Go To Home Page
Messiah

Key: = Posted Today and Yesterday



'Theology Discussion Group'

Travel to the Highway home page and read our many fine articles and view the links to other sites by clicking on the blue The Highway logo in the upper right hand corner of this page.

« Forum Guidelines »

Total Messages Loaded: 265

This archive is for reading only! You cannot post here!

laz -:- cloning revisited -:- Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 06:07:08 (PST)

postrib -:- The Rapture -:- Tues, Feb 27, 2001 at 22:00:16 (PST)
_
Reformed SBC -:- Re: The Rapture -:- Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 07:53:59 (PST)

Reformed SBC -:- Traditional Text -:- Tues, Feb 27, 2001 at 17:30:52 (PST)
_
saved -:- Re: Traditional Text -:- Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 09:50:58 (PST)

Chris Tippett -:- Rapture and the Old Dispensation -:- Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 20:01:25 (PST)
_
Rod -:- Re: Rapture and the Old Dispensation -:- Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 23:28:52 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: Rapture and the Old Dispensation -:- Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 21:24:28 (PST)
_ navyrdc -:- Re: Rapture and the Old Dispensation -:- Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 20:43:49 (PST)
__ Reformed SBC -:- Re: Rapture and the Old Dispensation -:- Tues, Feb 27, 2001 at 13:47:52 (PST)

Tom -:- Perseverance of the Saints -:- Sat, Feb 24, 2001 at 19:30:12 (PST)
_
saved -:- Re: Perseverance of the Saints -:- Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 13:19:35 (PST)
__ saved -:- Re: Perseverance of the Saints -:- Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 13:50:30 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: Perseverance of the Saints -:- Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 09:04:16 (PST)
__ Tom -:- Re: Perseverance of the Saints -:- Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 13:58:22 (PST)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re: Perseverance of the Saints -:- Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 19:58:27 (PST)

Chris Tippett -:- Jews & Gentiles....Spiritual Jews? -:- Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 17:40:41 (PST)
_
Tom-E -:- Re: Jews & Gentiles....Spiritual Jews? -:- Tues, Feb 27, 2001 at 14:50:23 (PST)
__ Pilgrim -:- Re: Jews & Gentiles....Spiritual Jews? -:- Tues, Feb 27, 2001 at 21:43:56 (PST)
___ Tom-E -:- Re: Jews & Gentiles....Spiritual Jews? -:- Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 11:57:21 (PST)
____ Pilgrim -:- Re: Jews & Gentiles....Spiritual Jews? -:- Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 14:22:25 (PST)
_ Rod -:- Re: Jews & Gentiles....Spiritual Jews??? -:- Sat, Feb 24, 2001 at 00:04:07 (PST)
__ Brother Bret -:- Re: Jews & Gentiles/1Cor.7:17-24 -:- Sat, Feb 24, 2001 at 18:29:22 (PST)
___ Rod -:- Re: Jews & Gentiles/1Cor.7:17-24 -:- Sat, Feb 24, 2001 at 19:04:01 (PST)
_ laz -:- Re: Jews & Gentiles....Spiritual Jews? -:- Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 20:56:55 (PST)

saved -:- Human Clones -:- Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 09:23:44 (PST)
_
laz -:- Re: Human Clones -:- Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 10:52:21 (PST)
__ stan -:- Re: Human Clones -:- Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 12:56:24 (PST)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re: Human Clones -:- Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 13:36:57 (PST)
____ laz -:- Re: Human Clones -:- Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 20:33:14 (PST)
_____ Tom -:- Re: Human Clones -:- Sat, Feb 24, 2001 at 12:40:08 (PST)
______ Pilgrim -:- Re: Human Clones -:- Sat, Feb 24, 2001 at 17:41:39 (PST)
_______ Tom -:- Re: Human Clones -:- Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 14:25:16 (PST)
_______ Brother Bret -:- Re: Human Clones -:- Sat, Feb 24, 2001 at 18:50:40 (PST)
________ laz -:- I think I got it... -:- Sat, Feb 24, 2001 at 20:17:50 (PST)
_________ Pilgrim -:- Re: I think I got it... -:- Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 09:29:47 (PST)
__________ saved -:- Re: I think I got it... -:- Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 11:01:16 (PST)
________ stan -:- Re: Well, maybe one ... -:- Sat, Feb 24, 2001 at 19:54:38 (PST)
_________ saved -:- Re: Well, maybe one ... -:- Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 12:13:32 (PST)
__________ stan -:- Re: Well, maybe one ... -:- Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 15:02:09 (PST)
___________ saved -:- Cloning - another False Gospel -:- Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 08:19:21 (PST)
___________ saved -:- Re: Well, maybe one ... -:- Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 07:55:13 (PST)
____________ saved -:- What would Paul say? -:- Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 11:10:49 (PST)
_____ Pilgrim -:- Re: Human Clones -:- Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 23:20:58 (PST)
_____ stan -:- Re: Human Clones -:- Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 20:52:25 (PST)
____ stan -:- Re: Human Clones -:- Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 19:40:06 (PST)
_____ PIlgrim -:- Re: Human Clones -:- Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 23:31:13 (PST)
______ saved -:- Cloning Jesus Christ -:- Sat, Feb 24, 2001 at 07:37:16 (PST)

LUMICAH -:- Re: Look for Namesagame -:- Thurs, Feb 22, 2001 at 08:10:44 (PST)

Tom -:- Marriage Resources -:- Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 14:07:34 (PST)
_
Laz -:- Re: Marriage Resources -:- Thurs, Feb 22, 2001 at 10:12:19 (PST)
_ Five Sola -:- Re: Marriage Resources -:- Thurs, Feb 22, 2001 at 07:18:32 (PST)
__ laz -:- Re: Marriage Resources -:- Thurs, Feb 22, 2001 at 10:10:15 (PST)
___ Five Sola -:- Re: Marriage Resources -:- Thurs, Feb 22, 2001 at 10:15:20 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: Marriage Resources -:- Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 14:30:49 (PST)
__ laz -:- Re: Marriage Resources -:- Thurs, Feb 22, 2001 at 10:05:08 (PST)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re: Marriage Resources -:- Thurs, Feb 22, 2001 at 17:09:36 (PST)
____ laz -:- Re: Marriage Resources -:- Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 07:51:14 (PST)
___ Tom -:- Re: Marriage Resources -:- Thurs, Feb 22, 2001 at 10:29:16 (PST)
____ Linda -:- Re: Marriage Resources -:- Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 00:06:23 (PST)

Eric -:- Post contains offensive language. -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 08:46:10 (PST)
_
Pilgrim -:- Re: Post contains offensive language. -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 12:37:08 (PST)
__ Eric -:- Re: Post contains offensive language. -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 13:36:45 (PST)
___ Brother Bret -:- Re: Post contains offensive language. -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 20:42:14 (PST)
____ Pilgrim -:- Re: Post contains offensive language. -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 21:30:11 (PST)
_____ Eric -:- Wait a cotton pickin minute -:- Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 05:37:41 (PST)
______ Christian -:- Think a cotton pickin minute -:- Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 16:37:02 (PST)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re: Post contains offensive language. -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 16:22:11 (PST)

John P. -:- General help -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 06:31:01 (PST)
_
Pilgrim -:- Re: General help -:- Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 07:04:08 (PST)
_ stan -:- Re: You might ... -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 14:23:13 (PST)
__ John P. -:- Re: You might ... -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 21:48:30 (PST)

Chrysostomos -:- Pilgrim's original question... -:- Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 23:25:25 (PST)
_
Pilgrim -:- Re: Pilgrim's original question... -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 08:32:18 (PST)

laz -:- Eyes and Ears - Election Shown -:- Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 19:44:27 (PST)
_
saved -:- Re: Eyes and Ears - Election Shown -:- Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 09:36:23 (PST)
_ Eric -:- Re: Eyes and Ears - Election Shown -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 10:24:19 (PST)
__ Pilgrim -:- Re: Eyes and Ears - Election Shown -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 12:50:32 (PST)
___ Eric -:- Interesting -:- Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 08:38:20 (PST)
____ Pilgrim -:- Re: Interesting -:- Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 12:17:06 (PST)
____ laz -:- Re: Interesting -:- Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 10:14:31 (PST)
_____ Rod -:- Re: Interesting -:- Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 11:13:27 (PST)
______ laz -:- Re: Interesting -:- Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 18:18:04 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: Eyes and Ears - Election Shown -:- Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 22:35:04 (PST)

Five Sola -:- Study update -:- Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 18:49:44 (PST)
_
Linda -:- Re: Study update -:- Thurs, Feb 22, 2001 at 23:58:51 (PST)
_ Tom -:- Re: Study update -:- Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 14:13:50 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: Study update -:- Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 13:53:35 (PST)
_ Five Sola -:- no suggestions? :-) -:- Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 08:12:14 (PST)
__ Rod -:- Re: no suggestions? :-) -:- Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 15:29:05 (PST)

Bro. Charles -:- Mark 14:51 &52 -:- Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 19:10:25 (PST)
_
john -:- Re: Mark 14:51 &52 -:- Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 19:43:52 (PST)
__ Prestor John -:- Re: Mark 14:51 &52 -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 21:23:19 (PST)
___ Rod -:- Re: Mark 14:51 &52 -:- Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 00:53:09 (PST)
____ john -:- Re: Mark 14:51 &52 -:- Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 03:39:32 (PST)
_____ Rod -:- Re: Mark 14:51 &52 -:- Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 10:29:50 (PST)
_ Prestor John -:- Re: Mark 14:51 &52 -:- Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 20:13:58 (PST)

Chrysostomos -:- to Pilgrim -:- Thurs, Feb 15, 2001 at 23:46:31 (PST)

Chrysostomos -:- to Rod -:- Thurs, Feb 15, 2001 at 23:19:38 (PST)
_
Rod -:- Re: to Rod -:- Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 07:28:11 (PST)
__ Chrysostomos -:- Re: to Rod -:- Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 23:43:22 (PST)
___ Rod -:- Re: to Rod -:- Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 11:35:00 (PST)
__ Christian -:- Re: to Rod -:- Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 13:20:18 (PST)
___ Rod -:- Re: to Rod -:- Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 16:31:35 (PST)
____ Christian -:- Re: to Rod -:- Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 22:20:48 (PST)

Chris -:- The Love of God -:- Thurs, Feb 15, 2001 at 19:04:55 (PST)
_
Rod -:- 'Step right up...' -:- Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 11:22:01 (PST)
__ Christian -:- made alive by hearing His word -:- Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 12:58:17 (PST)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re: made alive by hearing His word -:- Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 20:08:50 (PST)
____ Christian -:- Re: made alive by hearing His word -:- Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 22:29:08 (PST)
_____ Pilgrim -:- Re: made alive by hearing His word -:- Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 07:36:44 (PST)
______ Christian -:- made alive by hearing His inner call -:- Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 12:50:15 (PST)
_______ Pilgrim -:- Re: made alive by hearing His inner call -:- Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 14:28:56 (PST)
___ Rod -:- Re: made alive by hearing His word -:- Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 17:03:50 (PST)
____ Christian -:- My *name* is Christian, not 'Christian' -:- Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 22:13:27 (PST)
_____ Rod -:- Re: My *name* is Christian, not 'Christian' -:- Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 00:35:37 (PST)
______ Christian -:- Query to Rod -:- Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 13:00:57 (PST)
_______ Rod -:- Re: Query to Rod -:- Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 18:51:30 (PST)
______ Christian -:- reasonable distrust is expected -:- Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 12:10:50 (PST)
_______ Rod -:- Re: reasonable distrust is expected -:- Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 17:52:34 (PST)
_______ Pilgrim -:- Re: reasonable distrust is expected -:- Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 14:36:47 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: The Love of God -:- Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 09:08:56 (PST)
__ Chris -:- Re: The Love of God -:- Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 18:40:33 (PST)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re: The Love of God -:- Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 19:00:24 (PST)

Christian (Perplexed) -:- Confused about the rules -:- Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 14:04:52 (PST)
_
Bro. Charles -:- Re: foul Language... In the Bible??? -:- Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 20:32:16 (PST)
__ Christian -:- Foul, no. Offensive, yes! -:- Thurs, Feb 15, 2001 at 09:59:56 (PST)
___ Rod -:- Re: Foul, no. Offensive, yes! -:- Thurs, Feb 15, 2001 at 11:32:49 (PST)
____ Christian -:- Ominous ambiguity -:- Thurs, Feb 15, 2001 at 13:12:02 (PST)
_____ Pilgrim -:- Re: Ominous ambiguity -:- Thurs, Feb 15, 2001 at 14:41:39 (PST)
______ Christian -:- Re: Ominous ambiguity -:- Thurs, Feb 15, 2001 at 15:07:55 (PST)
_______ Pilgrim -:- -:- Re: Ominous ambiguity -:- Thurs, Feb 15, 2001 at 21:59:32 (PST)
________ Christian -:- Re: Ominous ambiguity -:- Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 12:41:59 (PST)
_____ Rod -:- Re: Ominous ambiguity (???) -:- Thurs, Feb 15, 2001 at 14:19:05 (PST)
______ Christian -:- Re: Ominous ambiguity (???) -:- Thurs, Feb 15, 2001 at 15:16:47 (PST)
_______ Pilgrim -:- Re: Ominous paranoia(???) -:- Thurs, Feb 15, 2001 at 22:02:42 (PST)
_ one of the monitors -:- Re: Confused about the rules -:- Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 18:25:07 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- -:- Re: Confused about the rules -:- Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 16:52:22 (PST)
__ Rod -:- Re: Confused about the rules -:- Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 21:15:16 (PST)
_ Rod -:- Re: Confused about the rules -:- Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 15:24:01 (PST)
__ tREVOR -:- Re: Confused about the rules -:- Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 19:39:43 (PST)
___ CEvanglst4 -:- Re: Confused about the rules -:- Thurs, Feb 15, 2001 at 04:49:13 (PST)

Pilgrim -:- Timely Article! -:- Tues, Feb 13, 2001 at 12:09:05 (PST)
_
Trevor -:- Re: Timely Article! -:- Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 19:41:38 (PST)
__ Pilgrim -:- Re: Timely Article! -:- Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 20:21:34 (PST)

Brother Charles -:- Somthing interesting -:- Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 21:42:29 (PST)

Brother Bret -:- Reformed Position on Rev.3:10 -:- Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 19:26:35 (PST)
_
Pilgrim -:- Re: Reformed Position on Rev.3:10 -:- Tues, Feb 13, 2001 at 20:43:06 (PST)
__ Brother Bret -:- Re: Reformed Position on Rev.3:10 -:- Thurs, Feb 15, 2001 at 13:17:22 (PST)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re: Reformed Position on Rev.3:10 -:- Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 08:01:53 (PST)
__ Christian -:- Well-Said, Pilgrim -:- Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 14:15:53 (PST)
_ kevin -:- Re: Reformed Position on Rev.3:10 -:- Tues, Feb 13, 2001 at 06:08:45 (PST)

David Teh -:- Starting a ministry... -:- Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 02:37:01 (PST)
_
Pilgrim -:- Re: Starting a ministry... -:- Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 08:36:42 (PST)
__ David Teh -:- Re: Starting a ministry... -:- Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 17:17:44 (PST)

Trevor Johnson -:- A Personal Antichrist ? -:- Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 01:39:19 (PST)
_
Christian -:- Attack of the Personal Antichrists -:- Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 14:18:32 (PST)
_ stan -:- Re: On the serious side.... -:- Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 19:29:56 (PST)
_ Rod -:- As a 'dispensational heretic'... -:- Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 12:19:40 (PST)
__ Prestor John -:- Re: As a 'dispensational heretic'... -:- Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 20:27:06 (PST)
___ Christian -:- still musing -:- Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 14:20:53 (PST)
___ Rod -:- Re: As a 'dispensational heretic'... -:- Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 20:56:35 (PST)
__ stan -:- Re: I might suggest... -:- Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 14:41:12 (PST)
___ Trevor -:- Re: I might suggest... -:- Tues, Feb 13, 2001 at 00:20:30 (PST)
____ stan -:- Re: some say.. -:- Tues, Feb 13, 2001 at 08:27:52 (PST)

Tom -:- Devotional -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 09:00:00 (PST)
_
Rod -:- Re: Devotional -:- Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 12:35:32 (PST)
__ Tom -:- Re: Devotional -:- Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 01:07:03 (PST)
__ Pilgrim -:- Re: Devotional -:- Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 23:22:04 (PST)
___ Rod -:- Re: Devotional -:- Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 13:14:51 (PST)
____ Tom -:- Re: Devotional -:- Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 14:18:18 (PST)
_____ Rod -:- Re: Devotional -:- Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 14:57:02 (PST)
______ Tom -:- Re: Devotional -:- Tues, Feb 13, 2001 at 01:31:22 (PST)
___ Tom -:- Re: Devotional -:- Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 01:22:05 (PST)
__ stan -:- Re: Amen! -:- Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 20:00:24 (PST)

Brother Bret -:- Comments on the Book of Life -:- Tues, Feb 06, 2001 at 13:02:05 (PST)
_
Pilgrim -:- Re: Comments on the Book of Life -:- Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 14:44:43 (PST)
__ Brother Bret -:- Re: Comments on the Book of Life -:- Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 13:33:19 (PST)

Trevor Johnson -:- Satan in the Old Testament -:- Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 23:49:45 (PST)
_
Rod -:- Re: Satan in the Old Testament -:- Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 13:40:37 (PST)

Rod -:- Question for Mary -:- Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 11:20:01 (PST)

Mary -:- infant baptism -:- Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 10:34:12 (PST)
_
Pilgrim -:- Re: infant baptism -:- Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 17:40:30 (PST)
_ Five Sola -:- Re: infant baptism -:- Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 13:23:16 (PST)
_ Rod -:- Re: infant baptism -:- Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 11:14:48 (PST)
__ Prestor John -:- Re: infant baptism -:- Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 20:59:42 (PST)
___ Rod -:- Re: infant baptism -:- Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 23:19:24 (PST)
____ Prestor John -:- Re: infant baptism -:- Tues, Feb 06, 2001 at 18:47:34 (PST)

Mary -:- Reform Theology -:- Sun, Feb 04, 2001 at 20:17:45 (PST)
_
stan -:- Re: Northland site. -:- Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 18:47:59 (PST)
__ Rod -:- Re: Northland site. -:- Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 20:45:45 (PST)
___ stan -:- Re: Northland site. -:- Tues, Feb 06, 2001 at 17:58:35 (PST)
____ Rod -:- Re: Northland site. -:- Tues, Feb 06, 2001 at 20:25:39 (PST)
_____ stan -:- Re: Ya, me three! ;-) NT -:- Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 14:20:21 (PST)
_ Brother Bret -:- Re: Reform Theology -:- Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 18:13:13 (PST)
_ Rod -:- Re: Reform Theology -:- Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 10:48:07 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: Reform Theology -:- Sun, Feb 04, 2001 at 23:47:38 (PST)
_ Tom -:- Re: Reform Theology -:- Sun, Feb 04, 2001 at 22:19:10 (PST)

chief of sinners -:- heresy -:- Thurs, Feb 01, 2001 at 19:52:12 (PST)
_
chief of sinners -:- Re: heresy -:- Sat, Feb 03, 2001 at 21:28:42 (PST)
__ Five Sola -:- Re: heresy -:- Sat, Feb 03, 2001 at 22:30:13 (PST)
___ Blue -:- Re: heresy -:- Sat, Feb 03, 2001 at 23:53:19 (PST)
____ Five Sola -:- Re: heresy -:- Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 13:12:29 (PST)
_____ Blue -:- Re: heresy -:- Tues, Feb 06, 2001 at 19:54:52 (PST)
______ Pilgrim -:- Re: heresy -:- Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 08:17:01 (PST)
_______ Rod -:- The acid test of heresy.... -:- Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 13:12:13 (PST)
______ Five Sola -:- Re: heresy -:- Tues, Feb 06, 2001 at 21:07:28 (PST)
____ Prestor John -:- Re: heresy -:- Sun, Feb 04, 2001 at 15:58:43 (PST)
_____ Blue -:- Re: heresy -:- Sun, Feb 04, 2001 at 23:08:20 (PST)
______ Prestor John -:- Re: heresy -:- Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 20:39:43 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: heresy -:- Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 08:04:55 (PST)
_ Five Sola -:- Re: heresy -:- Thurs, Feb 01, 2001 at 20:49:13 (PST)

Five Sola -:- direction of study? -:- Thurs, Feb 01, 2001 at 12:47:23 (PST)
_
Pilgrim -:- Re: direction of study? -:- Thurs, Feb 01, 2001 at 17:34:24 (PST)
__ Five Sola -:- Re: direction of study? -:- Thurs, Feb 01, 2001 at 20:37:43 (PST)
__ stan -:- Re: Rabbit trail. -:- Thurs, Feb 01, 2001 at 19:27:13 (PST)
___ Five Sola -:- Re: Rabbit trail. -:- Thurs, Feb 01, 2001 at 20:39:41 (PST)
____ stan -:- Re: tanks! NT -:- Thurs, Feb 01, 2001 at 20:53:27 (PST)
_ stan -:- Re: direction of study? -:- Thurs, Feb 01, 2001 at 14:41:09 (PST)
__ Rod -:- Re: direction of study?? -:- Thurs, Feb 01, 2001 at 16:40:24 (PST)
___ Five Sola -:- Re: direction of study? -:- Thurs, Feb 01, 2001 at 20:58:41 (PST)

Rod -:- 'Printer Friendly Version' -:- Thurs, Feb 01, 2001 at 12:13:08 (PST)
_
Pilgrim -:- Re: 'Printer Friendly Version' -:- Thurs, Feb 01, 2001 at 17:19:38 (PST)
_ Rod -:- Re: 'Printer Friendly Version' -:- Thurs, Feb 01, 2001 at 16:31:26 (PST)

Brother Bret -:- Missing Post -:- Thurs, Feb 01, 2001 at 11:56:14 (PST)
_
monitor -:- Re: Missing Post -:- Thurs, Feb 01, 2001 at 15:05:32 (PST)
__ Brother Bret -:- Re: Missing Post -:- Thurs, Feb 01, 2001 at 17:27:24 (PST)

Tom -:- Concern for a relative -:- Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 12:52:03 (PST)
_
Soldiers40 -:- Re: Concern for a relative -:- Sun, Feb 04, 2001 at 08:17:26 (PST)
__ Tom -:- Re: Concern for a relative -:- Sun, Feb 04, 2001 at 09:40:28 (PST)
___ Soldiers40 -:- Re: Concern for a relative -:- Sun, Feb 04, 2001 at 13:34:25 (PST)
____ Tom -:- Re: Concern for a relative -:- Sun, Feb 04, 2001 at 14:33:14 (PST)
_____ Soldiers40 -:- Re: Concern for a relative -:- Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 15:39:34 (PST)
______ Tom -:- Re: Concern for a relative -:- Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 23:38:08 (PST)
_ Soldiers40 -:- Re: Concern for a relative -:- Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 13:50:59 (PST)
_ MaxN -:- Re: Concern for a relative -:- Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 21:47:30 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: Concern for a relative -:- Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 17:21:45 (PST)
__ Tom -:- Re: Concern for a relative -:- Thurs, Feb 01, 2001 at 00:11:42 (PST)
___ Brother Bret -:- Re: Statements of Faith/That Website -:- Thurs, Feb 01, 2001 at 11:52:40 (PST)
____ Tom -:- Re: Statements of Faith/That Website -:- Thurs, Feb 01, 2001 at 13:36:51 (PST)
_____ Pilgrim -:- Re: Saturday Sabbath -:- Thurs, Feb 01, 2001 at 17:25:27 (PST)
______ sean -:- Re: Saturday Sabbath -:- Tues, Feb 06, 2001 at 10:15:35 (PST)
_______ Pilgrim -:- Re: Saturday Sabbath -:- Tues, Feb 06, 2001 at 18:01:57 (PST)
_____ laz -:- Here you go Tom -:- Thurs, Feb 01, 2001 at 15:03:30 (PST)

Brother Bret -:- Cults and Sharing the Gospel -:- Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 21:12:25 (PST)
_
laz -:- Re: Cults and Sharing the Gospel -:- Tues, Jan 30, 2001 at 06:36:45 (PST)
__ Brother Bret -:- Re: Cults and Sharing the Gospel -:- Tues, Jan 30, 2001 at 13:48:10 (PST)
__ Tom -:- Re: Cults and Sharing the Gospel -:- Tues, Jan 30, 2001 at 10:50:38 (PST)
_ john -:- Re: Cults and Sharing the Gospel -:- Tues, Jan 30, 2001 at 03:45:40 (PST)

Tom -:- Matt. 24:13 -:- Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 12:45:58 (PST)
_
Pilgrim -:- Re: Matt. 24:13 -:- Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 17:20:50 (PST)
_ Rod -:- Re: Matt. 24:13 -:- Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 14:55:15 (PST)
__ Tom -:- Re: Matt. 24:13 -:- Tues, Jan 30, 2001 at 11:07:31 (PST)

laz -:- 1Joh2:19 Isn't it clear?? -:- Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 11:02:17 (PST)
_
Rod -:- Re: 1Joh2:19 Isn't it clear? -:- Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 13:25:20 (PST)
__ laz -:- Thks for clarification. NT -:- Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 18:48:50 (PST)

Trevor Johnson -:- Common Grace -:- Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 18:02:50 (PST)
_
laz -:- Re: Common Grace -:- Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 19:23:57 (PST)
__ Trevor -:- Re: Common Grace -:- Sat, Feb 03, 2001 at 22:36:10 (PST)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re: Common Grace -:- Sun, Feb 04, 2001 at 07:57:41 (PST)
____ Trevor -:- Re: Common Grace -:- Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 23:42:59 (PST)
_____ Pilgrim -:- Re: Common Grace -:- Tues, Feb 06, 2001 at 08:48:48 (PST)
______ Trevor -:- Re: Common Grace -:- Tues, Feb 06, 2001 at 19:48:38 (PST)
__ David Teh -:- Re: Common Grace -:- Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 05:09:42 (PST)

Rod -:- Misconceptions of the... -:- Thurs, Jan 25, 2001 at 10:33:10 (PST)


Hotboards.Com Counter


Powerforum Plus+
Paradise Web Enhancements
Copyright 1997,1998



Subject: cloning revisited
From: laz
To: All
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 06:07:08 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
If 'in sin' we are conceived ....as the Psalmist declares (Ps 51:5)... which suggests that we become 'persons' at conception, and therefore immediately inheriting Adam's guilt ...is it safe to say that the human soul (which is guilty and fit only for condemnation) is imparted at conception? I think most would say, 'Yes'. The soul is infused with the body at conception. Can someone then explain when does God infuse the soul of twins....who are the product of a single human cell (having now a soul) which then splits in two? Did God make two souls for that one cell...or does God impart the soul AFTER conception? laz

Subject: The Rapture
From: postrib
To: All
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 27, 2001 at 22:00:16 (PST)
Email Address: postrib@yahoo.com

Message:
Hi, Note that the scriptures don't say the rapture is before the tribulation, but 'after the tribulation' (Matthew 24:29-31, Mark 13:24-27), and that Christ's coming to gather us together will 'destroy' the Antichrist (2 Thessalonians 2:1-8). I believe knowing this is important because if some Christians believe with all their heart that Jesus has promised them a rapture before the tribulation, and then it doesn't happen, how could this not but affect their faith and trust in Jesus? I believe that Jesus told us everything beforehand for a good reason, so that we would not be deceived and would not lose faith (Mark 13:23, Hosea 4:6), and that the pre-trib doctrine is setting the church up for great disappointment and confusion and the falling away from the faith (Isaiah 8:21-22, Matthew 24:9-12, 2 Thessalonians 2:3). We must begin to face and get free of any fear of the tribulation (Revelation 2:10, 1 Peter 4:12-13, Hebrews 2:15, Luke 12:4, Philippians 1:21-23). May the Lord bless you. http://www.geocities.com/postrib/

Subject: Re: The Rapture
From: Reformed SBC
To: postrib
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 07:53:59 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Amen postrib! Among the many other errors dispensationalism has spawned is the 'individual' mindset of the Chrisitian as opposed to God's corporate plan of redemption, and the retreat from the world isolationism of the Evangelical (i.e., why poilsh brass on a sinking ship?)

Subject: Traditional Text
From: Reformed SBC
To: All
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 27, 2001 at 17:30:52 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Does anyone know of some good defenses online of the traditional text of the Bible, without the usual mindless, KJV only diatribes?

Subject: Re: Traditional Text
From: saved
To: Reformed SBC
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 09:50:58 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Does anyone know of some good defenses online of the traditional text of the Bible, without the usual mindless, KJV only diatribes?
---
Try this link to the Trinitarian Bible Society Page. Some good articles here! Good links....TR Text easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~jbeggsoc/TTShome.html

Subject: Rapture and the Old Dispensation
From: Chris Tippett
To: All
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 20:01:25 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Brethren, I was reading about the Rapture in a Book by Charles Stanely and he noted something interesting by the Bible Knowledge Commentary...'Then the dead in Christ will be resurrected, that is , believers of this dispenstation(New) will be raised. Old Testament saints, it seems, will be raised at the end of the Great Tribulation(Daniel 12:2), for the phrase 'in Christ' usually refers exclusively to Church age saints. The bodies of the Dead in Christ will rise before the living Christians are caught up to meet the Lord in the air' I was under the Understanding that when Jesus Resurrected, that the Old Testament Saints went with Him to Heaven....and that the dead referring to not rising till after the Great Tribulation was referring to those who partake in the Second death....? What do you all think on this matter? Bro Chris

Subject: Re: Rapture and the Old Dispensation
From: Rod
To: Chris Tippett
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 23:28:52 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Very briefly, as I am not going to be entering into a debate on this subject, here are one or two observations. Many feel that the OT saints will not be bodily resurrected at the same time those NT saints are, but later. The fact that Abraham and Sarah, Issac and Rebekah, Jacob and Leah (his first wife) were buried in a common tomb in that land and the fact that Joseph had his bones carried into the promised land at the Exodus is a strong indication that these all expected to be resurrected in that land, as did faithful Jews. That fact would not preclude the taking away of the spirits of the OT saints to be with the Lord, something which could be done without the resurrection of the body. (I don't know if it's germane or not, but I'm no fan of Chas. Stanley and don't know about this book or his eschatology.)

Subject: Re: Rapture and the Old Dispensation
From: Pilgrim
To: Chris Tippett
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 21:24:28 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Bro Chris, I hope the following article will meet 'navydrc's' requirements of being interesting? hehe Evaluating Premillennialism See #2 in the Table of Contents which deals specifically with the 'Rapture'. In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Rapture and the Old Dispensation
From: navyrdc
To: Chris Tippett
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 20:43:49 (PST)
Email Address: navyrdc@megsinet.net

Message:
You have no ideal what awaits you after that post :) This will be interesting as there are many different views on the end times here. navyrdc interesting didn't know stanely was dispensational though, will have to check that out.

Subject: Re: Rapture and the Old Dispensation
From: Reformed SBC
To: navyrdc
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 27, 2001 at 13:47:52 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Yes, there are many diff. positions, but the church knew nothing of the 'Left Behind' invisible rapture scenario until 180 years ago. And yes, Stanley is a classic dispensationalist a la Ryrie.

Subject: Perseverance of the Saints
From: Tom
To: All
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 24, 2001 at 19:30:12 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
A while ago someone(Pilgrim?) posted a link about scripture passages that Arminians use to try to disprove the 'Perseverance of the Saints'. Can someone re-post that link. I believe one of the passages it included was the parable of the sower. Tom

Subject: Re: Perseverance of the Saints
From: saved
To: Tom
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 13:19:35 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom, see the first link on this list called 'Arminian Arguments' (dealing with all the five points)..etc. Maybe that is what you have in mind. Arminian Arguments....etc. www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/3505/arminianism_refuted.html

Subject: Re: Perseverance of the Saints
From: saved
To: saved
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 13:50:30 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
See point five of TULIP on perserverance. TULIP members.aol.com/cpcelkton/tulip.html

Subject: Re: Perseverance of the Saints
From: Pilgrim
To: Tom
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 09:04:16 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom, I'm not sure what you are referring to but here's one link that deals specifically with Perseverance of the Saints Perseverance of the Saints Did you try doing a search in this forum for what you are looking for? hehe In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Perseverance of the Saints
From: Tom
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 13:58:22 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
Pilgrim I don't think that was the link, I was looking for a link that was more dirrected to Arminian proof texts. If I do find it I am going to have to bookmark it. I did do a search in this forum. However, for what ever reason I can not access any of the links to see if they are what I am looking for. When I click on the links, nothing happens after waiting quite a while. Tom

Subject: Re: Perseverance of the Saints
From: Pilgrim
To: Tom
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 19:58:27 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom, Sorry you are having problems with the links here! Sounds like something unique to you, as I have no problems with any of the links, and no one else has complained either. Try emptying your browser's 'cache' and try again. This should be something you do regularly if you don't already. I would suggest you look in the Theology Forum archive for last month if you think that the reference was made that recently. I'm assuming you know where they are located off the Home Page!? :-) In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Jews & Gentiles....Spiritual Jews?
From: Chris Tippett
To: All
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 17:40:41 (PST)
Email Address: CEvanglst4@aol.com

Message:
Brethren, I have a question that has been discussed before, but has seemed to resurfice in my heart and mind....In Christ, is there any difference between Jew and Gentile. This dealing individually and not nationally....One passage of Scripture that I have been looking at is in Romans chapter 2:17-29....especially the latter part of these verses. In the Matthew Henry commentary, he deals with those latter verses dealing with us Christians...Now, my question is this, if we are one in Christ and there is no middle wall of Petition anymore, then why do we seem to be dividing ourselves in these latter days we are living in...such as some calling themselves 'Messianic Jews' or Jews for Jesus...??? All I know is that at Antioch, the disciples were starting to be called Christians, no matter whether you were a Jew by Nationality or Gentile...I do ask for some input by all who will Lovingly help in this matter...I do ask for Scripture and not Opinions:O) Thankyou:O)

Subject: Re: Jews & Gentiles....Spiritual Jews?
From: Tom-E
To: Chris Tippett
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 27, 2001 at 14:50:23 (PST)
Email Address: txm284@gateway.net

Message:
Dear Cris: You have an interesting question. Being in the Messianic movement I would ask you to think for yourself. Be objective and do some study into that period. The second Temple period is fascinating and loaded with information. Don’t just take the word of one source, check out opposing sources Jewish and Christian. You may find that some concepts you have are not accurate. You may reaffirm some other beliefs, either way if your interested that is where you will find your answers. It’s not how we understand the letter it’s how they understood the letter that can give us the most insight into the truth. Shalom Tom-E

Subject: Re: Jews & Gentiles....Spiritual Jews?
From: Pilgrim
To: Tom-E
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 27, 2001 at 21:43:56 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom E.,
And it is how erroneously the Jews historically have misunderstood, misused and corrupted the sacred Scriptures which is most interesting. Why anyone would opt for an understanding that was held by unregenerate people escapes me. By the time the Lord Christ appeared amongst His people, they had so twisted and misconstrued the Torah, that it caused the Lord of Glory no little anguish and disgust. Me thinks I'll stick to the perspicuity of the Old Testament Law and Prophets as taught by the ordained apostles and disciples of Christ thank you! :-)
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Romans 10:2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Subject: Re: Jews & Gentiles....Spiritual Jews?
From: Tom-E
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 11:57:21 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Dear Pilgrim: I’m not going to debate you and the anti-Jewish grid you see the scriptures through. In the past I have used historians as well as the text of scripture to prove that most of these men were Jews they held to Jewish tradition and they acted like Jews that had received the promised Messiah. Who himself was also was a traditional Jew. I listed sources and quotes from Martin Luther and others of the reform that are blatantly anti-Jewish. I Listed quotes from many of the early church fathers that were blatantly anti-Jewish. I pointed out how their theology could not help but reflect their anti-Jewish tendencies. I’m not going to play scripture poker with you. This last message you’ve posted once again exemplifies who you are. You are what your instructional sources made you. For you to be wrong means they are wrong and that is too much for you to bear. You hold to your traditions dearly and tell others that this is what the Apostles taught. I always monitor this site just to see what’s new in the reform world. When I read a post that I feel I can speak to with understanding and first hand knowledge, I try to help. I no longer get into endless debates with people who could really care less. It’s pointless! The truth is you know nothing about Judaism but feel free to comment on it. In most facets of life people are called dull when they make critical comments on subjects they lack understanding of. In this forum it’s not only condoned it has been commended. Tom-E

Subject: Re: Jews & Gentiles....Spiritual Jews?
From: Pilgrim
To: Tom-E
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 14:22:25 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
TomE,
What you have posted in the past was irrelevant to the unorthodoxy of your religion, which you blatantly and deceptively claim to be Christianity. It clearly is not! This assessment has absolutely NOTHING to do with your claim that I or others are labouring under an errant 'tradition' of anti-Semitism. What it does have to do with is our strong and unwavering submission to the biblical record. Indeed, you refuse to play 'scripture poker' with me or any other who holds to orthodox Christianity, for you know not the Scriptures and I fear neither do you know in an intimate way the Christ of whom they speak. Again, if anyone is blinded by a 'tradition' it is you sir; the tradition handed down by unbelieving Jews who among other things seek to be made right with the LORD God by a righteousness of their own and not that of sovereign and free grace. To be sure you are but one among hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, who name the name of Christ yet honor Him by lip-service only and not by submitting to Him and His teachings. Doubtless there have been men and women throughout the ages who have been guilty of harboring anti-Jewish sentiments. But their doctrines can certainly be scrutinized by others, not according to an alleged 'Jewish repository of truth' but by God's Holy, inerrant and infallible Word. My dependency is upon the Holy Spirit of God to open my eyes, mind and heart to the truth, and I need not look to 'Second Temple Judaism' as the key to that truth. The Lord Christ said that 'Moses and the Prophets' were sufficient to point to Him and the truth of salvation. And His ordained apostles and disciples lead us down the right road, many times castigating and rebuking the Jews and their idolatrous teachings along the way. Isa 8:20 'To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.'
In His Sovereign Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Jews & Gentiles....Spiritual Jews?
From: Rod
To: Chris Tippett
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 24, 2001 at 00:04:07 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Chris, There is one way to be saved for today and that is to be in Christ where 'there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male not female; for all are one in Christ Jesus.' All are 'sons [who inherit] of God...hav[ing] put on Christ' (see Gal.26-29; cp. Col. 3:10-11). When the middle wall of partition was broken down, 'the two [were] made both one' on the basis of the enmity between them being destroyed by making 'of two one new man' and that 'in himself' (Eph. 2:14-18). The Church has Jews and Gentiles, male and female, bond and free, nationalities of distinction, but all are (as laz said) the heirs of promise. All have the standing of adopted adult sons who inhereit with the Lord Jesus according to God's eternal design in election (Rom. 8:14-17;29). There is to be no division among us for strife due to our physical circumstances; we are, indeed, brothers and sisters in the purest sense. In the final analysis, we are all 'brothers,' and our Lord Jesus is 'the firstborn among many brethren' (indicating status of those in Christ). As joint-heirs with Him, we all share a common inheritance and all look forward to glorification with Him. You are correct to cite Rom. 2:-28-29, focusing on the fact that those who 'fulfill the Law of Christ' (Gal. 6:2; cp. 5:14-15; John 13:34-35) by the fact and power of the indwelling Spirit are those who are 'Jews inwardly,' whose new hearts and spirits, made possible by the new birth, please God. Those who are truly of God are thus to avoid striving and enmity, divisions with other true children of God. And it isn't hard to do. If one realizes he is one in brotherhood with another brother or sister, he feels a natural warmth and affection for that person, in addition to to love from the will commanded by the Apostles and our Lord. There may be some doctrinal differences, some disputing, but there is genuine care and bearing of one another's burdens because of the common faith and Spirit of God we all share who are in Christ Jesus. Haven't you felt a genuine closeness to other Christians with whom you actually share little else in common? I know I have. I have dear brothers who are highly educated and others who haven't graduated from high school. We don't have the same hobbies or professions, but we are highly in tune with one another. The oneness we share in our status and love for the Lord Jesus is the only explanation. We are 'Jews inwardly' together by the grace of God.

Subject: Re: Jews & Gentiles/1Cor.7:17-24
From: Brother Bret
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 24, 2001 at 18:29:22 (PST)
Email Address: Lovitz5@juno.com

Message:
Thank you Chris, Laz and Rod. I have more food for thought :^ ). Would you agree that tha passage in 1Cor.7:17-24 includes staying with the culture wherewith we were called? 17)But as God has distributed to each one, as the Lord has called each one, so let him walk. And so i ordain in all the churches. 18) Was anyone called while circumcized? Let him not become uncircumcized. Was anyone called while uncircumcized? Let him not be circumcized. 19) Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters. 20) Let each one remain in the same calling in which he was called. 21) were you called while a slave? Don't be concerned about it; but if you can be made free, rather use it. 22) For he is called in the Lord while a slave is the Lord's freeman. Like wise he who is called while free is Christ's slave. 23) You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. 24) Brethren, let each one remain with God in that state is which he was called. The point I'm getting at is that if a Gentile is saved, he remains a gentile culturally. If a Jew is saved, he remains a Jew culturally. Nothing in God;s word mandates that we have to convert culturally, so long as that culture does not violate the word of God. Amen or Oh Me? Thanks. Look forward to your input as always :^ ) Brother Bret

Subject: Re: Jews & Gentiles/1Cor.7:17-24
From: Rod
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 24, 2001 at 19:04:01 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
BB, That's what I was trying to get at when, after quoting Gal. 3:28, I said, 'The Church has Jews and Gentiles, male and female, bond and free, nationalities of distinction....' We retain aspects of our human identities and are individuals, though our position spiritually is one of equality and unity. We aren't to be absolutely static in our circumstances, but may seize opportunites from the Lord for earthly improvement, as your quotation proves. Furthermore, a Christian husband and wife are positionally equal, but 'the husband is head of the wife' (Eph. 5:23) by the command of God for reasons of order. So, I conclude we don't lose our individual identities, but God is not impressed with us, our nationalities, or what we 'make of ourselves.' God is no respecter of persons, nor does he expect us to adjust our attitudes on the basis of who one is. The Bible is clear on that in that we are to judge fairly and treat others as one who is in Christ ought: Lev. 19:15; Deut. 1:17; 2 Sam. 14:14; 2 Chron. 19:7; Prov. 24:23; 28:21; Eph. 6:9; Col 3:25; James 2:1,9; and 1 Peter 1:17.

Subject: Re: Jews & Gentiles....Spiritual Jews?
From: laz
To: Chris Tippett
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 20:56:55 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Chris - my opinion then the Bible. I believe that God's plan was ALWAYS for ONE people...and the NT emphatically supports this very thing. There will be only ONE body, ONE people, ONE bride of Christ....even though we have two dispensations...one of types and shadows...the other and better in real and fulfilled substance. Gal 4:21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? 22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. 24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. 25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. 28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. 29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. 30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free. 1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. Rom 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel.: 7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. Deut 10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked. Deut 30:6 And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live. Which leads us to your... Rom 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. blessings, laz

Subject: Human Clones
From: saved
To: All
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 09:23:44 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
This year they are cloning a human being for the first time - a girl who passed away at ten months old...She will be born 'a second time physically' by Dec. of this year, they say. What about the doctrine that teaches that we die only once, and after that the soul faces judgement? Man is hell-bent, and set on trying to 'gain immortality' by his own efforts, it seems. How can it be the 'very same girl' that lived once before?

Subject: Re: Human Clones
From: laz
To: saved
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 10:52:21 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
This year they are cloning a human being for the first time - a girl who passed away at ten months old...She will be born 'a second time physically' by Dec. of this year, they say. What about the doctrine that teaches that we die only once, and after that the soul faces judgement? Man is hell-bent, and set on trying to 'gain immortality' by his own efforts, it seems. How can it be the 'very same girl' that lived once before?
---
Assuming they succeed...I don't think we'd really know with absolute certainty...but I do happen to think that the soul is something altogether different than the genetic material temporarily housing it. After all...aren't I just the byproduct of my parents? I'm NOT them....despite the genetic similarities. But then again...what do I know... laz

Subject: Re: Human Clones
From: stan
To: laz
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 12:56:24 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Have raised the following time or two on other boards with no discussion. Will the child have a soul/spirit depending on whether you feel they are same or different? Many believe the soul is passed from dad and in this case will she have one or the same one that dad gave the first one? Some real questions for the theolog/ethisist! I have wondered if God will allow true human cloning to occur. Time will tell.

Subject: Re: Human Clones
From: Pilgrim
To: stan
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 13:36:57 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Stan,
You wrote: Will the child have a soul/spirit depending on whether you feel they are same or different? Many believe the soul is passed from dad and in this case will she have one or the same one that dad gave the first one? This view is called, Traducianism a theory of the origination of the soul. The fact is no Traducianist has been able to show if the soul is generated from the father, mother or both. Further, Traducianism is inextricably linked to the 'Realist Theory' of the imputation of guilt and sin from Adam, our first parent. I think both Traducianism and Realism are wrong. The reasons I reject Traducianism are as follows: 1) Does the soul of the child separate itself from the soul(s) of its parent(s)? This seems to contradict the simplicity of the soul. 2) In this theory, the pre-existence of the soul is at least implied. And if the soul is somehow 'resident' in the soul(s) of the parent(s), doesn't this then force one to conclude that the soul is a material substance, which it is clearly not. 3) It affirms the 'numerical unity' of the substance of all human souls, and thus has no answer to the fact that all men are held accountable as individuals for Adams first sin and not his further sins, nor for the sins of all their forebears. 4) If in Adam human nature as a whole sinned, and that sin was therefore the actual sin of every part of that human nature, then the conclusion cannot be escaped that the human nature of the Lord Christ was also sinful and guilty because it had actually sinned in Adam. Taking these problems into account with several others, I would hold that this 'clone' would not be the same person, in fact, it wouldn't be a person at all, for it is God alone who creates each and every individual soul which is 'wed' with the body He has foreordained for it and to be resident in until death. At the moment of death, the soul is then either present with the Lord or cast into hell to await the final judgment. Doubtless these attempts to clone human beings is an expression of a godless people who deem men as less than animals and but the product of 'chance' and corporeal substance only.
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Human Clones
From: laz
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 20:33:14 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I gotta ask...you really think a human clone would not be a real human? I guess I don't really understand what all goes into cloning. laz

Subject: Re: Human Clones
From: Tom
To: laz
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 24, 2001 at 12:40:08 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
Laz Although I think cloning is morally and spiritually wrong. However, I would never say to a clone that they are not human. I may be wrong, but I don't think we can make that judgement of whether or not a human clone, is human or not. God can thwart(sp?) man's attempt at cloning if He wants to. Much the same way He did with the tower of Babel. But I say all that, based on just my limited knowledge of the issues. Tom

Subject: Re: Human Clones
From: Pilgrim
To: Tom
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 24, 2001 at 17:41:39 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Laz Although I think cloning is morally and spiritually wrong. However, I would never say to a clone that they are not human. I may be wrong, but I don't think we can make that judgement of whether or not a human clone, is human or not. God can thwart(sp?) man's attempt at cloning if He wants to. Much the same way He did with the tower of Babel. But I say all that, based on just my limited knowledge of the issues. Tom
---
Tom, What is your definition of 'human'? Perhaps you could comment on God's creation of Adam as the first 'human' (cf. Gen 1:26, 27; 2:7). In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Human Clones
From: Tom
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 14:25:16 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
Pilgrim I understand what you are getting at. A human is someone who is created by God, in His image. Perhaps, if I use an analogy, it will show you where I am coming from? If you were on a plane, and you were talking to the person beside you. The topic of cloning came up, and he disclosed to you that he was a clone. Would you tell him he wasn't a human? Personally, I am not sure how I would handle that. Other than just to tell him the gospel, and let God deal with that part. This is one of the reasons why I feel cloning is morally and spiritually wrong. It has a possibility of creating scenes like the analogy that I told you of. That is, if God willed it to happen. Perhaps, my analogy is faulty? Tom

Subject: Re: Human Clones
From: Brother Bret
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 24, 2001 at 18:50:40 (PST)
Email Address: Lovitz5@juno.com

Message:
Hi Gang: Mind-boggling stuff. Even for this amateur theologian :^ ). I figure that either: 1) God will not impart the human soul to these clones (if He even allows it to get that far) so that they will not live or will be some sort of soul-less zombies (an oxymoron, or perhaps could be demon-filled); or God in His grace in spite of man's foolishness could go ahead an impart the human soul to these clones. I DUNNO...JUST RAMBLING :-) BB

Subject: I think I got it...
From: laz
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 24, 2001 at 20:17:50 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
While we are all speculating...how about this. Since Adam in his perfection was created in God's image....but after the Fall he lost something (perhaps losing an aspect of being in 'God's image') ...might that 'something lost' be a 'proper' soul that relates to God as the regenerate NOW do...as Adam once did before his sin? Keep in mind that the unregenerate are born spiritually 'dead'....so in a manner of speaking, not having a 'proper' soul - and therefore lacking in something of vital/monumental importance! I'm going to be a dichotomist in this argument where the spirit and soul are somewhat synonomous. In otherwords, the clone will have the same 'improper/fallen/dead spirit/soul' as persons born today have and keep until they are regenerate. The clone would be 'dead' as I once was...no different. Therefore, only after regeneration will this clone have a 'proper' soul. laz

Subject: Re: I think I got it...
From: Pilgrim
To: laz
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 09:29:47 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
laz,
Nice try, but no cigar! hehe. . . When Adam fell, he lost nothing of his 'image'. This is the horror of the Fall and of fallen humanity. Adam's 'image', i.e., the image of God that he possessed when God created him, was not lost, but distorted; corrupted, tainted, effaced, etc., but NOT LOST! The fact that all men are still born as 'image bearers' of God is why they are under condemnation and not like animals who are not under condemnation. There was a 'relational' loss and a 'moral ability' loss, but no material, corporeal, or essence of being was lost at the Fall. :-) An old theologian once described the 'image of God' in man after the Fall this way: 'Take a quarter out of your pocket and lay that quarter on a railroad track. Wait for a train to run over it and then go and retrieve it. What does it look like in comparison to one that is normal? Nothing! The actually makeup of the two are identical, but the condition of the two are very much different. Both are still quarters in being, but one is useless for what it was originally designed for and thus no one will accept it as having any value whatsoever. . . .' This, I think, is a reasonable illustration of what happened to man's 'image' or 'soul' at and after the Fall! :-) I think Bret is on track here, when he wonders if God will impart a soul to this 'clone' at all, or if the Lord will even permit any success in the effort to make a clone. If a clone is given a soul, you can be sure it will be one that is no less at enmity with God and in need of regeneration. :-) What I was trying to get at above is that the combining of all the right 'ingredients' in a test tube or bowl, or whatever, shaking well and baking for an hour at 350º, does not a human make. This is just man's attempt to apply and accelerate the theory of evolution. Unless God imparts a 'soul', which only HE can do, then what they will 'succeed' at making is nothing more than an animal; a body of a human, without the 'image of God'/soul, which is what animals are by nature.
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: I think I got it...
From: saved
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 11:01:16 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim, Maybe you both are right here! When I use to flatten pennies that way on a railroad track, I would say that the image on the coin was 'lost', because I could not see it anymore!...:-) So it is with mankind. God's image is lost because it is no longer visible in us, and that is why we need regenration by the holy Spirit of God alone!

Subject: Re: Well, maybe one ...
From: stan
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 24, 2001 at 19:54:38 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
more question. If this clone is not a total human being, if she mates and produces offspring will they be normal persons? :-) Only a question based on fact - Dollie the sheep has had children! Does anyone know how this human cloning is being done? What process. stan

Subject: Re: Well, maybe one ...
From: saved
To: stan
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 12:13:32 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
The process is done by willing and chosen surrogate parents. Here is the article I just found today...(please remember that the love of money is still the root of all evil). 'Religious Group Plans to Clone Human Beings 11-Dec-2000 Sunday Times of London, Washington Post, Techo-Eugenics Email Newsletter - Members of the Raelian religion, which believes that human beings were created by extraterrestrial scientists, said they have begun trying to clone a ten-month-old girl who died earlier this year. The parents of the dead girl, who wish to remain anonymous, have given the human cloning company Clonaid, which is controlled by the religious group, a million dollars to clone their dead daughter. The Sunday Times of London reports that the 'project is carried out in a secret laboratory' in Nevada and that 'scientists involved hope their baby will be born towards the end of next year.' Clonaid has employed four scientists, who are working with 50 female volunteers, who have offered to be egg donors and surrogate mothers. The Clonaid website, www.clonaid.com, states that, 'This service offers a fantastic opportunity to parents with fertility problems or homosexuals.' They plan to charge approximately $20,000 for the service in the future. The Rael religion says it has 55,000 members in 84 countries. Their website is www.rael.org. The Washington Post quoted scientists Lee Silver, from Princeton University, and Michael West, who works in advanced cell technology, as saying that it is now technically possible to clone a human being. According to George Siedel, an expert on cloning from Colorado State University, 'It’s a numbers game. It’s very likely that if you did it enough times you could make it work.' Sources: Sunday Times of London, Washington Post, Techo- Eugenics Email Newsletter
---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---
-- It looks like the first attempt may not be successful, so they will just keep trying until it works. Will this 'new person' have the same soul as the former girl had, that is the question. Will this new person have a 'second chance' to hear the gospel and be saved?

Subject: Re: Well, maybe one ...
From: stan
To: saved
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 15:02:09 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Thanks for the article. This seems to be the same process that the sheep folks used - removing the nucleus of a donor cell and replaceing it with the nuc. of the one to be cloned. They then SHOCK it - not bake it ;-) for whatever purpose. Not really cloning as it was originally set forth years ago, just messing with cells.

Subject: Cloning - another False Gospel
From: saved
To: stan
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 08:19:21 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
From this brief article we can see that cloning is just another false gospel, promoted by another satanic cult to deceive millions! =========================================== Why should one fear this discovery which, in a few years, will be able to eliminate all our fears, the greatest of which being the fear of death ? What are we afraid of ? That our children be born abnormal, to die in an accident, to lose our health with old age, and finally to die after a too short life without having been able to accomplish ourselves. Which parent has not been afraid, even for only a few minutes, that the child to be born be abnormal ? Who is not sensitive to the tragedy of those children who, even though their genetic codes are normal, suffer throughout lives for an accident that happened at birth and whose brain had lacked oxygen ? Children like that, I have seen them by the dozens, and there are thousands around the world in rehabilitation centres, confined in a handicapped body for life, while their consciousness is intact. I saw them trembling of rage, as their body’s violent muscular contractions and spasms prevented them from simply walking or speaking. For them and their parents, cloning is the means to erase the mistake at birth, and to give back a healthy body to those consciousnesses, to those human beings who did not have any hope until now. To be born again in a healthy body is their dearest dream, who can dare refuse it to them? Who, when seeing senile people, did not feel the anguish of asking themselves 'will I be like them one day?' or 'will I end up in an old dears' home waiting for the nurse to clean me from the piss I am bathing in?' Or more simply, who did not fear to see their mental faculties weaken to the point that their lives become mere survival ? A remission before the final outcome of a life too short to have been fully accomplished. Cloning is the starting point for a new youth, until we are able to transfer our memory into a new body which is us, and which vibrates with life. This will happen in a few years if we let scientists work towards life instead of using millions of dollars to lure them towards increasingly insane research into military means of destruction. What are we choosing ? life, youth, which can be eternal, or the military destruction of our planet ? This fear of cloning can only be due to ignorance. Otherwise, why be afraid of what will eliminate the fear of death ? Death will then be no more than a moment of sleep before the rebirth in a new body. Cloning is the gospels’ good news, carried out right here on earth. Is there better news than that ? Jesus had come to bring us hope for an eternal life. Rael, in creating Clonaid, is showing us the path towards making that dream come true. Thank you Elohim, for having given us life, and for sending the Prophets to guide us towards a life of eternal youth and consciousness. François (Montreal, Quebec, Canada) ===================================== Do not believe a word of this! It is easy to see that this is satanic, and is out to deceive millions! It has the appearance of 'doing good' - just as humanism has the outward appearnace of trying to 'do good' to mankind in general, but is a false doctrine. Eternal life only comes by faith alone in the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ alone said I am the Way, the Truth and the Life! saved

Subject: Re: Well, maybe one ...
From: saved
To: stan
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 07:55:13 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
http://www.humancloning.org/ Here is another link for you. It is clear that this is being promoted by a cult (and is another false 'gospel'), and as true believers, we should be made aware what is going on. We should have our answers ready as to why we are against this! saved

Subject: What would Paul say?
From: saved
To: saved
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 11:10:49 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I think the apostle Paul would say (about cloning) is 'Beware of science - falsely so called'...or something like that. Even if they are successful at this, it will not change the way we obtain eternal life by faith alone, by Christ alone, by grace alone, and by the Word of God alone (plus nothing).

Subject: Re: Human Clones
From: Pilgrim
To: laz
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 23:20:58 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
laz, My definition of a 'human' is a creature created in the 'image of God' consisting of body and soul. The 'flesh' alone does not a human make. In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Human Clones
From: stan
To: laz
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 20:52:25 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
The original thought of clones as I understand is to take a cell or sample of an existing person and grow a duplicate. In the case sighted it may be that but I doubt it. The clones of animals I think is something different than this. Now much of my knowledge is based on those old clone movies of the 50's so don't quote me too much ;-)

Subject: Re: Human Clones
From: stan
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 19:40:06 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
1) Does the soul of the child separate itself from the soul(s) of its parent(s)? This seems to contradict the simplicity of the soul. No, I think they hold that the soul is generated by God but comes via dad and gets tainted on the way or something like that. 2) In this theory, the pre-existence of the soul is at least implied. And if the soul is somehow 'resident' in the soul(s) of the parent(s), doesn't this then force one to conclude that the soul is a material substance, which it is clearly not. no and your second is based on a wrong impression ;-) 3) It affirms the 'numerical unity' of the substance of all human souls, and thus has no answer to the fact that all men are held accountable as individuals for Adams first sin and not his further sins, nor for the sins of all their forebears. Not what they teach don't think. 4) If in Adam human nature as a whole sinned, and that sin was therefore the actual sin of every part of that human nature, then the conclusion cannot be escaped that the human nature of the Lord Christ was also sinful and guilty because it had actually sinned in Adam. Nope, that is why of the virgin birth - remember - no daddy of sinful sort ;-) Taking these problems into account with several others, I would hold that this 'clone' would not be the same person, in fact, it wouldn't be a person at all, for it is God alone who creates each and every individual soul which is 'wed' with the body He has foreordained for it and to be resident in until death. At the moment of death, the soul is then either present with the Lord or cast into hell to await the final judgment. And what is a non person? Is that person going to be as Adam if there is not transmitted sin nature, is the person going to be more corrupt than the lost of normal stature (assuming there is no inner consciousness of God - that is if you believe in that ;-) ? Doubtless these attempts to clone human beings is an expression of a godless people who deem men as less than animals and but the product of 'chance' and corporeal substance only. Speaking of men less than animals, did you know (here anyway) that if a dog attacks a police dog it is saving a life of an officer if you kill the attacking dog? Also in a court here they are changing the thought of pets being property and giving them people rights - may not call it that, but that is the end result of what they are up to :-( is this country sick or not? Actually don't want to discuss the traducian thing, just boggles my mind to consider the ramifications - kind of like thinking about what would be here if creation hadn't happened ;-) I know, I have too much time on my hands.

Subject: Re: Human Clones
From: PIlgrim
To: stan
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 23:31:13 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Stan,
The short of this is that any attempt to skirt around the issue of the origination of the soul being DIRECTLY from God as a new creation, then it is a form of Traducianism. Mediated soul transference doesn't cut the mustard and all the problems I stated above are applicable to one degree or another. Take for example #1 that the soul is 'somehow tainted' due to its being allegedly implanted in the father. Thus Adam's sin is excluded! So what sin(s) is the child guilty of? or is there any guilt imputed and corruption inherited at birth at all? These type of issues may give you headaches, but that is what us 'theologians' do for a living.. LOL
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Cloning Jesus Christ
From: saved
To: PIlgrim
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 24, 2001 at 07:37:16 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I just found this on another forum, so will add it here for all those interested... 'A group of scientists in California are actually planning to clone Jesus Christ! They are apparently very serious about their project called the 'Second Coming Project'. They even have a web site up that explains why they are planning this and how they will accomplish it. I am not a religious person, but this whole thing sounds excessively dangerous to me. Assuming they are able to effect a clone, there is absolutely no assurrance that the DNA they use will be the DNA of the historical Jesus. Even if it were his DNA, the cloned product would not be Jesus Christ. It would be only biologically similar. It is my opinion that should such a cloning take place--regardless of the actual identity of the DNA used--there are millions of mindless idiots already populating the planet who would bow down in worship of this kid. If the Bible is accurrate and to be believed, the real Jesus Christ is not dead. Therefore, this cloned kid would be an antichrist and those who worshipped him would be worshipping a false Christ. Just imagine the situation if the cloning takes place and is successful, and then the real Jesus actually returns to earth. I think he would be really ticked off with the scientists, the clone, and the idiots bowing down to the clone. The group of scientists is negotiating with the Catholic Church to obtain some DNA from some of the relics of 'Christ's blood' the church has laid claim to for centuries. Those relics have always been more than suspect. But, if the Catholic Church provides the requested relics for DNA extraction, they would likely lay claim to the kid as well. This could turn into the greatest money-maker since the selling of Absolution! Backed by the status of state-hood within the U.N. (the only religion to have such status), this claim of having brought about the 'Second Coming of Christ' would be a very big stick to wield against all who refused to believe in it...'

Subject: Re: Look for Namesagame
From: LUMICAH
To: LUMICAH
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 22, 2001 at 08:10:44 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Looks like I hit the wrong button the first time. Sorry. I chatted with someone calling themselves 'NAMESAGAME' when I responded to the article about the nude, female, black Jesus in a picture of the Lord's Supper. It is displayed by a New York museum. There were many comments, mostly objecting as I did, but not as in-depth. Finally, Namesagame began 'chatting' with me. My lengthy response (which included sharing the Romans Road) disappeared twice for one of those computer unknown mysteries. I finally told the person how to find this website, saying that you were very learned and would be glad to respond. This person believes in God but not Jesus. I know if they do find this website you will speak the Truth in love and gentleness. I will also be watching for him/her. Blessings........ I was here frequently in the past under my own name. (this new name popped up on my news article response...another mystery to me!!!)

Subject: Marriage Resources
From: Tom
To: All
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 14:07:34 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
Can anyone recommend some good marriage resources that promote strengthening marriages? (on line or off line) Preferably maturial that both the husband and wife can study together. Hopefully maturial that is easy to understand by most lay people. Tom

Subject: Re: Marriage Resources
From: Laz
To: Tom
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 22, 2001 at 10:12:19 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom - 'The Excellent Wife' is a great book....by Martha Peace. It's for your wife to read....very easy and lots of illustrations to help explain certain concepts. Also has a very reformed flavor. blessings, laz

Subject: Re: Marriage Resources
From: Five Sola
To: Tom
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 22, 2001 at 07:18:32 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I would have to recomend (much to the disaproval of pilgrim :-) ) 'Reforming Marriage' by Douglas Wilson. There are a few things I disagree how far he takes it but overall I think it is a good work. It does deal with husband and wife but primarily with husbands since that is usually were most of the work is needed. We as husbands tend to cast off our responsibilites and thus need a good 'slap across the face' to wake us up. It definately helped me see how much I was takin my roles and responsibilities lightly and how much I was abdicating to my wife instead of being obedient to Scripture and loveing her sacrificially. (His wife writes one that deals with wives roles in marriage that fills in some of the gaps Douglas does not deal with in his book, but it is not necessary unless you are haveing separate studies for women and men.) By His Grace Alone, Five Sola

Subject: Re: Marriage Resources
From: laz
To: Five Sola
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 22, 2001 at 10:10:15 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
HAHAHA! You will now incur Pilgrim's wrath for your blasphemy!! LOL! Actually, I too liked that book and Nancy's.... I read Jay's Adam's book which Pilgrim recommended (we had to read it as part of our Church's evening service/study) and did find Jay's tone (as did my wife who's no feminist) very condescending in parts. I was reluctant to give this book away to my nominally believing family since those condescending parts would certainly be a major turn off. But overall, great book. Actually, I did send my oldest brother a copy....I think he's divorced now. Hahahaha! blessings, laz

Subject: Re: Marriage Resources
From: Five Sola
To: laz
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 22, 2001 at 10:15:20 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Laz, :-) I have also read Jay Adam's book. It was given to me in the context of a family worship, discipline of children, etc. I enjoyed it and ultimately bought it. I didn't sense the tone that you suggest but my wife has not read it,yet; and that also might be due to the reason I approached it I saw it in a different light. Five Sola

Subject: Re: Marriage Resources
From: Pilgrim
To: Tom
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 14:30:49 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom,
The following are somet books which I know you will find helpful. They are listed according to my personal preference:
EXCELLENT
  1. Three to Get Ready - Howard Eyrich (Presbyterian & Reformed)
  2. Christian Living in the Home - Jay Adams (Presbyterian & Reformed)
GOOD
  1. Marriage in Honor - W.G. DeVries (Paidea Press)
  2. Marriage: The Mystery of Christ and the Church - David Engelsma (Reformed Free Publishing)
DECENT
  1. Reconcilable Differences - Jim Talley (Nelson)
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Marriage Resources
From: laz
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 22, 2001 at 10:05:08 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
WHAT, NO DOUG WILSON BOOKS?!?!?! LOL!! blessings, laz

Subject: Re: Marriage Resources
From: Pilgrim
To: laz
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 22, 2001 at 17:09:36 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
laz, One doesn't have to jump into the sewer to find out if it stinks! :-) Wilson's book is far more destructive and unbiblical than instructive, especially for someone who is going through a difficult marriage as it is. I would ask you personally NOT to recommend that book here again, please? :-) If you are convinced it is a worthwhile book, then recommend it privately. In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Marriage Resources
From: laz
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 07:51:14 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
OK...I can take a hint. Your wish is my command.... Sorry... blessings, laz

Subject: Re: Marriage Resources
From: Tom
To: laz
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 22, 2001 at 10:29:16 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
Anyone heard about Christian Marriage: Audio Series by R.C Sproul, and if so would you recommend it? Tom

Subject: Re: Marriage Resources
From: Linda
To: Tom
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 00:06:23 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I gave it to our son and his wife. They liked it, but I haven't listened. Of course, I am a big fan of R.C. Sproul and think he does a great job. His conferences are extremely worthwhile, and I've attended each when he's in our area. He and Dr. James Boice were close friends and on committees together, including the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals..........but you all probably know all that. (

Subject: Post contains offensive language.
From: Eric
To: All
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 08:46:10 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
What is the biblical basis for Christians not 'swearing'? Obviously we are not to take the Lord's name in vain, but where do we find commandments to avoid certain words. Why is it acceptable to say 'dung' or 'poop' but not sh**? Can I call somebody a wimp, but not a pu**y? I could go on with more examples, but you should get the point. ISTM that prohibitions against certain words speak to the letter of the law, but not the spirit. God bless.

Subject: Re: Post contains offensive language.
From: Pilgrim
To: Eric
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 12:37:08 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Eric,
Perhaps you are looking in the wrong place to find your answer in God's Word? :-) Sometimes we err in thinking that the Bible was written like an encyclopedia or dictionary rather than the revelation of God. Getting beyond the use of individual words, consider the Lord's words:
Matt 22:36 'Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 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. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.'
Doubtless this is one of the most succinct summaries of the 'spirit of the law' ever spoken; and by the Law-giver Himself. Is calling someone a derogatory name or referring to someone by using a slanderous appellation fulfilling the law? The apostle James wrote:
'Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.' (Jam 1:21)
and again,
'If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain.' (v. 26)
And further he admonishes and warns:
Jas 2:8 'If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: 9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. 10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. 11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.'
And finally James makes it very clear that such things are not consistent with the profession of faith:
Jas 3:8 'But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison. 9 Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God. 10 Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be. 11 Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter? 12 Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh.'
In the midst of denying the Lord Christ, Peter resorted to 'cursing and swearing' (Matt 26:74). Are we to see his denial as something to be avoided but accept his cursing and swearing as an acceptable practice? I just don't find any positive examples of God's servants who used words wrongly and for negative purposes in their speech which we are enjoined to follow. And lastly, most of the foul language used by the unconverted people of this world consists of words which refer to bodily functions of which even they themselves are ashamed to speak of personally. Or they are words meant to demean, humiliate, curse, etc. Further, there are those words which refer to things which are good and pure in themselves, but which have been made vulgar by the twisted and unbridled sensuality of animal-like men. And not to be excluded, there are those who insist on using the Lord's name in vain; doubtless their entire lives are a showpiece of futility, vulgarity and vanity. I hope this helps to answer your question about the 'letter of the law'!
Eph 5:8 'For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light: 9 (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;) 10 Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord. 11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. 12 For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret. 13 But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.'
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Post contains offensive language.
From: Eric
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 13:36:45 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hello Pilgrim, I agree with what you posted, however what I was trying to get at was the apparent inconsistency of much of modern conservative Christianity in the use of language. I am not arguing for the use of 'swear words', but rather we tend to miss the point of the commands to bridle our tongue. So, instead of understanding the spirit of the law, many fulfill what they erroneously believe is the letter of it. While the world says s**t, the Christian says shoot; instead of God damn, we say gosh darn, instead of son of a bi**h, we say son of a gun, instead of calling a guy an a**hole, we call him a jerk. ISTM that to truly follow the spirit of the law, we should eliminate all such use of the language. I find it difficult to believe that calling a person an idiot is any better than calling him an as***le. God bless.

Subject: Re: Post contains offensive language.
From: Brother Bret
To: Eric
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 20:42:14 (PST)
Email Address: Lovitz5@juno.com

Message:
I think we got the point you were trying to make without the illustrations. Why would you go through the trouble of using ** for the curse words, but not for cursing the Lord's name? I for one didn't appreciate seeing that spelled out. But while I'm here, I agree with both of you. We do not need to be demeaning people whether the word is acceptable in our society or not. And speaking of what is acceptable, when it is not demeaning, the 'world' does deem certain words as acceptable and not acceptable. And since we are to 'let our light so shine' so that we can glorify our Father in Heaven, I think the words make a difference too. 'Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers' (Eph.4:29-NKJV) Brother Bret

Subject: Re: Post contains offensive language.
From: Pilgrim
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 21:30:11 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Bret, Just FYI, Eric didn't type any [**]... :-) They are inserted automatically by the forum 'Profanity Filter' which we have set up here. Da Pil

Subject: Wait a cotton pickin minute
From: Eric
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 05:37:41 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I actually did type the stars to avoid offending anybody. The reason I didn't type the stars for 'God damn' is because that phrase should only be offensive given the context. If I say that I hope God damns all the unrepentant sinners to hell, Christians should not be offended by that phrase. If I use it flippantly, or irrevrently, then it becomes offensive--even sinful. That was one of the points that I was trying to make in my post, the actual sounds made by the human mouth is not what is sinful, but rather the intent behind them--letter vs. spirit. God bless.

Subject: Think a cotton pickin minute
From: Christian
To: Eric
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 16:37:02 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
That was one of the points that I was trying to make in my post, the actual sounds made by the human mouth is not what is sinful, but rather the intent behind them--letter vs. spirit. I agree that the intent is what makes the words sinful, but it is the effect of the word that makes it foul. I actually did type the stars to avoid offending anybody. The reason I didn't type the stars for '[]' is because that phrase should only be offensive given the context. I agree -- but in this case I think that the context is foul. Using the name of the Almighty to speak of His actions or his grace is acceptable, but using it to speak of words is using His name in vain. It is like using the word 'bomb' in an airport. If you tell the attendants that you saw a terrorist slipping a bomb into a suitcase, they will act on the information. But if you walk up to them and say -- 'is it OK for me to say the word 'bomb' in the airport or is that illegal?', they will arrest you, even though you were just talking about the word. You may not think that you used the words frivolously, but frivolous is relative -- it seems to me that you are not using them with sufficient seriousness. The word 'God' is more than a word; it is the name by which we call our maker, and deserves to be treated with honor, regardless of context. I realize that you intended no disrespect; I am merely giving my opinion.

Subject: Re: Post contains offensive language.
From: Pilgrim
To: Eric
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 16:22:11 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hello Pilgrim, I agree with what you posted, however what I was trying to get at was the apparent inconsistency of much of modern conservative Christianity in the use of language. I am not arguing for the use of 'swear words', but rather we tend to miss the point of the commands to bridle our tongue. So, instead of understanding the spirit of the law, many fulfill what they erroneously believe is the letter of it. While the world says s**t, the Christian says shoot; instead of God damn, we say gosh darn, instead of son of a bi**h, we say son of a gun, instead of calling a guy an a**hole, we call him a jerk. ISTM that to truly follow the spirit of the law, we should eliminate all such use of the language. I find it difficult to believe that calling a person an idiot is any better than calling him an as***le. God bless.
---
Eric, I understand what you are saying now! :-) Thanks for the clarification. Pilgrim

Subject: General help
From: John P.
To: All
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 06:31:01 (PST)
Email Address: putz7@msn.com

Message:
I'm not certain this is the board for asking this, but I am looking for a hardcover, wide margin KJV which is not a Scofeild Bible. Does anyone know where I can find this? I have looked at Amazon.com, abebooks.com, swrb.com, the Trinitarian Bible Society, and Christianbooks.com. So far, I have found that my options are leather or Scofield. I'm really not interested in either (the cost of the leather is astounding). Thanks for any help, John P.

Subject: Re: General help
From: Pilgrim
To: John P.
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 07:04:08 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
John P., Either Oxford or Cambridge publishers used to offer a wide-margin KJV hardback bible. And there are inexpensive leather bound bibles too! P

Subject: Re: You might ...
From: stan
To: John P.
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 14:23:13 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
try https://abstore.americanbible.org/abs1/

Subject: Re: You might ...
From: John P.
To: stan
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 21:48:30 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Thanks for the attempt, but it doesn't appear as though they have any either. Nevertheless, I do appreciate your help. John P.

Subject: Pilgrim's original question...
From: Chrysostomos
To: All
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 23:25:25 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi P, It seems you had an original question (two, I think) for me that, when I went to respond to them, didn't seem to be there. If you could reproduce them, now that I've responded to your response to my questions to Rod (boy, this is getting confusing), I'll be glad to answer. Again, sorry it's taken me so long... Chrysostomos

Subject: Re: Pilgrim's original question...
From: Pilgrim
To: Chrysostomos
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 08:32:18 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi C., The entire thread and all the questions/answers are found at the included link! :-) P Theology Forum Archive for January 2001 www.gospelcom.net/thehighway/archive18.html

Subject: Eyes and Ears - Election Shown
From: laz
To: All
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 19:44:27 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I've always wondered why the women at the tomb failed to recognize their Master's face or voice. Even the disciples on at least one occassion did not recognize their resurrected Lord's face or voice. Did Christ Jesus not rise with the same, albeit supernatural, body? Ought not He have looked/sounded familiar to them? What was the prob? I would venture to say that the typical ancient Palestinian familiar with the pre-crucified Jesus would not have been able to recognize the resurrected Christ either. Why? I think the answer is now obvious (to me at least and only until tonight) and consistent with what's taught by the Bible regarding election. Joh 12:37 But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: 38 That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? 39 Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, 40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. For the same reason Christ Jesus spoke in parables (Matt 13:13)....for the same reason He'd say that His sheep hear His voice and follow (Joh 10:27)...for the same reason only those given to know the mysteries of the Kingdom (to include Christ's true identity (Matt 16:17) with eyes that see and ears that hear...for the same reason many are called but few are chosen (Matt 22:14)....ONLY the Elect 'heard and saw' Jesus before and after the Cross. Even after the resurrection ONLY the chosen few were granted the privilege of audibly and visually seeing and hearing the risen Savior. The resurrected Christ could have revealed Himself to the masses who saw Him crucified days earlier ... but for some reason He chose to reveal Himself to only few and even then...they couldn't recognize Him unless He granted them that privilege by giving them the necessary faculties.... spiritual eyes and ears. In otherwords, audibly and visually hearing and seeing the resurrected Jesus was not enough for it seemed like Jesus had to identify Himself to His closest friends! It is God's doing alone, and only by grace, that anyone ever comes to the knowledge of Christ Jesus. He is not waiting in yonder heaven wringing His hands hoping on humanity to believe upon His Son....NO,...God is actively gathering up His chosen/elected sheep from the four corners through the faithful proclamation of the Gospel and that by His Spirit. Election...it's not just for breakfast anymore! What a blessed doctrine that makes one appreciate all the more the hopelessness of man and the grace of God! blessings, laz

Subject: Re: Eyes and Ears - Election Shown
From: saved
To: laz
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 09:36:23 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Very good message! May I add that likewise the world 'knows us not (as the true, adopted chilfren of God) because it knew Him not (as the only begotten Son of God)! Also, the (religious) world knows us not as God's own elect, chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world! saved

Subject: Re: Eyes and Ears - Election Shown
From: Eric
To: laz
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 10:24:19 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi Laz, You wrote: Even after the resurrection ONLY the chosen few were granted the privilege of audibly and visually seeing and hearing the risen Savior. The resurrected Christ could have revealed Himself to the masses who saw Him crucified days earlier ... but for some reason He chose to reveal Himself to only few and even then...they couldn't recognize Him unless He granted them that privilege by giving them the necessary faculties.... spiritual eyes and ears. In otherwords, audibly and visually hearing and seeing the resurrected Jesus was not enough for it seemed like Jesus had to identify Himself to His closest friends! ISTM that you are reading too much into the text. It does not seem to follow that spiritual eyes are necessary to see the physical body of the resurrected Christ. While it is true that spiritual eyes and ears are necessary to recognize Jesus as the Christ--well, maybe not, demons knew who he was. Is there biblical support for the idea that our resurrected bodies will be unrecognizable from our current ones? Christ's resurrected body was made up of matter, and based upon the biblical record, God doesn't seem to operate in the way your position suggests--man can see matter regardless of their spiritual condition. Maybe I am misreading your post, but your idea seems to raise a number of issues, not the least being the verifiable historicity of the resurrection. If the Jesus of Nazareth who was crucififed didn't look like the Jesus who claimed to be resurrected, how in the world could people testify to the fact that he lives? Forgive my disjointed and rambling post. God bless.

Subject: Re: Eyes and Ears - Election Shown
From: Pilgrim
To: Eric
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 12:50:32 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Eric,
I think laz has some good points and perhaps some insight to be acknowledged as well? :-) Consider the following account which was recorded after the resurrection and narrates the lack of apprehension of two of Christ's disciples:
Lu 24:13 And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs. 14 And they talked together of all these things which had happened. 15 And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them. 16 But their eyes were holden that they should not know him. 17 And he said unto them, What manner of communications are these that ye have one to another, as ye walk, and are sad? 18 And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass there in these days? 19 And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people: 20 And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him. 21 But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done. 22 Yea, and certain women also of our company made us astonished, which were early at the sepulchre; 23 And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive. 24 And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not. 25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: 26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? 27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. 28 And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they went: and he made as though he would have gone further. 29 But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them. 30 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. 31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.'
Is this not exactly but one example of Christ's sovereignty and love for His own to whom He promises He alone can and will reveal Himself?
Matt 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. 26 Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight. 27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim

Subject: Interesting
From: Eric
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 08:38:20 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I am having a hard time understanding exactly what is going in the passage you quoted, and this subject as a whole, perhaps you will bear with me and clarify a few things. Please don't take these questions as contentious, but rather sincere. Is it your understanding that the resurrected Christ was invisible unless He chose to reveal Himself? Are Christ's physical features different now than they were before He was crucified? Did His face somehow change in the grave? ISTM that the woman who approached the grave and did not recognize Christ, actually saw a physical person. Is it possible that they just didn't get a good look at Him, and therefore they didn't recognize Him, not because He looked different, but rather that they did not see clearly? Along the same lines of this topic, it is clear that thousands of people were able to see the physical Jesus even though they did not come to faith in Him, why would this fact change after His resurrection--the people who believed on Christ prior to His death had to still be regenerated in order to embrace Christ. God bless.

Subject: Re: Interesting
From: Pilgrim
To: Eric
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 12:17:06 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Eric,
You sincerely asked:'Is it your understanding that the resurrected Christ was invisible unless He chose to reveal Himself? . . . etc.' I believe that it is certainly tenable that the resurrected Christ might have been 'invisible' unless He chose to become otherwise. However, in the passages under discussion, I don't think this enters into it. He was 'unrecognizable', not because of disfigurement or any other bodily change that was drastically different from when He walked on earth before His resurrection, but rather because His presence and identity is only known to those whom He chooses to reveal Himself (Matt 11:27). This 'revelation' is a 'seeing by faith'!; rather than a seeing with the physical senses. Doubtless, the women who went to the sepulchre early that morning had not forgotten what the Lord Jesus looked like, but like most all of the disciples, they were yet in a state of unbelief, especially concerning the bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. This I think is borne out by the narrative of the two men on the road to Emmaus and Thomas' reaction as well. This 'unbelief' of the disciples, resident in their hearts after the resurrection, was a partial unbelief and not to be equated to the unbelief of someone who is yet unregenerate. This is not mere speculation on my part, but it is based upon the Gospel narratives which describe this phenomena on several occasions. (cf. Matt 8:26; 14:21; 16:8; Jh 14:9; et al). Thus although after the resurrection, His physical visage was recognizable, yet without faith in the totality of His person and work, the Lord Christ appears 'hidden' to those unbelieving eyes.
1Jh 3:2 'Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.'
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Interesting
From: laz
To: Eric
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 10:14:31 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hey Eric - didn't mean to confuse ya! haha! I think we are left to speculate about the nature of 'resurrection bodies'. It's obvious to me that Christ Jesus in His current exhalted yet bodily state can make Himself invisible. Afterall, He did mysteriously appear and disappear before Doubting Thomas and the rest of the timid clan. Obviously the men on the road to Emmaus and the women at the tomb saw a physical being....and they got a great look at Him as did the men on that famous road. But my whole point was not about Him being invisible and floating around in space between the earthly and the heavenlies before His ascension. The rhetorical question I asked was why didn't they recognize Jesus's face or voice? As for what thousands who heard Jesus preach 'saw' as He fed the thousands...healed the sick, etc....they saw exactly what Peter saw BEFORE Peter's famous confession (where God reveals to him who Jesus REALLY is)....just another man. Peter didn't see Jesus for whom He REALLY was until God 'opened his eyes' to that incredible truth....for Christ himself said that blessed is Peter since flesh and blood did not reveal the Messiah to him...but God in heaven. (Matt 16:17) And so it is today! God is the same yesterday, today and FOREVER...which is precisely how long He's known and loved His Elect. blessings, laz p.s. since Christ still wears His wounds....(and I mean no disrespect by this) maybe He still looks like a man who's been beaten to within an inch of His life? Like He did 15 rounds with Mike Tyson? Maybe that's why He's hard to recognize? But what about the inability to recognize the voice? In the end, I think it's a simple case of God mysteriously opening AND SHUTTING people's sensual faculties to truths only privy to the Elect. How horrible this must sound to an Arminian! haha!

Subject: Re: Interesting
From: Rod
To: laz
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 11:13:27 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Hi, laz, Let me say first that I praise God for the insights that He has given you into this matter and I sincerely thank you for sharing them. Very enlightening and interesting. I have a few rambling comments to address in regard to your last post. To begin with, it seems that the Lord Jesus' ability to hide Himself wasn't limited to the time following His resurrection: 'Then they took up stones to cast at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by' (John 8:59). One preacher I heard formerly said that He hid behind a column or something and slipped away. I find that ludicruous! Are we to suppose that He slipped out of sight of an angry crowd which was focusing on Him to kill Him and put on some Groucho Marx glasses and mustache so that he could go away unrecognized? No. He hid Himself suprenaturally because, though He came to die for the sins of His people, He was to do it at God's timing and in His purpose. It is interesting to contrast that event and those statements with the 24th verse of Mark 7: 'And from there he arose, and went into the borders of Tyre and Sidon, and entered into an house, and would have no man know it, but he could not be hidden.' It was not in God's will that He be completely hidden away from public ministry. Then, in the Revelation, we see the Lord Jesus Christ presented as an exquisite Jewel on lighted display, as if rotating in a display case, the light shing off it and reflecting the various 'aspects' of this precious Stone, presenting Him in His marvelous qualities and roles for all who have spiritul eyes and ears to see and hear. You wrote: 'p.s. since Christ still wears His wounds....(and I mean no disrespect by this) maybe He still looks like a man who's been beaten to within an inch of His life?' It seems He looks like that and more, depending on how He displays Himself to the viewer. John certainly saw Him in various manners: 'And I turned to see the voice that spoke to me...' (1:12). That's most revealing. The Apostle made a deliberate move to see 'a voice' displayed! 'And I beheld, and lo, in the midst of the throne [of God] and of the four living creatures, stood a Lamb AS THOUGH IT HAD BEEN SLAIN having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent forth into all the earth' (5:6). A different and magnificent vision of His appearance is found in 19:11-16, where His sacrifice is not being emphasized, but His authority and right to exercise impending judgment is stressed. Thus, the Lord Jesus presents Himself (or not) as He desires, to the glory of God and the accomplishment of the eternal plan.

Subject: Re: Interesting
From: laz
To: Rod
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 18:18:04 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod - thanks for the amplification/clarification...I agree with you...in fact, I too thought of that passage in Revelation showing 'the Lamb slain'.....where even later (and for eternity)will His love and work be evident to all whom it was purposed. blessings, laz

Subject: Re: Eyes and Ears - Election Shown
From: Pilgrim
To: laz
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 22:35:04 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Laz, Amen! Warms the heart to realize this blessed truth doesn't it? See here: Unconditional Election. There's plenty of the same and more in there!   In His Sovereign Electing Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Study update
From: Five Sola
To: All
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 18:49:44 (PST)
Email Address: wmnabors@flash.net

Message:
hello all, I wanted to thank everyone who gave some input a few weeks back (has it been that long?) concerning my 'quest' in re-educating myself in the area of Theology. I just wanted to give a FYI for those who care (which may be few :-) ) on what I decided to actually do. I am using Dr. Robert Reymond's SYS. THEO. because of it's acceptance into Reformed circles and because of it's contemporary nature and langauge. I primarily will use it as a springboard for deeper study and will use it to help keep me on task and in one area at a time :-). I will read his section on a given area of theology (ie, Revelation, Theology Proper, etc) and then will read on other books, commentaries, SYS THEO's on that particular area (all with an open Bible at all times). The reason I thought this best is that when I read multiple books on a given topic I begin to see what areas are generally accepted by the majority (not that this proves accuracy), and which areas people differ on. This also helps me cement the teachings into my head. If I read a book on a subject and then move on I tend to forget the material except for a vague understanding of it (a very frustrating trait for an avid theology book reader). Now to the task at hand...Reymond starts out with Revelation as his first topic (a good place to start especially for a presuppositionalist :-) ). Now I need to begin collecting books on the topic of Revelation (Special and General) Any suggestions? All I have in my library right now are 'The foundation of Biblical Authority' edited my James M Boice, 'Answers to Catholic Claims: a discussion of Biblical Authority' by James R White,& 'Knowing Scripture' by R.C. Sproul. Some other good ones? post the list here or via email. By His Grace Alone, Five Sola

Subject: Re: Study update
From: Linda
To: Five Sola
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 22, 2001 at 23:58:51 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
You might also try Louis Berkhoff's Systematic Theology. It is a paperback covering many areas. We've been through it in both adult Sunday School and High S.S. classes.

Subject: Re: Study update
From: Tom
To: Five Sola
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 14:13:50 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
I am currently listening to a good tape series called 'FOUNDATIONS An Overview of Systematic Theology' by R.C. Sproul. You can find this maturial and other resources at: http://www.gospelcom.net/ligonier/

Subject: Re: Study update
From: Pilgrim
To: Five Sola
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 13:53:35 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Five Sola,
Sorry brother for not replying sooner, but I've been rather busy of late! :-) Here is a list of books which I have found helpful over the years. The appear in no order of importance or preference. And doubtless, some are now out of print, although they may be found in a good used book store, i.e., Kregels, Baker and Theological Pursuits.
  1. The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible - B.B. Warfield
  2. The Doctrine of Scripture - Cornelius VanTil
  3. The Word of God and the Reformed Faith - Clarence Bouma
  4. The Doctrine of the Word of God - Thomas A. Thomas (P&R)
  5. The Structure of Biblical Authority - Meredith Kline (Eerdmans)
  6. The Authoritative Inspiration of the Bible - C.H. Waller
  7. Calvin on Scripture and Divine Sovereignty - John Murray (Baker)
  8. General Revelation - G.C. Berhouwer (Eerdmans)
  9. Holy Scripture - G.C. Berhouwer (Eerdmans)
  10. God's Inerrant Word - John Warwick Montgomery
  11. Thy Word is Truth - E.J. Young
  12. The Infallible Word - Symposium by the faculty of WTS
  13. The Divine Inspiration of the Bible - A.W. Pink
  14. Divine Inspiration of the Bible - W.E. Vine
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: no suggestions? :-)
From: Five Sola
To: Five Sola
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 08:12:14 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
No one has some good suggestion on the subject of revelation (special or general)? I'm looking for classic reformed treatments of Inspiration, inerrancy, infallibility, authority, authorship of Scripture. Also of the issue of general revelation of God in nature. Five Sola

Subject: Re: no suggestions? :-)
From: Rod
To: Five Sola
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 15:29:05 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Broter FS. You specified books, but if you are in the habit of listening to cassettes, check out the Systematic Theology series of S. Lewis Johnson, the first several messages/lectures as found in the tape catalog of Believers Chapel. Contact them for a catalog and initial order at: http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Estates/8364/BCTM/

Subject: Mark 14:51 &52
From: Bro. Charles
To: All
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 19:10:25 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Mark 14:51 And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him: Mark 14:52 And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked. Who is this talking about? And why was it writtin? was reading it a wile back, just thought I could get yall's thoughts on it -Bro. Charles

Subject: Re: Mark 14:51 &52
From: john
To: Bro. Charles
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 19:43:52 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Mark 14:27 describe the head of the spiritual church, Jesus, being struck down and the elect, for a moment, without a spiritual head. If we understand that in this context the disciples of Christ represent the church, then we can see the imagery being used. In vs 37 the 'church' is sleeping, again in vs 40 they are sleeping and their 'eyes were very heavy'. Yes, the disciples were tired, but more so, they were representing a church unable to perform its mission, the leader is about to die (in the garden Jesus began to suffer the wrath of God). The deep sleep is a figure of death. With Jesus under arrest and headed for execution, the church is figured in a desperate state. In vs 51 a man, representing the body of believers, is clothed with a linen sheet, something akin to a bathrobe. Think of the man as an example of the body of believers, clean, clothed with the linen of Christ's Righteousness, represented by a sheet. Now examine Christ as Savior, under the Father's wrath, for a moment in time the church has no head, the believers have no relationship to the Father. Their sins are exposed; they stand naked and exposed, as Christ suffers. In actuality, they are in no spiritual danger, but as a picture of the spiritual death that Christ was undergoing it make a powerful statement of the connection between a believer's spiritual life to the One Life Giver. Kill the root and the fruit dies. This was put in the Bible to emphasis this relationship and its loss during a crucial moment in time, Satan appearing to win and the church appearing as sleeping or dead. Later, toward the period before the end, during the tribulation, we have the two witnesses, again representing the true church, being killed. Again, Satan appears victorious. I hope you can see the reason this was included by God to be part of the Word of God, it is all important; God would not have bothered putting it there unless the information related in some way to His salvation plan. john

Subject: Re: Mark 14:51 &52
From: Prestor John
To: john
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 21:23:19 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
John: Rarely have I seen the allegorical method of interpretation so ably demonstrated. The problem being that this piece of scripture is best interpreted in the historical-grammatical context rather than in the allegorical method. IE: the plain meaning of the text is the best. And the plain meaning is that John-Mark following after the disciples while wearing just a linen robe ran away when the Jewish and Roman authorities tried to detain him slipping out of his robe in order to escape. There needs be no other meaning to this. In fact, how does your allegorical method explain why its included? It doesn't really, and to employ principle of parsimony to the historical portions of the scripture is a more reasoned method. Prestor John Mi gardis la fidon

Subject: Re: Mark 14:51 &52
From: Rod
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 00:53:09 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Prestor John, 'Rarely have I seen the allegorical method of interpretation so ably demonstrated.' True, that method of interpretation was ably demonstrated. Most regretably it was employed. Even more regretable, the author believes what he wrote.

Subject: Re: Mark 14:51 &52
From: john
To: Rod
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 03:39:32 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
>>>>Even more regretable, the author believes what he wrote. Even more regretable, you don't. Ah, but that is why I said, 'if you can bear it'... knowing full well your present limitation. I leave it with B. Charles to whom the post is addressed, not the condensending peanut gallery; if Charles (or another reader) see past the literal-historical-grammatical manner of interpreting a Spiritual-Book written by God Himself then great, if not, you have another addition to your club. JH

Subject: Re: Mark 14:51 &52
From: Rod
To: john
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 20, 2001 at 10:29:50 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Well, john, If two people who claim to be Christians (and thus receive the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ whom He says indwells every believer and 'will guide you into all truth') are in disagreement, then there are at least three possibilities: 1) one is wrong; 2) both are wrong; 3) one or both are partially right. But one thing is certain, the Spirit of truth, the Spirit of God doesn't reveal differing truths to different individuals for He has but one truth. The person who has the Spirit guiding him will not be deceived as John promised in 1 John 2:26-27. You wrote, 'I leave it with B. Charles to whom the post is addressed....' Should I point out the painfully obvious to you? That this is a public forum and that when you post, you post for all to see read and judge according to God's Word and precepts. It would seem manifest that the proper venue to address Charles privately is in a private message. Are we to infer that you never responded to a post addressed in response to someone else? You know that's ridiculous; you've done it many times. You've done it in the post I'm answering now. You also wrote, 'Ah, but that is why I said, 'if you can bear it'... knowing full well your present limitation.' Then you have the raw nerve to refer to someone else as 'condescending' in a succeeeding sentence. Amazing! The honest truth is that I didn't answer your post soon after you posted it because you (as I've pointed out to you before) are not willing to receive instruction/correction. When I read it initially I was literally sickened, a fact that I indicated privately via e-mail to another participant here who contacted me in amazment about what you had dared to say. It made me very sad that you would publish such a gross mishandling of the Word. The reason I responded to Prestor John's reply is that I think that anyone who was confused by your interpretation should know that it was not received at large as proper and legitimate and is not allowable as the Christ-honoring way to deal with Scripture.

Subject: Re: Mark 14:51 &52
From: Prestor John
To: Bro. Charles
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 20:13:58 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Well Bro. Charles: Many believe that the gospel of Mark was dictated to Mark by Peter and so this may have been an observation of Peter that he alone saw or even Mark's own account of what he did in the garden but written anonymously. You must realize that the gospels are the personal accounts of what the Apostles saw and heard from Jesus and what happened to them during those three years that they learned from Him. Prestor John Mi gardis la fidon Prestor John's Demesne Pewsitters the reverant cartoon

Subject: to Pilgrim
From: Chrysostomos
To: All
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 15, 2001 at 23:46:31 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Sorry it took me so long to get back to you... >>>>Your question is in reference to what Rod said in another post which was:
'The fact that none, except those elect, are enabled to hear it doesn't lessen the fact that the offer is genuinely made.' Yes. >>>>>I am going to presume here that you are primarily questioning the truth of God's sincerity or genuineness in the 'free offer' of the gospel in relation to the truth held by Calvinists that God has from all eternity predestinated some to everlasting life and the remainder to eternal torment. No. My question has to do with whether what you claim is actually God's truth. >>>>>First of all it must be emphasized that the 'genuineness' of the offer of salvation which is found in Christ Jesus depends not upon the action and/or response of the intended recipient but only upon the intention of the Giver. Agreed. How could the genuiness of the offer depend upon the recipient? You'll get no arguement from me there. >>>>>Whether or not any recipient of the actual 'offer' accepts or rejects it; whether that individual is even able to accept it or reject it is of no consequence to the sincerity of the God Who has extended it to him. I would offer to you as indisputable proof of God's unquestionable genuineness and verity in His benevolence shown toward the reprobate and unbelieving from the following texts: Deut 5:29 (v. 26 in Hebrew); 32:29; Psa 81:13ff (vvs 81:14 in Hebrew); Isa 45:22; 48:18; Jer 32:17; Ezek 18:23; 33:11; Matt 5:44-48; 23:37; Lk 13:34; Acts 4:17. I hope no commentary is necessary to explain any of these texts, although I am willing to do so if found necessary. Well, of course, it's necessary and I don't meant to be sarcastic at all. I've found that, in certain situations, we don't think 'all' means the same thing and we don't think 'world' means the same thing. It would help if we just slowed down a bit to ensure that we both understood where we were sure we agreed with one another and where we were sure we didn't. Then, it seems to me, that we'd have a much more productive converstation. >>>>>Secondly, the 'free offer' of the gospel must always include all its elements; two of which are 'repentance' and 'faith' as the prerequisites to be performed by any man so as to obtain the justification/salvation promised in the overture itself to come to Christ. Agreed. Most wholeheartedly. >>>>>There is no salvation apart from those prerequisites being done by the sinner. And both of these are expressions of a regenerated soul. First, some of the proofs for the inability of any man to repent and/or believe upon Christ in his natural state: Gen 6:5; 8:21; Job 14:4; 15:14-16; Eccl 9:3; Jer 12:23; 17:9; Matt 7:16-18; 12:33; Jh 6:44, 65; 10:26; Rom 8:7, 8; 11:35, 36; 1Cor 2:14; 4:7 2Cor 3:5; Eph 4:17-19. Second, some of the proofs that repentance and faith are sovereignly bestowed upon men according to the good pleasure of God as He wills; Ps 110:3; Matt 11:25-27; Jh 3:5-7, 37; 5:21; 6:37; 10:16; Acts 2:47; 3:16; 5:31; 11:18; 13:48; Rom 8:29, 30; Eph 2:1-5; Phil 1:29; 2Thess 2:13 2Tim 2:25, 26; Titus 3:3-5; Jam 1:18; 2Pet 3:9. OK, here's where you start to lose me, only because I don't believe one can seal one's argument by quoting a lot of bible verses--though I wholeheartedly agree with you that 'There is no salvation apart from those prerequisites being done by the sinner.' But, like I told Rod some time ago, I don't believe in T. Therefore, I think, I have a different understanding of what man's 'natural' state is. You assume that man's natural state is evail, as in after the fall. I assume that his natural state is prior to the fall and that that state is precisely what Christ came to restore. It may seem like quibbling to you, but I think it makes a lot of difference. But I wouldn't write a lot about what I think about it unless you were interested in discussing it further. >>>>>There must always be a recognition between the 'decretive' will of God and the 'preceptive' will of God. OK, now it seems we're into the meat of the matter. >>>>>In the former, whatsoever the LORD God has foreordained will come to pass. In the latter, whatever is published as God's law and therefore rule must and should be observed by men, but such observation may not be done by men. In fact no man does or can do that which the law of God requires wholly. For proofs of the 'decretive will of God see: Job 12:13ff; 23:13; Ps 33:6-11; 148:1-5; Isa 14:24, 27; 55:11; 46:10; Lam 3:37; Dan 4:35; Acts 2:23; 4:28; Eph 1:9, 11; Heb 6:17. As to the preceptive will of God, this is so obvious, that I see no need of referencing the countless texts which affirm it. OK, but what you accept as 'obvious,' I don't. You've injected a subtle philosophical distiction into the mix which I think requires further clarification. Does this distinction exist in the mind of the Apostles, or does it exist only in th minds of later theologians? Maybe you're right, maybe you're not. Obviously,there've been competing understandings of these passages over the years. All I'm asking is that we discuss how we know that your philosophical basis for understanding these passsages is correct. I'm not opposed at all to discussing this. I think it's interesting and would like to discuss it further. >>>>>The 'free offer' of the gospel comes under the preceptive will of God, Who has declared in all sincerity, that all who come to the Christ in repentance and faith will surely and infallibly be saved. (Matt 11:28-30; Jh 6:37-39; et al). However, the number of those who will be saved is fixed in the heavens by God's decretive will, of which no man can number nor can they know who they be. Agreed. Most wholeheartedly. >>>>>Thus the gospel goes out to all indiscriminately proclaiming that Christ is dead for sinners and that in Him and Him alone there is remission and forgiveness of sins, reconciliation with God and the adoption as sons who are heirs of the present kingdom and the new heaven and new earth. Well, I myself disagree that the Gospel goes out to all indiscriminately. God knows exactly who will accept and who will reject. I don't think the word 'indiscriminate' has any place in the discussion of the Christian Gospel. But that's just me... Of course, I agree that in Christ alone is reconcilliation with God and the forgiveness of sins. However, your statements about the 'present kingdom' and the 'new kingdom' are confusing to me. I'm not entirely sure I understand what you mean by these things. Therefore, I can't ascertain whether I agree with you or not... Chrysostomos

Subject: to Rod
From: Chrysostomos
To: All
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 15, 2001 at 23:19:38 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Well, friend, since you've tossed out such hard to define accusations as 'believing the lie of Satan' and 'semi-Pelagianism,' I think I'm going to have to retire from the discussion. Sorry I've been away for a few weeks and didn't respond sooner. In any case, I again thank you for taking the time to discuss and please pray for me as I you. In Christ our True God, Chrysostomos

Subject: Re: to Rod
From: Rod
To: Chrysostomos
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 07:28:11 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Chrysostomos, I don't think these are 'hard to define' at all. 'Semi-Pelagian' refers to the belief that man has some innate good in him in his natural state and can co-operate with God (in fact must do so) in order to get himself saved. This makes him de facto more powerful than the supreme and sovereign Being, a blasphemous position. The 'lie of Satan' is that God's decrees and pronouncements may be ignored; that grace is not the determining factor in salvation, but man's 'goodness' and his 'good works' which are designed to earn him favor with God. I have been praying for you this last year or so that we've been in contact. I will continue to do just that.

Subject: Re: to Rod
From: Chrysostomos
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 23:43:22 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi Rod, So, do you wish to engage in a discussion of what Augustinism actually is and what Pelegianism actually is that we might determine which of the three options, or some other, is actually what is taught by the Scriptures? (This topic actually interests me greatly) As an Orthodox Christian, I believe that, obviously, Pelagius was a heretic, but that St Augustine's response to him was not quite correct. All western theology (Protestant and Roman Catholic), of course, agrees with that assessment, but retains the basic premise. St John Cassian (the first 'semi-Pelagian') thinks that both Pelagius and St Augustine weren't right. And he was trained by the Egyptian desert Fathers and by St John Chrysostom, by whom he was ordained a deacon in Constantinople and was further trained in the faith. Given that, I would also be interested to know where your beliefs diverge from those of St John Chrysostom (whose sermons on almost every verse of the NT are available at ccel.org) It seems to me that if one is to decry 'semi-Pelagianism,' then one would necessarily have to critique the commentary of St John Chrysostom--readily available on the internet--since Orthodoxy is, really, the definition of 'semi-Pelagianism.' St John Chrysostom makes it pretty easy, since he comments on each verse of almost the entire New Testament in his homilies, so I await critique of his commentary, so that we might have an apples-to-apples way of comparing our beliefs... >>>>>I have been praying for you this last year or so that we've been in contact. I will continue to do just that. Thank you, Rod, and I do mean that. Chrysostomos

Subject: Re: to Rod
From: Rod
To: Chrysostomos
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 11:35:00 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Hi, Chrysostomos, You wrote: ''It seems to me that if one is to decry 'semi-Pelagianism,' then one would necessarily have to critique the commentary of St John Chrysostom--readily available on the internet--since Orthodoxy is, really, the definition of 'semi-Pelagianism.''' Rather than that, what I would propose is this to get directly to the heart of the matter. Let's start with the fact that I have given a simple, direct 'working definition' of semi-Pelagianism. It was, ''Semi-Pelagian refers to the belief that man has some innate good in him in his natural state and can co-operate with God (in fact must do so) in order to get himself saved.'' That seems perfectly consistent with your often stated rejection of total depravity, that man is marred in every aspect of his being by the fact that he is born in sin, not that he is as evil as he can be, but that he is touched and affected in his totality, intellect, spirit, and emotional makeup, by the warping effect of the sin nature. Are we in agreement thus far? Next, I would ask you to give a simple and concise rationale for this statement: 'As an Orthodox Christian, I believe that, obviously, Pelagius was a heretic....' What exactly is the heart and soul of his heresy? What is so obvious about it? Without some agreement on terms, it seems impossible to continue.

Subject: Re: to Rod
From: Christian
To: Rod
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 13:20:18 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Why would Satan pass dotrinal lies if God's grace to the elect is irresistible? Can the elect be deceived?

Subject: Re: to Rod
From: Rod
To: Christian
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 16:31:35 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
I suspect that you have a point you are leading up to, Christian. I am not a subtle person, so I ask that you state your position outright and not try to bait me. I remind you that questioning and subtlty were the tools of the serpent in the Garden. Question 1: Prior to salvation all mankind is under deception. Salvation doesn't insure total doctrinal purity, it should be obvious. But the saved person is pure on the essentials. And leading into question 2...Yes, the elect can be deceived about nonessentials and for a time on any issue, but God's answer is finally, 'No.' They cannot be deceived unto the loss of salvation, even in the face of the strongest delusion and temptation: 'And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved; but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened' (Matt. 24:22). As Rom. 8:28 tells us, all things which ever occur are manipulated by God for the good of the ones who love Him, for the elect, a marvelous assurance. And Matt. 24:24 reveals that it is not possible to finally deceive the elect because of the promise of John16:13 which has built on the fact of 14:17. The elect of God have the indwelling of 'the Spirit of truth' 'whom the world cannot receive." Not only that but God Who 'works all things together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose' does show forth His protection and love for the elect by shortening the severe trials of deception and temptation: 'For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great great signs and wonders, insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.' But God hs seen to it that it is not possible to so deceive them who are truly His: 'And my sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me...and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish; neither shall any pluck them out of my hand. My Father, who gave them to me, is greater than all, and none is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand' (John 10:27-29). As the parable of the lost sheep illustrates, God will bring all His sheep safely through (Matt. 18:12-14). It seems you have totally missed and ignored something vitally important which Pilgrim quoted for you just a couple of days ago concerning why false doctrine arises: 'For there MUST BE also heresies among you, that they who are approved may be made manifest among you' (1 Cor. 11:19). God actually sends these heresies among the professors of Christ to prove and strengthen His own and to prove those who are elect and led of Him.

Subject: Re: to Rod
From: Christian
To: Rod
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 22:20:48 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I suspect that you have a point you are leading up to, Christian. I do not. so I ask that you state your position outright and not try to bait me. Baiting you is apparently difficult to avoid since I am doing it unintentionally. I shall direct my questions to Pilgrim and Brother Charles in the future. Question 1: Prior to salvation all mankind is under deception. Salvation doesn't insure total doctrinal purity, it should be obvious. But the saved person is pure on the essentials. And leading into question 2...Yes, the elect can be deceived about nonessentials and for a time on any issue, but God's answer is finally, 'No.' They cannot be deceived unto the loss of salvation, even in the face of the strongest delusion and temptation: Ah. That answers my question. Thank you. May I ask just what malign trap that you supposed I was trying to lay for you with the question? 'For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great great signs and wonders, insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.' But God hs seen to it that it is not possible to so deceive them who are truly His: 'And my sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me...and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish; neither shall any pluck them out of my hand. My Father, who gave them to me, is greater than all, and none is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand' (John 10:27-29). As the parable of the lost sheep illustrates, God will bring all His sheep safely through (Matt. 18:12-14). I like that. Thank you.

Subject: The Love of God
From: Chris
To: All
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 15, 2001 at 19:04:55 (PST)
Email Address: CEvanglst4@aol.com

Message:
Brethren, I have a question that I would like to ask and get some feedback on.....Do we refrain from telling anyone that Jesus loves them or died for them simply because we do not know whether or not they are one of Gods elect(chosen). Its hard for me to grasp but dont want to close my heart to the truth, if it is true. We know that God has a general love for all of mankind, but a intimate love for those of His Spiritual Children. When, for example, I told my boss that Jesus Christ loves him, in response to him using that name in vain, I thought, for all I know, he could be one of Gods elect. Its my responsibility to share the Love of Christ with him, right. Also alot of times, in passing, we dont get much time to go into the whole detail right away, so we share bits and peices when we can. Wouldnt that be part of it. I do understand that this is not a fundamental of the faith, but am seeking the truth about this and am asking you all for counsel. Thanks Much, Bro Chris

Subject: 'Step right up...'
From: Rod
To: Chris
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 11:22:01 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Chris, When you think about it, isn't telling someone 'God loves you' equal to telling them that God wants intensely to save them? Isn't that what is meant and implied by such a statement? It really is a cheapening of God and a false portrayal of salvation. It gives the Arminian impression which is false and a serious error that God will save anyone who will do what is necessary to save himself, i.e, turn to God. While that is true, that whosoever turns to Him will be saved, it is emphatically not true that any man may turn to God just because it is within him to do this good thing. (See my recent response to Chrysostomos.) In fact, God says some very definite things about this: 'All that the Father giveth unto me shall come to me' (John 6:37) and that for a very specific reason: 'No man can come unto me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him; and I will raise him up at the last day' (John 6:44). Note that turning to God is a good thing because it means that one has the righteousness of the Lord Jesus imputed unto him because of the faith the Father gives that regenerated person (Rom. 4:3, 9; Eph. 2:8-9). The lost person who is not elect absolutely cannot avail himself of the offer of salvation because his total will is to reject God; he simply cannot do a good thing and repent in faithful acceptance of the promise of God without prior regeneration (Rom 3:11; 6:20; 8:7, 9; 1 Cor. 2:9-16; Heb. 11:6). Only the man whom the Father gives a new life and new will is drawn in salvation to the Lord Jesus. That person is the only one who is capable of coming to Christ since every natural man is 'in Adam' and 'in Adam all die' (1Cor. 15:21-22), the thing which Chrysostomos directly denies and which the statement, 'God loves you' and, by implication, will save you if you condescend to turn to Him from within your dead nature (see Eph. 2:1-5) really means. It is true that salvation results from faith, but it is more fundamentally true that faith is made possible by God's grace which is born of His love for the elect. To such it is given to be regenerated and to be able to hear with faith. 'Faith cometh by hearing,' Paul wrote. And not by hearing falsehoods, but 'hearing by the word of God (Rom. 10:17). Chris, really get into the context of Ephesians chapter 2. It begins by describing the common state of all men born 'in Adam': 1) they are dead in trespasses and sins (verse1); 2) such is the state of the non-elect and the elect alike in Adam, as they are 'by nature the children of wrath' (verse3); 3)'But God' loves some of the world of men with a predestinating love in election in such a way that they, experiencing mercy out of His love, are 'made alive when we were dead in sins' as a result of that special love (verses 4-5). Note very spcifically the 'we' in this context of these verses. The Bible's writers never include themselves in with the lost. The 'we and 'us' refer most explicitly to the people of God who are saved by Him, not universally to the world of all mankind, as so many falsely read into this. So, on whom does the responsibility rest? Answer: 'But God...hath made us alive together with Christ (by grace are ye saved)' verse 5 explains so simply and directly. He did that to those whom He describes as 'even when we were dead in sins.' And He did it because He loved THOSE SPECIFIC PEOPLE, the 'we' herein, with a 'great love' which showers them with undeserved mercy (verse 4). When understood in that light, it becomes clear that the 'we,' the ones who were formerly dead in trespasses and sins and by nature the children of wrath, 'even as others' ('others' who are not the 'we') are not the initiators of the process of salvation, but its benefactors as God acts upon us so that we may exercise faith in newness of life: '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 prepared that we should walk in them' (verses 8-10).

Subject: made alive by hearing His word
From: Christian
To: Rod
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 12:58:17 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
It gives the Arminian impression which is false and a serious error that God will save anyone who will do what is necessary to save himself, i.e, turn to God. While that is true, that whosoever turns to Him will be saved, it is emphatically not true that any man may turn to God just because it is within him to do this good thing. (See my recent response to Chrysostomos.) In fact, God says some very definite things about this: 'All that the Father giveth unto me shall come to me' (John 6:37) and that for a very specific reason: 'No man can come unto me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him; and I will raise him up at the last day' (John 6:44). Doesn't Heavenly Father issue this call to everyone that will hear Him? Are we not all drawn? Or would you call this belief Arminianism? Why would the savior pay for the sins of mankind if not to save all those that would hear His call? What of the salvation of the great prophets who lived before the crucifixion? What of John the Baptist, who died months before it? Can one be called of God to perform a function and yet not elected to salvation?

Subject: Re: made alive by hearing His word
From: Pilgrim
To: Christian
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 20:08:50 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Christian,
You have actually opened questions to basically 3 major topics: 'Calling,' 'The nature, extent and efficiency of the atonement,' and 'Sola Fide (justification by faith alone'). To be sure, there just isn't enough space to deal with even one of these topics here satisfactorily, so I will simply give very brief answers to each and then add a link to some relevant articles which are of value. 1) Calling: In the Scripture we find that there are actually two types of 'call'. The first we refer to as the general or outward call. This is the indiscriminate and universal preaching of the gospel of Christ wherein the hearers are exhorted to repent and believe on the Lord Christ for their justification. The second call is a 'secret' or inward call, which is issued by the Holy Spirit and made 'hearable' by the soul by virtue of regeneration (new birth). When God in His sovereign grace regenerates a sinner, he/she is given 'ears to hear' the gospel in the real sense and 'made willing' to flee to Christ. It is the Lord Christ Who reveals Himself to a sinner as He wills. (cf. Matt 11:25-27) In other words, the soul of man, having been spiritually dead (in total opposition to God; hating God and all that is good) is unable and unwilling to heed the gospel and turn to Christ for salvation.
Eph 2:4 'But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;). . .'
Thus, the Spirit in recreating the soul; making it alive, enables that person to see the blackness of one's own heart, experience the guilt of one's sins, feel the terror of being under the just condemnation of God and the need for reconciliation and redemption. Additionally, this enlivened soul is given to see something of the holiness of God, His provision of salvation in the Lord Christ, the Lord Jesus Christ as one who is 'altogether lovely' and willing to receive those who come to Him in repentance and faith. Consequently, this individual, hearing this inward 'call' is irresistibly drawn to Christ before whom he bows and receives as the 'only name given under heaven by which men may be saved.' But more so, this person embraces Christ as One who is a 'lover of his soul' and one who is 'closer than a brother.' In other words, there is the beginning of a true love relationship that takes place in these initial moments of conversion. All men are called to live before God as His humble creatures according to His law and to seek and apprehend the salvation that is in Christ Jesus. However, no man can (Jh 6:44) or will (Jh 5:40) come to Christ by nature, until he is 'born again' by the Spirit of God (Jh 1:12, 13; 3:3, 5). See this article that is a very good over view of this subject and related subjects: God's Indisputable Sovereignty This 'inward call' is given to all those whom the Father has predestined to life in Christ and to no others. For it is the part of a 'golden chain' of salvation which originates with God and is infallibly brought to fruition.
Rom 8:29 '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. 30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.'
2) Atonement: The Lord Christ suffered the penalty for and secured the salvation of all those whom the Father gave Him. (Ps 110:3; Matt 1:21; Jh 6:37, 39, 40; 10:11, 14-16; 17:9; et al). Since the atonement of the Lord Christ was substitutionary i.e., He actually suffered in behalf of those whom He died for. Thus God freely and justly accepts those who Christ suffered, died and rose again for as justified and receives them as sons (cf. Gal 3:13; 4:4:7; Heb 2:10-13) This little booklet will doubtless be very helpful to you: To God be the Glory 3) Justification by Faith: Faith is the means by which men apprehend the promise of God to save them. Faith in and of itself is of no value whatsoever. For there are myriads of people in the world who have 'faith' in something other than that which can save them. Thus, it is the object of one's faith which actually has value. And so, it is God alone Who has put forth His intent and willingness to save all who believe in HIM, according to the works of His Son, the Lord Christ. Now in the Old Testament, Abraham and all those who were men of faith like him, put their faith in the promise of God which spoke of the One who was to come, who being God, would redeem them. Although they were not privy to the actual name nor of the real manifestation of the Messiah, nonetheless, they embraced the promise of God as true and thereby rested in Him for their salvation. (cf. Gen 15:6; Jh 8:56; Gal 3:7-9; Heb 11:13; 1Pet 1:10-12). John the Baptist also, had even more than any of the other O.T. saints, for he was given to see the fulfillment of the prophecies that spoke of the Redeemer Christ (Jh 1:29-31, 36). For one of the most wonderfully written articles on 'Sola Fide', Justification by Faith by Dr. Joel Beeke, see the article: Justification by Faith Alone
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: made alive by hearing His word
From: Christian
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 22:29:08 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
You have actually opened questions to basically 3 major topics Oops! I appreciate the links and information that you provide. I won't be insulted btw if my question is too elementary, you can just send me to a link to look it up -- I actually read the whole article that was the preface for (death of death?) that I think you posted earlier. I'll pray and ponder what you just send me & get back to you if I have questions. At first read I am particularly interested in your description of an outward and inward call. Are you saying that the outward call is futile without the inward one? Can someone be justified without the inward call? I haven't read the links yet, but will before I post more questions. Thank you for your patience and time, Christian

Subject: Re: made alive by hearing His word
From: Pilgrim
To: Christian
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 07:36:44 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Christian,
Yes, without the work of the Holy Spirit FIRST whereby He regenerates the dead soul, all outward 'calls' will go unheeded and the person will continue to hate God and reject Christ truly. Although there are myriad passages which speak of the corruption, pollution and inability of fallen mankind to love God and/or to respond as he/she should, perhaps Paul's description might give you something further to ponder, as this text is 'pregnant' with spiritual truth:
Eph 4:17 'This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, 18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: 19 Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.'
Another passage which most people read and simply pass over without giving it much thought. Or perhaps they do actually read it, but immediately dismiss it as one of those texts which are 'too hard to understand' (2Pet 3:16)
Mark 4:10 'And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable. 11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: 12 That [Grk: so that, in order that, for this purpose] seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.'
Matthew gives us much the same, but with a different wording when he writes:
Matt 13:9 'Who hath ears to hear, let him hear. 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.'
This is the 'inward call' spoken of here. It is the ability to 'hear/understand' but with a disposition to accepting the message and responding to it favorably. For if this 'ability' is not given, then one's natural disposition of a corrupt nature which is at enmity with God rejects that message and substitutes anything and everything else in its place. (1Cor 2:14; Rom 1:18-25; 8:7, 8) Therefore, without the 'inward call', the 'outward call' will certainly go unheeded. This being so, there will obviously be no response; repentance and faith, and consequently there is no Justification. Only those who have been given a 'new heart', the 'new birth'; who have been regenerated, spiritually resurrected, been 'made alive' by the Holy Spirit of God are able to 'hear' the voice of Christ calling them to Himself. His sheep 'hear His voice' as they are infallibly called and they infallibly follow Him, the Good Shepherd of the sheep. So you say you read Dr. Packer's 'Introductory Essay to the Death of Death in the Death of Christ'? Well, I'm impressed. . It's a rather lengthy article and most people have short attention spans and little desire to read anything more than that which only takes less than a minute of their time; like the back of a cereal box, :-). I hope you found it more than informative and perhaps 'transformative'!
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: made alive by hearing His inner call
From: Christian
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 12:50:15 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I did read the essay, Pilgrim; my attention span is good when the topic is interesting and the writer does me the courtesy of writing in good English without assuming a great deal of doctrinal agreement. That's why one reason I am still here. But I am rapidly falling behind on homework here, as I want to re-read that article and also the links which you provided which I have not had time to get to yet. I found Packer's essay informative and challenging, to answer your implied question. Generally for me spiritual transformations happen during prayer -- I am sure you know what I mean. I have wondered before at a verse in the book Isaiah that parallels the wording of Mark 4:10, but I had not noticed that particular verse before. Thank you. Your interpretation of Matt 13:9 rings true to me, particularly since you put the word 'ability' in quotes and say that it is given. To take this further, it seems to me that all ability for humans to communicate with each other comes from some degree of influence of God. Our pride drives this influence away, which is why pride breaks down communication in the home and between nations. The ultimate symbol of this principle is the arrogance of man leading to the division of languages at Babel. The question I am leading to, Pilgrim, is while I agree with you that the Lord elects certain people to know the mysteries and enjoy the fullness of his Grace, it seems to me that all men and women benefit to some extend of our Father in Heaven's infinite generosity. His rain falls on the just and on the unjust. He outraged Jonah by his mercy to the city of Niniveh -- not only to the King and people but to their cattle! I guess that Jonah did not speak in Parables ... but neither did Jesus when he warned of the destruction of the Temple. So (am I getting this right?) the warning of destruction is an *outward* call, but the Parables contain an encoded inward call ... that allows conversion and forgiveness? Is it possible for someone to hear an inward call when they have never been exposed to an outward call? If so, what is the purpose of the outward call? What is the difference between Justification and being made alive by the holy spirit? Do these processes sometimes happen over time or in steps? Why do you like Paul work so conscientiously and with such care to do righteously when your salvation is guaranteed by your election? Does God hear and grant the prayers of those who are not elect?

Subject: Re: made alive by hearing His inner call
From: Pilgrim
To: Christian
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 14:28:56 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Christian,
Your questions are worthy of answers and they are anticipated to a good degree having shared your present situation. First of all, as we have discussed before, the LORD God does shower all mankind with His 'benevolence', or as it is theologically designated, 'Common Grace'. All those things common to man are given to them as a testimony to the goodness of God but with this expression of His goodness comes a responsibility and accountability (Rom 2:4). Yet the ability to repent and believe only comes from God (cf. 2Tim 2:25; 1Cor 4:7; 2Cor 3:5; 1Sam 3:7; Song 5:4; Job 14:4; Isa 50:5; Jer 13:23; Matt 11:25-27; 12:33; Jh 6:44; 6:65; Acts 13:48; 16:14; etc.). Secondly, it was just not that the parables were hidden from the masses of people but indeed the 'mystery of salvation' in Christ Jesus. (cf. 1Cor 2:7; Eph 1:9; 3:3, 4, 9; Col 1:26; etc.). To those who are not given to know their guilt and condemnation before God and their utter need of the Lord Christ, these things are indeed a 'mystery', for they are only spiritually discerned (2Cor 2:14; Is 45:3; Jh 3:3-12). In other words, the reality of God, of Christ and the entire 'plan of salvation' is hid from those who are not given 'eyes to see, ears to hear, or a mind to understand'. The passage I quoted in Mark 4:10-12 is quoted from Isaiah 6:9, 10 where God instructs Isaiah to preach the gospel so that they will not hear, nor see, nor understand and thus prevent them from 'converting and being healed'. Unless a man, woman or child is first regenerated; made alive by the Spirit of God, the 'outward call', i.e., the preaching of the true Gospel will only serve to harden them more. They will never turn willingly from their sins and trust in Christ for their salvation, for the hatred of God, Christ and all that is good is the disposition of their hearts and so they have a 'natural' hatred and aversion to these things. The nature of man first needs to be changed. And this only God can do. (2Tim 2:9). You then asked: Is it possible for someone to hear an inward call when they have never been exposed to an outward call? If so, what is the purpose of the outward call?' Yes, it is possible for someone to 'hear the inward call' without the outward call; either by the preaching of the Word, a witness of the grace that is in Christ Jesus, or by reading the Word of God for themselves. However, this is by far the exception rather than the rule. And the exceptions would be restricted to elect infants, and other elect individuals who are born with physical deficits, e.g., mental retardation etc. All others are called through the means which God has ordained to inwardly call His elect. This is the testimony of the Scriptures, that God uses means by and large, to bring about all that He has ordained. Nations are taken down by other nations, sickness is used to humble men or even take away their lives so as to affect other men, etc. And so it is with the gathering of the elect from the four corners of the earth; that through the preaching of men, sinners are brought to Christ. (cf. Rom 1:16; 10:13-17; 1Cor 18-24; Col 4:1-6; Jam 1:18; etc.). Third, you asked: 'What is the difference between Justification and being made alive by the holy spirit?' Simply put, 'being made alive by the Holy Spirit' is that secret and sovereign work of God whereby He secretly and silently recreates the corrupt soul/spirit of man thus bring about a radical transformation and change of nature/disposition within him. Whereas, in his natural state, the sinner is born with a corrupt and totally sinful nature and thus is predisposed to do only that which is evil. But when the Holy Spirit comes and regenerates (makes alive) this dead soul, the sinner apprehends his own sinfulness and the guilt and condemnation which rests upon him. He/she not only perceives these things, but is smitten by them, acknowledges them, repents of them and resolves to new obedience before God, trusting in Christ for the remission of his sins and looking to God for the will and strength to live righteously before Him. On the other hand, Justification is a one time act; a legal pronouncement of God whereby, having trusted in Christ with all one's heart, mind, soul and strength (as God enables each one according to His good pleasure), the believing sinner's sins are forgiven/remitted and he is declared righteous in Christ. The 'event' or 'experience' wherein this Justification takes place is called 'conversion'. This is when a sinner, having been secretly and silently regenerated, repents and believes on Christ. This conversion is something the person is aware of in most cases. The exceptions being noted above. To summarize then, regeneration is the sovereign, secret and silent work of God the Holy Spirit where a sinner is 'made alive/born again'. Conversion is the result of regeneration and is the actual fruit of that regeneration which is expressed in a true repentance toward God and trusting and hold on to the Lord Christ by a lively faith. Justification is that one-time pronouncement of God in which the sinner is declared righteous and adopted into the kingdom of God as a son. Fourthly, you asked: 'Why do you like Paul work so conscientiously and with such care to do righteously when your salvation is guaranteed by your election?' Election, in and of itself never saves anyone! :-) It is a guarantee that one will be saved to be sure, but you must realize that everything, from the eternal foreordination, predestination, election, calling, justification, sanctification and glorification of the saints is all of God's one eternal and blessed will to gather a people for Himself. Each part is essential and inseparable. Thus one who is justified will and must also bear the fruit of that justification as James makes so clear (Jam 2:17-26) as does the apostle Paul also teach (Rom 6:1-23; etc.). The Lord Jesus is not only our justification but also our sanctification (1Cor 1:30). If we truly love Christ, we shall keep His commandments (Jh 14:15; 15:10; Eccl 12:13, 14; 1Jh 2:3; 5:2, 3). For in fact, we are saved unto good works (Lk 1:74, 75; Rom 8:28, 29; Eph 1:4; 2:8-10; 1Thess 4:7; 2Tim 2:19; etc.). And lastly, you asked: Does God hear and grant the prayers of those who are not elect? Hmmm, this is a very difficult one to answer only because I am not privy to the secret workings of God. However, it would appear that God does not answer the prayers of sinners other than the prayer of faith. These texts certainly seem to indicate that this is true: (Job 27:8, 9; 35:13; Ps 34:15, 16; 66:18; Prov 1:28-31; 15:29; Is 1:15; 59:2; Jer 14:12; Mic 3:4; Jh 9:31; etc.). That God may in fact 'hear' the prayers of the non-elect may be true, but perhaps only to bring greater condemnation to them in that day of Judgment, whereby they will be shown the 'goodness and mercy of God' shown to them so as to lead them to repentance, but they would have nothing to do with Him in spite of His answering their prayers.
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: made alive by hearing His word
From: Rod
To: Christian
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 17:03:50 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
You refer to yourself as 'Christian,' and I sincerely hope that you are, but your constant questioning (without stating your actual position) of the basics of the faith is calling that into question. Here's a primer on salvation for you. All people who have ever been saved according to God's record have been saved in precisely the same way: 'by grace and through faith!' Abraham was born way before the cross and resurrection, yet the Lord Jesus said, 'Your father, Abraham, rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it and was glad' (John 8:56). All who thus see the revealed promise of God in His Word to them, whether directly as was the case with the prophets or through the holy writing, are thus saved if and when they believe that Word. That Word is all about Jesus Christ, the Lord, the Second Person of the Trinity: 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, the same was in the beginning with God' (John 1:1-2). Romans 3 and 4 is all about how Abraham received that Word, believing God by grace, and by grace having that faith counted to him for righteousness. That act of obtaining faith by hearing the Word of God is nothing less than what the pure declaration of the Apostle in a later chapter says, 'Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God (10:17). Furthemore, the straightforward and most elementary statement about how one is saved by God's grace through faith is in chapter 4: 'Therefore, it is of faith, that it might be of grace, to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, WHO IS THE FATHER OF US ALL' (Rom. 4:16). Tell you what, 'Christian,' instead of sniping at me and not declaring yourself, I challenge you to pick the verses in this post and the one above which are not true and should be stricken from the Word of God and declare them. You have made no case at all, but have, as I said, cast extreme doubt on yourself.

Subject: My *name* is Christian, not 'Christian'
From: Christian
To: Rod
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 22:13:27 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod, I see that my apology for my earlier (retracted) remarks has not satisfied you, so you satisfy your honor by returing accusations against my given name and faith. This is ironic since it was primarily your assurance of courtesy to heretics that persuaded me to stay. Christian of 'Christian' as you put it, is my name. It is on my driver's license. I was named after my Lutheran Great-Grandfather who came to America from Denmark (where the given name Christian is common). Christian is also my religion, whether you like it or no. Rod, if it galls you to call me by my Christian name, then feel free to call me 'Heretic' or the non-offensive biblical expletive of your choice. :) There are no verses in the New Testament that confuse me (except for Revelations, the prophesies of which baffle me) and there are certainly no verses that I think should be stricken. While I confess misguided irritation in my first post (hence my apology, which you did not apparently accept) this set of questions was entirely made in good faith, in the same sincerity that Pilgrim has answered these questions. I do not understand how the scriptures that you cite answer my questions. I will study what you and Pilgrim have said, and the Book of Romans (which seems to be a favorite here) and try to make the connections. I am not a theologian and did not come here to teach or preach, but to hear the word. I have only met one Calvinist before, and many of your concepts are new and foreign. If my questions annoy or distract from your discussion, then tell me to get lost, but please do not infer malice on my part.

Subject: Re: My *name* is Christian, not 'Christian'
From: Rod
To: Christian
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 00:35:37 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Christian, The way I read the posts and their timing, both this post to which you have replied and the one previous to which you issued an apology, were made prior to that apology, hence I have had no opportunity to hear of it until just now. You have a wonderful name and I do hope that you prove that it is a designation also, the mark of one saved of the Lord God. I would hear more of your faith and beliefs before I pass final judgment on that. (Incidentally, while we're correcting one another, it's 'Revelation,' singular, not 'Revelations' though multiple revelations are made.) I urge you to go back and reread your posts. To me, they present an unmistakeable pugnacity, from the attack on the rules and administration to the statement that, 'Clearly my opinions will be heretical to you,' made in reply to Pilgrim. It seems that you anticipate a degree of opposition (possibly a large one) and that you think those who don't oppose false doctine 'take their religion lightly,' but don't want the legitimate opposition applied to yourself. You are given a hearing and answers to what appear to be questions which are really a form of debate, a questioning of the doctrines of sovereign grace. I maintain that is 'sincerity' in its purest form. As for this statement, 'There are no verses in the New Testament that confuse me (except for Revelations, the prophesies of which baffle me),' that is pretty amazing. You're one of the few I know who are so far advanced in theology, frankly. :^) The greatest courtesy any of us can do you is to tell you the truth as best we can based on the Scriptures. I promise that I will extend that courtesy to you and all to whom I respond. You ended your post thus, 'I have only met one Calvinist before, and many of your concepts are new and foreign. If my questions annoy or distract from your discussion, then tell me to get lost, but please do not infer malice on my part.' Having been exposed to a sparcity of Calvinistic doctrine, it is vital that you go to the Highway's main page and study some of the documents there so that you can get a grasp on the basics. I was saved as an Arminian and remained one for several years, until the Lord gave me no choice by His Scriptural proofs but to reject it as utter falsehood. It was painful for me to do that and I did it most reluctantly because it wasn't the way I would have worked out the salvation of men! I thank God that He showed me the error of my thinking and that I was ignoring clear statements in His Word to have things work out to the Arminian, Semi-Pelagian way of thinking. As for 'telling you to get lost,' I will never do that. I have not the desire or the authority here. And as for 'inferring malice' on your part, you must admit that when you confess to 'misguided irritation' as you did just above, we have some reason to suspect your motives and intentions. For my part I would be delighted to discuss ideas, doctrine, and concepts with you, if the aim is to learn about sovereign grace. If the aim is to attack sovereign grace or prove the concepts false, then I think you can expect swift and certain reaction. You will not likely persuade me to return to Arminianism, as I left that behind, based on the precepts of God, years ago, be forewarned. And if that is or becomes your goal, I have no more interest in additional correspondence.

Subject: Query to Rod
From: Christian
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 13:00:57 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I forgot to address this intriguing phrase: it [the utter falsehood of Arminianism] wasn't the way I would have worked out the salvation of men What do you mean by 'working out the salvation of men' (do you mean bringing souls to Christ by proselyting?), and how does Calvinist interpretation help you to accomplish that goal? These are not rhetorical questions; I assure you that these terms are new to me and that my goal here is to understand. I enjoy debate but I lack the necessary understanding of your faith to debate you, even if that was my goal.

Subject: Re: Query to Rod
From: Rod
To: Christian
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 18:51:30 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Christian, I believe I didn't communicate my meaning as well as I'd hoped. Please reread that portion of the post and also allow me to explain. What I was referring to was not Arminianism at that point, but Calvinism/sovereign grace. You see, my pride made reject and want to keep on rejecting 'Calvinism.' To give God all the credit for saving me and all who are saved and admitting that man is not God's partner in salvation or the initiator of the process was not only contrary to everything preachers and teachers had ever told me, it was a blow to human pride. People feel that they sovereignly decide to turn to God, determining in the process whether to accept or reject God. That is the semi-Pelagian/Arminian viewpoint. What I have tried to point out in our discussions is this: The fact is that all mankind is born 'in Adam' (1 Cor. 15:21-22) and, consequently, are sinners ('by nature children of wrath'--Eph. 2:3). This means that 'There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God' (Rom. 3:10-11). That is the estate of every single person born since the fall of Adam: 'none,' not one, isn't dead in treapasses and sins (Eph. 2:1). Dead men cannot turn to God and make themselves alive. Furthermore, they have no will to do so. Their wills are governed by sin; they are, as Paul so uniquely states, 'free from righteousness' (Rom. 6:20). Righteousness has no hold on them and they have no desire for it or desire to do it. Hence, they have neither the desrie nor the ability to turn to God in Christ under any circumstances. Their whole being is governed by the mind and will of being marred by a sin nature, being 'in Adam.' Paul describes this situation in many places, but most tellingly in Romans 8 and 1 Cor. 2:9-16. The sum of it is this: 'For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. [Now note this most carefully] Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither, indeed, can be. So, then, they that are in the flesh cannot please God' (Rom. 8:6-8). And compare this: 'But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned' (1 Cor.2:14). Such is the man in Adam, the one born dead to God in trespasses and sin. He is free from righteousness. His mind IS enmity against God and nothing else. 'IS' is a state of being, a continuing state. This is the witness of the Holy Spirit about man in his natural state: paralyzed by sin and bound to do it because it is both his will and nature to do so. Thus, 'there is none that seeketh after God.' If God didn't have electing love for some and come to them in regeneration by His Spirit ('Ye must be born again'--John 3:3,7), they in no way could hear the inward call you have been discussing with Pilgrim and come in faith to God in Christ in the power and ability of the new life granted by the regenerating, indwelling Spirit. They can hear with ears of faith now, whereas before the 'natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him.' But now, after the regeneration of the Spirit, 'Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God' (Rom. 10:17). The same person who was 'bulletproof' to the Word of God before is now enabled to hear with the ears of faith unto salvation. That's the reason Paul says in chapter 1 of 1 Cor., 'For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish [the natural man, the man in Adam] foolishness, but unto us who are saved, it is the power of God,' (verse 18) because of God's grace in regeneration, because predestination and election have made it possible for him to be called inwardly, effectually. The saved person doesn't initiate the salvation process. Neither does he determine that he will be saved. God determines it all in eternity, in electing love, in predestination. It is by His action that the process begins and continues until the elect person is saved and brought to glorification in Christ Jesus: 'For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn [pre-eminent] among many brethren. Moreover [it's a continuing process], whom he did predestinate, them he also called, and whom he called, them he also justified; and whom he justified, them he also glorified' (Rom. 8:29-30). Man is the benefactor of the love and mercy of God. It isn't man who is the sovereign in this process; man reacts, because of gracious provision of the indwelling Spirit, to the grace and provision of the glorious God. Such is the wonderful state of the elect person, the one whom God has chosen in eternity to save from sin through Christ Jesus.

Subject: reasonable distrust is expected
From: Christian
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 12:10:50 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
'Clearly my opinions will be heretical to you,' I made this statement to be honest with you; to lay my cards down so to speak. I want to make clear that I am an outsider. However my agenda is not to teach, but to learn. I would like to understand the precepts of Calvinism. You will not likely persuade me to become a Calvinist, but I expect my beliefs to be challenged and refined, and my knowledge expanded. Where I am in error, I pray that the Holy Spirit show me the error of my thinking. May the Lord grant me the humility to accept truthes that He deems I am ready to understand. I assure you that my goal is not to change your beliefs, and if that becomes my goal, I will make that goal overt and not try to sneak my beliefs in like that snake in the garden that you brought up. As for this statement, 'There are no verses in the New Testament that confuse me (except for Revelations, the prophesies of which baffle me),' that is pretty amazing. You're one of the few I know who are so far advanced in theology, frankly. :^) I recognize and appreciate your totally appropriate irony :) Indeed, the reason that I came here was to be confounded by interpretations that I had not considered before, and thus rise from my rut to a higher level of understanding of God's Word. If the aim is to attack sovereign grace or prove the concepts false, then I think you can expect swift and certain reaction. My goal is to prove all things and to hold fast to that which is good. Surely along your path from what you call Armenianism (a new word that I am getting a better grasp of since my long reading yesterday) to Calvinism you asked some of these same questions, did you not? Was there swift and certain reaction when you asked these questions? As for 'telling you to get lost,' I will never do that. I have not the desire or the authority here. Authority is meaningful to me, but you invited me to stay and I stayed. If you invite me to leave, I will probably go silent. I do not wish to monopolize this board with my questions. Indeed the reason I keep my own beliefs close to my chest is that I am here to learn about your beliefs, not to teach you about mine. And as for 'inferring malice' on your part, you must admit that when you confess to 'misguided irritation' as you did just above, we have some reason to suspect your motives and intentions. Absolutely. I do not ask for your trust; I prefer to earn trust than to have it freely given. Until I earn your trust, I urge you to suspect my motives, but I ask you in fairness not to assume that all of my questions are malicious. There are some questions that I will not answer, but I do promise that I will not lie to you.

Subject: Re: reasonable distrust is expected
From: Rod
To: Christian
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 17:52:34 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Christian, As you can see from Pilgrim's very open and gracious reply to you below, the atmosphere here is congenial and that honest seekers are indeed welcome. That is the reason I answered you as I did in the beginning. I have never felt unwelcome here in spite of a few doctrinal differences, but recognize fellow believers who love the Lord and are dedicated to His truth. I think that anyone who also loves Him and seeks His truth above all will also find it so. You wrote, 'Surely along your path from what you call Armenianism (a new word that I am getting a better grasp of since my long reading yesterday) to Calvinism you asked some of these same questions, did you not? Was there swift and certain reaction when you asked these questions?' Actually, I'm certain I would have been a pain and invited to leave this board. I was exposed to sovereign grace doctrine by listening to a wonderful Bible teacher and seminary prof via radio and tape. I hated this teaching and actually had arguments with this man as he preached. When I listened to the tapes while walking nightly for exercise, I rebutted his delivery for a couple of years or so. The people who observed me 'talking to myself' in such a vehement manner as I argued with a person on tape must have thought I am more crazy than I am! :^) Then, one night I just couldn't argue anymore. As badly as I hated to admit it, I agreed that the things he was teaching were indeed Biblical and that my own interpretation was not Scriptural. It was a bitter pill at the time, but I am humbly grateful to the Lord for bringing me to this new understanding of doctrine which I have come to embrace and love. If you are interested in listening to some of these tapes, here is the website where you can order them and get a catalog. The Bible teacher is S. Lewis Johnson, Jr.. http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Estates/8364/BCTM/ Quality of the tapes varies, some of the older ones when they were first getting started are often poor, but the messages are worth listening to. There are other Bible teachers at this site also, such as John Gerstner and J.I. Packer, whom you might want to listen to also.

Subject: Re: reasonable distrust is expected
From: Pilgrim
To: Christian
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 14:36:47 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Christian,
Just a short note, if you can believe that hahaha, unless a monitor/staff member of The Highway indicates that your presence is no longer desired here, you are welcome and encouraged to stay and participate. Also, there is no limit to the amount of questions one may ask here, for this is the very purpose and design of this particular forum; to ask questions and receive reasonable answers to those questions. To be sure, as you already know, I myself, being only a man with a limited amount of time and many responsibilities, may in fact refer you to the repository of articles on the web site to better serve your needs. :-)
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: The Love of God
From: Pilgrim
To: Chris
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 09:08:56 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Bro Chris,
I believe you asked a very similar question last month on Tues, Jan 23, 2001 at 06:31:43 (PST), and I replied with this answer:
The love of the Lord Christ MUST BE the same as the Father's love since they are the ONE GOD. There can be no difference in the will of God since there is but ONE WILL. The objects of that will are those whom God Himself has chosen before the foundation of the world to be in Christ Jesus (Rom 8:39; Eph 1:4; 1Joh 3:16; 4:9, 16, 19) and them alone. The love of God is not simply some sentimentalism floating around in the Godhead. It is the expressive work of the will of God manifest to and in His creation. God's love is inextricably connected to the Lord Jesus Christ. Whomsoever is the recipient of the love of God is blessed with salvation and all the glory which is to come at the Lord Christ's return. Thus, if God loved everyone the same; everyone would be redeemed and eventually glorified. But we know the Scriptures are quite clear that only a remnant is to be saved and the remainder of mankind will face the LORD as Judge and be damned according to pure justice to the glory of God. The Lord Jesus was also discriminatory in His own life toward men, for His purpose was solely to do all that the Father purposed, (Joh 5:19, 30; 36, 37; 6:38; 8:28, 29; 10:30; 12:49, 50; 14:10, 11). And the will of the Father was for the Lord Jesus to lay down His life that He might redeem all those whom the Father gave Him (Joh 5:37, 39; 13:1 17:9, 10, 24-26) Joh 10:14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. 15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. 17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. 18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
In fact FredW and Rod also answered you and I twice. You cannot tell anyone indiscriminately 'God loves you!' or 'Jesus Christ loves you!' for again, the love of God in Christ is most always referred to in the Scriptures as salvific and not general benevolence. Secondly, it might be true that the stranger you want to tell, 'Jesus loves you. Jesus died for you.' is one of the elect. But there is no 'might' concerning how God views him/her if they are yet unconverted; they are under the wrath of God and subject to judgment unless God does love them, and they turn from their sins and cast themselves upon the mercy of God in Christ Jesus the LORD. (this is not to be understood as reciting a 'sinner's prayer' on the back of a business card). This being the truth about everyone; that God is angry with all unconverted men, women and children every day, wouldn't be more truthful and appropriate to tell this stranger, 'God is angry with you!! You are under His judgment and subject to condemnation! In truth, God may have an infinite hatred toward you!'?? :-) Since the number of the Elect is few compared to the whole of mankind which is under condemnation. And since the number of the Reprobate far exceeds that of the Elect. Then, surely, if you are wanting to 'play with possibilities', you will have a much better 'chance' of speaking the truth concerning people's condemnation and damnation as those who are the object's of God's holy hatred than speaking of the love of God for the elect. :-) Lastly, and very briefly, on what grounds do you think you have to tell a complete stranger that 'Jesus died for you!'? For if Jesus Christ gave His life as a ransom for this total stranger, unbeknown to both he/she and you, then this person's sins have been atoned for and they will infallibly be saved and raised up on the last day by Christ Himself. If however, it is more likely, that the Lord Christ did not die for this person's sins, to tell him/her that 'Jesus died for you!' would be a cruel lie at best and that which Paul says that all who say such things should be 'anathema'! (Gal 1:7-9). My recommendation to you Bro Chris is that you read: Introductory Essay to the Death of Death by J.I. Packer! Read the ENTIRE essay as it will address your question in great detail along with the biblical alternative as to how to speak to people about Christ. Also, you should go to the section: Calvinism and the Reformed Faith and read some or all of the articles under the heading The Gospel and Reformed Evangelism.
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: The Love of God
From: Chris
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 18:40:33 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Bro Pilgrim, Thanks for the info and encouragement, this is something that I have been struggling with for awhile. I dont remember asking this before, but my memory doesnt serve me as well as it used to:O) I read Galatians 1:7-9 and do want to say, I was saved in a Church that is 'Arminian in teaching' that was what I learned as I studied the Bible and was discipled in my first years as a Christian. According to this verse(9), that was the Gospel teaching that I recieved. Outside of Course, concerning faith in Christ,etc. It has been extremely difficult for me understanding the Doctrines of Sovreign Grace because of the Prior Teachings. Its as I can see verses on boths sides, but not able to balance them out. Anyway, I did understand what you were saying and read the verses you gave. It is, to my conclusion, that I do need to change the presentation of the True Gospel when dealing with unbelievers. Again, thanks for you help:O) Bro Chris

Subject: Re: The Love of God
From: Pilgrim
To: Chris
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 19:00:24 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Christian,
I appreciate your openness and willingness to learn something not only new but antithetical to what you have been taught by those, probably who you have a measure of respect and love for. Making this change is not always easy nor pleasant, but it can and has been done by many. There are some who participate on this very forum who were in the same 'boat' not too long ago and who could tell you of their own struggles and triumphs in casting off old beliefs and embracing the doctrines of sovereign grace. On a personal note, I too was converted under the preaching of a dear man of God, who I respected and still do respect, but who taught what is called 'Arminianism'. There was for me many sleepless nights and far too many questions that went unanswered in my initial time as a young believer. However, being determined to know the truth of God, and virtually obsessed by it, God in His providence and mercy upheld me through the trials that I had to pass through in my search. The Lord is faithful to those that earnestly desire Him and His truth.
Pr 8:17 I love them that love me; and those that seek me early shall find me. 18 Riches and honour are with me; yea, durable riches and righteousness. 19 My fruit is better than gold, yea, than fine gold; and my revenue than choice silver. 20 I lead in the way of righteousness, in the midst of the paths of judgement: 21 That I may cause those that love me to inherit substance; and I will fill their treasures.
Again, let me encourage you to read the articles that I have pointed you to on The Highway in the 'Calvinism and the Reformed Faith section. And whatever questions you might and will have, you can ask them here. I for one will be more than willing to try and answer them and direct you to the Scriptures wherein God works His grace.
In His Grace, Pilgrim Calvinism and the Reformed Faith www.gospelcom.net/thehighway/calvinism.html

Subject: Confused about the rules
From: Christian (Perplexed)
To: All
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 14:04:52 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
As I always do when I visit a forum, I went to read the forum rules before posting. But I found that [the wording of] rule #7 (Proselytizing or promoting the teachings of cults or damnable heretical views [emphasis added]) violates rule #1 [Pornographic or offensive language] (emphasis added). [edited by Christian, who is now less perplexed and more informed] Thanks to those who answered me on the thread below. You seem like a fine bunch of Christians and I apologize for making a mistaken inference from your rules.

Subject: Re: foul Language... In the Bible???
From: Bro. Charles
To: Christian (Perplexed)
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 20:32:16 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
First, the 'cuss words' that are in today's cuture are not evil in origin, but as a result of others using them for the wrong reasons they have become twisted in meaning. The Bible speaks of Hell. Is the Bible cussing?? Also the word 'bastard' is in the Bible and was used to mean what it means 'one who knows not his father' As in Heb 12:7-8 'If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.' Even the word 'damnable' (meaning condemnable) was used in 2 Pet 2:1 'But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.' The word 'ass' was the word for donkey as in Luke 13:15 'The Lord then answered him, and said, Thou hypocrite, doth not each one of you on the sabbath loose his ox or his ass from the stall, and lead him away to watering?' So then the question is not that that word was used in the forum rules, but that if it was being used in the proper (CONTEXT).

Subject: Foul, no. Offensive, yes!
From: Christian
To: Bro. Charles
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 15, 2001 at 09:59:56 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Thank you for putting so much thought into your responses! I have grouped them all together here to avoid duplication. Brother Charles: So then the question is not that that word was used in the forum rules, but that if it was being used in the proper (CONTEXT). Well said, Brother Charles; I agree wholeheartedly. My contention (or accusation, as Rod would say) is that the word is NOT used in its proper context. Brother Charles: Even the word 'damnable' (meaning condemnable) was used in 2 Pet 2:1 'But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.' Ah, but Peter defines the term damnable heresies in context, and as first apostle of the Lord he had the authority to make such a designation. He defines damnable heresies as teachings that deny the Lord that brought them, so his use of the word is informative, not merely an expletive pot shot at people whose doctrine Peter does not like. Peter's statement may be offensive to those it describes, but at least it serves a doctrinal purpose -- the word damnable is used with actual meaning, instead of being hurled as expletive. Your rule #7 contains no such explanation, and thus offends without purpose.
I, Christian, asked:
But I found that rule #7 (Proselytizing or promoting the teachings of cults or damnable heretical views [emphasis added]) violates rule #1 [Pornographic or offensive language] (emphasis added).
Pilgrim replied: How do you think that trying to proselytize a damnable heresy and/or a cult is somehow a violation of pornographic or offensive language? :-) Thank you Pilgrim for correcting my imperfect diction. What I meant was:
But I found that the wording of rule #7 (Proselytizing or promoting the teachings of cults or damnable heretical views [emphasis added]) violates rule #1 [Pornographic or offensive language] (emphasis added).
One of the Monitors said: Are you suggesting that using the word 'damnable' is offensive? Then being concerned for the souls of men is also offensive, I suppose--else why would we (in this context) use such language? The question, friend, is offensive to whom. Certainly being concerned for the souls of men is offensive to some. I am not suggesting that you cease to be concerned for the souls of others, but rather that you make your rules more specific, lest you be found breaking your own rules and so undermine the rules and your own credibility. For example, Brother Charles suggests above that you use the word 'foul' language instead of 'offensive' language. This would be a step in the right direction. CEvanglst4: As I was reading all of these reply's, a lil verse sneaked into my brain, ' James 3:2 ' For in many things we offend all. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body.' Hope this helps:O) P.S. Even in our most humurous attemps, we, if not careful can offend and cause strife. But were not many offended at the words of John the Baptist? Does not the call for repentance inevitably offend the pride? Brother Charles: First, the 'cuss words' that are in today's cuture are not evil in origin, but as a result of others using them for the wrong reasons they have become twisted in meaning. Absolutely true, Brother Charles! But this applies just as much to even fouler word than the ones that you list. S___ was a perfectly respectable words in the Cantebury tales, and even f___ is a corruption of the perfectly good Anglo-Saxon word 'fyght', meaning to batter or assault. Yet these words are nonetheless offensive, are they not. Brother Charles: Also the word 'bastard' is in the Bible and was used to mean what it means 'one who knows not his father' It is not used as a 'cussword', I agree, but would you not concede that the very concept of not knowing your father is offensive and degrading? If someone told you that your father could be anyone on the block, wouldn't you consider that an offensive statement? I would!

Subject: Re: Foul, no. Offensive, yes!
From: Rod
To: Christian
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 15, 2001 at 11:32:49 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Christian, First the disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for this board, nor am I a part of its ownership or administration. My opinions are just that, my own and a reflection of my views alone. That said, I must say I was offended by your statements in the initial post of this thread. I am offended because the monitors and Pilgrim do an outstanding job at being fair and true to the Lord according to my observation over the course of time. In fact the monitors have been almost silent (at least from the standpoint of having to filter out inappropriate and offensive posts for the last several weeks, even months. Posts have been deleted and people have been banned in the past, always in keeping with the rules and not without prior warnings. This isn't a 'free speech' forum, yet the administration is reasonably tolerant until a person's true intent and direction are clear. What I found insulting to my friends here is that you accuse them of 'taking their religion lightly,' though I assume by 'religion' you mean the worship of and service to the Lord Jesus. The general term 'religion' is not exclusively that definition in my opinion. I can assure you that they do not take it lightly and neither do the overwhelming majority of the posters. I think it is revealing that you posted below under 'still musing' this question: ''So what distinguishes a brotherly heresy from one that is 'damnable'?'' If that is a serious question, then I think you need to reexamine the meaning of the word 'heresy' and reread the context of the verse from Peter's Epistle which you quote above. It is possible to apply the word 'heresy' to any disagreement with the established doctrine of the group wherein one finds himself. It is most commonly at least theoretically applied to disputation of an accepted doctrine of the Church (universal, the body of believers), but since there are so many divergent beliefs and practices of the various branches of the Christian faith, it is difficult to nail down what is 'essential' and what is 'crucial' and what is ':important.' These distinctions are in descending order of relative importance, with the 'essential' items being of utmost importance to the true faith and necessary to be held by all Christians, the 'crucial' components being extremely important, but not absolutely essential, and so on. It is a 'damnable heresy' (by Peter's definition) to hold to 'Oneness' doctrine, for one example. Such people would be viewed as 'cultic' by the rules of the forum and would not be allowed to teach this doctrine. Arminianism, though distasteful to nearly all here (and 'damnable' to a few) is somewhat tolerated as Pilgrim has not deemed such men as Wesley cultic in spite of the grievous error he fell into. I have no doubt that is the explanation of the use of the term 'damnable heresies' as found in the rules. I have no doubt it was based solidly on Peter's verse you quoted and it, thus, is not offensive at all, but Biblical. It is commendable that you read the rules; I suspect few who come here do. It is not commendable that you misread them and prejudged the administration of the board.

Subject: Ominous ambiguity
From: Christian
To: Rod
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 15, 2001 at 13:12:02 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
What I found insulting to my friends here is that you accuse them of 'taking their religion lightly,' I made no such accusation. It was a question, and my question has since been answered. From what I have seen since I asked the question, I agree that it appears that they do not take their religion lightly. I am offended because the monitors and Pilgrim do an outstanding job at being fair and true to the Lord according to my observation over the course of time. In fact the monitors have been almost silent (at least from the standpoint of having to filter out inappropriate and offensive posts for the last several weeks, even months. Posts have been deleted and people have been banned in the past, always in keeping with the rules and not without prior warnings. This isn't a 'free speech' forum, yet the administration is reasonably tolerant until a person's true intent and direction are clear. That is commendable, and consistent with the gentle sincerity that I have seen them exhibit in response to my query -- a sincerity that protects them better than your words. I think it is revealing that you posted below under 'still musing' this question: ''So what distinguishes a brotherly heresy from one that is 'damnable'?'' As Brother Charles said, Context is important to understanding the meaning. I was responding to your own jest about your heresy, and Brother Charle's tongue in cheek response. It implied that some heresy is not damnable. As for the word 'Heresy,' I had understood that the word was coined by the Roman church to describe doctrines that contradict supremacy of the pope or other Roman Catholic doctrines. I did not realize that it had a place in a translation of the Bible until Brother Charles quoted it. It is possible to apply the word 'heresy' to any disagreement with the established doctrine of the group wherein one finds himself. Hence my question about what distinguished damnable heresies. It is most commonly at least theoretically applied to disputation of an accepted doctrine of the Church (universal, the body of believers), but since there are so many divergent beliefs and practices of the various branches of the Christian faith, it is difficult to nail down what is 'essential' and what is 'crucial' and what is ':important.' Precisely. Hence my question! It is a 'damnable heresy' (by Peter's definition) to hold to 'Oneness' doctrine, for one example. Such people would be viewed as 'cultic' by the rules of the forum and would not be allowed to teach this doctrine. Arminianism, though distasteful to nearly all here (and 'damnable' to a few) is somewhat tolerated as Pilgrim has not deemed such men as Wesley cultic in spite of the grievous error he fell into. Thanks to Brother Charles and your helpful explanation, I am now aware of one 'damning heresy.' Are there any others that I should be aware of before participating on this board? As far as I know I might be an heretic by the prevailing standards, but I do believe in submitting to local authorities as taught by the New Testament, so I would like to know the rules so as not to break them. It is a serious question. The rule does not just prohibit teaching, BTW. It prohibits 'defending.' For example, if you were to decide that my faith was a cult, and said that people of my faith ran around naked in blue paint, and I said that no we didn't, would I be breaking the rules by 'defending a cult'? It is commendable that you read the rules; I suspect few who come here do. It is not commendable that you misread them and prejudged the administration of the board. Given the response I have received here, that is probably what I have done. But in my defense, I did frame this as a question about the rules. From your reply, I guess the answer to my original question is NO, that you take your religion far more seriously than you take the rules of this discussion board. That would be a good thing, considering the ominous ambiguity of the posted rules.

Subject: Re: Ominous ambiguity
From: Pilgrim
To: Christian
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 15, 2001 at 14:41:39 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Christian,
It is unfortunate that you are pursuing the road you are on concerning the matter of the 'Guidelines', which have served this forum well for many years. Yes, we have had those who have railed against them, but in fact it was because they were those who held to one or more damnable heresies and didn't like the appellation earned by it. It is perhaps correct, as Rod has mentioned to you, that you have misread the Guidelines. And even further, from reading this most recent reply of yours, I have surmised that you didn't read all that was written on that page either. For if you had, then you would surely realize the doctrinal basis upon which all other doctrines are deemed 'heresy' here. There is made mention, and clearly, the 'doctrines of the Protestant Reformation' and a listing with links to explanations of, 'Sola Scriptura, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solus Christus and Soli Deo Gloria' as those doctrines upon which The Highway is established and seeks to make available to all for edification, sanctification and in other cases, admonition and rebuttal. The passage in 2Peter 2:1 is but one of three in the N.T. which specifically uses the word 'heresy' (Grk: aireseis apwleias) lit. destructive opinions. In the passage found in Peter's epistle, the reference is not to be restricted to only that 'opinion' which 'denies the Lord that bought them. . ., which is interpreted by some to mean the denial of the deity of the Lord Christ, which it very well may include. For the grammatical construction of the text itself, where in the English translations some have even denying the Lord. . . is rightly understood as meaning 'including' and not simply and expletive of what preceded it. Thus these 'destruction opinions' were far broader than the denial of Christ's deity. As to the nature of these 'opinions', it is noteworthy to see that the same word is used to describe their end both in verse 1 and verse 3, where it is translated 'damnation', in the KJV and 'destruction' in others. Thus the translation, 'damnable heresy' is justified and most acceptable. The first occurrence of this word 'heresy' is found in 1Cor 11:19:
'For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
From this text, we can see that these 'heresies' were not the product of those outside the local congregation, but the beliefs of those who were professing Christians and physically members of the Body of Christ. Thus, heresy is not restricted to cults and pagan religions, but rather includes even those doctrines held by professing Christians. The other passage where this word 'heresy' is to be found is in a rather inclusive list of things which Paul mentions in Gal 5:19-21:
'Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.'
As we can see from the passage itself, 'heresy' is enumerated along with many other 'foul' and 'offensive' things; all of which are 'damnable' for they who do such things, 'shall not inherit the kingdom of God'. It should be pointed out as well, that in all three passages quoted, this word 'heresy' appears in the plural, meaning that it isn't just one particular 'opinion' that leads to perdition, but many; a sobering thought indeed! I would also like to add something to what my dear brother Rod introduced in his reply above, addressed to you. He mentioned this 'foul' term, 'Arminianism', hehe. I personally hold that Arminianism is undeniably a 'damnable heresy', as did thousands upon thousands before me. However, it must be said that there are those who espouse Arminianism/Semi-Pelagianism who don't truly believe those doctrines in their hearts. Yes, there is a fortunate discontinuity; a disparity between what they hold to in their intellects and what they truly hold in their heart of hearts. Knowing this, these individuals are shown much compassion, patience and opportunity here to discuss their 'beliefs' and be shown the biblical truth. Is this all done perfectly on this forum? Doubtless not, for we are all fallible and feeble men and women at best. But we do try to honour God and His Word in dealing with all those who choose to participate in these forums. And where we fail, we pray for that forgiveness which is found only in the Lord Christ and make the appropriate apology(s) to men. Lastly, let me assure you, as the author of the 'Guidelines', they were written only after much thought, prayer and consultation. They may not be perfect, to say the least, and obviously they fail to meet your personal preference in how they are worded. But one thing is indisputable true; they are taken seriously, nearly as much as I take the person of the Lord Jesus Christ and the necessity of being 'in Him' for my reconciliation to God and the remission of my sins. :-) Now I hope we can let this 'sour note' pass by and that you will profit from the forum and the web site itself as it is a fine repository of what I an others take seriously. In His Grace, Pilgrim 'The Romans would have wished for the memory of the true God to be buried; and so, since it was lawful for them to offer and pay vows to all the idols of Asia and Greece, it was a capital offence to perform religious rites to the true God of Israel. In a word, when common licence was given to all superstitions, the only exception was the true religion.' - John Calvin (Commentary on Acts 18:17)

Subject: Re: Ominous ambiguity
From: Christian
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 15, 2001 at 15:07:55 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Yes, we have had those who have railed against them, but in fact it was because they were those who held to one or more damnable heresies and didn't like the appellation earned by it. I was not railing against your rules so much as trying to understand them, so as not to fall short of them. I have surmised that you didn't read all that was written on that page either. For if you had, then you would surely realize the doctrinal basis upon which all other doctrines are deemed 'heresy' here. Absolutely! Clearly my opinions will be heretical to you. What I am not sure, is if those opinions will be considered mere heresies (which are clearly tolerated here) or damnable heresies. Your elaboration on Peter was quite useful and informative; I read it several times and thank you for it. 'The Romans would have wished for the memory of the true God to be buried; and so, since it was lawful for them to offer and pay vows to all the idols of Asia and Greece, it was a capital offence to perform religious rites to the true God of Israel. In a word, when common licence was given to all superstitions, the only exception was the true religion.' Wow -- and I thought that was a new development in the US with the lynching of Ashcroft. Truly there is nothing new under the sun.

Subject: Re: Ominous ambiguity
From: Pilgrim
To: Christian
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 15, 2001 at 21:59:32 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Christian,
You confessed:
Absolutely! Clearly my opinions will be heretical to you. What I am not sure, is if those opinions will be considered mere heresies (which are clearly tolerated here) or damnable heresies.
Well, there's only one to find out for sure eh? :-) No one here can make you cast off a firmly held 'heresy', damnable or otherwise. However, what I can promise you is that you will be shown why it is not consistent with the biblical record and the appropriate alternative From there it's your choice. If you do in fact hold to damnable heresy of some kind, I would hope that you would want it to be exposed as such so that you could repent of it quickly. Let's be honest here shall we? If someone is shown that one of their pet beliefs is unbiblical and serious enough an error to be deemed 'damnable', only a regenerate individual would choose to keep it in spite of knowing what it truly is. Therefore, the person's 'problem' is not the 'heresy' held to, but the unregenerate state in which he/she possesses!! I am flattered and gladdened that you found my hurried exegesis of 2Peter 'useful and informative'. It is perhaps true that most people haven't taken the opportunity to give much thought to what 'heresy' is and the dire consequences of it in many cases. I pray that others, besides yourself, found my brief post as helpful as well. :-) Funny you should mention the 'lynching of Ashcroft'! Maybe you are too young in years to recall the blatant attempt to assassinate Clarence Thomas? hehe
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Ominous ambiguity
From: Christian
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 12:41:59 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Ah, I remember Thomas well, hence my choice of the word Lynching. But with Thomas, they did not admit that it was because he was religious. With Ashcroft they laid their anti-Christian malice bare. That's how far we have come in eight years! You may be interested in an article by Justice Thomas (how I love that phrase) and two about him in today's Wall Street Journal (http://www.opinionjournal.com) Well, there's only one to find out for sure eh? :-) No one here can make you cast off a firmly held 'heresy', damnable or otherwise. However, what I can promise you is that you will be shown why it is not consistent with the biblical record and the appropriate alternative From there it's your choice. If you do in fact hold to damnable heresy of some kind, I would hope that you would want it to be exposed as such so that you could repent of it quickly. Well-said, Pilgrim. I am convinced, and have edited my original question with apologies for the mistake inference.

Subject: Re: Ominous ambiguity (???)
From: Rod
To: Christian
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 15, 2001 at 14:19:05 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Christian, I will leave the prohibitions to others to define, as it is not my province since I'm not involved in ownership or administration. BTW, I find the rules neither ominous nor ambiguous. I am something of a 'heretic' here. I am 'Calvinistic' (though I prefer the term 'sovereign gracer'), but I am not a 'covenantal theologian' in the same sense that the general populace of the board is and I am a Dispensationalist. I am not bashful about defending my positions on any subject, but on those topics where I know I am in conflict with Pilgrim and the general makeup of the board, I don't go out of my way to disagree with them. My feeling is that I am a welcome guest here and Pilgrim and most others have treated me very graciously as a brother in the Lord. There is much warm felolowship I have enjoyed with several of the posters and I am pleased to call them brothers and sisters. Conversely, there have been posters from time to time who have been Arminian, non-Trinitarian, 'Eastern Orthodox,' Roman Catholic, and more with whom I have had serious disagreements over doctrine. In general the tone of the board is friendly, but most posters are not hesitant to defend their positions vigorously and, for the most part, very prayerfully and intelligently. May I suggest you click on 'The Highway' logo at the top of the page and look at some of the topics there, paying particular attention to the Archive section you will find near the end where posts for the past year or so are available? It should give you a feel for how seriously people take their stance for the Lord.

Subject: Re: Ominous ambiguity (???)
From: Christian
To: Rod
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 15, 2001 at 15:16:47 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I am not bashful about defending my positions on any subject, but on those topics where I know I am in conflict with Pilgrim and the general makeup of the board, I don't go out of my way to disagree with them. My feeling is that I am a welcome guest here and Pilgrim and most others have treated me very graciously as a brother in the Lord. So you are allowed to defend an heretical position if pressed? That is what I wanted to know. What I wanted to avoid was to be asked questions and not allowed to answer. That is what I feared from the rules. I am delighted to hear that I was wrong.

Subject: Re: Ominous paranoia(???)
From: Pilgrim
To: Christian
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 15, 2001 at 22:02:42 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Christian, Could this be classified as 'sanctified paranoia'? Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Confused about the rules
From: one of the monitors
To: Christian (Perplexed)
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 18:25:07 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hmmm... Are you suggesting that using the word 'damnable' is offensive? Then being concerned for the souls of men is also offensive, I suppose--else why would we (in this context) use such language? one of the monitors (who thinks someone is trying to be humorous, perhaps)

Subject: Re: Confused about the rules
From: Pilgrim
To: Christian (Perplexed)
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 16:52:22 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Christian,
First, and to be quite honest, I'm a bit confused about what you read on the Guidelines? You wrote,
But I found that rule #7 (Proselytizing or promoting the teachings of cults or damnable heretical views [emphasis added]) violates rule #1 [Pornographic or offensive language] (emphasis added).
How do you think that trying to proselytize a damnable heresy and/or a cult is somehow a violation of pornographic or offensive language? :-) Secondly, you asked:
I just wanted to ask if y'all take your religion as lightly as you take your rules.
This is an extraordinary question; never before has anyone asked such a thing in here in 6 years! :-) How is it that you think we take our religion 'lightly'? And further, what gives you the impression that our rules are also taken lightly?:-)
In His Grace, Pilgrim PS: Rod, Does this quench your interest? hehe

Subject: Re: Confused about the rules
From: Rod
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 21:15:16 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Pilgrim, My interest isn't abated; I found your answer interesting. I noticed Christian indicated he was 'perplexed.' I was very perplexed after reading his post. I would have liked to see more elaboration on his intent and meaning. Some have indicated that he may have been joking. Possibly. It sounded insulting to me. Originally I wrote in my post below 'insult' in the place of 'accusation,' but amended it.

Subject: Re: Confused about the rules
From: Rod
To: Christian (Perplexed)
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 15:24:01 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
I'm really looking forward to Pilgrim and/or the monitors' answers to this accusation.

Subject: Re: Confused about the rules
From: tREVOR
To: Rod
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 19:39:43 (PST)
Email Address: trevorjohnson@hotmail.com

Message:
WOW - Who caused the stink? Maybe it was a humorous observation.?!?

Subject: Re: Confused about the rules
From: CEvanglst4
To: tREVOR
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 15, 2001 at 04:49:13 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Howdy all, As I was reading all of these reply's, a lil verse sneaked into my brain, ' James 3:2 ' For in many things we offend all. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body.' Hope this helps:O) P.S. Even in our most humurous attemps, we, if not careful can offend and cause strife. CEvanglst4

Subject: Timely Article!
From: Pilgrim
To: All
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 13, 2001 at 12:09:05 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
There is a new article on The Highway which I feel is really 'timely'. I would encourage everyone to read this document, written by Pastor Brian Robinson. You can access it by clicking here: Canadian Pastors Answer Rome's 'Dominus Iesus' Additionally, there is also quite a few more things which have been added over the past few days. There is now a new section on the home page: The Charismatic Movement. You will find quite a few informative and edifying articles in there. And another great series on "The Deity of Christ" by J. Graham Machen is also now online here: The Deity of Christ. As for the other new articles and books that have been added, I'll let you find them for yourself.
ENJOY!
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Timely Article!
From: Trevor
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 19:41:38 (PST)
Email Address: trevorjohnson@hotmail.com

Message:
GREAT ARTICLES!!!!!!!!

Subject: Re: Timely Article!
From: Pilgrim
To: Trevor
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 20:21:34 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
GREAT ARTICLES!!!!!!!!
---
Trevor,
Nice Compliment. Thanks!
Well, we try brother! hehe There has been a slight change for the 'Dominus Iesus' articles just as of today. There is now a separate section dedicated to this ongoing event to which I will be adding current articles and responses as they appear. The section is located in the 'Roman Catholicism Archive' and can be seen here: Dominus Iesus Index. And as a note of interest, the sections "The Charismatic Movement" and "Dominus Iesus" have been added to the list of items on the Update Notification page. Just click the item(s) you are interested in and an e-mail will be sent to you when articles have been added.
In His Service and Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Somthing interesting
From: Brother Charles
To: All
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 21:42:29 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
My pastor and I work with the teen group and recently have been trying to teach them how to witness unto others. And we had them practice witnessing to each other, the one thing that I seen most of them do is just invite the other to come to church. (granted they at the time had not a lot of knowledge of scripture) But, I've said all that to ask this: are we any different when it comes to witnessing to others?? Do we try more to get the one we are talking to through the doors of a church in hopes that they will hear the Gospel? Or are WE telling them of how we where saved from a real place called hell, and of how we are not worthy to go to heaven by our selves, and of the way, the truth, and the life and that no one can come to the Father but by Christ's death, burial, and resurrection? By the grace of God, I hope we will and do. Brother Charles

Subject: Reformed Position on Rev.3:10
From: Brother Bret
To: ALL
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 19:26:35 (PST)
Email Address: Lovitz5@juno.com

Message:
'Because you have kept My command to persevere, I also will keep you from the hour of trial that shall come upon the whole world to test those who dwell upon the earth.' On one hand how can this be referring to the Philadelphia Church if it is the Great Tribulation as some propose? But if it Judgement as others have mentioned, how does 'to test those who dwell on the earth' fit in? Thanks, Bro. Bret

Subject: Re: Reformed Position on Rev.3:10
From: Pilgrim
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 13, 2001 at 20:43:06 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Bret,
Rev 3:10 'Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.
Let me answer your second question first: 'how does 'to test those who dwell on the earth' fit in?The words temptation (Grk: peirasmou) and to test (Grk: peirasai) as you can plainly see come from the same root word (Grk: peirasw). There are basically 2 usages of this word in the NT; one has a 'bad' connotation and the other 'good'. Here, it is the 'bad'. What I mean is that the 'temptation or trial' has as its purpose to bring about a negative result. In this particular situation, it is to expose and confirm the peoples of the world for who they really are; i.e., rebellious sinners who will not bow before God and honor Him nor His Christ. This same word is used by Matthew to describe the Devil as 'the Temptor' (Grk: o peirazwn) cf. Matt 4:3. Thus the ones, 'them that dwell upon the earth'in contradistinction from those who '. . . hast kept the word of my patience, . . .' who will undergo the 'trial' are those who are of their father the devil (Matt 13:38; Jh 8: 38, 41, 44; 1Jh 3:8-10, 12). And so, this 'temptation' serves to expose, harden and condemn them for who they are. Now as to the first question concerning whether or not this is speaking of the 'Great Tribulation'. I believe it is not an 'either/or' in regards to whether or not this 'temptation' which was to come belonged only to the Philadelphians or to a latter period in time. Rather I believe it is both. It is of historical record that great persecution came upon the churches of that time and area shortly after these words were written (c. 90A.D.) The church of Smyrna was obliterated and Christianity as a whole was almost extinguished. So it can truly be interpreted and applied to those addressed in the epistle directly. But I also believe, according to the overwhelming testimony of the rest of Scripture, that this warning of 'trial' but also of 'promise' is applicable throughout history, and particularly so for the very end of days. All Christians may receive this 'promise' of the Lord; that in spite of the tribulation that they might be subject to, they shall be kept from falling away and be numbered with those of the world. There have been many notable periods of persecution/tribulation in history. For example, think of the Mohammedans who slaughtered thousands of Christians. And there was the time during the Protestant Reformation, where the Roman state church murdered many who held to 'Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Solus Christus for Soli Deo Gloria'. All these in the past and myriad more in the future shall pass through an hour and finally in the very end the hour of tribulation. But the promise of the King of Kings shall be found true; that none shall be lost but will be kept by Him Who first called them and to Whom they are faithful.
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Reformed Position on Rev.3:10
From: Brother Bret
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 15, 2001 at 13:17:22 (PST)
Email Address: Lovitz5@juno.com

Message:
Thanks Brother Pil. Also, what of some alleged Greek Scholars that say that 'keep thee from' means to be 'kept out of?' Further, aren't there also some amillenialists that interpret this passage as the final judgment itself? That's why I also asked about 'to test those who dwell upon the earth.' Because that seems to take way form the interpretation of it being final judgment. But then again, couldn't John be looking back when mentioning 'those who dwell upon the earth' therefore allowing for that verse to be talking about the Great White Throne Jugdment? Thanks again, Brother Bret

Subject: Re: Reformed Position on Rev.3:10
From: Pilgrim
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 08:01:53 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Bret,
I don't know of any Amillennialists who would understand this text to be speaking of the Final Judgment. The text itself certainly won't allow one to insist on such a narrow time frame and or event, as it clearly is indicates a period of time. Secondly, I fail to see where this text even hints at the 'Final Judgment'?? Am I missing something here? or perhaps those who do are simply guilty of eisogesis! :-) As to the 'taking out' proposition, this is without doubt a 'wishful thinking eisogesis' which those who are intent on holding to that which the Scriptures do not teach; a 'pre-tribulation rapture', will go to any length to 'see it' in texts where it simply is not to be found. Go here: Evaluating Premillennialism and I think there will be plenty for your enlightenment and perhaps even answer this question! :-)
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Well-Said, Pilgrim
From: Christian
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 14:15:53 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
It is not either/or, indeed. The Lord rarely does anything only once, without a repetition, foreshadowing, or commemoration. There have been many times of tribulation, and many righteous have been saved from these times by the mercy of the Almighty.

Subject: Re: Reformed Position on Rev.3:10
From: kevin
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 13, 2001 at 06:08:45 (PST)
Email Address: amoshart@earthlink.net

Message:
Bro. Bret, I don't know if one would call this a Reformed understanding as much as an Amillinial understanding of that passage. Since I hold that the Revelation of John is a type of parable I understand the letters to the church to be both historical and spiritual in nature. John is indeed writing all of the churches that were in those locations and addressing certain issues that were occuring. In the case of the church in Philadelphia he is consoling them in a time of persecution for the early church. I don't think he is stating that they will not taste the persecution per say but simply that the Lord will strengthen them in the hour of trial but they will be spared the major stirring that many others will undergo. Their salvation from that could come in many forms, death, release, etc. Now on a spiritual level I see seven churches with Christ in the center as the whole body of Christ. The church of Philadelphia represents an aspect of the body as a whole. Here John is also speaking to us today. Here our Lord consoles us in our times of tribulation. Imagine what such a passage means to our brothers and sisters suffering in China! But this portion of the letter is not to all of us. Some of us will be in that great test spoken of. But praise be to God that He is able and willing to keep us in that day. I hope this helps some. In Him and for Him, kevin sdg sf ss

Subject: Starting a ministry...
From: David Teh
To: All
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 02:37:01 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi folks, I am wondering what your views are on how a ministry should be started. Should a ministry be started merely because some need is discovered? Should a ministry be started without the pastors or elders first figuring out the ministry's philosophy, values and purpose in the light of God's plan? Thanks!

Subject: Re: Starting a ministry...
From: Pilgrim
To: David Teh
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 08:36:42 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi folks, I am wondering what your views are on how a ministry should be started. Should a ministry be started merely because some need is discovered? Should a ministry be started without the pastors or elders first figuring out the ministry's philosophy, values and purpose in the light of God's plan? Thanks!
---
Hi David! :-) Personally, I would need to know what kind of ministry you are asking about? There are various kinds obviously, and I think different methods apply. Is the ministry a 'church planting', homeless shelter, prison visitation, etc.? In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Starting a ministry...
From: David Teh
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 17:17:44 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi Pilgrim, It's what some calls 'media ministry', involving the use of computers, Power Point and projectors during the worship service. It appears that some may advocate a distinction between the more 'primary' ministries such as the pastoral ministry and the pulpit, and the 'secondary' ministries such as Library, PA and tape ministries. The idea seems to be that the secondary ministries is all about getting things done and they don't need ministry philosophy, values and purpose.

Subject: A Personal Antichrist ?
From: Trevor Johnson
To: All
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 01:39:19 (PST)
Email Address: trevorjohnson@hotmail.com

Message:
I have been exposed to Dispensationalist heresy for so long that I have thrown out all thought of a personal antichrist. But now I am reconsidering the matter. Can anyone give me any advice? Is there going to be one man of sin, and a final apostasy?

Subject: Attack of the Personal Antichrists
From: Christian
To: Trevor Johnson
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 14:18:32 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Seems to me that someone has got to be the last one. But whether that one is somehow an ultimate or culminating one, I am not sure. Seems to me there is little new under the sun.

Subject: Re: On the serious side....
From: stan
To: Trevor Johnson
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 19:29:56 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I have been anticipating some posts on this one however.... I have been dinging around a little and found a string on the board in the archieves. I quoted it below to save you the trouble of finding it. stan
---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---
-- Subject: The Anti-Christ From: Tom To: All Date Posted: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 09:54:51 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: The Westminster Confession, Chap. 25, Art. 6 says 'There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof, but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.' Westminster Confession, Chap. 25, Art. 6 Although my understanding would put the Pope as 'an anti-Christ'. I don't think I would put him as 'that anti-Christ'. If my understanding of scripture is correct I would say that designation should be reserved for Satan himself. Am I understanding what the confession is saying correctly? Tom
---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---
-- Subject: Re: The Anti-Christ From: Five Sola To: Tom Date Posted: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 15:21:37 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Tom, Anti-Christ is not always used as reference to Satan, in fact most times it is not. In the eschatological sense it is an agent(s) of Satan and/or evil. But in many cases it is merely refering to someone who opposes the work of God and stands against it. I,II, III John mentions anti-Christ in reference to people who hold to various anti-christian heresies, (ie. not believing in physical death & Resurection, not believing in Diety of Christ,etc) If I'm not mistaken I think this is the meaning of the WCF. That the Roman church being an Anti-christian church is appropriately called an Anti-Christ for it is against Christ. Though there may be a deeper eschatological meaning to it that I am not aware of. [I am still the farely new presbie. :-) ] Five Sola
---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---
-- Subject: Re: The Anti-Christ From: Tom To: Five Sola Date Posted: Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 01:13:35 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Five I agree that anti-Christ is not always used in referrence to Satan. But I am not sure you are correct about what the Westmister Confession says. It seems to be saying that the pope is 'the anti-Christ' rather than 'an anti-Christ'. Tom
---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---
-- Subject: Re: The Anti-Christ From: Pilgrim To: Tom Date Posted: Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 06:40:56 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Five I agree that anti-Christ is not always used in referrence to Satan. But I am not sure you are correct about what the Westmister Confession says. It seems to be saying that the pope is 'the anti-Christ' rather than 'an anti-Christ'. Tom
---
Tom, As JOwen said, the WCF does state that the pope IS the 'Anti-Christ'! This is due mainly because the vast majority of the WCF divines held to a historic Post Millennial view. I'm not necessarily saying that they were right, but that's what they believed. :-) In His Grace, Pilgrim
---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---
-- Subject: Re: The Anti-Christ From: laz To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 02, 2000 at 06:45:57 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Pilgrim - So how does being a Postie force one to conclude that the Pope IS the anti-christ? Is it becasue they expected this man to eventually die and thus usher in the millenial age of peace and prosperity? Confused, laz
---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---
-- Subject: Re: The Anti-Christ From: Pilgrim To: laz Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 02, 2000 at 09:00:30 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: laz, You're asking the wrong guy... hahaha. I'm not a Postie! JOwen can better answer whether or not if a Post Mil position necessitates viewing the Pope as THE Anti-Christ. :-) In His Grace, Pilgrim
---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---
-- Subject: Re: The Anti-Christ From: JOwen To: Tom Date Posted: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 10:10:42 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Tom, Try this site in respect to your question. http://www.historicism.org/index.shtml JOwen
---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---
-- Subject: Re: The Anti-Christ From: Tom To: JOwen Date Posted: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 13:58:00 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Sorry I couldn't find any information about this particular topic, in the site you gave. Tom
---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---
-- Subject: Re: The Anti-Christ From: JOwen To: Tom Date Posted: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 15:27:35 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Tom, Yes the Westminster Divines believed that the Antichrist was the Pope, as did all the reformed and orthodox theologians of that time. On the site I gave you, you might want to look at: The Anti-Preterist Historicism of John Calvin and the Westminster Standards - A short article by Dr. Lee. Rev. Greg Price of the Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton 'Antichrist and His Emissaries Unmasked and Rebuked' Many ref's to Westminster 1638-1649. JOwen

Subject: As a 'dispensational heretic'...
From: Rod
To: Trevor Johnson
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 12:19:40 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
I decline to answer.

Subject: Re: As a 'dispensational heretic'...
From: Prestor John
To: Rod
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 20:27:06 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I decline to answer.
---
You know brother if you repent in sackcloth and ashes for about a month you'll get over those tendencies!!! Love ya brother!!!}:^{)> Prestor John Mi gardis la fidon

Subject: still musing
From: Christian
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 14:20:53 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
So what distinguishes a brotherly heresy from one that is 'damnable'?

Subject: Re: As a 'dispensational heretic'...
From: Rod
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 20:56:35 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Prestor John, I have so much to repent of I wore out three sackcloth suits last year! Thanks, brother! The feeling is mutual. :^)

Subject: Re: I might suggest...
From: stan
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 14:41:12 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
that the one that convinced you that dispensationalism was heresy may infact be that anti-christ which you seek! ;-) stan

Subject: Re: I might suggest...
From: Trevor
To: stan
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 13, 2001 at 00:20:30 (PST)
Email Address: trevorjohnson@hotmail.com

Message:
Aha, Both wit and wisdom from Stan Thanks

Subject: Re: some say..
From: stan
To: Trevor
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 13, 2001 at 08:27:52 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I'm only half funny ;-)

Subject: Devotional
From: Tom
To: All
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 09:00:00 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
I have recently writen a little devotional that I plan in using with some men I minister to. I was wondering if I could get a critique from this board, before I use it. Thanks
Are You Sure You Are Really A Christian?
Ephesians 2:8-10 says:
8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
Basically these verses are saying that God saves us as a gift (grace). Through the avenue of faith. This faith is a gift of God (“and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God”) We can not do anything for salvation, because it is a gift. God is the one who perfects those He saves. He perfects those who He saves and it is evidenced in those who are saved by a faith that works. Since we are saved by grace, God always gives faith to those whom He saves. In the book of James chapter 2:14-26, James talks about what true faith is. If we examine the context carefully we will see that works always accompanies true faith. We will also see that if these works are not evident, then it is very likely that such a person does not have true faith.
14What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? 15If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, 16And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? 17Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. 18Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. 19Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. 20But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? 21Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? 22Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? 23And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. 24Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. 25Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? 26For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
My pastor was trying to drive these points home, so he told a story about a friend of his, and his family who are sports fans. He said his friend and his family were not just people who said they were sports fans. It was evident in almost everything they did that they were sports fans. For example, if you were to go into their house, you would see Vancouver Canuck memorabilia, Vancouver Grizzly memorabilia, and Toronto Blue Jays memorabilia. Not only that they followed these teams regularly, by either going to games regularly, or watching them on TV. In other words this family didn’t just say they were sports fans. It is plain to all who know them that they are sports fans. In the same way, for a true Christian, it is not enough to say that one is a Christian. It should be evident to all that a Christian is a Christian. If that person doesn’t show faith in how they live, speak, etc., it is probably an indication that that person is not a Christian. Another passage of scripture that should be mentioned in order to truly find out whether one is a Christian or not is 1John chapter 3.
1Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. 2Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. 3And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure. 4Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. 5And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. 6Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. 7Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. 8He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. 9Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 10In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother. 11For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. 12Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous. 13Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you. 14We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death. 15Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him. 16Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. 17But whoso hath this world’s good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him? 18My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth. 19And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him. 20For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things. 21Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God. 22And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. 23And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. 24And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.
I want you to take note of what verse 3 says: “3And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.” What is the hope that this verse is talking about? This hope is not a hope that says “I hope so”. It is a hope that is based on a sure thing; it is talking about our very salvation. We either have it or we don’t. It is determined on whether or not we genuinely have placed faith in Christ. So in context, verse 3 is saying that anyone, who is genuinely saved, purifies himself or herself, even as Christ is pure. This is evidence that they are true Christians. What is meant by pure? Verses 4ff., talks about what is pure. It is based on whether or not one loves sin, or loves their Lord. In verse six we read: 6Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. Now we know that this side of heaven, no person will ever go without sinning. So if that is true, then this verse is saying something a little different that it appears at first to be saying. What we do know however, is that sin is a very serious matter and should not be taken lightly. This verse is contrasting the non-Christian with the true Christian. It is saying that the true Christian absolutely takes this matter seriously and will not go on in habitual sin. This would bring up other questions. “When does sin become habitual?” “How often does a person have to commit sin before it becomes habitual?” The verse does not reveal the answer to this, however the burden of proof should be on every Christian themselves. This burden of proof, as we read in verse 10, is based on whether or not we practice righteousness or unrighteousness.
10“In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.”
How does this make you feel? Where do you find yourself? Do you practice righteousness or unrighteousness? In any case, this should help you decide where you are with God. If you have found that you are not a true Christian, do not despair, at least you are not fooling yourself anymore. It is not too late to get right with God. Start NOW! Do not put it off till tomorrow, for only God knows what tomorrow holds.

Subject: Re: Devotional
From: Rod
To: Tom
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 12:35:32 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Tom, The best advice I can give you is this. If you feel you have been called to this ministry of the men's group by God, submit your presentation to the Lord, both the topic and the content, and allow Him to lead you in your presentation's composition. Be open to His leadership and confident in His guidance in your preparation. After its completion, prayerfully submit it to Him in willingness to change anything, delete it all and start over, or for His approval. He will make it clear to you, if you are His messenger, whether you are approved or not in your message. There are always those who will compliment you and always others who will criticize negatively (though possibly not to your face). Your approval comes not from men, but from the Lord. Confidence (not pride) in your calling and your direction from the Lord is one of the ways in which you know you are called of Him for ministry. Does your presentation honor God? Is it true, so far as you can determine from the Scriptures, to His Word? Are you confident it is THE message He would have YOU deliver? These are your guides.

Subject: Re: Devotional
From: Tom
To: Rod
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 01:07:03 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
Rod What you said is good advice. I hope you were not thinking I was seeking the approval of men? I was trying to get some feed back, because I am aware that what I am sometimes try to communicate, is not always what others understand me to be saying. I believe what I was trying to say is biblical, however as I look back at what I wrote, I see that what was in my mind to say. Is not what came out in print. (a dear brother in the Lord showed me this fact) In fact I am struggling with that at the momment. As I look at what I wrote, it makes it sound like faith is just an evidence that one is saved. Instead of our salvation, which is by grace alone, is *procured* through the instrument of faith. In other parts, it seems like I am teaching works righteousness. But that is because, I am not certain how to say it in a better way, and still get the message accross. I also see that it is possible, from what I wrote to get a person to doubt their faith. Which if that happens I have failed missurably, in communicating what was on my mind. Tom

Subject: Re: Devotional
From: Pilgrim
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 23:22:04 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod,
It seems that are totally dismissing the 'means' which God has established whereby such projects as Tom is attempting to do can be submitted and scrutinized? One of the fundamental 'means' is the Body of Christ wherein we find 'pastors/teachers and elders', who being set a part by the Spirit are given the gifts of knowledge and wisdom whereby they are able to discern if all things are sound and God-honoring. God the Holy Spirit hasn't yet sent me a post card to verify any decision I've made or that which I am contemplating to make! :-) I don't think 'feeling good about my work' is a reliable source for verity. Perhaps you could expand on what you said and thus clarify this point please?
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Devotional
From: Rod
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 13:14:51 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Pilgrim, My friend and brother, I haven't dismissed anything at all. I believe that you have overlooked some very fundamental things. You wrote: ''It seems that [you] are totally dismissing the 'means' which God has established whereby such projects as Tom is attempting to do can be submitted and scrutinized? One of the fundamental 'means' is the Body of Christ wherein we find 'pastors/teachers and elders', who being set a part by the Spirit are given the gifts of knowledge and wisdom whereby they are able to discern if all things are sound and God-honoring.'' Consider these things in conjunction with that statement. Tom is already 'ministering' to these men, according to his own statement. Someone has apparently already approved him as being capable of ministry, since he is doing it. If he is doing it as part of the local church ministry, the church leadership has presumably already judged him worthy of leading such a group. It is up to them to determine his qualifications, initial and onctinuing. If he has struck out on his own with this 'independent ministry' then he needs some local, personal oversight and assistance with it in view of the fact that he isn't confident of his message. Also, though there are gifted men obviously whom God has appointed teachers and overseers, I am convinced that 1 John 2 teaches that God has given the ability to discern the true message of God to His own by the indwelling of the Spirit within each believer, so that the elect won't be 'seduced' by false teachers (verses 26-27). It wasn't a restricted group of the Bereans who checked Paul's message against the Word, but all these people, whom the Word calls 'noble' (Acts 17:11). So the responsibility to 'test every spirit' resides in the overseers of the local church who select and approve teachers, as well as with those to whom the ministry is presented. I have never dismissed that and I think the body of the posts I have made here testify to those facts. Then you wrote this: ''God the Holy Spirit hasn't yet sent me a post card to verify any decision I've made or that which I am contemplating to make! :-)'' God the Spirit has given us a number of 'postcards' in the assurance of His Word, such as, 'Thy word have I hidden in mine heart that I might not sin against thee' (Ps. 119:11). I think if you reread my words to Tom, you will note that I encourage total submission to the Word and its leadership as the Spirit Who will guide us into 'all truth' (as you quoted a few days ago) applies His ministry to the followers of the Lord Jesus. I think I have written you personally before about having prepared a Sunday morning message for several days and with much toil only to have it changed by God at the 'last moment' to another topic. I received nothing in the mail or even in e-mail from the Lord to do that, but I had a powerful conviction to do it which I can only attribute to the Lord, since I had no personal inclination to change the message and abandon the preparation. And, having made the change, I was at peace with the decision. Additionally, several times I have known the leading of God's Spirit and Providence as He brought events and experiences into my life to help me to explain certain Scriptures and to shape my understanding of His ways. I have benefitted greatly from the teaching of the gifted men of God, not only Bible writers, but others whom God has used through books, tapes, and other media, as well as in person, but fundamentally I feel confident that God has called me (for whatever reason) as a teacher/preacher; that He will give me whatever avenue He chooses to exercise the gift and calling in His timing. If I waited until my doctrine is absolutely pure before delivering a message, I would yet to have delivered one! Yet, submitting my intent and the content to God, trusting in the ability and mission I believe He has given me, I follow Peter's admonition: 'If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister let him do it as of the ability which God giveth, that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ...' (1 Peter 4:11). I also feel an intense desire to try to help 'perfect the saints for the work of the ministry for the edifying of the body of Christ' (Eph. 4:12). Tom may never become a pastor/teacher, but he is mature enough and sound enough in the faith that he fits in with the description of men long time in the faith who are mature enough who are designated as 'For when for the time ye ought to be teachers...' (Heb.5:12). He has been grounded in the basics and loves the Lord. Furthermore, he has the desire to minister to others. If this is the gift and calling of God, then it is Tom's responsibility to act upon it in confidence. It is not his responsibility to run before God, but to serve as He leads. If he does that, Tom should do it in confidence from the Lord. _____________________________________________________________________ Finally, my writing above was to Tom and not necessarily to everyone in every aspect of desiring ministry. There are some people who have no business teaching and preaching. That is the reason that (local) oversight is necessary, so that the gift and calling may be verified by those who are gifted and can recognize the leadership of the Spirit of God in an individual. For example, I have been kicked off of two boards on the net for being 'Calvinistic.' Should I let that judgment by other professing Christians shake my faith in my calling? I think not. And my conviction is based on long years of study and an attempt to be true to the Lord God and His Word. His care and Providence have been unmistakeable to me, if not always in the manner in which I would have chosen. Noah's message wasn't approved of men. Jonah's, though he wasn't a 'carring preacher', was approved in acceptance by an audience he had no love for. Both men were God's prophets and his chosen messengers. I have not left out the means of approval of teachers and preachers, Pilgrim. I have tried to bolster Tom's confidence that, if he really has a call and gift from God, he should trust God to allow him to exercise it in power for His glory. We here scrutinize one another daily and critique one another's posts and doctrine. Tom has been subject to this, as have we all who are regulars. If I had felt that Tom had no gift or calling or shouldn't be exercising his gift to hone his skills and edify others, I would have told him so, either in a post or a private e-mail. I trust that is sufficeint 'elaboration,' which I feel was really unncessary. I would not have been so indulgent for very many people, brother Pilgrim. :^)

Subject: Re: Devotional
From: Tom
To: Rod
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 14:18:18 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
Rod To explain what I am doing with these men. It started about 5 years ago with a friend of mine who is a pastor. We started a ministry where we meet with some native men, at a local coffee joint. My friend is no longer living in the same town as me, and as it turns out does not hold some of my Calvinist beliefs. As I no longer have anyone with me in this particular ministry, I am trying to hold the fort alone. I have tried to get others involved, but as of yet I have been unsuccessful. In many ways, since my friend left town, the ministry isn't as successful as before. But as long as there is some life in it, I will continue in it. When I wrote that particular devotional, it was because I have been feeling a need to go a little deeper with the native men who still remain. I am not a gifted writer and often have trouble getting what is is my mind out in a way that is understood by others. If you read my reply above to you, you will understand a little more of where I am coming from. Tom

Subject: Re: Devotional
From: Rod
To: Tom
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 14:57:02 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Tom, I've had a lot of trouble logging on here the last several days. I wasn't even sure my reply to Pilgrim got posted, as I never received confirmation. My response to you was not negative, as you might have supposed. It was meant to be encouraging. You wrote, 'In many ways, since my friend left town, the ministry isn't as successful as before.' What are your criteria for judging success? Numbers attending? Numbers 'you have won' to the Lord? You are mature enough in the faith, brother, to realize that these are false indicators (and I know you know that the second is based on a lack of understanding election and God's timing), though everyone would like to have his teaching and Word ministry to be popularly accepted. There is one measure of success: Have I done the Lord's will as He would have me do it?

Subject: Re: Devotional
From: Tom
To: Rod
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 13, 2001 at 01:31:22 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
Rod I have also had a little trouble logging on myself. I know your response was not meant in a negative manner, and appreciate it. I agree in part of what you said also, however I also know my limitations in knowing how to communicate in a concise manner. Therefore I do not think it is wrong to go to a board such as this, so I can be relatively certain that what I am trying to say, is exactly what I am communicating. If it is any consulation to you, when I get any advice, I don't just recieve it as though it was gospel. I examine it with the word of God. I am well aware that numbers are not the criteria for judging success. Although I also believe that my part in measuring the success of the ministry is whether or not I have done the Lord's will, as He would have me do it. My point was, when my friend was in town, the men had someone whom they trusted and were able to share what was on their heart freer. I can not offer that side as good as my friend does. I miss that side of it, but I am also aware that God has His reasons for doing what he does. I however, believe it is time that I try to take this ministry a little deeper. If the ministry dies, then so be it. I have been feeling that this ministry is starting to spin it's wheels for a while now. Tom

Subject: Re: Devotional
From: Tom
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 01:22:05 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
Pilgrim Although I appreciated what Rod said to me. What you said in your post, covers a lot of my thoughts on the issue also. If you read my above post, which was written prior to my reading your post. It should explain why I asked the board to critique my little devotional. Thanks Tom

Subject: Re: Amen!
From: stan
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 20:00:24 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Had an old farmer in Nebraska come to me after the message to tell me how great it was. Had I not observed his sleeping through almost the entire sermon, I would have had a larger head than I usually do ;-) stn

Subject: Comments on the Book of Life
From: Brother Bret
To: All
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 06, 2001 at 13:02:05 (PST)
Email Address: Lovitz5@juno.com

Message:
Hi All: Lord willing, I will be preaching on Rev. 3 about the Sardis Church this Sunday morning. I plan on focussing on verse 5 and bringing in Rev.13:8 and 17:8 regarding the book of life. 13:8 says: '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.' For you Greek scholars and others, is this referring to the names also here (realize based on other Scripture that this is true nevertheless), or to just the book and/or the Lamb? 17:8 says '...and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world...' So here, the Lamb is not mentioned, just the names and the book. Also, I've noticed that during the almost 4 years that I have particpated on here, that Pilgrim and others have not used those verses to support soveriegn election before the foundation of the world. Look forward to your comments. I'm going to check into some commentaries also in the meantime. Thanks! BB

Subject: Re: Comments on the Book of Life
From: Pilgrim
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 14:44:43 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Brother Bret,
I'm not sure what you are wanting to know? The 'book of life' referred to in Rev. 3:5 is also mentioned in 17:9; 20:12, 15; 21:27; 22:19. The very first mention, by inference, was spoken of by Moses (cf. Exod. 32:32). It really doesn't make a difference as to whether or not the Lord Christ (the Lamb) is named along with the 'book of life' does it? The contexts of all these passages makes it clear that this 'book' is that which contains the particular names of all those who have been chosen to receive the adoption of sons among the saints. Let's look at the passage you are going to preach on:
Rev 3:4 'Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy. 5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.'
I included verse 4 as I think it is of crucial importance to see how these two are inseparable if a proper understanding of verse 5 is to be obtained. The Lord Christ says, 'Thou hast a few names . . .' These are those who have remained faithful while the vast majority of the congregation had only the reputation of being 'alive.': 'I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead.' (vs. 1b). Hence Christ's words, 'These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars;' (vs. 1a). In other words, it is the Lord Christ, through His ministers and the preaching of the Word has the ability to resurrect a dead church. In verse 2 the specific problem at Sardis is mentioned and it seems that they were a church that were practicing all the outward things; the forms, customs, traditions, etc., but the essence of those things was missing. A genuine love for Christ out of which good works infallibly flow were non-existent there. Thus they were 'playing church' as we say today. However, among these 'dead'; the majority of the members, there were those who had remained true and lived out their lives in gratitude and in accordance with the will of God. It is to these faithful few that the Lord Jesus first gives His approval (vs. 4) and says that because they hadn't defiled themselves, they assured that they will walk with Him in 'white'. In contradistinction to these few, a call to repentance is given to the rest, that if they overcome their deadness, walk worthy of their profession, they shall also, like the few whose 'names' Christ says are known of God, be clothed with white raiment and they shall be counted with the number of the elect whose names are written in the 'book of life.' Now here we must not make the mistake of thinking that the names written in the 'book of life' can be appended, either by addition or subtraction. But rather what is being emphasized here is that those who outwardly profess to be of Christ but are in fact outside of Christ, their names shall not appear in that 'book' on the last day. But if they show forth 'fruit meet of repentance', then they are given assurance that despite the obstacles they face from day to day and throughout life, if they overcome and endure to the end, their names shall never be removed. Although the doctrine of eternal predestination is infallibly taught throughout the entire Bible, we are never to presume upon God's grace and say 'let us sin that grace may abound!' Everywhere the people of God are enjoined to be obedient to the Gospel which they first heard. They are admonished to forsake sin and to press on to 'the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.' (Phil 3:14). It is only to those who 'endure to the end' that the blessings of Christ and of God are promised. So you see here, once again, we have that incomprehensible tension between God's indisputable sovereignty and man's full responsibility inseparably joined together. On the one hand we have the eternal election of sinners by God's predestination where He has written the names of those who He has given to the Son to redeem, written in the 'book of life.' Their names are eternally secure and can never be removed. And on the other hand we have the exhortations to endure, to overcome, to walk worthy; with unstained garments and to be faithful to Him whose name we name among men as being 'our Lord and Saviour.' It is to these and these alone who are given the assurance that they will be given white garments and whose names are indelibly written in the Lamb's 'book of life.' Lastly, although one could tie in the doctrine of 'sovereign election' to these texts which speak of the 'book of life', the passages themselves are contextually not emphasizing this truth. Thus, I for one, don't use them to 'prove' this doctrine as there are far more passages that deal with it particularly. :-)
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Comments on the Book of Life
From: Brother Bret
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 13:33:19 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Thank you brother, I couldn't agree with you more. I guess one of the points I was trying to make is whether to tie in Rev.13:8 and 17:8 to emphasize that God predestined these people before the foundations of the world and put their names in the Book of Life. Since I am going to preach on the Book of Life, I need to include that aspect of it too :^ ). BTW, I got your e-mail. But even though it took longer to get on here, I still made it...obviously. Sola Deo Gloria.....Brother Bret

Subject: Satan in the Old Testament
From: Trevor Johnson
To: All
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 23:49:45 (PST)
Email Address: trevorjohnson@hotmail.com

Message:
Hello, I would appreciate any input: Does Ezek. 28:11-19 really talk about Satan? I hate to overstep my theological bounds and assume anything, but the classical interpretation is that this portion speaks of Satan - but it seems to address the Kign of Tyrus. How should I regard this verse - it is very illuminating if it is Satan - but how can we know?

Subject: Re: Satan in the Old Testament
From: Rod
To: Trevor Johnson
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 13:40:37 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Trevor, I take the approach that this section speaks of Satan, and the king of Tyre, and of the area itself. Satan is the 'power behind the throne' of the king, but the king will act out of his heart and reap the judgment of God. Satan has already been judged. Some direct evidence that Satan and not a man is being described is evidenced by the detailed description of this exceptional individual. I won't rehearse all these, but note a few: 1) he was 'created', not born like every man since Adam; 2) he was 'in Eden'; 3) he was 'perfect' from the day of his creation until 'iniquity was found in thee.' Adam wasn't perfect, but rather 'innocent,' free from sin. No man has ever achieved perfection aside from the Lord Jesus. This one being described was remarkable. The reference to Satan's influence on the king of Tyre is reinforced by the statment of the Lord Jesus in John 8:44, 'Ye are of your father the devil....' All men have one father or Another. The child will show forth his father's nature. That the king of Tyre and his subjects did.

Subject: Question for Mary
From: Rod
To: All
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 11:20:01 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Mary, I lifted this quote from your post just below concerning how a person is saved: 'because baptism is for the believer who has made a decision and commitment to receive Jesus Christ his blood atonement for forgiveness of his personal sins.' I would be interested in what it is which caused the person to make that decision. In other words, does the decision making come from a man who is, though lost, sick of his sin and wanting to be free from it, from within himself, or is the cause from another source?

Subject: infant baptism
From: Mary
To: All
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 10:34:12 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I don't understand infant baptism because baptism is for the believer who has made a decision and commitment to receive Jesus Christ his blood atonement for forgiveness of his personal sins. Baby dedication, I understand, but not infant baptism. Can you give me a biblical background for this practice? Reformed Theology is new to me as I am a Christian with a conservative Baptist background. Thank you!

Subject: Re: infant baptism
From: Pilgrim
To: Mary
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 17:40:30 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Mary,
As Rod pointed out, there are several articles on The Highway that deal specifically with the subject of 'Infant Baptism'. Just click this link: Calvinism and the Reformed Faith and you will see myriad articles on various subjects dealing with Calvinism. If you scroll down a bit, you will the heading 'Ecclesiology' (the doctrine of the church) and under that the sub-heading for 'Baptism'. :-) This is one of the main purposes of The Highway web site; to provide accurate information concerning the historic Christian faith. I welcome your questions and look forward to myself and others being able to provide answers to help you.
In His Grace, Pilgrim
'The Romans would have wished for the memory of the true God to be buried; and so, since it was lawful for them to offer and pay vows to all the idols of Asia and Greece, it was a capital offence to perform religious rites to the true God of Israel. In a word, when common licence was given to all superstitions, the only exception was the true religion.' - John Calvin (Commentary on Acts 18:17)

Subject: Re: infant baptism
From: Five Sola
To: Mary
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 13:23:16 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Mary, I also came from a baptist background with a strong prejudice towards sprinkling/pouring and infant baptism. I am not Presbyterian, but this was a long time of studying and overcoming the interpretation to many scriptures that had been given to me as I grew up. As I began to study scripture, and notice the practices of the early church (1st century and on) I began to understand the meaning of the sacrament of baptism and it's importance. [I mean no offense to the many calvinist baptist on board here, as I count many (if not all) as my friends.] I am still not a good person to give good description/defense but I have many articles (most from the TableTalk issue on baptism) on my website. Also follow Rod's comment on reading the great creeds of the church particularly ones with scriptural proofs. http://home.flash.net/~wmnabors/Sacramentology/baptism.htm Five Sola Lighthouse Reformed Theology page --Baptism articles home.flash.net/~wmnabors/Sacramentology/baptism.htm

Subject: Re: infant baptism
From: Rod
To: Mary
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 11:14:48 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Mary, As I did in the previous thread, I urge you to click on 'The Highway' logo at the top of the page and look at some of the confessions and articles. They will be a vast help to you on these issues. Though I am not the best person to answer this (I am a 'Calvinist,' I am not 'Reformed'), I ask you to take a look at some of the statements of the Reformed about baptism. The Westminster Confession has several things to say about it, including this: 'VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.' You will notice that in this confession baptism is both a 'sacrament' and an 'ordinance.' An ordinance is something pronounced by the the Lord Jesus as a command for His followers to observe. A sacrament is something administered by the church which is believed to be 'a means of grace.' That is, in the non-Catholic churches, a sacrament (the Lord's Supper, baptism in water) is more than an ordinance (though it is certainly that), but also confers on the elect person 'graces' because the Holy Spirit uses the ordinance as a means of conferring that grace to the individual as God has intended for His Church. I hope I have done justice to this subject, not being Reformed myself. I think it is at least fairly accurate as to the belief of the Reformed.

Subject: Re: infant baptism
From: Prestor John
To: Rod
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 20:59:42 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
As one of the Reformed Baptists on the board (I know there are more of you out there I can hear you breathing) I thought I would just post the statements regarding baptism from the confession:
The London Confession of Baptist Faith, Chapter XXVIII Of Baptism and the Lord's Supper I. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are ordinances of positive and sovereign institution, appointed by the Lord Jesus, the only lawgiver, to be continued in His church to the end of the world.[1] 1. Matt. 28:19-20; I Cor. 11:26 II. These holy appointments are to be administered by those only who are qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ.[2] 2. Matt. 28:19; I Cor. 4:1 The London Confession of Baptist Faith, Chapter XXIX Of Baptism I. Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with Him, in His death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into Him;[1] of remission of sins;[2] and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.[3] 1. Rom. 6:3-5; Col. 2:12; Gal. 3:27 2. Mark 1:4; Acts 22:16 3. Rom. 6:4 II. Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance.[4] 4. Mark 16:16; Acts 2:41; 8:12, 36-37; 18:8 III. The outward element to be used in this ordinance is water, wherein the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.[5] 5. Matt. 28:19-20; Acts 8:38 IV. Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance.[6] 6. Matt. 3:16, John 3:23
As you can see it is referred to as an ordinance here. Prestor John Mi gardis la fidon

Subject: Re: infant baptism
From: Rod
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 23:19:24 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Prestor John, I didn't mean to slight the 'Reformed Baptists.' I was, however, thinking primarily of other groups. It is evident from those statements of the London Confession that baptism is not regarded by such as sacramental.

Subject: Re: infant baptism
From: Prestor John
To: Rod
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 06, 2001 at 18:47:34 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Prestor John, I didn't mean to slight the 'Reformed Baptists.' I was, however, thinking primarily of other groups. It is evident from those statements of the London Confession that baptism is not regarded by such as sacramental.
---
Well you'd think that but you'd be incorrect, in Keach's catechism he states:
Q. 98. How do Baptism and the Lord's Supper become effectual means of salvation? A. Baptism and the Lord's Supper become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them or in him that administers them, but only by the blessing of Christ and the working of His Spirit in them that by faith receive them. (1 Peter 3:21; 1 Cor. 3:6,7; 1 Cor. 12:13)
Showing that the Reformed Baptists that all though they called them ordinances, thought of them as means of grace, so they retained the sacremental aspect of them also. Lastly Rod, I didn't think that you were slighting the Reformed Baptists, thought didn't even enter my head. Prestor John Mi gardis la fidon.

Subject: Reform Theology
From: Mary
To: All
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 04, 2001 at 20:17:45 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Is Northland Community Church in Longwood, Florida a part of the Reform Theology? And is the Reform Theology simular to the Southern Baptist?

Subject: Re: Northland site.
From: stan
To: Mary
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 18:47:59 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
http://www.northlandcc.org

Subject: Re: Northland site.
From: Rod
To: stan
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 20:45:45 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Seems not to be Calvinistic/Reformed.

Subject: Re: Northland site.
From: stan
To: Rod
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 06, 2001 at 17:58:35 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Some of their staff teach/work at a 'reform' college or seminary. Hard to tell these days where people are!

Subject: Re: Northland site.
From: Rod
To: stan
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 06, 2001 at 20:25:39 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
stan, Maybe they have an identity crisis! :^)

Subject: Re: Ya, me three! ;-) NT
From: stan
To: Rod
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 14:20:21 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:

Subject: Re: Reform Theology
From: Brother Bret
To: Mary
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 18:13:13 (PST)
Email Address: Lovitz5@juno.com

Message:
There is a remant of Southern baptists caleed the Founders that are Reformed. Most of the rest are not reformed. There is an e-mail group called Founder's Friends if you are interested................Brother Bret Corerstone Community Baptist Church www.ccbcfl.org

Subject: Re: Reform Theology
From: Rod
To: Mary
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 10:48:07 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Hi, Mary, I take it from your question that this local church in Longwood isn't a Baptist church? All Baptist churches I've ever seen have the word 'baptist' in there title somewhere, but then I haven't been around much! :^) Although Southern Baptists do have much in common and hold some common beliefs, there are differences in local assemblies, so the Convention may say one thing that a particular local church doesn't hold to due to leadership and tradition. It sounds as though the church you refer to is one of the 'independent' assemblies. As such (if that is so) there is no way to know short of asking them their beliefs. You could write them asking for a statement of faith and a list of creeds they subscribe to and get a pretty good idea of their stance. Tom's suggestion of looking at some of the articles and material here is an excellent one. Click on the logo at the top right hand portion of the forum page and it will take you there. There is a search engine there to help, but view the entire contents first to see if something 'grabs' you. Hope this helps.

Subject: Re: Reform Theology
From: Pilgrim
To: Mary
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 04, 2001 at 23:47:38 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Is Northland Community Church in Longwood, Florida a part of the Reform Theology? And is the Reform Theology simular to the Southern Baptist?
---
Mary,
You could do a search online for 'Northland Community Church' and see if they have a web page. Or you can go here: Founder's Online, which is a web site for the Calvinist Southern Baptists. Then simply click on their e-mail link and ask them. It is very probable that they would know about this church in Florida, if it is part of their group. You can also try the several Christian based search engines here: Major Search Engines or the Church Locators section of The Highway. :-). The Baptist Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky is one training institute of the Southern Baptist Church which is strongly 'Reformed' in its theology. A friend of mine is a professor of Systematic Theology there. You must realize, however, that the Southern Baptist Convention is a very large denomination which consists of various and even opposing theological positions. As Tom said in his reply to you, there is currently a movement within the denomination to return to the historical Baptist confessions, which are clearly and strongly Calvinistic. (cf. The London Confession and the Philadelphia Confession). In fact, as an aside historical note, all the major denominations were originally Calvinist. :-)
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Reform Theology
From: Tom
To: Mary
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 04, 2001 at 22:19:10 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
I don't know about your first question. But as to your second question. The Southern Baptist Church has recently had a move back to it's roots and embrases Calvinism once again. They do not agree with some of Reform theology such as infant baptism by sprinkling, but they do hold to what is known as TULIP. By your post, I am not sure you understand Reformed theology. If not, you might want to check out the Highway home page. You will find many excellent articles, among them is an excellent article about a brief comparison between Calvinism and Arminianism. Tom

Subject: heresy
From: chief of sinners
To: All
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 01, 2001 at 19:52:12 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
what with the likes of arminianism, and open theism - at what point does the church stand up and say, 'thats heresy my friend'? mind you arminianism has already been condemned as such, but it seem to me (as a student at a major reformed seminary)that there is an overwhelming tendency to wink an eye or turn a head to such things.

Subject: Re: heresy
From: chief of sinners
To: chief of sinners
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 03, 2001 at 21:28:42 (PST)
Email Address: bcost@earthlink.net

Message:
in addition to my previous concerns....do any of you care to share your definition of 'heresy'
---
-there seems to be a broad understanding of what exactly qualifies as such
---
even amongst the 'greats'.....care to try thanks

Subject: Re: heresy
From: Five Sola
To: chief of sinners
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 03, 2001 at 22:30:13 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Well as I define it a 'heresy' is any false doctrine usually of a severe nature. That could be something as bad as doctrines misapplied or misinterpreted, (ie arminianism) or one that is severe enough to be able to call one's salvation into question (ie oneness theology, denial of diety of Christ, etc) I guess my point is that not all who have heretical beliefs are absolutely unsaved. For example, I consider (as I think scripture does too) that Arminianism is a heretical doctrine founded on man's wisdom and not Gods, and is actually a non-christian belief system, but fortunately for God's grace some if not most Arminians are not consistent in their false teachings so they themselves maybe saved, even though they hold to a non-christian teaching. Five Sola

Subject: Re: heresy
From: Blue
To: Five Sola
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 03, 2001 at 23:53:19 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
A heresy is in the eye of the beholder. To deviate from the norm, to go against the establishment, to seek a thing that no one else seeks... that is heresy. In order to have heresy we must first create the proper environment. You will need a well-maintained opinion; it should be widespread and entrenched. Then introduce one individual who thinks otherwise, and presto, you have yourself a genuine heretic. A heretic has a negative connotation by the majority. We cannot be a both a heretic and uphold truth at the same time. By definition if we are found a heretic (or more likely appointed by a group) then we must be in error. How do we know a heretic when we see one? They always have a different opinion than you, and they are adamant they are correct. Though you are adamant yourself in your own knowledge that your belief is justified; you know that you are not a heretic because you, fortunately, are correct. How do you know that you are not indeed wrong and the heretic's argument is right? Because you are in agreement with the majority and he is not. What does this have to do with theology? If the elect are but a tiny remnant of the whole and they are called to a different purpose, being in opposition daily to the majority... the elect are also heretics. If you are not a heretic to the world then you are its friend. I am a heretic and hope always to remain so. Blue

Subject: Re: heresy
From: Five Sola
To: Blue
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 13:12:29 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Blue, In one sense you have a point. Heresy being in the eye of the beholder, for heretics never see themselves as such, the only problem is true heresy is not a deviation from the norm but rather deviation from Holy Scripture. Typically Heretics return back to the norm of their own thinking & philosophies instead of remaining true to Scripture. A Heretic is not something to be desired for it brings damnation in most case. Five Sola

Subject: Re: heresy
From: Blue
To: Five Sola
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 06, 2001 at 19:54:52 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Five Sola, In one sense I agree. To determine heresy based upon the majority vote has little meaning. On the other hand, to measure heresy based on an incorrect use of Scripture is equally useless. How many people have been persecuted as heretics who were correct and their persecutors wrong, not that anyone advocates persecution. We end with one's opinion, no matter how learned it may be, weighed against another's opinion. Individually, the opinion is not opinion but a carefully considered fact. In the end, judgements are self-determined, between Scripture and yourself, we must judge ourselves by comparing Scripture with Scripture. When was the last time someone internally determined that they themselves were indeed a heretic due to gross error? It is a mistake, I think, to expect any declaration of heresy to be anthing more than a group agreement that it is such, and certainly not binding. In other words, every group finds the next group heretical, just don't get hung over it, physically or mentally. It is easy to say the JW or Mormon's hold heretical doctrines, for instance, because Scripture reproves them. The interpretation of Scripture is based on opinion,learned or not, and is open to disagreement, especially by the heretics under the microscope. One person's heretic is another person's patron saint. If we say the heretics are damned, then surely we are also in someone's world view somewhere. The only case where we are called to judge each other is within the church amongst the body of believers (supposed). The assumption being that you both have a commonality of views toward Scripture and can accept reproof from a like-minded individual. A heretic in your church would soon be removed, as it should be. Blue

Subject: Re: heresy
From: Pilgrim
To: Blue
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 08:17:01 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Ya know Blue, I have been wondering where this was going to go, and now I have a good idea eh? Now, just so I don't misunderstand you, are you advocating a universal 'acceptance' of all theologies at least to the degree that no one should call or even view another 'group' as heretical? Another question comes to mind quickly from your statements above, and that is you seem to be saying that no one can know the truth of God as it is revealed in the Scripture. And even if someone does come to know the truth, they wouldn't be aware that they had it! So what we are left with is just a vast array of opinions? But how is the believer to obey Paul's admonition
Titus 3:10 'A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; 11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.'
Secondly, if such a heretic is excommunicated from the church and begins his own little 'group', isn't his theology/view(s) still heresy? And can't it be judged as heresy by the another 'group' that excommunicated him/her even though that person is no longer among them? Of course, and I'm jumping the gun here without even allowing you to reply to my first question, but I'll phrase it this way: IF you are advocating a universal moratorium on calling others heretics because there is no foundation upon which to determine actual heresy then such a view would consistently lead to Agnosticism. Yet, the Lord Christ promised His disciples that the Holy Spirit would lead guide them into all truth (John 16:13). We are to beware of 'false teachers and prophets', but if all we have is a tenable 'opinion', then to do so would be next to impossible, for as you suggested above, 'One person's heretic is another person's patron saint.'. Doubtless some heresies are more difficult to discern than others. But all views can and must be scrutinized by the Word, using it's own hermeneutic and remaining faithful to the rules of grammar of the language employed. Will there be disagreements over certain doctrines? Surely, e.g., which church polity is the 'right one'; Presbyterian, Congregational/Independent, Reformed, etc. But these things invariably amount to non-essentials. However, the cardinal tenets of the Christian faith can be known and have been consistently held by all Christian 'groups' throughout the centuries as can be witnessed by consulting the Confessions of those groups in their origin. Indeed, Jude made it quite clear that there is a truth of God, contained in the Scriptures and called the faith
Jude 1:3 'Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.'
There are many other Scriptures which speak of one body of truth called 'the faith'; cf. Acts 6:7; 14:22; 16:5; 2Cor 13:5; Gal 1:23; Eph 4:13; Phil 1:27; Col 1:23; 2:7; et al. What encouragement does any individual have to study God's Word, IF one is only able to apprehend nothing more than an opinion? Can one actually be confident that God is? after all there are hordes of others whose opinions are just as valid, who are deemed heretics, who say there is no God! and/or no historical Jesus. Or, there are groups which have a totally different 'opinion' of who Jesus Christ was/is. Yet Paul says there is but one true Jesus Christ but many who would proclaim 'another Jesus' (2Cor 11:4) and 'another gospel' (Gal 1:6-11). In contradistinction to this notion that all one has at best is an 'opinion' that is no better than anyone else's 'opinion' I would contend that every true believer can come to know TRUE TRUTH and in fact does, else he/she wouldn't be of God; indwelt by the Holy Spirit who guides them into the truth. Will these true believers comprehend ALL truth? Certainly not, but they will comprehend and know essential truth(s), which are found in the Scriptures, and to which all true believers will assent and have over time. 'Without absolutes revealed from without by God Himself, we are left rudderless in a sea of conflicting ideas about manners, justice and right and wrong, issuing from a multitude of self-opinionated thinkers.' - John Owen (1616-1683)
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: The acid test of heresy....
From: Rod
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 13:12:13 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Pilgrim, you wrote the essential truth in this statement, brother: 'I would contend that every true believer can come to know TRUE TRUTH and in fact does, else he/she wouldn't be of God; indwelt by the Holy Spirit who guides them into the truth.' The person who is 'in Christ' has 'Christ in you, the hope of glory' (Col. 1:27). In the preceeding part of that verse, it is stated that 'God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles.' And to whom does He make it known? 'To the saints' (sanctified ones, those whom He has saved for Himself) the immediately previous verse says. He not only makes it known, He makes it 'manifest,' or obvious, to the one indwelt by His Spirit. Such as have not this Spirit indwelling them in sealing salvation (Eph. 1:13) are lost and dead in trespasses and sin (Eph. 2:1) they must pronounce sore and grievous error(s). It can't be emphasized too much or repeated too often that 'if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his' (Rom. 8:9). It is to these whom it is given to be guided into 'all truth.' When the newborn Church was gathered together in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost, 'they were all with one accord in one place' (Acts 2:1), true believers empowered and moved to be there, unified for the demonstration of power from above in possesion of the truth of God and faith in it. Lost people and heretics could never have been used of the Spirit to rock the world as these people did. Peter's sermon didn't equivocate or hesitate about the truth or the promises of God; it was delivered with firmness and packed full of the essentials which must be believed (verses 22-39) unto salvation. 'Without faith it is impossible to please God' (Heb. 11:6). Faith in what? Something reasonable? Something that some great, learned person says? Something that many others believe? Absolutely not. It is faith in God's revelation, His direct message and truth to His own, that Body of Truth which has been handed down and built on by those favored and gifted individuals directly from the throne of God by His Spirit. It is that adherence to that specific truth which marks out a faithful individual for 'he that cometh to God must believe that he is and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him' (Heb. 11:6). One 'seeks him' in the most simple and direct way, a manner in which all those saved approach him: 'Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness' (Rom. 4:3). 'Abraham believed God.' He believed specific truths from specific revelations. He lapsed and didn't always believe perfectly, but he believed God, not heresy, not partial truth. That is the manner in which Abraham was saved. And, just as importantly, it is the manner in which everyone ever saved was saved. Otherwise there is no need for, or truth in, this verse: 'Therefore, it is of faith, that it might be by grace, to the end the promise [the truth and promise of God] might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all' (Rom. 4:17). The 'seed' thus spoken of are those children of promise, those who are chosen by God to abide in the truth of God, that 'faith' Jude describes which 'was once delivered unto the saints,' the seed of the promise who are sanctified by believing the truth. That is what prompted John to write, under the inspiration of the Spirit of God: 'But the annointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you but as THE SAME ANNOITING TEACHETH YOU OF ALL THINGS, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, he shall abide in him' (1 John 2:27). Everything outside that abiding is heresy.

Subject: Re: heresy
From: Five Sola
To: Blue
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 06, 2001 at 21:07:28 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Blue, I still disagree with you. I can't quite place it but primarily the 'tone' you seem showing. Almost an indifference to the authority of scripture or a hopelessness in that no one can be sure they are right. Truly, I understand you point on the misuse of scripture which has been used to justify any and every sin man can devise from racism to abortion to homosexuality,etc., but that is why scripture must be it's own interpreter (which you mention). Now I think it is silly to get into the 'nitty gritty' and saying that anyone who differs with group A will be thought of as a heretic and must move on to group B with more like minded thinking. Personally I reserve the term Heretic for those that Scripture is clear about when taken in it's entirety. There are many groups and individual christians whom I disagree with, strongly even, but would never call them a heretic. A good point is many of the posters on this board; there are many baptist whom I disagree with on the topics of baptism (to take a recent subject). I think to dismiss the issue of appropriately calling a doctrine or person a heresy/heretic on the basis of subjectivism or just not fitting with the consensus is a bit far fetched. We are called to make such claims when appropriate and sure of it's accuracy (and I do believe there are times that we should keep silent due to uncertainity or other reasons). Five Sola

Subject: Re: heresy
From: Prestor John
To: Blue
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 04, 2001 at 15:58:43 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
A heresy is in the eye of the beholder. To deviate from the norm, to go against the establishment, to seek a thing that no one else seeks... that is heresy. In order to have heresy we must first create the proper environment. You will need a well-maintained opinion; it should be widespread and entrenched. Then introduce one individual who thinks otherwise, and presto, you have yourself a genuine heretic. A heretic has a negative connotation by the majority. We cannot be a both a heretic and uphold truth at the same time. By definition if we are found a heretic (or more likely appointed by a group) then we must be in error. How do we know a heretic when we see one? They always have a different opinion than you, and they are adamant they are correct. Though you are adamant yourself in your own knowledge that your belief is justified; you know that you are not a heretic because you, fortunately, are correct. How do you know that you are not indeed wrong and the heretic's argument is right? Because you are in agreement with the majority and he is not. What does this have to do with theology? If the elect are but a tiny remnant of the whole and they are called to a different purpose, being in opposition daily to the majority... the elect are also heretics. If you are not a heretic to the world then you are its friend. I am a heretic and hope always to remain so. Blue
---
Well my enfant terrible there is no doubt in my mind that you will get your wish. Prestor John Mi gardis la fidon.

Subject: Re: heresy
From: Blue
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 04, 2001 at 23:08:20 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
>>>>Well my enfant terrible.. Indeed! Quod erat demomstrandum. Ave atque vale, Blue

Subject: Re: heresy
From: Prestor John
To: Blue
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 20:39:43 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
This is what happens when you write in a language that looks like latin but its not. Ahhh well, Blua, mi ne parolas in la latino lingvo, mi parolas en esperanto. Komprenis? Gxis revido.

Subject: Re: heresy
From: Pilgrim
To: chief of sinners
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 08:04:55 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hello 'Chief',
I think one of the reasons for this 'eye winking' is that the masses have bought the contemporary, humanistic doctrine of 'schmooze'; a 'kinder gentler Christianity' which has injected a large dosage of agnosticism into the very veins of the church! This does almost as much harm, perhaps more so than some of the heresies they patronize. I can remember, not too many years ago, hmmmm about 20 or more now (gee how time flies when you are having fun!), when pastors would actually use the word 'Arminian(s)' from the pulpit and over the radio broadcasts, and not in a friendly manner either. The heresy and heretics were exposed for what they were; closet Roman Catholics, and the truth expounded boldly from the Scriptures. You won't find much if any of that today, except perhaps the random Arminian pastor/radio evangelist slamming Calvinism, . The demarcation line has been effaced and in many quarters completely removed! The history of Christian doctrine and its development is largely unknown by the average person, and sadly likewise, by seminary students and pastors too. The issues themselves have been long forgotten or sadly consciously set aside as irrelevant or 'unproductive' for a growing church. The average person in the pew desires to be entertained not challenged to think. And the average pastor is more than willing to give them exactly what their flesh is hungering for; the stuff that 'tickles the ears', 'smooth things'... (2Tim 4:3, 4; Is 30:9-11). It wasn't that long ago, at Princeton Seminary that the Liberals managed to gain the upper hand, as it were, and brought massive destruction to the churches. How quickly we forget how Satan works and how the wicked hearts of men are capable of being 'wiser' than the children of God. Personally, I doubt there is going to be much improvement over the years; i.e., a return to when black was black, grey was grey and white was white, despite the well-intentioned claims of our Posty brothers... ! :-)
In His Grace, Pilgrim 'It is an inexpressible grief to me to see the church spending its energies in a vain attempt to lower its testimony to suit the ever-changing sentiment of the world about it.' — Benjamin B. Warfield

Subject: Re: heresy
From: Five Sola
To: chief of sinners
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 01, 2001 at 20:49:13 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
You make a good point. I think the only 'excuse' that can be offered is Sin. Sometimes our desire to be liked or well looked upon cause us to disgrace our Lord. I will admit I have shied away from a topic or my beliefs a time or two because I didn't want to 'appear confrontational'. It is sad. I do praise God that He has given me boldness more often now and I do speak up or even start a subject with people now (still not as much as I should but I am still growing). Five Sola

Subject: direction of study?
From: Five Sola
To: All
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 01, 2001 at 12:47:23 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Dear reformed brothers, I am finally moved and am now settling down (ie books and things coming out of boxes - LOL). I realize quite a few things I need to fix, but let's just talk about one for the time being. :-) I realize I know less than I should in certain areas of doctrine, theology, etc., and would like to fix that but do not know where to start. I know most doctrines are interdependent on others (ie. one's view on the covenant affects their view on the church, or eschatology,etc) so where do I start? :-) For example, I had thought to use RC Sproul's 'Essential truths to the Christian Faith' as a outline and follow his order using other books, resources to study the topics in that order. Or do I grab on of the few Systematic Theologies I have and read it through, then get another one and do the same with it. The major problem with the later is that I would only get one persons perspective on doctrines until I reached another's S.T., but the former I am bound to get a better view of the doctrine overall but I don't know where to go for additional GOOD resources (and it could get expensive fast). Any suggestions, other ways I may have not thought about? Anyone willing to tutor me? :-D By His Grace Alone Five Sola

Subject: Re: direction of study?
From: Pilgrim
To: Five Sola
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 01, 2001 at 17:34:24 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Five Sola,
I would be of the opinion that you are beyond 'Essential Truths. . .' by Sproul! :-) And remember, R.C. has his own 'views' no less than anyone else. Knowing you somewhat, I might suggest reading through A.A. Hodge's Outlines of Theology or Berkhof's Manual of Christian Doctrine which is a compendium of his larger work Systematic Theology, which can be rather cumbersome if you aren't already indoctrinated into reading theological works.
But whatever you choose to read, do so with the Bible open and make frequent use of it; looking up the various Scripture references used by the author, taking note of the context etc. so as to gain knowledge from God's Word directly. This will also affirm the verity of the author over time and also point out his/her weaknesses and/or biases. :-) In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: direction of study?
From: Five Sola
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 01, 2001 at 20:37:43 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim, Yeah, 'Essential Truths...' is a bit basic for me but since I had it I was just going to use it as an outline so that I approached the whole fo christian doctrine in an orderly fashion and covered most things. I already know that I disagree with Sproul on many issue (apologetics being one he's classical and I am presuppositional). I have Berkoff, Robert Reymond, and Charled Hoodge's systematic theology. I'm tempted to start with Reymond's since last time I looked up some things Reymond's was the most understandable to my untrained mind. Maybe after working through that one I would be better prepared for Berkoff or Hoodge (minus the latin). My only concern is that Reymond states in the intro that he differs with berkoff/hoodge etc in various issues (I can't remember which). I guess no one is going to agree with the other completely so I just need to start and see where I 'stand' on the issues. Five Sola

Subject: Re: Rabbit trail.
From: stan
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 01, 2001 at 19:27:13 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Are Charles and AA Hodge related? Have Charles, not sure I've run across AA - in relation to theology anyway ;-)

Subject: Re: Rabbit trail.
From: Five Sola
To: stan
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 01, 2001 at 20:39:41 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
AA is Charles son. :-) Five Sola

Subject: Re: tanks! NT
From: stan
To: Five Sola
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 01, 2001 at 20:53:27 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:

Subject: Re: direction of study?
From: stan
To: Five Sola
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 01, 2001 at 14:41:09 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I'm not qualified under the 'reformed brothers' title, but always like giving my opinion ;-) I'd suggest getting a one volume Syst. Theo and read it as fast as you can looking for the basics - outline if you will and start sorting what you know from the Word into that outline and see if it fits. I would also suggest, maybe first, read through the Bible as fast as you can so you have a fresh look at His Word in your mind. I'm sure the 'reformed brothers' will have some suggestions on Sys. Theol. - wouldn't want to clutter the board with any dispie junk ;-) - well maybe a couple - Ryries Basic Theology or Cambron's Bible Doctrine. Well, if you insist one more - Bancroft has two different books on theology. Moody also has a handbook on theology. I think as you compare with the Word and what you've read on this board you will easily start picking the Sys theo. apart or plugging into what you are reading. Bible college near? - take a theology course or two. Personally I think the knowledge of the Word is the real need and then the theology you study starts making sense or making you upset ;-)

Subject: Re: direction of study?
From: Rod
To: stan
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 01, 2001 at 16:40:24 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Stan, At one of my favorite Bible teacher's suggestion, I read through the Bible once by his method: read 10 pages per day, finding a convenient stopping place (9 pages, 11 pages, whatever). If one is faithful, it takes about 6 months or so, depending on the print, notes, etc.. Five S, for what it's worth, I'd recommend reading some good Christians who aren't necessarily reformed (are there any??? ha,ha). I have several books with 'illuminating notes' I've written to the authors, some of whom are dead and all of whom will never see them. Some of those guys have things to say which are excellent, even if they are off the track in places. One such is a Scotsman by the name of C. H. McIntosh, whose works may be all out of print now. He hates some of the doctrines I love, but he did love the Lord. His doctrine is purer now! :^)

Subject: Re: direction of study?
From: Five Sola
To: Rod
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 01, 2001 at 20:58:41 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
rod, I will probably do that. In fact I enjoy it, after I have studied a subject I will read books/articles by people opposing that view and see if I can't answer their criticisms, if I can't I go 'back to the books'. But I need to get what I believe fully down first. :-) Five Sola

Subject: 'Printer Friendly Version'
From: Rod
To: All
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 01, 2001 at 12:13:08 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
What a great idea. Thanks, Pilgrim!

Subject: Re: 'Printer Friendly Version'
From: Pilgrim
To: Rod
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 01, 2001 at 17:19:38 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Rod, Yes, the 'Printer Friendly Version' is indeed a great idea. But I can't take credit for it, hehe. This is the work of Hotboards who owns the software for the Forums. They have been working on improvements the last 6 months or more and I'm sure you will be seeing more additions like this. There are other changes which only myself and the Staff will benefit from as they are administrative. But the end result will be a more efficient and user-friendly environment. :-) In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: 'Printer Friendly Version'
From: Rod
To: Rod
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 01, 2001 at 16:31:26 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
'Send to Friend!' Be still my heart! :^)

Subject: Missing Post
From: Brother Bret
To: Pilgrim and/or Monitors
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 01, 2001 at 11:56:14 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I had posted a message with 'no text' to Chrysostomos with the verses Jn.6:37;10:28 because he never answered me in a thread below. I noticed in disappeared. Did I violate a Website Guideline by doing it that way? I aplogize if I did, Brother Bret

Subject: Re: Missing Post
From: monitor
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 01, 2001 at 15:05:32 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
BB - I didn't see a message...so I thought you forgot to add a message or that you changed your mind. I gave it the heave ho thinking it was a boo boo. sorry bro! monitor p.s. at least you didn't lose much! LOL!!

Subject: Re: Missing Post
From: Brother Bret
To: monitor
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 01, 2001 at 17:27:24 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
No problem. :^ ). I know it is hardly ever done to open a thread. I'll repost it later, Brother Bret

Subject: Concern for a relative
From: Tom
To: All
Date Posted: Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 12:52:03 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
I have a relative who does not have a lot of Bible knowledge, who I am afraid is being duped, by someone with their own web site. Although, I am knowledgable enough to know that what is on this site is bad theology. For someone who isn't all that knowledgable. This persons site, would seem to make some pretty good points. I am trying to show, my relative, just how this person is wrong. But I think I need help in doing so. If there is anyone, who is willing to help in this regard, please go to the following site: http://www.remnantofgod.org/~nicholas/Truthpro.htm Either post your findings here or e-mail me. Any help I can get, would be very appreciated. Thank you in advance Tom

Subject: Re: Concern for a relative
From: Soldiers40
To: Tom
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 04, 2001 at 08:17:26 (PST)
Email Address: dhardy8@hotmail.com

Message:
Tom, this is a short conversation recorded from Firetalk between me and Nicholas11 from the Presents of God Ministry, --+--Original Message from Soldiers_39 [01/29/2001 - 03:53 PM] --+-- Nicholas, question, are you a Seventh day Adventist? --+--Original Message from Nicholas II [01/29/2001 - 06:34 PM] --+-- no, I am of Rev 12:17 --+--Original Message from Soldiers_39 [01/30/2001 - 12:21 AM] --+-- So you would FULLY renounce the teachings of Ellen G. White? and say shes a False Prophet? --+--Original Message from Nicholas II [02/03/2001 - 07:34 PM] --+-- Me thinks a FIGHTER is afoot. Go battle elsewhere! I need not prove myself to the likes of you! Interesting hey? If he was so right on in his Theology, he wouldnt be afraid to give me a straight answer

Subject: Re: Concern for a relative
From: Tom
To: Soldiers40
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 04, 2001 at 09:40:28 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
Yes, indeed that is interesting. I only wish you had told me of that conversation and others before. So I wouldn't have waisted the time of this board, thinking you were being duped by him. Now I have a little humble pie to eat. Tom

Subject: Re: Concern for a relative
From: Soldiers40
To: Tom
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 04, 2001 at 13:34:25 (PST)
Email Address: dhardy8@hotmail.com

Message:
Tom, I went to him after you had told me he was a Seventh day Adventist, i appreciate you telling me of what you found at his site, i know deep down your intentions were good, God Bless you for that, did you get a chance to look at the link i posted about the SDA and Ellen G White? It is quite interesting Also this guy NicholasII days are numbered, he has slandered many doctrines of the Faith, and especially the Catholic Church saying the Pope is the Anti-Christ, in some part i agree with him on some issues concerning their Faith, but to say that he is the anti-Christ is stretching the Truth, ive been in his rooms before when there has been undercover ppl in there collecting information so they could expose him publically

Subject: Re: Concern for a relative
From: Tom
To: Soldiers40
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 04, 2001 at 14:33:14 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
Yes, I checked out the site you mentioned about Ellen G White. It is interesting, Laz also gave me a link on her teaching. See his post in this thread.

Subject: Re: Concern for a relative
From: Soldiers40
To: Tom
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 15:39:34 (PST)
Email Address: dhardy8@hotmail.com

Message:
Another recent conversation between NicholasII and Soldiers40 Over 1450 pages on my site. Perhaps there are FOUR small quotes from Ellen White. I consentrate on the WORD. That is not to say White wasn't a prophet of the Lord. As far as I have seen she is (The ORIGINAL writings that is) You need to understand that the Catholic church has alos re-written HER work as well. That PROVES she must be a danger to them eh? Still... I do think she is a prophetess. But I don't quote her a lot because many people will look at it as a 'possible error' because she's just a human. They can't do that with the WORD tho... :) Tom, this NicholasII guy is one sick puppy

Subject: Re: Concern for a relative
From: Tom
To: Soldiers40
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 23:38:08 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
Glad to see you agree with me. Pray for him. Tom

Subject: Re: Concern for a relative
From: Soldiers40
To: Tom
Date Posted: Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 13:50:59 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom you said: I have a relative who does not have a lot of Bible knowledge, who I am afraid is being duped, by someone with their own web site. Now you know how i feel about you, NOT alot of Bible knowledge, first off YOU asked me what i thought on the KJV, and i told you and forwarded a link about the KJV, i agreed with his statement concerning that the NIV the NASB was corrupt and the NKJV, why would you get so paranoid about that? did i say i was clinging on to the herecy on his website? think again brother, you remind me of someone else in our Family, paranoia will destroy ya......lol And next time i would appreciate it if you would do your things in private, not on a board like this, your sins will find you out...... anyways if you want to find the info your looking for about Ellen G. White. here is a good link MacgregorMinistries www.macgregorministries.org/seventh_day_adventists/sda_index.html

Subject: Re: Concern for a relative
From: MaxN
To: Tom
Date Posted: Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 21:47:30 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Dear Tom, It's a 'fear' thing. Pretty simple. God is not the author of fear. ( I hate repeating myself....) God is NOT the author of fear. (Guess who is?) If you and your relative earnestly seek the truth from God in prayer I believe you will be rewarded. The seeker always finds out they are the object of the search. God Bless, max

Subject: Re: Concern for a relative
From: Pilgrim
To: Tom
Date Posted: Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 17:21:45 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom,
First of all I edited your message and corrected the URL so it now works! no charge!. So, I sauntered over to that sight and waited almost 5 minutes for all the brightly colored graphics to load, hehe, and took a brief look at was there. Brother, there is soooooo much heresy there I couldn't possibly tell you where to begin. So, perhaps for the sake of all of us here, who are willing to give you a hand with your relative, you might tell us just what specifically this relative of yours finds most appealing? Then we could try and address the issue(s) involved. Otherwise we will be chasing windmills. :-)
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Concern for a relative
From: Tom
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 01, 2001 at 00:11:42 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
Pilgrim Thanks for correcting the URL, however I did check it first before I put it here. I am not sure what happened. As far is the site being slow, I thought it was just that my Pentium 100 was just too slow. I guess I can hold off buying a new one for a while, lol. Of course you are right, there is a lot of heresy there. I think the thing about Saturday being the Sabbath and anyone who doesn't recognize this, is disobeying God's commandment. This person sounds like a Seventh Day Adventist, but I was told he isn't. If you have read very much on this persons site, you will notice that he has presented a lot of evidence that would seem to be very convincing to some. I don't think it will convince my relative, unless one can proove some of these wrong. The other main issue is about the Roman Catholic Church. But that certainly isn't the only thing. If I thought I could put in the time for research, I would do a lot more that I am. But, I am afraid by doing that it would cause both my spiritual and family life to suffer. Tom

Subject: Re: Statements of Faith/That Website
From: Brother Bret
To: Tom
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 01, 2001 at 11:52:40 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
This is from a website that a 'William' told 'Curious' :^ ) about on the Website's Discussion Board that we have been considering in this thread. Ellen White's name is written in there...Brother Bret 12. The Remnant and Its Mission: The universal church is composed of all who truly believe in Yahshua, but in the last days, a time of widespread apostasy, a remnant has been called out to keep the commandments of YHWH and the faith of Yahshua. This remnant announces the arrival of the judgment hour, proclaims salvation through Yahshua, and heralds the approach of His second advent. This proclamation is symbolized by the three angels of Revelation 14; it coincides with the work of judgment in heaven and results in a work of repentance and reform on earth. Every believer is called to have a personal part in this worldwide witness. (Rev. 12:17; 14:6-12; 18:1-4; 2 Cor. 5:10; Jude 3, 14; 1 Peter 1:16-19; 2 Peter 3:10-14; Rev. 21:1-14.) 17. The Gift of Prophecy: One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen.G. White. As YHWH's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. (Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 2:14-21; Heb. 1:1-3; Rev. 12:17; 19:10.) 19. The Sabbath: The beneficent Creator, after the six days of Creation, rested on the seventh day and instituted the Sabbath for all people as a memorial of Creation. The fourth commandment of YHWH's unchangeable law requires the observance of this seventh-day Sabbath as the day of rest, worship, and ministry in harmony with the teaching and practice of Yahshua, YHWH of the Sabbath. The Sabbath is a day of delightful communion with YHWH and one another. It is a symbol of our redemption in Yahshua, a sign of our sanctification, a token of our allegiance, and a foretaste of our eternal future in YHWH's kingdom. The Sabbath is YHWH's perpetual sign of His eternal covenant between Him and His people. Joyful observance of this holy time from evening to evening, sunset to sunset, is a celebration of YHWH's creative and redemptive acts. (Gen. 2:1-3; Ex. 20:8-11; Luke 4:16; Isa. 56:5, 6; 58:13, 14; Matt. 12:1-12; Ex. 31:13-17; Eze. 20:12, 20; Deut.5:12-15; Heb. 4:1-11; Lev. 23:32; Mark 1:32.) 23. Yahshua's Ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary: There is a sanctuary in heaven, the true tabernacle which YHWH set up and not man. In it Yahshua ministers on our behalf, making available to believers the benefits of His atoning sacrifice offered once for all on the cross. He was inaugurated as our great High Priest and began His intercessory ministry at the time of His ascension. In 1844, at the end of the prophetic period of 2300 days, He entered the second and last phase of His atoning ministry. It is a work of investigative judgment which is part of the ultimate disposition of all sin, typified by the cleansing of the ancient Hebrew sanctuary on the Day of Atonement. In that typical service the sanctuary was cleansed with the blood of animal sacrifices, but the heavenly things are purified with the perfect sacrifice of the blood of Yahshua. The investigative judgment reveals to heavenly intelligences who among the dead are asleep in Yahshua and therefore, in Him, are deemed worthy to have part in the first resurrection. It also makes manifest who among the living are abiding in Yahshua, keeping the commandments of YHWH and the faith of Yahshua, and in Him, therefore, are ready for translation into His everlasting kingdom. This judgment vindicates the justice of YHWH in saving those who believe in Yahshua. It declares that those who have remained loyal to YHWH shall receive the kingdom. The completion of this ministry of Yahshua will mark the close of human probation before the Second Advent. (Heb. 8:1-5; 4:14-16; 9:11-28; 10:19-22; 1:3; 2:16,17; Dan. 7:9-27; 8:13, 14; 9:24-27; Num. 14:34; Eze. 4:6; Lev. 16; Rev.14:6, 7; 20:12; 14:12; 22:12.) 26. The Millennium and the End of Sin: The millennium is the thousand-year reign of Yahshua with His saints in heaven between the first and second resurrections. During this time the wicked dead will be judged; the earth will be utterly desolate, without living human inhabitants, but by Satan and his angels. At its close Yahshua with His saints and the Holy City will descend from heaven to earth. The unrighteous dead will then be resurrected, and with Satan and his angels will surround the city; but fire from YHWH will consume them and cleanse the earth. The universe will thus be freed of sin and sinners forever. (Rev. 20; 1 Cor. 6:2, 3; Jer. 4:23-26; Rev. 21:1-5; Mal. 4:1; Eze. 28:18, 19.)

Subject: Re: Statements of Faith/That Website
From: Tom
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 01, 2001 at 13:36:51 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
Yes, I already saw that and checked it out. I know the name Ellen G White as someone who the Seventh Day Adventists believe is a prophetess. I have also heard that she has proven herself as a false prophet. But I am unaware as to what in particular she was supposed to have predicted. Anyone one have any information on her? Tom

Subject: Re: Saturday Sabbath
From: Pilgrim
To: Tom
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 01, 2001 at 17:25:27 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom,
As it is evident that the views concerning the Sabbath on the web site in question are that of Helen White and the Seventh Day Adventists, the following link should be of interest to you: Refutation of the Saturday Sabbath, etc. This is the last appendix to Dr. Francis Nigel Lee's monumental book, The Covenantal Sabbath, which is online in its original form. You can consult the Table of Contents for specific areas you might be interested in.
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Saturday Sabbath
From: sean
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 06, 2001 at 10:15:35 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim, How can Dr. Lee argue for the moral perpetuity of the sabbath,postlapsarian, DIVORCED fm it's eschatological signifigance, both for Adam,in his righteousness, and too for all of us who are now in the second Adam. In other words, how does the unregenerate participate & or rebel against an ordinance which is clearly not intended for him in light of the unregenerate's eschatological doom.

Subject: Re: Saturday Sabbath
From: Pilgrim
To: sean
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 06, 2001 at 18:01:57 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Sean,
I hope I am understanding your question as you intended it! hehe This is what it appears to me that you are asking: How can the unregenerate be required to participate in and held accountable for breaking the new covenant Sabbath? The short answer is because the Sabbath is moral; i.e., it is an expression of God's inherent holiness and thus that which is part of the inextricable relationship between God as Creator and man as the image-bearing creature. The 'day' is not moral however, but rather an incidental and thus it changed during the Mosaic economy (dispensation) from its original Edenic and prediluvian origin and then again at the coming of the Lord Christ. But the moral principle of keeping one day in seven is binding upon all men, regardless of their spiritual state. Now, what I'm not sure of is what inconsistency exists in the relationship to this matter and It's eschatological significance'? Perhaps you could expand on this part a bit more? :-)
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Here you go Tom
From: laz
To: Tom
Date Posted: Thurs, Feb 01, 2001 at 15:03:30 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Didn't read...but think it answers your question. My wife's best friend is a SDA....but starting to see the light. laz E.G. White Prophecies www.gotcheese.com/wayno/dave/sharing.htm#egw1.htm

Subject: Cults and Sharing the Gospel
From: Brother Bret
To: All
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 21:12:25 (PST)
Email Address: Lovitz5@juno.com

Message:
With the several admonitions to avoid, withdraw, turn away, not be hospitable, etc with false teachers, how biblical do you think it is when we try to reach out to cults such as JW's and Mormons and others? Look forward to the responses. Brother Bret

Subject: Re: Cults and Sharing the Gospel
From: laz
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Tues, Jan 30, 2001 at 06:36:45 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hmmmmm, I think the biblical issue/admonition you are refering to applies WITHIN the local Church (or within Churches that share the communion table) .... it may not apply to folks in other aberrant sects or cults, who rarely never darken our Church doors, and should be regarded as unbelievers and thus objects of our efforts to make disciples of all. But even then, there comes a time when we must also consider not casting pearls before swine, giving what is holy to the dogs after our efforts have been spurned. I got a question: Should pastors (the good ones) avoid contact with false teachers/preachers? Or should they try to reason with them from the Scriptures? laz

Subject: Re: Cults and Sharing the Gospel
From: Brother Bret
To: laz
Date Posted: Tues, Jan 30, 2001 at 13:48:10 (PST)
Email Address: Lovitz5@juno.com

Message:
Hmmm brother, you trying to tell me something? :^ ). I know, I know, if the shoe fits, where it hehe. I would think that the same thing would apply to Pastors. A couple of those admonitions are from Paul to Timothy. I'll look at the passages and contexts closer, but I don't know that all the admonitions are just for 'within' the local church. Would the 'withdrawing' and 'avoiding' be accomplished by eventual excommunication if there is no repentence by the erring person? Couldn't the admonistions also be to Christians in the Church as they deal with people in the highways and byways of life? BTW, I never did go on the radio show with that erring feller :^ ) Brother Bret

Subject: Re: Cults and Sharing the Gospel
From: Tom
To: laz
Date Posted: Tues, Jan 30, 2001 at 10:50:38 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
Laz You asked: Should pastors (the good ones) avoid contact with false teachers/preachers? Or should they try to reason with them from the Scriptures? It is my experience that many false teachers/preachers believe that they are teaching truth. Some even say if they are convinced by the scriptures that they are wrong in any doctrine. They they will bow to the scriptures. Given the fact that we do not know if that person will or will not, bow to the scritures, a pastor should try to reason with them from the scriptures. (if I may borrow a quote from you) But even then, there comes a time when we must also consider not casting pearls before swine, giving what is holy to the dogs after our efforts have been spurned. Tom

Subject: Re: Cults and Sharing the Gospel
From: john
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Tues, Jan 30, 2001 at 03:45:40 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
How is one cult different from another? Are they not all together unworthy: is a cult more unworthy than a Methodist or a Pentecostal. Are there degrees in needing salvation: some a little and other’s more? Here is a nautical analogy. There are a thousand ships on life's seas, all different, but all sinking into the depths of confusion. Death awaits them all. You have a means to save some, a life raft. You are called by the ship's Captain to present the case on His behalf. If any person on any doomed ship desires to be saved, then you throw out your raft and help rescue them. It doesn't matter if they are seeking help while aboard a 'cult' ship, or some other ship. You provide assistance to whoever desires it. If no one seeks your raft, then so be it, their blood is not on our hands. The danger when dealing with leaky vessels full of holes is that we should think to abandon the safety of our sturdy vessel or by their trickery compromise our position of safety and seek to tie ourselves to their ship. Nevertheless, there is no need for worry if we stick to the commission our Captain has given us. We are not to bind ourselves in any way with these lost ships, or lest we drown together. We are not to prop up what was meant to sink. Therefore, we throw our life preserver to whoever desires it, no matter the ship that carries them. Yet we stay aboard the safety of our secure vessel, high and dry, no matter what others might implore us to do. john

Subject: Matt. 24:13
From: Tom
To: All
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 12:45:58 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
At the risk of being misunderstood. I am definately not asking the following question to support Chrys' beliefs. I am trying to understand what Matt. 24:13 is saying 'But he that shall endure unto the end shall be saved.' I am sure that it is not saying what at first glance it seems to be saying, for that would be conflicting with other verses of scripture, such as 1 John 2:19. What is it saying? Tom

Subject: Re: Matt. 24:13
From: Pilgrim
To: Tom
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 17:20:50 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
At the risk of being misunderstood. I am definately not asking the following question to support Chrys' beliefs. I am trying to understand what Matt. 24:13 is saying 'But he that shall endure unto the end shall be saved.' I am sure that it is not saying what at first glance it seems to be saying, for that would be conflicting with other verses of scripture, such as 1 John 2:19. What is it saying? Tom
Tom,
What Rod replied is quite true. This text in Matt 24:13 is troublesome ONLY if one fails to keep straight the two fundamental doctrines of Scripture; God's absolute sovereignty and man's full responsibility. On the one hand, salvation is of the LORD (Jonah 2:9). From His immutable counsel in eternity to and through the elect's glorification, a sinner is in His hands. All is of God; we are saved 'by grace'! Therefore we hold to Sola Gratia, secured by Solus Christus and obtained by Sola Fide all of which is for Soli Deo Gloria as testified as truth by Sola Scriptura. (whew!) At the same time, on the other hand, it is the sinner who repents! It is the sinner who believes! It is the sinner who must endure to the end! Thus the inspired words of Matthew in the gospel are not to be diminished one iota. It is ONLY those who endure to the end who will experience that which they profess. As faith without works is dead, so is a life shown to be fallacious if it doesn't continue in those things which were first begun. Faith doesn't merit the salvation it brings! It is but the means by which one apprehends Him Who has earned the right to save. Likewise, the enduring enjoined doesn't merit salvation, nor does it put the actual salvation at risk, but rather it shows forth the salvation possessed. And so it is, that any who fail to endure to the end show themselves to be unconverted and never in possession of that which they professed to possess; reconciliation with God and the new life wrought by the Holy Spirit. We must not therefore, shy away from giving the full import of such texts as Matt 24:13 which exhort a person to do this or that out of fear of somehow compromising the equally true reality of God's predestination and preserving, providential mercy and grace. BOTH are true and must exist side by side, even though it seems impossible to reconcile the two in our own finite minds. The Scriptures teach it, we must believe it! :-)
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Matt. 24:13
From: Rod
To: Tom
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 14:55:15 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Tom, First, let me affirm that you are exactly right in reading the entire Bible to get your truth and not relying on one verse lifted from the Bible and its context to get your theology. Don't be shaken in what you know is true from the whole of Scripture. (And please see my post of a little while ago under 'laz and Rod.') Our friend Chrysostomos is fond of citing Luther, but one of Luther's statements from a sermon I quoted awhile back speaks to this. In that sermon, Luther deplored people saying that statements pronouncing security for Paul or another Bible writer were not doctrinal, but applied strictly to the person writing. Luther loudly proclaimed that such statements were 'doctrinal' and to be applied universally, to every believer, just as most of us here accept them. Salvation is both completed and ongoing in time. In Rom. 8:30 the entire process, including our final glorification with the Lord Jesus is viewed as past. That is as God sees it. But, in time, and as man sees it, it is both assured and is ongoing. We 'are saved': 'For we are saved by hope...' (Rom. 8:24). We 'have been saved': '...according to the power of God who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our own works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began...' (2 Tim. 1:9). Finally, we 'shall be saved': 'For whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved' (Rom. 10:13). That covers all the bases, doesn't it?

Subject: Re: Matt. 24:13
From: Tom
To: Rod&Pilgrim
Date Posted: Tues, Jan 30, 2001 at 11:07:31 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
Thanks Guys As you are aware, I believe the P in TULIP wholeheartedly. However that doesn't mean I know how to reconcile every scripture that seems to contradict it. It is for that purpose that I came to a place where I know that I can find some answers. I had earlier checked a few commentaries on the verse. Not one of them gave as good an answer as you. One in fact just said something to the effect that, we shouldn't take this to mean that one can loose their salvation. However, they didn't tell what the verse actually meant. Thanks for answering my question. :-) Tom

Subject: 1Joh2:19 Isn't it clear?
From: laz
To: All
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 11:02:17 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
1John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. 20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. 21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth. Is there something unclear about these verses. Does Chry really believe it's talking about teachers? That teachers who leave the flock prove they were never of the flock...but that garden variety believers who leave the flock were truly saved/believers who CAN and DO apostacize? Rod, is that what you said is the position held by Chrysostomos? blessings, laz

Subject: Re: 1Joh2:19 Isn't it clear?
From: Rod
To: laz
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 13:25:20 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Laz, Here is what Chrysostomos wrote to me from 'Wow, lots of topics to discuss' on Jan 23: (Lifting a quote from Rod) '>>>>All that's necessary to see that is to believe 1 John 2:19.' (Chrysostomos' response) 'You know, I did have a chat with Pilgrim about that verse last week or so (my original post to him on it was entitled 'question for Pilgrim') and he clarified what he meant by quoting it (given the rest of 1 John 2, which seems much more obviously appliciable to the individual believer). Anyway, I just don't understand making it such a pivotal verse in your argument, since it seems to be primarily directed at teachers (though there certainly is a component of individual salvation there). In any case, I think you're explaining away the clear meaning of my quote. However, I suppose that's the problem. The clear can't really interpret the unclear unless we're all agreed on which ones are clear to begin with.'

Subject: Thks for clarification. NT
From: laz
To: Rod
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 18:48:50 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:

Subject: Common Grace
From: Trevor Johnson
To: All
Date Posted: Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 18:02:50 (PST)
Email Address: trevorjohnson@hotmail.com

Message:
This question concerns common grace. There is that grace which does not save, but which provides some goodness even in the hearts of the unsaved. Otherwise, the unsaved would be at each other's throats instantly. God is merciful to all in this common grace, and love all with some gifts, and yet, does not love all with all gifts (namely, eternal life). My question: What is the relationship between God's common grace and Christ's purchase? I welcome all replies....this has the potential to make a good discussion and will help edify all involved - including me!

Subject: Re: Common Grace
From: laz
To: Trevor Johnson
Date Posted: Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 19:23:57 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hey Trevor! I think Christ's purchase of redemption for His people creates model citizens, great neighbors, charitable organizations, etc, etc...in otherwords, more common grace being dispensed to society at large on account of Christian activity and conduct. blessings, laz p.s. now if you're really asking about the extent/nature/purpose of the atonement...just come out with it! hahaha!

Subject: Re: Common Grace
From: Trevor
To: laz
Date Posted: Sat, Feb 03, 2001 at 22:36:10 (PST)
Email Address: trevorjohnson@hotmail.com

Message:
I know that Christ's death was one of bloody substitution, perfect substitution (therefore not a general atonement, but specially for his People). But can it be said that Christ died for even the reprobate in that he sweetens the earth with common grace? He died in substitution for the Elect, and he put aside God's wrath so that The Father allows the unsaved some natural goodness and some decades of existence on earth. Much common grace comesa through the church, but has Christ's death purchased the common grace beyond even the churches reach?

Subject: Re: Common Grace
From: Pilgrim
To: Trevor
Date Posted: Sun, Feb 04, 2001 at 07:57:41 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Trevor,
You asked,
But can it be said that Christ died for even the reprobate in that he sweetens the earth with common grace?
Since the Lord Christ's atonement was as you stated correctly, substitutionary then it could not have been for the reprobate. :-) I am wondering just why you are asking this specific question? There are benefits which the Lord Jesus Christ merited for His own that when applied to them have positive affects on the entire world. But there is nothing in the atonement which was merited and/or applied to the reprobate. Common grace is not something which had to be 'created' nor is it a 'fruit' of the atonement of Christ. It is that which naturally flows from God to all mankind; from the Divine Creator to those who are created in His image. However, God's wrath toward sin and sinners was not appeased for those who were not predestinated to receive eternal life. The 'Propitiation' of Christ was definite; i.e., particular. Otherwise, all men would be saved. Why? Because this propitiation consists of two parts:
  • The offended person appeased
  • That which offends removed
Thus God is that person who is offended; at enmity with sinners whom He will punish for their sins. And sin, both resident (the inherent corruption) and actual (inherited + personal) is that which offends and is removed by Christ's vicarious substitutionary work (death). If that which offends (sin) is removed, then not only is God appeased of His just and holy wrath against the offender(s), but because of the nature of the atonement itself, God's justice is satisfied and thus all who are included under this 'propitiation' (Heb 'mercy seat') are reconciled to God and thus heirs of God; adopted by His grace. So you see, that the atonement and salvation are inextricably joined and therefore can only apply to the elect; those given to the Son by the Father in eternity according to His eternal counsel and good pleasure. Again, Common Grace, is that which naturally flows from God and is applied to all mankind without exception. Saving grace naturally flows from the atonement and is applied only to the elect.
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Common Grace
From: Trevor
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 23:42:59 (PST)
Email Address: trevorjohnson@hotmail.com

Message:
Thank you, I am studying common grace and am trying to set boundaries as to what it does and does not do. I guess in a way, there was grace even before there was sin, in that God created mankind - would you agree? Thank you for the lengthy reply - it helped me quite a bit.

Subject: Re: Common Grace
From: Pilgrim
To: Trevor
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 06, 2001 at 08:48:48 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Trevor,
I'm glad you were helped. As to whether there was 'grace' before sin entered the world, I'm not sure I can agree or disagree. But here's a few items to consider in your reasonings:
  • Grace, defined as 'unmerited favor' could theoretically be applied to almost everything God does.
  • Sin was existent before the creation of mankind. Satan had already rebelled sometime before God created Adam.
  • Biblically, grace, when it is in relation to God, is used almost exclusively in reference to salvation, thus implying sin.
  • Is it useful to speak of grace in a general manner indiscriminately? Consider and compare the biblical use of the word love. The inspired Word rarely speaks of God's love in general terms and indiscriminately applied to all mankind.
In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Common Grace
From: Trevor
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Tues, Feb 06, 2001 at 19:48:38 (PST)
Email Address: trevorjohnson@hotmail.com

Message:
Thank you for aiding me in my search for the truth: Your last response brought up more avenues to explore. I am studying the doctrine of Satan right now. In your last post you mentioned that sin was already in the universe when God created man. That is right along the lines of some of the questions I have been having. Was it? - can you prove it (please do if you can)? I have heard some say that Satan probably fell when he saw that God gave the job of Co-Regent to man to rule and subdue the earth in God's stead instead of him. But I don't think that Satan was jealous of man, but God. Also, I am not so sure if the traditional passages in Isa and Ezek are truly about the devil or not. I don't like to build my beleifs upon speculation (maybe Ezekial was merely talking about the King of Tyrus after all). Look at my new post at the top of the discussion page. Please help me come to a more sure conclusion on these items. Your responses are read and appreciated, Trevor

Subject: Re: Common Grace
From: David Teh
To: laz
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 05:09:42 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi folks, I am kind of leaning towards the opinion that says the reprobate are living on 'borrowed time' until God's plan of redemption is complete. [Yes, I am a Calvanist.] The issue here, it seems, is what exactly is the fallen human nature.

Subject: Misconceptions of the...
From: Rod
To: All
Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 25, 2001 at 10:33:10 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
uninformed and nonreformed. :^) In reading some of the posts of the last couple of days, I was reminded that the majority most often don't understand some of the basics. I'm referring to the allegations of Chrysostomos that, according to the belief system of those of us here, that is, the Bible :^), God 'coerces' men into receivng grace/having faith/being saved if they are elect. He, according to that line of thought, forces them to come to Him disregarding their wills, whereas the 'right thing to do' is to allow them to make up their own minds whether they want him or not. It's often hard to deal with all the issues in a thread or post, since so many complicated things are brought up. One has to be choosy as to what he deals with or volumes will be written. And some of us (I won't mention any names, but one's initials are 'Rod') are too wordy anyway. :^) So, to set the record straight, neither the 'Calvinists' nor the Bible believe that man is forced to come to God in violation of his will. Man isn't cleaned up or wooed by God to come to Him either. I'm speaking of the natural, unregenerate man. That man is absolutely dead to God, God's total enemy. He is incapable of pleasing God and has no desire ever to do so (Rom. 3:9-20; 8:7-9; 1 Cor. 2:14). This is the result of the inheritance of Adam's nature; all men join him in the fall (1 Cor. 15:21-22). This natural man is hopeless and spiritually dead. He doesn't want to be redeemed and is not redeemable. His will is to serve sin and he is 'free from righteousness,' being dead to it (Rom. 6:20). His will is not violated; he gets what he wants. So, what is the answer then? How does a man become regenerate and saved? How does he come to God? The only way is this: God gives him a new will which is a result of regeneration. The Spirit of God comes to the predestinated/elect person because of God's love for him and makes him alive to Himself (Eph. 2:4-5). This 'new man,' the 'new creation' (2 Cor. 5:17), has, quite logically, a new will, a will from the Spirit of God Who gave him life. That will desires and is free to turn to God, to love and serve Him. Operating by faith, believing the Word of promise of God which he can receive for the first time ever (Rom. 10:17), the 'new man' freely and willingly turns to God by the grace thus provided and is saved by the gift of God through faith. The old man, with his old will, struggles through the flesh and its desires to overcome the new man and drag him into sin. When one is enticed and allows himself to, he does fall into sin (James 1:13-15). So the old man isn't killed. He must physically die to be disposed of. The old man's will isn't violated by God, but is to be kept under by faithful obedience of the new creation in Christ whose will is to serve the Lord God in obedience to his nature. That is precisely why no Christian is 'perfect' practically, but is perfect positionally. He sins, but he is seen by God as possessing the righteousness of Christ Jesus on account of faith gifted to him by grace, the sins of the old man being forgiven the new creation in Christ. ''BUT AS IT IS WRITTEN, EYE HATH NOT SEEN, NOR EAR HEARD, NEITHER HAVE ENTERED INTO THE HEART OF MAN, THE THINGS WHICH GOD HATH PREPARED FOR THEM THAT LOVE HIM [the reason the unregenerate perceive these things as ridiculous]. BUT GOD HATH REVEALED THEM UNTO US BY HIS SPIRIT; FOR THE SPIRIT SEARCHETH ALL THINGS, YEA, THE DEEP THINGS OF GOD...NOW WE HAVE RECEIVED, NOT THE SPIRIT OF THE WORLD, BUT THE SPIRIT WHO IS OF GOD; THAT WE MIGHT KNOW THE THINGS THAT ARE FREELY GIVEN OF GOD.' (1 Cor. 2:9-12).


Copyright 1997 Paradise Web Enahancements
All Rights Reserved