problem, you know, with the schools,
and stuff, is that like, it's really wierd, you know? I mean, its
like, what's up with school, you know? OK, I have to agree with
Prestor John and that Chilton fella (liked his car books), the state
school is a social experiment gone wrong. If it were possible, put
the responsibility for education back with parents again! But that
is not going to happen, is it? I don't know too much about the schools
in the Great White North, but in the U.S. my experience has been
that they are factories of mediocrity. There is nothing worthy of
'fixing'. The brightest children are mush-brained parrots-- they
have lost that natural wonderment and inquisitiveness for knowledge--the
result of having facts forced down their throats--like being raped
by words in a book. Yet, it is my experience that the destruction
of the youth begins far earlier. I see in every community I have
lived in, the blank stares of dull minds in the youngest of children
left to 'daycare' workers. From the get-go kids are traumatized
by these socialized 'dumping grounds'. They learn fast that Mommy
and Daddy love themselves more than the littlest one, and are not
above coercion and lying to make this act of abandonment and treachery
seem appealing and proper. It is one of the first seeds of resentment
toward 'authority' a child learns-- he/she is NOT loved by anyone.
The first words out of a typical expectant Mom to her doctor is:
'When can I go back to work'? Where is a Mother’s natural love for
her own child? Do you think so called Christian parents are somehow
immune from the lure of socialized education? I think not, since
most Christians are products of the system and grew up being good
obedient lapdogs of the state, like any other. Not to mention the
average Joe Christian's faith is more a faith in his faith than
a faith in the true God. Whatever CNN reports, they believe... They
have lost the ability to stand alone, the ability to reason a thing
out; they are as much mind-numbed robots as the secular community.
Christians do whatever everyone else does-- that is the standard.
Little Johnny can't read, write, or think because little Johnny
is in a battle for his life, or at least his identity and innocence.
Little Johnny will either be absorbed into the collective, and be
a people-pleaser or rebel against the hypocrisy of force-fed educational
lies and be an outcast. In either case Johnny is in turmoil and
pain, and carries the anger that comes with his corruption and degradation.
Little Johnny's 'learning disorder' may well be that he sees the
evil behind the smiles, and wants no part of it. The bottom line
is: if you value your kids, you will ensure they are allowed to
think freely, expand and grow at their own pace, experiment and
investigate this world as their curiosity enlightens and leads them.
This is the way to produce genuine 'thinkers' and the next Albert
Einstein. The educational system produces a low-wattage version:
Albert I’m Stymied. Public schools destroy little lives, it crushes
ingenuity, creativity, and intuition. It can't work, it doesn't
work. Remove your children from the 'machine'; tear apart the bonding
of kids with kids and kids with teachers-- establish again the bond
between child and parent. Become your child’s teacher, his role-model,
his source of comfort, truth, reason and stability. Allow your child
to blossom like a flower, in due season, without pressure to regurgitate
facts. Keep your child, protect your child -- that is what parents
are called to do. Forget public school. Sit with your children and
talk, talk about anything -- they are dying for you to be part of
their lives. End of soapbox. john
Subject: Re: Public Schools AND PARENTS From: GRACE2Me
To: Prestor John/All
Date Posted:
Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 06:03:42 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
Preach on Prestor John. I agree with you. Like someone said earlier,
once the schooling was seperated, it seems as if it was doomed for
failure beginning then. One of the biggest excuses now, for professing
Christians is that they cannot afford not to send their children
to public school. Either because they cannot afford to send them
to Private Christian Schools (many of which are almost as bad),
or because they say they cannot afford to stay home to Home School
them, and not work that second job. Others fear that they are not
able to Home School them. But there are many 'Home School Teacher's
Guides' to help them. It's not always easy. My wife struggles with
helping our youngest daughter who is finishing up 9th grade, to
do the Algebra. Actually, our oldest daughter (22) is helping our
youngest daughter with it. You see for me, and I know I might catch
some flack with this, since we do not have any sons (a pastor once
told me that meant the Lord knows when there is one good man in
the family, haha)it is not as big of a deal to be concerned about
'higher education.' What's wrong with teaching and trying to prepare
our children to be good Christian wives to good Christian husbands
should it be God's will for them to marry??? Of course this opens
a new can of worms about where daughters should be between High
School and marriage? Home? Out on their own? Depends on whether
they go to College? I have a 22 year old and another that will be
21 in September, and they are still home with me. The oldest one
did go to College for one year a couple of years ago. It didn't
work out for her to go back, but she is thinking about that again.
So should we start a new thread about this :-)? GRACE2Me
Subject: Re: Public Schools AND PARENTS From: john hampshire
To: GRACE2Me
Date Posted:
Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 07:36:30 (PDT) Email Address:Not Provided
Message:
I have six children, one wife, and one marriage. I have home schooled
all my children. It is not expensive, but it is time consuming.
Yet they are able to work on their own, and the oldest helps the
youngest. There are many software titles that teach subjects the
parents may not by unable to handle and an incredible number of
outstanding homeschooling products. They put the publik skools to
shame in quality of textbooks. Also, I do not treat my daughters
differently than my sons. I would not want my daughters to think
that being a wife someday precludes a need to read, explore, and
learn (not that you would deny them this either). It is my hope
that they will each find one thing that really interests them, and
that they will each pursue their interests so that it becomes their
profession, if that is what they want. College means little, it
used to be that it is where you must go to get 'higher' learning.
Now you can go to a library or the Internet, opportunities for learning
are everywhere. All that is lacking is motivation. At some point
sons and daughters must leave the nest. But I would avoid unnatural
breaks, such as college, which force a separation from the parents
in an untimely way. If in the course of pursuing their interests
they must go, so be it, but let it be a normal unfolding rather
than a migration of lemmings to water. It is not that I am against
college, rather I am against the mindless pursuit of knowledge which
college offers. I studied Forestry in college, and eventually became
a meteorologist. College does offer choices. I would hope that my
children will not need choices, but will know what interests them
by then, and will narrow their learning to what compliments their
interest. In other words, don't waste effort on what is unimportant,
learn your trade better than the rest, and you will be in demand
(with or without a piece of paper in your hand). So, my answer is:
I wouldn't send a 21 year old to college alone, unless it was a
necessary unfolding of her/his pursuit of what has captured her/his
interest, and there was no other means to that end. Just my opinion,
john