'Theology Discussion Group'

Subject: Contemporary Music From: Hail To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 30, 2000 at 07:02:24 (PST) Email Address: hailstreak@cs.com Message: Having been involved with fundamental Baptists for a short while in the past, I am very hesitant to set restrictions on things. Also, having been involved with the charismatic movement for most of my years as a Christian, I realize that we need to set some restrictions on music. I am a musician and play the trombone and drumset. I played the drums and trombone in the "praise and worship" band on-stage for a charismatic church for several years. Thankfully, the Lord led me out of this heretical movement. I'll give my two cents worth on the contemporary music issue. Not all contemporary Christian music is bad, and we must be careful in choosing appropriate music. Does the music convey a clear message? Is the message doctrinally pure? The message of contemporary Christian songs should be clear, directly to the point, and not confusing. We must reject music that propagates charismatic heresy and other unsound doctrines. Does the music style connote evil? The Bible says that we should abstain from the appearance of evil (1 Th. 5:22). Obviously, it would be wrong to play music in the form of Marilyn Manson and other evil bands. This music and much of hard rock, punk, and rap connotes evil. But, a lot of contemporary music no longer connotes the evil that it did in the past. Consider the first century Christians who abstained from all instrumental music. They did this because during their time, instrumental music connoted evil. These Christians associated instrumental music with the music of pagan temples, and they refrained completely from the use of instrumental music. But we no longer refrain from using instruments in worship (well, the Church of Christ denomination does). Now look how this relates to modern music. Some music that used to be associated with evil is not. I enjoy playing a variety of styles, including light rock, jazz, funk, and some Latin. I appreciate the many different styles of music we have, and I strive to make proper decisions in selecting which music to listen to and play. We must also make the distinction between regular listening music and congregational worship music. The rules are not as strict for the former as for the latter. But this does not completely eliminate the use of some contemporary instruments in worship. We must determine which music is fitting for worship by following some criteria. The message must come first and the music second. The music should not hide the message and should not be highly emotional. The message should contain blunt Bible truth. In the charismatic church that I played drums for, the "praise and worship package" was nothing more than an emotional roller coaster designed to produce great "moves" of the Spirit and emotional "decisions" for Christ. These moves of the Spirit were nothing more than human emotions and the decisions for Christ were completely false. The pastor would always have a total number of "salvations" the next Sunday saying how much the Spirit moved the previous week. In one case, one of these people who made a decision for Christ and was on stage jumping up and down frantically, was convicted of murder a few months later. I saw his picture in the newspaper, and this started to make me rethink my decisional regeneration theology. Music was always placed higher than the message, and many times (about 50% of the time) the pastor did not even preach a sermon. When he did, it was completely lacking of any hard Biblical truth. Obviously, music like this is extremely inappropriate for worship, and not reverent to God at all. Thankfully, the Lord led me out of the heretical charismatic movement. I now attend a Lutheran church that uses traditional hymns and Lutheran liturgy. Never has my focus been centered on Christ during church more than it is now. But my point about this issue is that not all contemporary Christian music is evil and inappropriate. Hail Soli Deo Gloria

Subject: Rap Music Comin' On... From: Lurker Jr To: Hail Date Posted: Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 09:51:04 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: This just in.... lj MC Hammer and others www.foxnews.com/entertainment/120100/christianrap.sml

Subject: Re: Contemporary Music From: Brother Bret To: Hail Date Posted: Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 22:49:20 (PST) Email Address: Lovitz5@juno.com Message: Hail: Thank you for your post. You said: 'The message must come first and the music second. The music should not hide the message and should not be highly emotional. The message should contain blunt Bible truth.' I think this is the point I was trying to make to BDavid. When music that does this is played, it doesn't matter what is preached, the message is lost and people will be willing to endure it because of the music. But yet as Pilgrim pointed out, most of the time liberal theology accompanies this type of music. I respectfully disagree with BDavid that all styles of music are neutral and not evil. It is a known fact with many, including those that God saved and came out of the hard rock and rap music scene, that those types of music cause rebellion and violence. I am no stranger to hard rock music either. In my 'pre-Christian' days I listened to groups such as Aerosmith, Foghat, Queen, AC/DC, Sweet, Boston, Styx, REO Speedwagon, Journey, Loverboy, Heart, Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Kiss...Some of their music gets you emotionally high (if the drugs that was associated with much of it didn't), and some of it cause rebellion against authority. It is also intersting that 'more direct satanic worship' is associated with this kind of music. Does this mean that the country music that talks about drunkeness, adultery and divorce or less sinful? Of course not. But I think if we do an honest study and evaluation of the situation, we will see that there are certain types of music that breeds rebellion and violence, and music that does minister to the flesh and not the spirit. Having said all that (thanks Hail), let me ask again: What does it mean when Christ tells us that God is Spirit, and we are to worship Him in SPIRIT AND TRUTH (Jn.4:24)? Thanks......Brother Bret

Subject: Re: Contemporary Music From: Bdavid To: Brother Bret Date Posted: Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 06:27:42 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Brother Bret and Hail, Blessings to both of you :-). I am greatly perplexed and bewildered that those who insist on the authority of scripture cite no scriptures to support this notion that 'these types of music cause rebellion and violence.' This is an extremely subjective judgement, and the reasoning basically goes like this: Many Christians are moved to rebellion by rock music. Rebellion is evil. Therefore rock music is evil. Four points here: 1. On what scriptural authority do you base this statement? Where in scripture does God upraid anyone for a particular style of music? Where can you say, 'This style of music is evil because it is written ...' 2. The fact that many Christians are moved to rebellion by such music I will not necessarily disagree with, but it is clear that the reason this occurs is because of their pre-christian associations with the music. There are Christians who, even after marriage, are uncomfortable with sexuality within their marriage. Shall I therefore conclude that sexuality, even within marriage, is wrong? 3. If I understand your view, it means that if I went to some remote part of the himalayas to find a community that knew nothing of rock music, and I took the lyrics out of some of these rock songs and replaced them with acceptable lyrics, then when those people listened to that music, they would be moved to rebellion, immorality, etc.. Do you really believe this? 4. Is the associations with rock music higher than the association of eating something sacrificed to an idol? I said in another thread, if your conviction is that a 'rock' or 'rap' style of music is evil, that is fine. But do not insist that I myself or other Christians must hold your conviction. To modify Paul's words on eating things sacrificed to idols, I think the proper motto as respects rock music is this: 'Let not him who thinks a rock melody is evil despise him who thinks a rock melody is not evil ...' Bdavid

Subject: Re: Contemporary Music From: Brother Bret To: Bdavid Date Posted: Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 12:25:28 (PST) Email Address: Lovitz5@juno.com Message: Dear BDavid: Thank you for your reply and Christian kindness. I guess we can go 'round and 'round about this. And we have a tendency to mix corporate worship and what is listened to outside the local assembly, together. You asked for some Scripture...'Finally brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy, meditate on these things (Phlp.4:8 NKJV). 'who knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice sich things are deserving of death, not only do the same things but also APPROVE OF THOSE WHO PRACTICE THEM' (Rom.1:32 NKJV). 'Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God' (1Cor.10:31 NKJV). 'Speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord' (Eph.5:19). Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him' (Col.3:16-17)'...Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy with God' (Ja.4:4). 'Do not love the world or the things is the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him' (1Jn.2:15). 'I beseech you therefore brethren by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God' (Rom.12:1-2). '...Have regard for good things in the sight of all men' (Rom.12:17). 'Put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill its lusts (Rom.13:14). Then of course there are the principles from 1Cor.8 and Rom.14 for which that much you have already agreed on. Back to the concern of church worship, do you hold to the regulatory principle (if it ain't in the word of God, you don't do it)? Or that if it ain't in the word of God, you can do it (forget what that's called)? Music was intended to be used to glorify God and worship Him in spirit and truth. Perhaps outside of the church there is a grey area where we have the grace to listen to certain types of music that does not directly gloify God, so long as we do not cause someone to stumble. Inside the church is a different story, and I believe there is no room to utilize music that feeds the flesh and doesn't minister to the spirit and glorify God. As Charles Spurgeon said, we would be amusing goats :^ ). I hope that you are not suggesting that a church could use so-called music from groups such as Petra and Stryper to worship the Lord? Or Christian lyrics to the likes of some of the groups I mentioned in my last post! Why is it that so many people need the harder stuff to supposedly worship the Lord? Is not the word of God, and words about the word of God (hymns) that we concentrate on, enough? Can a majority of professing Christians truly worship the Lord to 'A Mighty Fortress Is Our God' like they supposedly do to Spirit Song and Butterfly Kisses, or hard rock and rap music to the Psalms? With the many tares that have been brought into the physical/visible church with these types of music, I think we should to defer to the side of caution, as Pilgrom said earlier. I appreciate your dialog, kindness, and honesty in these posts. This is my last response in this area. This is something that is between you and the Lord :^ ). See ya on the next thread perhaps, Brother Bret Cornerstone Community Baptist Church www.ccbcfl.org

Subject: My last post on this topic From: Tom To: All Date Posted: Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 23:38:44 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Something I don't think that has been dealt with is the meaning behind Isa 58:1-7. What do these verses say a true fast is? If I understand what it is saying, it is saying that a true fast is spreading the gospel, and helping the needy. Is that correct? If we can not take that meaning of fast into verses like Matthew 4:2, would I be correct to say that there is more than one kind of fast in the scriptures, and context determines which kind of fast it is referring to? Please explain. Tom

Subject: Something Just Occured to Me From: Tom To: Tom Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 30, 2000 at 00:33:19 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: I know I said that in my above post, that it was my last post on this subject. But I feel I need to say something. If I am correct, I may have read Isa 58:1-7 wrong. I think I mistakenly thought the verses were saying a fast is spreading the gospel and helping the needy, etc.. But as I re-read the verse, I think it is saying why we are to fast, not how to fast. Verse four tells us that these people were fasting for very selfish reasons ('FOR strife and debate,..). If my understanding is correct, they were not being condemned for their method of fasting, but for why they fasted. Any comments? Tom

Subject: Re: Something Just Occured to Me From: Rod To: Tom Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 30, 2000 at 11:18:18 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Tom, Quite honestly, I haven't read all the posts on this fasting issue. Frankly, I don't believe it's an issue at all and fasting means just that, self-denial of food for spiritual devotion to God. I hope that you won't be troubled by this much longer, as it's not that difficult, though I do admire your zeal and desire to be certain about issues, as usual. I would ask you to consider these two things if they haven't been put forth before. In the context of Matt. 3:1-4, the Lord Jesus fasted and was afterward 'hungry.' How much more clear can it be? And because he had an intense desire and need for physical food, His first temptation was to turn stones into bread. That's pretty basic and straightforward. Second, in Matt. 17:14-21 we have a passage where the value of 'prayer and fasting' coupled together in complete devotion to God and seeking His will and service enabled the Lord Jesus to cast out a demon when His disciples lacked the power. Again, it's a far stretch to see anything except self-denial and selfless devotion to enter into a deeper relationship with God in that. The whole thing just isn't that complicated.

Subject: Re: Something Just Occured to Me From: Tom To: Rod Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 30, 2000 at 12:39:56 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Rod I agree with your accessment of what Matthew 4:1-4 means. The problem I used to have, is that I incorrectly thought that Isa. 58:1-7 said that a true fast was 'to loose the bands of wickedness etc..' but I now believe that the verse is talking about why we are to fast, not what a fast is. Take my former understanding of Isa. 58:1-7 and you should understand my confusion, when that understanding of the word 'fast' is applied to Matthew 4:1-4. Eric said that we shouldn't look at the Old Testament to understand what Jesus meant by the word fast. But I disagree, unless it is expressly said a New Testament passage, the meaning of a word, remains the same. Or it is possible that there is more than one meaning for the word, and that meaning should be determined by things like context etc.. I have taken too much of this boards space on this issue, so if you think I am in error, or just want to comment more on what I said. Please feel free to e-mail me. Tom

Subject: Re: Something Just Occured to Me From: Rod To: Tom Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 30, 2000 at 12:58:55 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Tom, While I'd be glad to e-mail you, I think it may be important for others to continue to examine the issue also. May I ask if you've examined all the references in the OT to 'fast' and 'fasting'? I don't think, if one does that, it's possible to mistake the meaning intended, which is universally 'self-denial,' often involving penance and solitude, for the purpose of binging oneself personally closer to the Lord God, whereas at times it involves a group or national effort at a closer relationship. Yet, even in the 'group' effort, the emphasis is the heart of the individual worshiper. Check for instance the 'fasting' and 'prayer' (almost always the two words are coupled, in actuality or inferred, the same as with the Lord Jesus' experiences) when David's child by Bathsheba was dying. Following his vigil, he washed and called for food, having devoted all his attention to his sin and the welfare of the child while he lived. The evidence seems simply overwhelming to me as to the meaning and intent of the Word of God. I think as you, a godly man, meditate more on it, it will become clear to you as the Spirit of the Lord leads you.

Subject: Re: Something Just Occured to Me From: Tom To: Rod Date Posted: Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 00:44:42 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Rod I think it already has become clearer, I was just a little confused from my misunderstanding of Isa. 58:1-7. For what ever reason, when I get trapped into a misunderstanding of a verse. It sometimes takes a while for me to get out. Thanks Pilgrim and the rest of you who have had to use patience with me on this one. :-) Tom

Subject: Re: Something Just Occured to Me From: Eric To: Tom Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 30, 2000 at 08:08:00 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hi Tom, To wrap this up, if you read the passage in context, you will see that it is not about fasting at all, but rather about the deeds that the people are doing. They fast--and yet they oppress the poor, they fast--and yet they ignore the hungry, etc. It is not unlike Jesus criticism of the Pharisee's--who display outward acts of holiness, but their hearts are hard as stone. God is not interested in our outward acts of piety if they are accompanied by an evil heart. In regard to your other point below, you must let the context of the literary unit, as well as the book as a whole be your guide in determining meaning. Pilgrim pointed out to you an outline of the proper approach to take when trying to undertstand a passage of scripture. There is no need to go to the OT to try and figure out what Jesus meant when he said how we should fast. Take care and God bless.

Subject: NEW SEMINARY? From: laz To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 22:36:37 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Pilgrim - saw your new webpage announcing the startup of Northwest Theological Seminary. It looks great! No doubt the school is desperately needed...especially in that part of the world. haha! Sure hope many of our reformed-minded brothers/sisters who frequent the Highway feel led to give of their prayers and finances to help establish this exciting new venture in equipping the saints. Blessings, laz NWTS Webpage - Click Here www.gospelcom.net/thehighway/nwts2.html

Subject: Contemporary music (melody) From: Bdavid To: All Date Posted: Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 11:19:01 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: In the previous thread I focused on contemporary christian music lyrics. In this thread I would like to have a discussion on contemporary music as respects melody, all the while continuing the other thread on lyrics. Some criticize contemporary christian music on the basis of style, rythm, beat, etc.. Dr. Payne expresses this when he writes: 'Try as we might, it is futile to maintain that there is no correlation between musical style and the verbal content which it is trying to convey. I have heard pastors say ... 'I may not like reggae (as an arbitrary example of a popular style), but by golly, if God gives us someone who is gifted in that style, then that's what we're gonna do.' Is reggae neutral? Does it come unencumbered of associations? If it brings associations with it, what are they, and are they appropriate to Christian worship?' Obviously Dr. Payne believes that things such as melody, rythm, etc. which reflect secular culture are unbiblical, believing such styles will bring with them ungodly associations. I would have to disagree with Dr. Payne on the basis of Romans 14, as well as 1 Corinthians 8. In these passages, much of Paul's words are addressed to Christians who are critical of those who eat meat sacrificed to idols. But Paul did not intruct those who ate such meat to refrain due to some negative association. In fact he himself said 'I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself.' Because contemporary christian music may mirror the beat and rythm of secular music, one does not have to embrace the associations with it anymore than one has to embrace the idol to which a piece of meat was offered. If a man is convinced in his conscience that contemporary music is wrong, fine. Such a conviction should be respected. But just as in Paul's day those who abstained from such meat criticized those who ate (and vice-versa), even so Christians who hold different convictions about melody, rythm, etc. must not be critical of one another and instead apply Paul's words: 'Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother's way.' I am convinced by the Lord Jesus that no style of music is unclean in itself, but I am not going to destroy my brother over contemporary music if he hold a different conviction. Bdavid P.S. Don't forget the other thread about contemporary music lyrics.

Subject: Re: Contemporary music (melody) From: Pilgrim To: Bdavid Date Posted: Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 18:02:38 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Bdavid, The majority of Contemporary Music supports often base their acceptance of it on the following fractured syllogism; either consciously or unwittingly: God created music; Music is good. Rap is music; Therefore Rap is good! Anyone who has formally or even informally studied Logic, knows where this syllogism errs. But for those that haven't studied Logic, or even if they have no interest in Logic (God is ultimately 'Logic' for He sent the LOGOS), the following will suffice to demonstrate the error: God created sex; Sex is good. Homosexuality is sex; Therefore Homosexuality is good. The proper logistical expression should and MUST be: God created music; Music is good. God created Rap; Therefore Rap is good. One need not possess a degree in Logic or even Theology to realize that the LORD God did not CREATE 'Rap music'; man did, and thus it must come under the scrutiny of God's Word to determine whether or not it is either Good or Evil. I'll leave it there for now! :-) In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Contemporary music (melody) From: Bdavid To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 30, 2000 at 09:56:07 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Pilgrim, Sorry I did not get back sooner; presently I am very short on time. You wrote: 'God did not CREATE Rap music; man did, and thus it must come under the scrutiny of God's Word to determine whether or not it is either Good or Evil.' Very well, make your case. Using God's word as the standard, where is there scriptural precedent to judge one style of music as 'of the flesh' and another 'of the Spirit'? There are numerous styles of music: rap, country, jazz, disco, classical, to name a few. There are countless other styles in different countries; Germans have polkas, and the chinese have unique music also What criteria is to be employed in making the judgement in these melodies? Bdavid Bdavid

Subject: Re: Contemporary music (melody) From: Eric To: Bdavid Date Posted: Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 13:28:48 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: While I agree with most, if not all of what you wrote, I do have a couple of questions. Are you making a distinction between music that is used in formal, corporate worship and all other uses? Can you make a complete seperation between the melody of the song and the lyrics? Isn't it the case that the two are bound together where as the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts? Are there not some types of melodies that are inappropriate for the worship of God? I am thinking here of chaotic arrangements that are used in much of punk, industrial, heavy metal, and some rap music. Is God glorified more in an extremely complex and orderly symphonic arrangement, or in a melody such as 'Pop Goes The Weasel?' However, I do not think that there is such a thing as a Christian melody, or an unChristian one? Music moves the soul of man. Based on this fact, I don't think that we can say that it is a neutral force that is subject to the intent of the musician, but rather that certain melodies will generally evoke certain emotions in it's hearers, and this should be considered when selecting music (lyrics and melody) for our enjoyment, worship, etc. God bless.

Subject: Re: Contemporary music (melody) From: Bdavid To: Eric Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 30, 2000 at 10:31:02 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Eric, I apologize my late response; its been a busy week! I will try to answer your questions in order. 1. Are you making a distinction between music that is used in formal, corporate worship and all other uses? Ans: I'm not certain what you mean by this, but if you are asking whether I think secular melodies (melodies born of unbelievers) are 'evil,' the answer is no. What I mean is when I wrote 'I am convinced by the Lord Jesus that no style of music is unclean in itself,' I was making that comment as respects contemporary music within the church, as well as secular music from unbelievers. I do not ascribe an 'evil' classification to any style (but that does not mean I think every style is appropriate in the church. More on this later) 2. Can you make a complete seperation between the melody of the song and the lyrics? Isn't it the case that the two are bound together where as the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts? Ans: In some cases a seperation can be made, and in other cases not. As respects ORIGIN, sometimes one person writes a song (the songwriter) and another person writes the music (the musician). In this case, as respects origin, lyrics and melody must be separated. Of course when the songwriter is also the musician, then lyrics and melody can not be separated. But keep in mind that these comments are true as respects origin only. In terms of practicality, lyrics can ALWAYS be seperated from melody. One thousand different people can write one thousand separate lyrics to accompany the melody from 'Amazing Grace.' 3. Are there not some types of melodies that are inappropriate for the worship of God? I am thinking here of chaotic arrangements that are used in much of punk, industrial, heavy metal, and some rap music. Is God glorified more in an extremely complex and orderly symphonic arrangement, or in a melody such as 'Pop Goes The Weasel?' Ans: I cover this in my post to brother bret. Out of time. God bless. Bdavid

Subject: Re: Contemporary music (melody) From: Brother Bret To: Bdavid Date Posted: Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 13:18:35 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: BDavid: You said: 'I am convinced by the Lord Jesus that no style of music is unclean in itself, but I am not going to destroy my brother over contemporary music if he hold a different conviction.' Does this mean that you think all styles of music are neutral in their influence? What about more specifically, hard rock and rap? In this thread, are you dealing with contemporary melody inside or outside the local church? Or both? I don't know if you read my post from last night, I imagine I 'crossed over' into the melody subject. I don't have time to re-visit everything I may have said about melody. Perhaps you can look at that and bring your answers up here? :^ ) But, do you agree that there are melodies that have a tendency to minister to the flesh more or instead of the spirit of man? I realize there will be exceptions, but based on the results of people's lives, their seemingly inability to worship the Lord through songs that have much less of a beat, and the rebellion by many with this issue, I personally see a big problem! Bro. Bret

Subject: Re: Contemporary music (melody) From: Bdavid To: Brother Bret Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 30, 2000 at 10:51:28 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Brother Bret. Greetings. :-) You asked 'Do you think all styles of music are neutral in their influence? What about more specifically, hard rock and rap?' First of all, we should note there are a variety of styles within the genre of rap and hard rock. I do not know what particular melodies come to your mind by such a statement, so I will qualify 'hard rock' by saying music of the 'Led Zeppelin', 'Bruce Springsteen', 'Ted Nugent,' 'Rush,' etc.. You wrote: 'Do you agree that there are melodies that have a tendency to minister to the flesh more or instead of the spirit of man?' Absolutely not, and I must respectfully disagree. I see no biblical precedent to suggest that any melody, even if it is hard rock, has some inherent influence within it to stir up the flesh. If I took the lyrics out of some of these hard rock songs, I don't think the melody has some quality to produce lust, selfishness, robbery, etc.. I see absolutely no biblical precedent for such a suggestion. You also wrote: 'Based on the results of people's lives, their seemingly inability to worship the Lord through songs that have much less of a beat, and the rebellion by many with this issue, I personally see a big problem!' To this I would answer that there are many other factors that contribute to rebellion. I am not suggesting that absolutely every form of music is suitable for worship, but I don't have time right now to expand on this. Gotta go, but I'll be back later! :-) Bdavid

Subject: Re: Contemporary music (melody) From: John To: all Date Posted: Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 18:02:22 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: >>Because contemporary Christian music may mirror the beat and rhythm of secular music, one does not have to embrace the associations with it anymore than one has to embrace the idol to which a piece of meat was offered. I think you do. I think people give themselves too much credit when it comes to secular influences -- they believe they are in control, yet I doubt that is the case at all. What is it about music that we 'like', why do we even bother with it. The answer must be that all people are attracted to music by nature, we are not neutral toward sounds -- we are repulsed by rap but attracted to Scottish bag-pipe music (or vice versa), but why? Why is it that most (and I've seen a lot) of the modern eazy-believizm congregations will not embrace the stoic Bible-centered music written in the 1700-1800s. Is there a relationship between types of music and theology? In general I have found when visiting a church a solid connection. If they are conservative in theology (meaning leaning toward Calvinism's 5-points or at least trying to dig into the Bible) they pick more conservative music. Conservative music may be modern or older, or a mix; but the melody can generally be classified as calming and reverential. Those churches whose pastors believe their job entails revving up the audience with shouting sermons (with little if any substance) will choose jazzy, up-beat music to communicate that. Which comes first, the jazzy pastor to push the music or a jazzy congregation that wants it? It seems to me that people gravitate toward music just as they do toward an acceptable theology. It meets the demands that their world-view requires. As I see it, music is an extension of oneself -- it tells others who you are. Young black kids identify with Rap by-and-large because it identifies them as a group; ditto with Texans and country music. If you are of the upper crust of society you may proclaim it by playing Mozart from your Lexus. The overriding factor in music choice is image--and the projection of that image so that groups have a common bond. If that is true, and I think it is, then music can be a kind of glue which holds groups bound by a common identity. Further, if I enter a church service with superficial lyrics and bouncy rhythm, whatever else we can say about this, I do not identify with that group! I am immediately at odds. When the music is jazzy I have my warning. Next I'll notice women speaking in the congregation, silly prayer requests, no one has a Bible with them... and I wait for the sermon; a sermon about being friends like Charlie Brown was with Linus follows, and I get depressed that my first hint (music) was correct. The formula is generally correct: Liberal music = Liberal theology. The few churches that have what I call 'old-time' hymns have conservative theology and a mature congregation to go with it. I assume that the younger audience got turned off by the lack of emotional energy and went elsewhere. So another formula: Young congregation = immaturity = more secularized music. There may be churches with electric guitars playing jazzy, modern tunes accompanied by drums and piano whose pastors preach a conservative gospel, but I haven't seen it. But you know what -- I would be hard pressed to endure what I find offensive (the music) just to get to a sermon. Thus, natural selection applies itself to a congregation; weeding out the fit (or unfit depending on your view) so that immature or emotionally needy people remain. One more formula: Emotionalism = self-deception = a need to be lied to (enter false gospels). This applies to music in this way: Emotionalism = a need to escape reality = music serves as an escape. So the connection is there. Putting it together: The more secularized the music the greater the draw for the church as it offends people the least. Secularized pastors find secularized music acceptable, and it helps draw a large secularized congregation who enjoy the music and theology. The less church music generates excitement, the less entertaining it is, the more it attracts thinking, mature people looking for peace and tranquility in a church. The more likely thinking people are going to challenge a pastor to know his job and the more conservative the pastor will be (liberal theology being easily refuted by a mature, thinking audience). As a note, I have personally watched two different Calvinist churches adopt Arminian doctrines -- and with the progressive change to liberal doctrine came more young kids who pushed for secular music (by my standards) which the pastor (seeking a bigger audience) was happy to comply. The more mature adults left bit-by-bit, and in each case the remaining congregation was larger, more profitable, non-denominational, and with Pentecostal leanings. To say it again: people are not aware of what draws them to 'like' music, and tend to disregard music as a need they possess. Music drives emotion and emotion needs music (of a certain kind) to sustain it. Churches use this tactic to attract a needy audience (who are mostly unaware of their need), and the pastor uses music to manipulate the audience (who think themselves too smart to be manipulated). Among false gospel churches (of which they are legion) the pastors are not shepherds as much as salesmen (con men). So when I hear that familiar emotionally laden, repetitive, sappy or theologically starved music I cannot help but equate this with a 'spiritual fault' or 'secular focus' held by the congregation and/or pastor, knowing where that road goes. Of course there are no perfect churches, and each person will have to determine what is 'secular'. Music has a spirit behind it and that is the source of its power. One person is offended and another uplifted, one rejects the underlying spirit and the other bonds to it. Ultimately music is selected to complement your spiritual nature (or lack of spirituality) which feeds your self-image. You cannot convince a less sensitive person of a music's fault -- they don't see it and they probably don't care. john

Subject: Re: Contemporary music (melody) From: Bdavid To: John Date Posted: Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 22:15:17 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: John, I think you raise many interesting points. At the same time, let me ask you this: If you believe the associations are necessary, then are you suggesting that the associations of music is greater than the association of meat which has been sacrificed to an idol? Bdavid

Subject: Re: Contemporary music (melody) From: Pilgrim To: Bdavid Date Posted: Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 09:17:23 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: John, I think you raise many interesting points. At the same time, let me ask you this: If you believe the associations are necessary, then are you suggesting that the associations of music is greater than the association of meat which has been sacrificed to an idol? Bdavid --- Bdavid, I noticed that this is at least the second time you have equated music to 'meat offered to idols'; i.e., Adiophora! But as I stated in my reply to you below in the other thread on Revolution, there is nothing which is morally Neutral! So, from what you wrote here, I am assuming that you believe that all forms of music are good and thus acceptable for listening and enjoyment by a Christian; being regulated according to the dictates of one's preference. This of course begs the question to you: On what basis do you judge all music to be good? In His Grace, Pilgrim 1John 2:16 "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world."

Subject: Re: Contemporary music (melody) From: Bdavid To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 13:28:09 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Excellent question Pilgrim! We need to clarify some things. First lets address Paul's eating meat that was sacrificed unto idols in context (Here I will mainly focus on 1 Timothy 4:1-4) Paul said 'every creature of God is good, and nothing unclean in itself.' Paul here is not using the term 'good' in the sense of 'righteous' but rather in the sense of it being 'useful' or 'suitable.' He is simply trying to correct the notion of future false teachers who would say that certain animals have some inherent uncleanness which results in moral impurity by those who partake. These men would thus purport that holiness consisted in remaining celibate ('forbidding to marry ...'), in being vegetarian, ('commanding to abstain from foods'), etc.. Paul rejects these notions, saying instead 'all food is good.' It is worthy of note that while Paul considered no food as unclean in itself, that does not mean that he considered all food nutritious, nor does it mean that all foods agreeable to everyone's tastse, nor does it mean that all food is appropriate for every context. All food is to be recieved with thanksgiving, but it would not be fitting to serve peanut butter and jam at a presidential breakfast. All food is 'useful', but it is not useful for the same thing. Salt is good, but only as a seasoning. Now onto the application. You asked 'On what basis do you judge all music to be good?' First of all, I use the term 'good' in the same way Paul uses it: all music is 'useful' or 'suitable.' My basis for saying that all music is 'suitable' or 'useful' is this: God gave man the ability to compose, even as he has given him the ability to invent. I would no more ascribe an inherent uncleaness to a melody than I would to any other invention, for the evilness lies in the intent with which the object was made, not in the essence of the thing invented or composed itself (I am speaking here of physical things like guns, computers, music, etc..) It is worthy of note that just as with 'meat' or food, in saying all music is useful, that does not mean all music is agreeable to everyone's taste, nor does it mean that all music is suitable in a Sunday morning worship service. But it is a far different thing to say that some music is not 'suitable' in a certain context (which I myself believe), and saying that certain music has some inherent ungodliness in it which corrupts the heart of man. Look forward to hearing from you. Bdavid

Subject: Re: Contemporary music (melody) From: Pilgrim To: Bdavid Date Posted: Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 20:45:05 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Bdavid, I rightly assumed that you would equate music with food in the aforementioned passages! :-) But I hold that you have no basis whatsoever to equate these two items as 'equals'. Nor do you have biblical warrant to substitute Paul's acceptance of all 'creatures', i.e., food with anything else; especially those things which are not 'natural' but rather invented, devised or created by men. What is true is God created 'natural' music, e.g., that music which is apparent in birds, etc. Further, God created the tones of music. But God didn't create any particular style of music which men have, of themselves brought forth. Thus musical style is neither morally good or expediently 'good' in and of itself by virtue of its very existence; such is the case with food. One must take seriously the noetic effects of the Fall! And doing so, it is incontrovertible that everything which man does in his unregenerate state is evil, i.e., unacceptable. What also follows, is that God in His infinite mercy has providentially provided 'Common Grace', where the evil works of fallen men are sometimes 'expediently good'. What this means is that a truly wicked man can invent, devise or create that which serves to the well-being of his fellowman; e.g., Insulin, telecommunication, machines, etc. Included in the products of Common Grace are those things which as Augustine termed them are the 'splendid virtues of the heathen'. Now musical melody, created by fallen men, whether Led Zeppelin, Frederick Ullich Tchaikowsky or Philip Glass is to be judged both in its inherent 'moral goodness' and its 'expedient goodness'. The 'intent' of the composer is but one area of scrutiny to be considered. There are many other areas which one must consider also, such as the excellency of the composition, the balance of harmony with dissonance, etc. But taking this one area, intent, it can be readily discerned that the vast majority of contemporary 'music', known as Rock and Roll, Country, Heavy Metal, Rap, etc. is written to many reasons, not one being virtuous. A few of the 'intentions' are, by admission of the very authors themselves, the increase of financial gain, fame, following, increase of self-esteem etc. However, the securing of such godless ideals is done so via the style of the music written. These people are very aware that a certain combination of rhythm and tempo affect the masses in such a way as to be a strong emotive force which breaks down the soul's inhibition and promotes licentiousness; illicit sex, drugs, alcohol abuse, rowdiness, violence etc. Scientific studies confirm this truth as well. The syncopated beat is one of the primary 'tools' in all such music, whether it be secular or 'Christian'. It is over-represented in the full spectrum of contemporary music. A simple, albeit technically non-scientific, study of the affects of such music can be readily seen at any concert where masses of people gather to 'enjoy' and 'experience' this music. It doesn't take but a few minutes of cursory observation to witness the gyrating and lewd bodily movements of the audience, which they call dance. This dancing is the natural result of the soul's reaction to the music. One can also see violence, e.g., mosh pits etc., and the gross expression of sexuality by the vast majority of the listeners. Adding 'Christian' lyrics to such music and thus 'baptizing' it as acceptable for consumption by a professed Christian is nothing short of ridiculous. The bottom line here, regarding this specific polemic against contemporary music being 'neutral' and therefore a matter of personal preference and/or expediency is that no man-made music is naturally morally good or expedient. Each style of music; each individual piece of music must be judged individually by certain standards which reflect the biblical mandate to be chaste, upright, righteous, Christ-like, and to do all to the GLORY of God (ICor 10:31). 'The conclusion: we must order ourselves in such a way that we seek not ourselves, but God's glory, and so the salvation of as many as we may. In which the apostle does not thrust himself to the Corinthians (even his own flock) as an example, except so that he calls them back to Christ, to whom he himself has regard.' (from the translators of the Geneva Bible) When I have more time, I would like to discuss in depth what the phrase to the glory of God means and specifically look at the Scripture's meaning of the word doxa. A couple of short but well written comments by Charles Haddon Spurgeon can be found here: Feeding Sheep or Amusing Goats No Compromise In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: eugenes-logos-graphe approach From: Tom To: All Date Posted: Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 09:29:37 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Can someone tell me what the eugenes-logos-graphe approach to understanding scripture is. From what I have gathered, it flies in the face of the grammatico-historico approach to understanding the scriptures. But I am not even sure about that. Tom

Subject: Re: eugenes-logos-graphe approach From: stan To: Tom Date Posted: Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 19:10:19 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Rots of ruck! Checked number of theologies encyclopedias cdroms etc. and found very little you probably don't already know. Eugenes means Wellborn or one said fitted for production of good offspring. Graphe means writing according to one. Did find the following but nothing else. stan Text: The rendering of graphe, a Greek term occurring in the NT in reference to the canonical OT literature. Its plural form denotes the entire collection of such compositions (Matt. 21:42; I Cor. 15:3-4), but when used in the singular, graphe can mean either a specified passage (Mark 12:10) or the constituent body of writings (Gal. 3:22). The (Holy) Scriptures were referred to by the term hiera grammata on one occasion (II Tim. 3:15), while in the Pauline literature the word gramma ('writing') refers consistently to the Hebrew Torah or law. The content of a particular verse, or group of verses, is sometimes described as to gegrammenon (Luke 20:17; II Cor. 4:13). The term 'book' can describe a single composition (Jer. 25:13; Nah. 1:1; Luke 4:17), while the plural could indicate a collection of prophetic oracles (Dan. 9:2; II Tim. 4:13), both forms being used as a general designation of Scripture. The divine author of this material is the Holy Spirit (Acts 28:25), and the writings that are the result of divine revelation and communication to the various biblical authors are said to be inspired (theopneustos, II Tim. 3:16). Though grammatically passive, this term is dynamic in nature, meaning literally 'God-breathed' in an outward rather than an inward direction. God has 'breathed out' Scripture as a function of his creative activity, making the revealed word of God authoritative for human salvation and instruction in divine truth. R. K. HARRISON See also BIBLE. Bibliography. E. J. Young, Thy Word Is Truth; R. Mayer, NIDNTT, III, 482-97. ---

Subject: Contemporary Christian music From: Bdavid To: All Date Posted: Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 20:52:42 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Pilgrim (or anyone else who desires to comment), You wrote: 'The majority of professing Christians today would contend that music is something 'neutral' and thus relegated to a matter of 'taste'; to which I strongly oppose' Can you elaborate on this? :-) Is contemporary Christian music of the Lord? Or does it all depend? If it just depends, on what does it depend? Bdavid

Subject: Straining at gnats :o) (NT) From: Jimmy To: Bdavid Date Posted: Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 16:43:59 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Straining at gnats.

Subject: Re: Straining at gnats :o) (NT) From: Bdavid To: Jimmy Date Posted: Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 17:22:03 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Who? Bdavid

Subject: Phenomena VS nomena From: Jimmy To: Bdavid Date Posted: Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 17:38:12 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: It's intent that counts, it's not the phenomena that counts, it's the nomena that counts! Who? Who is whoever thinks that the phoneomena has presidents over the nomena :o) Sincerely, Jimmy

Subject: Re: Contemporary Christian music From: Pilgrim To: Bdavid Date Posted: Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 21:29:44 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Bdavid, You can start here: Is it a Prelude or a Quaalude? In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Contemporary Christian music From: Bdavid To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 09:08:05 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Pilgrim, In the article one reason Dr. Payton faults contemporary christian music is because of its lyrics. He views these lyrics as a threat to the church because they are either 1) doctrinally unsound or 2) theologically weak. Lets confine this particular thread to Dr. Paytons criticism of contemporary christian lyrics, leaving the area of contemporary melody and rythim aside, shall we? To summarize Dr. Paytons arguments, first he faults contemporary music because of lyrics which are doctrinally unsound, using John Wimber's 'Spirit Song' as an example: I do not think Dabney could have foreseen the specter of John Wimber's 'Spirit Song,' which says: 'Give him (Jesus) all your tears and sadness; give him all your years of pain, and you'll enter into life in Jesus' name.'9 Astonishing! Since when do we enter into life in Jesus name by giving him all our tears and sadness? 'Here, God: Here's a list of the problem areas in my life: Patch them up and I'll be just fine.' This is 'another gospel' in the sense of Galatians chapter one. This is the same way the ancient Greeks interacted with their gods. Secondly, Dr. Payton likewise faults contemporary music because of lyrics which, though theologically sound, are theologically shallow, citing a quote: The most danger thus far apparent is that of habituating the taste of Christians to a very vapid species of pious doggerel, containing the most diluted possible traces of saving truth, in portions suitable to the most infantile faculties supplemented by a jingle of 'vain repetitions" My response to Dr. Paytons thoughts on contemporary christian lyrics are these: 1. As respects faulting contemporary christian music because the lyrics are theologically unsound, I think Dr. Payton's example often reveals a similar problem: a strict, literal, legalistic interpretation of lyrics, reading into them much more than the author intended. Wimber's lyrics of "'Give him (Jesus) all your tears and sadness; give him all your years of pain, and you'll enter into life in Jesus' name' need not be considered a gospel message yet alone 'another' gospel. Without question salvation is rooted in believing in Jesus Christ, but in some respects when I believed in Christ I did give Him all my tears and sadness, and I did give him all my years of pain. There were tears and sadness over my sinful condition, and there were years of pain from wandering like a sheep with no shepherd. But when I believed in Christ, I gave that all to Him, believing in Him for salvation. My point is while without question some contemporary christian songs can be rightly criticized for being doctrinally unsound, in many cases pastors or theologians get carried away and find fault when there is none. I recall a man who believed the song "Butterfly kisses" was a terrible song because of the phrase "with all that I've done wrong, I must have done something right." The man's criticism was that the father did not even know what he did right! My response to such a critic is I think he needs to lighten up and quit trying to interpret the song as some theological dissertaion on raising children, and instead view it as a love song to his daughter. 2. As respects faulting contemporary music because the lyrics are theologically weak, I think this is a most unjust criticism. Though many contemporary christian songs do not cover a breadth of doctrines, this does not mean they pose a threat to the health of the church for these songs can reflect godly passions and desires. I remember one contemporary worship song which consisted of three choruses. First it repeated the phrase "Jesus I love you" 6 times, then "Jesus I need you" (repeated 6 times), and then "Jesus I want you" (repeated six more times). While such a song is no detailed confession, there is simply no reason to suggest that a church which sings such a song is somehow detracting from its worship service. In the garden of Gethsemane three times Jesus repeated the phrase "take this cup away from Me, but not as I will, but as You will." To be critical of such a prayer because of its simplicy or its repititious nature would be unjust, for it flowed from Jesus' heart and expressed His godly desire to do the will of God. Even so, a congregation may sing a multitude of contemporary songs which have simple lyrics which either affirm simple Christian truths or express godly desires. Such songs pose no threat to the church. Along these same lines, if we insist that Christian lyrics must all be theologically deep, we are going to have to dismiss some Psalms of David for they simply repeat the same theme over and over. Take Psalm 29: 'The voice of the LORD is powerful; The voice of the LORD is full of majesty. The voice of the LORD breaks the cedars, The voice of the LORD divides the flames of fire, The voice of the LORD shakes the wilderness, the voice of the Lord makes the deer give birth … Some contemporary worship songs follow this same structure, being somewhat repetitious, but that does necessarily mean that it or other choruses like it reflect a weak faith, a shallow knowledge of God or a lukewarm love for the Lord. Dr. Payton intimates these things when he quotes and writes: 'The most danger thus far apparent is that of habituating the taste of Christians to a very vapid species of pious doggerel, containing the most diluted possible traces of saving truth, in portions suitable to the most infantile faculties supplemented by a jingle of 'vain repetitions.' This is extremely harsh rhetoric, and it wrongly characterizes such songs as a threat to the health of the church, when in reality no such threat is posed. The real threat to the church is not such songs, but rather harsh rhetoric like this which does nothing but divide the body of Christ. Believe me, I am no fan of much of the contemporary christian music, let alone the organizations which promote the recording artists. But I think Dr. Payton's criticsm of contemporary music on the basis of lyrics is justified only in a minority of such songs, namely, songs which do have unsound lyrics. At the same time, I would qualify that and point out that many times songs which are characterized as theologically unsound reflect more the misinterpretation of the critic than the unsoundness of the lyrics themselves. Bdavid

Subject: Re: Contemporary Christian music From: Pilgrim To: Bdavid Date Posted: Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 18:46:07 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Bdavid, If Dr. Payton is guilty of anything, he is guilty of understatement! Without controversy, music has been recognized throughout the history of the church as subordinate to preaching, yet complimentary to it. The laity do more often take home the 'theology' of the music sung in worship over the preached message. This being a given, most pastors in the past have taken great care in the choosing of what psalms and hymns have been included in the public worship (including those who adhere to exclusive psalmody). Most of the contemporary songs are nothing more than sentimental dribble which focuses upon self; how one 'feels' about Jesus, etc. as the lyrics used by Payton clearly illustrate. Secondly, you wrote: 'The real threat to the church is not such songs, but rather harsh rhetoric like this which does nothing but divide the body of Christ.' I would certainly agree that division within the visible church is often a result of such contentions. But I would disagree with you that such divisions are unnecessary and can hardly be attributed to 'harsh rhetoric'. The doctrine of the Triunity of God was no easy war fought over but one solitary letter! I would contend, that the atrocious condition of the contemporary church is due in part because theological exactness is seen as just another divisive tool. Yet, without theological exactness, there would be no church. The Lord Christ also was guilty of being 'harsh' in His own criticisms of the theological inexactness of the Pharisees of His day. What always results from being 'contemporarily loving' is a LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR THEOLOGY, which is no theology at all and surely results in 'another gospel'. Lastly, contemporary music, IMHO, is nothing more than an indicator of the already shallow and false theology of the masses which have bastardized true Christianity and adopted the philosophies of the world. The emphasis is upon SELF and not upon the biblical LORD God. And where there is a mention of 'God', it is by and large a 'god' which is nothing less than the product of a vain imagination. Jer 7:24 'But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but walked in the counsels and in the imagination of their evil heart, and went backward, and not forward.' Jer 11:8 'Yet they obeyed not, nor inclined their ear, but walked every one in the imagination of their evil heart: therefore I will bring upon them all the words of this covenant, which I commanded them to do; but they did them not.' Jer 13:10 'This evil people, which refuse to hear my words, which walk in the imagination of their heart, and walk after other gods, to serve them, and to worship them, shall even be as this girdle, which is good for nothing.' In His Grace, Pilgrim 'I am not permitted to let my love be so merciful as to tolerate and endure false doctrine. When faith and doctrine are concerned and endangered, neither love nor patience are in order.... when these are concerned, neither toleration nor mercy are in order, but only anger, dispute, and destruction -- to be sure, only with the Word of God as our weapon.' - Martin Luther

Subject: Re: Contemporary Christian music From: Bdavid To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 20:05:14 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Pilgrim, It appears I have struck a nerve.:-) Your post was no doubt passionately written, but it did not answer my specific points. Let me reaffirm them here, and please answer them directly. Keep in mind, these points address the lyrics of songs. I am not addressing the melody. 1. Contemporary Christian music lyrics can be theologically flawed (I don't think we will disagree on this one). 2. In some cases there is no theological flaw within the lyrics, but the fault rather lies with the critic who is misinterpreting the lyrics. (For example, does the 'Spirit Song' demand the interpretation given by Dr. Payton? I don't think so, but what do you think? What about the song 'Butterfly Kisses'? I am not suggesting such a song should be a special music number in a Sunday morning service, but is it a heretical song also which preaches a false gospel? Even if you think both these songs are heretical, will you at least allow that the principle is true, that in some cases the fault lies not in the lyrics, but in the critic?) 3. Theologically weak songs pose no real threat to the church. Note I qualified what I meant by theologically weak, giving an example of the simple, repetitious song, 'Jesus I love You.' Do you really believe that to sing such a song in church detracts from the worship service? Is singing 'Jesus I love You' directed toward self? 4.Some of David's Psalms are repetitious and simple. Shall we disregard these also? I look forward to your specific answers to these points. Bdavid

Subject: Re: Contemporary Christian music From: Brother Bret To: Bdavid Date Posted: Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 20:58:31 (PST) Email Address: Lovitz5@juno.com Message: BDavid: Greetings. I am definitely not Pilgrim, but would like to put my 2 cents in for what it's worth. I would have to respectfully disagree with you that music with theologically unsound lyrics (whether intentional or not) does not do any damage to the local new testament church. I once heard a preacher say: 'that if you win folks with the music program, when that program goes, you'll lose those folks!' I personally am looking forward to the concern of the melody in 'worship music' also. John 4:24 says we must worship God in spirit and TRUTH! Not with 'feel good' music and/or lyrics. When it comes right down to it, many (and if I may so bold as to say 'most')people that enjoy contemporary music with lyrics that do not get right down to the truth, are there just to have a good feeling about being in church. Don't step on their toes with doctrine, truth and preaching (singing too) against sin. There are many professing Christians out there that want to hear from those that 'tickle their ears.' We are never told to compromise the truths of God's word whether by preaching or singing. I am not an exclusive psalmody person :^ ). And I realize that great care has to be taken with many of the hymns of the day. But if contemporary music is going to be tolerated and allowed in the local church, what's left but to make sure that the lyrics are doctrinally sound. For without the latter, mixed with contemporary music, makes for a dangerous combination that often provides people with a false assurance and hope, and outward religion. Music is to minister to the spirit, not the flesh. And the above combination, as well as the contemporary sound even with sound lyrics, will indeed minister to the flesh IMHO :^ ). God's Blessings, Brother Bret

Subject: Re: Contemporary Christian music From: Bdavid To: Brother Bret Date Posted: Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 08:13:30 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Brother Bret, Good to hear from you. :-) I appreciate your comments, but I am afraid there is a misunderstanding about my post. You wrote: 'I would have to respectfully disagree with you that music with theologically unsound lyrics (whether intentional or not) does not do any damage to the local new testament church.' In my post I never suggested that any contemporary music with doctrinally unsound lyrics be incorporated in the church. We can discuss that issue on another thread. What I said is that many lyrics which critics say are doctrinally unsound are not really unsound at all; the fault rather lies in the critic misinterpreting the song. I cited two examples of such misinterpretation: the 'Spirit Song' (which Dr. Paytons claims preaches another gospel!) and also the well known song 'Butterfly Kisses.' To consider these lyrics heretical is a stretch at best. I also cited another song with the simple, repetitive chorus 'Jesus I love you.' No one has commented whether this song represents a threat to the church. One of the problems in discussing the topic of contemporary christian music is different songs enter different people's mind. It may therefore be best to furnish examples when making points. I will now follow my own suggestion and give an example. If the lyrics and theme of one song were 'Jesus is a liar,' such a song is obviously theologically unsound. But take the chorus 'Because Jesus was born, I now have new life.' A critic may say 'We have new life because Jesus died, not because He was born!,' but my point is the phrase in itself need not be interpreted so strictly. If I say to a brother 'Have a nice Christmas,' I don't want him to get hung up and start giving me a dissertation on how christmas has its orgins in a pagan Roman holiday. Worse yet, if because I say 'Have a nice CHristmas' he charges me with worshipping a Roman god, I think I'd lose it! I'm just trying to give the brother good wishes for pete's sake! Yet this is the way some critics respond to some contemporary christian songs. To sing the song 'We wish you a merry Christmas' is to be considered an unspiritual, carnal christian who advocates idolatry. Such charges are invalid, and the rhetoric is completely unwarranted. If a brother is offended by the song 'We wish you a merry Christmas,' then I won't sing it around him. But at the same time, that brother should not go around characterizing me as an infidel simply because I sing that song, wouldn't you agree? Bdavid :-)

Subject: Re: Contemporary Christian music From: Brother Bret To: Bdavid Date Posted: Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 21:38:13 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I apologize for misquoting your response, but I still for the most part disagree with you. At the same time, let me also say that Eric is right in that we should be careful about broadbrushing the issue :^ ). You make a good point about choruses such as 'Jesus I Love You,' 'Our God Reigns,' 'Our God Is An Awesome God' etc. The dangerous formula that I believe exists out there in many modern churches today, is not having a proper balance. You mentioned in an early post I believe (and hope) that there are short Psalms that are sung repetitvely. Now if most of the music in worship was like that, even that can be a problem in that we are to proclaim the whole counsel of God. Doesn't that include music as well as preaching? As Pilgrim shared earlier, the music is to complement the preaching! 2 weeks ago, I went to a Calvary Chapel service in Ft. Lauderdale, FL for one of their Saturday evening services :^ ). I had heard so much about them, and one of our church attenders has been going on Saturday nights, so I figured I'd check it out myself. The whole music program was contemporary and rocky. No hymns, no old fashioned Psalms or other songs at all. Now for what I'm used to (even though I was into hard rock before God regenerated and saved me), they were jammin' during their music service. On top of that the preaching was more like entertaining, as the Pastor/Preacher said alot of funny things, and has a way of coming across very non-offensive and 'light' about issues in God's word (I was surprised to hear him say something negative about TBN). That man could tell people their mother was ugly, and it wouldn't bother them. I say all of that just to share the dangerous combinations and formulas that are out there. Many Churches are 'seeker sensitive.' They are concerned about numbers and making people feel good about being in church. I realize that there are exceptions, but I do believe it is pretty much the rule for today! As Pilgrim said, is it not better to err to the side of caution? Since we are in a time when there are so many more tares in many of the local assemblies, shouldn't we be concerned about truth and balance in the scripture both through singing and preaching? We have a responsibilty to proclaim the whole counsel of God regardless of the means! Telling people through song and preaching, that they can just ask Jesus in their heart, will make them think that is all that is/was necessary to be saved. Hey, I've even changed a few words to a song or two to make it more truthful and balanced. Don't tell anyone :^ ). Nuff said for now. In Christ, Bret

Subject: Re: Contemporary Christian music From: Pilgrim To: Bdavid Date Posted: Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 12:42:54 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Bdavid, I am very short on time at present, but I will return to enter into this discussion later on. :-) But let me in the short time I have make just this comment on your reply to Brother Bret. If there are such lyrics, which you suggest are fine in and of themselves (debatable to be sure), but are 'interpreted' by many, especially those who are theologically literate, as even questionable, would this not be warrant enough to reject it? Given that the vast majority of professing Christians are both Bible and theologically illiterate in the contemporary churches, all the more reason to be sure that the lyrics are in fact, theologically sound and are easily discernible as being so? I would agree with you that there are some individuals who are 'nit pickers' to an extreme. But is it not far better to 'err' on the side of caution rather than let something that might be misleading at best be adopted into the church and thus lead many astray? Most of the contemporary lyrics are written by biblically and theologically illiterate authors, and thus I am not surprised at the results. I think Dr. Payton has a cogent point when he suggests that pastors/elders should be the ones who ultimately decide which songs are used in worship. Another point he makes is that song writers should first be educated in theology before attempting to write songs for the church. Of course, if one takes the Exclusive Psalmody position, such problems are virtually a mute issue! I'll be back, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: THE REAL ISSUE HERE From: Bdavid To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 10:26:51 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Pilgrim, Concerning your suggestion that we err on the side of caution, you wrote: 'If there are lyrics ... but are interpreted by many, especially those who are theologically literate, as questionable, would this not be warrant enough to reject it?' Undoubtedly I would agree with your principle Pilgrim, but then the question becomes which group of theologians do we respect? No doubt Dr. Payton is theologically trained, but there are a host of other theologically trained men who would disagree with him that Wimber's 'Spirit Song' is questionable yet alone a false gospel. Who is the authority on what is 'questionable'? Or am I required to submit to the opinion of certain reformed theologians in this regard? :-) This brings me back to the real issue. If a certain pastor or theologian does not desire Wimber's 'Spirit Song' or some other contemporary song sung in the church, that is fine and I respect that. What is intolerable is going beyond this to painting churches which do sing such songs as preaching a false gospel, not true to the word, carnal chrisitians, etc.. Such rhetoric over a questionable lyric poses a more serious threat than the lyric itself. There are many things worth splitting a church over: a denial of Christ' deity, homosexuals in the pulpit, etc.. But the lyrics in Wimber's 'Spirit Song' is not one of them. The real issue here is this: Can I still love the Lord, be committed to the word of God and a spiritual man even though I disagree with the particular class of theologians you hold in such high esteem? I do not believe Wimber's 'Spirit Song' is even questionable. Will Dr. Payton therefore charge me with believing a false gospel and being a worshiper of the roman gods? Bdavid

Subject: Re: THE REAL ISSUE HERE From: Pilgrim To: Bdavid Date Posted: Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 17:35:10 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Bdavid, As to your question whether Dr. Payton would charge you with. . . .?, I suggest you ask him? :-) But what I can answer is the question you posed as to which 'authority' one is to submit to in these matters. For me, that is relatively easy to answer. The authority is the Word of God. The subordinate and secondary authority is my adopted Confessional statement(s), e.g., The Westminster Confession of Faith, the Larger/Shorter Catechism and the Canons of the Synod of Dordt. Thirdly, the writings of the great Reformed men and women of church history. When I combine all these sources of authority, the Scriptures being the sole and final authority in all matters of faith and practice, I have at my disposal a very firm foundation upon which to discern which lyrics and/or music should be adopted by the church. Are all modern 'Reformed' theologians reliable? Assuredly not, for some are woefully inconsistent in principle and practice with the Confessions that they have subscribed to and with the approved polity and practices of our forefathers. It's one thing to dislike a particular song, based upon personal preference. It's entirely another matter to 'dislike' and therefore reject a particular song due to its failure to meet the high standard of the above mentioned authorities; the final arbitrator being the infallible and inerrant Word of God. I don't know of this song you referenced, written by John Wimber. But I can unashamedly say, that knowing what I do about John Wimber and his theology and practice, that song would be automatically under suspicion if I had to make a judgment on it. Mr. Wimber is guilty of false worship to say the least. And I am sure that most all that he adopts for the furtherance of that false worship will be that which serves to that end. Would I give that song a fair hearing? Yes, by all means. But again, I believe I would be warranted in being suspicious of its acceptability considering the source! 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: Contemporary Christian music From: Tom To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 13:10:37 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Pilgrim You said: Another point he makes is that song writers should first be educated in theology before attempting to write songs for the church. I say Amen to that point. One of the things I believe also, is that many of the songs that are written today, were not originally meant by the author to be used in church worship. They may have been used as an expression of the author's thoughts or love for God, but that is all. Of course others (not mentioning names) are just into it for money and or fame. I read recently how Calvinist recording artist, stopped recording music for public sale. Simply because he didn't like what was happening in the Christian music industry. I also remember how Keith Green (don't know about his theology) disliked the selling of Christianity. He would even give away his records to anyone who wanted one. He had mixed feeling about whether or not he should sell his albums or not. Tom

Subject: Greens' theology From: Michael To: Tom Date Posted: Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 06:16:41 (PST) Email Address: Cyberfish8@aol.com Message: Hi Tom, I was a big fan of Keith Green as a new Christian I was inspired much by his music, so I started reading some of his writings and books he recommended. That got me led astray into Moral Government Theology Charles Finneyism,pelagianism, whatever you call it, it was spiritual poison for sure. they deny original sin, substitutionary atonement, devine forknowledge of mans decisions, and worst of all they hold to perfectionism, which caused me to focus upon myself instead of Christ, and when i could never measure up, I quit and became an atheist for a long time, until I came to know true biblical theology. Yes, theology of musicians DOES matter! BTW, who is the Calvinistic musician you mentioned? I am always looking for good music to listen to. thanks Mike T.

Subject: Re: Greens' theology From: Tom To: Michael Date Posted: Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 09:22:19 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Mike I almost wish you didn't tell me about Keith Green's theology. For the man was about as genuine as they come. But I guess that would explain why he was so hard on himself and others. His motto was to put 100% of himself into his faith which was good. But, if what you said is true, then it was misdirected. As for the musician, I can't remember his name at the momment, but I do know his home church is where John MacArthur pastors. Tom

Subject: Re: Greens' theology From: MikeT To: Tom Date Posted: Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 20:46:38 (PST) Email Address: CyberFish8@aol.com Message: Tom, I wish I didn't have to tell you =) I agree that he was genuine and well meaning too, but his tracts and some of his songs led me (and others i'm sure) astray. Perhaps he did not understand the logical implications of his beliefs. He wanted to teach people of their need to walk in holiness before the Lord and he thought that would be the best way to go about it. I sometimes wonder if his spreading of wrong theology is the reason God called him home at such a young age. (I dare not say for sure) Mike

Subject: Re: Greens' theology From: Tom To: MikeT Date Posted: Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 00:42:03 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: What you said, I thought. I like to remember Keith Green as a person who drove me to my knees. I remember one line from one of his songs. ' If you can't come to me everyday, then don't bother coming at all!' Words like that at the time, made me very conscious of dieing to myself daily. This isn't something I can say about many other Christian singers. I always got the feeling that Keith truly believed what he was singing, and it was done because he loved the Lord. Tom

Subject: Re: Greens' theology From: Brother Bret To: Tom Date Posted: Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 12:59:12 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Isn't there a Christian fleer named Steve Camp or something similar to that, that is reformed or calvinistic, and sings? BB

Subject: Re: Greens' theology From: Tom To: Brother Bret Date Posted: Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 13:19:25 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: BB Thanks, thats the guy! Steve Camp. Tom

Subject: thanks Tom & Brett... From: Mike T To: Tom Date Posted: Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 20:50:38 (PST) Email Address: CyberFish8@aol.com Message: Steve camp yeah I have heard some of his songs, cool! Is John MacArthur a 5 point calvinist? Mike T

Subject: Re: thanks Tom & Brett... From: Tom To: Mike T Date Posted: Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 00:49:22 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Yes MacArthur is a 5 point Calvinist. Though he doesn't hold to some of the other things Reformed people do. Such as Baptising infants. Tom

Subject: Try 'Caedmons Call' very good nt From: Eric To: Michael Date Posted: Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 07:32:09 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: nt

Subject: Re: Contemporary Christian music From: Tom To: Brother Bret Date Posted: Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 08:05:28 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Brother Bret Could you give some examples of some of the songs that you believe are exceptable in the Church? One of the things I have always wondered about the arguement you used (and I believe it has some merit), is some of the songs of yesteryear are just as enjoyable to the flesh as they are the spirit. What one finds enjoyable to the flesh, another may not. Is it possible for a song to be both contemporary, and theologically sound? Conversely, were some of the songs that are concidered to be exceptable for worship today, exceptable when they were first written? Tom

Subject: Re: Contemporary Christian music From: Pilgrim To: Tom Date Posted: Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 12:48:37 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Tom, Your questions to Brother Bret are too vague, to be honest. The topic at present is LYRICS only. Yes, there are some 'older' hymns that should be rejected, especially those written during the 'Revival Movement' so-called of the 1940's onward. Discernment is indeed needed. Although possible, Lyrics are difficult to group under the subject of 'appealing to the flesh'. This is mainly what the 'Melody' does or does not. :-) But that's another topic, which I am sure will surface in due time! Providentially, the Article for the Month of December will deal with many of these 'contemporary issues'! :-) In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Good point From: Eric To: Tom Date Posted: Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 08:35:17 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Personally, I prefer much of the 'old school' (pre 1850) hymns. I find them to be doctrinally rich, and more Christ centered than much of the contemporary music. However, I love several modern songs as well. There are some very talented song writers who seek to restore the proper focus of worship music to God. It seems rather ridiculous to paint all contemporary worship with the same broad brush--but that is nothing new for this board. :( Much of contemporary music that is out there is not very edifying, nor valuable though. However, that was probably true in Martin Luther's day as well. I would bet that we wouldn't like a lot of what was written then. Usually the good stuff lasts for generations, while the bad just fades into obscurity. I wonder if 200 years from now, people will be urging for a return to the worship music and standards of the 1990's--a very scary thought! Can you imagine opening up a hymnal and seeing a song by Kirk Franklin in it? :) BTW, ISTM that not all music should be judged by the same standards. There should be a much higher criteria for music that is going to be used in corporate worship services, and a lower one used for personal worship, and an even lower one used for music that you just plain like to listen to without giving much thought to it. IMHO, there is some music put out by Hillsongs Australia that makes for acceptable corporate worsip material, but the majority of it is too man centered for that purpose. Good topic. God bless.

Subject: Re: My half cent worth. From: stan To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 19:46:41 (PST) Email Address: . Message: I will preface this with the fact that it is totally non-uplifting, but kind of relates to the general thought of the thread - in a strictly non-biblical way. We are looking for a GOOD church and a pastor friend in Maine always asks if we went - thinking I think that we will probably give up - to church. Couple Sundays ago I knew it was coming so jotted off the following. DID YOU GO TO CHURCH TODAY? Did we go to church today? Well, that is a good question though not sure it is worth the meditation it will take to come up with an answer. Let me assure you that the building looked like a church, and the parking lot looked like it could have been a church parking lot, though we were somewhat confused by the dozen slots at the entrance marked with a large 'c' and the fact that they were the only spots without cars within their bounds. As we exited the lot we circled to notice that there was no parking signs on all sides of the street so we tenuously slipped into a 'c' spot and hoped that we weren't in error. As we entered the building we were assured that indeed, this was a maybe a church. We walked by a number of people that were unconcerned at our presence, though a couple of older ladies and one gentleman said hello - not enough friendliness to discount it as being a church however. As the activities began the choir leader had her back to us, and the music began. Not sure seeing a 200 pound female rear end bouncing to the beat of drums, guitar and keyboard was meant to be spiritually uplifting - more to the tune of amusing and sad within the same moment - somewhat akin to the bouncing ball in the old sing along cartoons of the '50's' that bounced from word to word of the lyrics to guide the singers. We really knew that we were truely in a church when they unleashed the greet one another time, which as is usual in churches means to greet one another, but be sure not to bother the guests time. We were sure from all outward characteristics that it was a church, but when we tried to relate the activities to the bulletin we were becoming totally confused. Hymn number 267 wasn't in the activities as far as we could see - oh well yes it was because they sang it out of the chorus book, but then the missionary speaker was before the offering, and the offering after. That one hymn that was scheduled was bypassed - probably due to time. Missionary in the past, and not the one listed in the list of activities, and the offering collected with nothing else on the bulletin the pastor stood for his message. Guess it may have been an impromptu - not on the list of activities. Well, yes we went to church, but experienced yet another discombobulated attempt at what some call worship - just not sure who it was we were to worship for the choir drew much of the attention, and then there was the director - she had an act that should be on the road. Did I mention that the nicest set of earrings was on the young man to the left end of the choir? Ah, with a little meditation, I must wonder if the 'c' on the parking spots was for 'compact' cars. Yes, finally something that makes sense for the time invested. Their being empty might well give indication of the financial state of the others attending. Did we go to church today? Not sure we did, as I understand 'church' in the Bible, though there were a few feeble stabs at it within the hour and a quarter - not that I was watching the clock. stan

Subject: I see we've had From: Rod To: stan Date Posted: Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 10:41:00 (PST) Email Address: na Message: some of the same sad experiences.

Subject: Re: What's really... From: stan To: Rod Date Posted: Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 19:21:44 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: sad is that some telly vangies looks good compared to most churches we go to - at least you can shut them off ;-)

Subject: Re: What's really... From: Rod To: stan Date Posted: Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 20:07:14 (PST) Email Address: na Message: I like the idea of an 'off' switch, or at the very least, a mute button! :>)

Subject: Re: Contemporary Christian music From: Bdavid To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 23:12:47 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Pilgrim, Thanks for the link.:-) I will read it and then give you my thoughts. Give me a day or so. Bdavid

Subject: A Long Shot...A Book From: JOwen To: All Date Posted: Fri, Nov 24, 2000 at 08:44:05 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Dear list, I am considering for the topic of my masters thesis 'Liberty of Conscience in the APC, PRC, and the Free Presbyterian- True Free Presbyterianism'. From the APC side I have acquired a book written by Fraser Taloch titled ' One is Your Master' and it defends the APC in light of Free Pres attacks on the subject of Liberty of Conscience. In Ian Murray's bio I see a book mentioned by Allan MacRae titled 'May Sabbath-keeping Prevent Church Going?' Has anyone read this small work? Do you know where I could acquire a copy either to borrow, photocopy, or purchase? I would be forever indebted to anyone who could send me in the right direction. Perhaps you know of other ministers that might have a copy, or elderly parishioners that might own it or have access to it. Much thanks, JOwen

Subject: Re: A Long Shot...A Book From: Pilgrim To: JOwen Date Posted: Fri, Nov 24, 2000 at 17:28:38 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: JOwen, I found this company, 'Theological Pursuits', owned by David Jacks to be a good source for out of print and/or rare titles. You can reach him at: Address: Theological Pursuits 5801 Westcreek Drive Fort Worth, Texas 76133 Phone/Fax: (817) 294 - 8083 E-mail: theologicalpursuits@juno.com In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: should christians fight in war? From: Bdavid To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 23, 2000 at 23:06:14 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The question of whether Christians should fight in war may seem strange to us Americans, but it is very applicable to other countries where war is frequent or military service is mandatory. The theological question to be answered then is simply this: Does scripture forbid such service, and are Christians morally obligated to be conscientious objectors? I realize this is a complicated issue, but below are some introductory comments to consider. 1. Some argue that Christians should not fight in war because the commandment says 'Thou shalt not kill.' But this commandment is not a prohibition against all killing but is rather a prohibition against killing which is contrary to the law. This is evident for God prescribed the death penalty for certain levitical offenses, and in doing so He obviously was not violating His own commandment. 2. If it is not unjust for an individual to use deadly force in rescuing an innocent person from an aggressor, then there is no reason why it would be unjust for Christians to serve in a war where a country is using deadly force to rescue an innocent nation from an aggressor nation. An example of this would be Christians signing up to fight in WWII to combat the atrocities of the third reich. The problem with this view is determining what is a 'just war' is not always so easy. For example, sometimes wars occur because one country claims the another country took their land and committed atrocities, while the other country claims the land was theirs all along and was simply repaying for previous atrocities committed by the other nation. If you are required to serve in such a war, how do you go about determining if it is a just war? P.S. Rod and Pilgrim, please do not neglect to comment on my post regarding 'Christians and revolution'. I entered the discussion late. Bdavid

Subject: Re: should christians fight in war? From: john To: Bdavid Date Posted: Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 17:01:58 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: If you are required to serve in such a war, how do you go about determining if it is a just war? When Gideon was preparing his army for battle, his first course was to rid himself of those who were unwilling, and those who lacked a fighting sense. If someone believes a war to be unjust, they should serve in a lesser, a more indirect capacity. The bottom line is governments are appointed by God, therefore, 'let every soul be in subjection to the higher powers, for the powers that are are ordained of God. Therefore he that withstandeth the power, withstandeth the ordinance of God; and they that withstand shall receive to themselves judgment'. I suppose Paul may have wrote this recognizing well that the Roman government under Nero was less than perfect. If we belonged to an evil government intent on persecuting people due to their race, religion, or ethnic heritage it would seem that we are commanded by Rom 13:1-7 to fight against innocent people. The solution, I think, is that there are more than a single government in the world. If we cannot align ourselves to perform evil for Nero, then we must leave that government oversight and seek another. Just as church government is given for oversight of the flock, yet if it be evil we must find a more godly oversight; but not too hastily. There are degrees of oppression and evil, and so the course we take: a soldier; a conscientious objector yet still lend assistance indirectly, an objector who leaves to fight and oppose their own government. The one position I find greatly in error is the pacifist who neither will fight in any capacity nor will leave what he believes to be an evil government yet deems it proper to protest unlawfully against his own government to undermine it. Those who would not fight in Vietnam, for instance, rebelled against their own government causing civil unrest. This, I think, is exactly the behavior Romans 13 is warning against. If the pacifist flees to Canada, then they should expect to remain there, it is this new government they are bound to uphold. I do not see a necessity for necessarily accepting the return of cowards, pacifists, and whatnot after a war is over (nor even making them President). The objection might be that we are allowing people to skip from government to government, avoiding their duty of support and allegiance. Perhaps, yet like Gideon, I would rather rid the government of the dissenters. Just as an evil church government drives away the faithful, so does an evil national government. The level that must be reached before we abandon our government is between the individual and God, one would hope that at least a bold attempt would be made by the faithful to correct errors first. If one chooses to stay, then they must endure and be faithful first and foremost to God, which may mean that they will be punished or killed by their own government, perhaps while attempting to right legally the errors of the rulers, or else that they must fight in some capacity in a campaign of dubious moral nature. john

Subject: Re: should christians fight in war? From: Bdavid To: john Date Posted: Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 23:57:59 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: John, Generally speaking, I agree with you that if a government requires a man to serve in war, he should either 1) serve his country (if the war is just) or 2) leave his country (if the war is unjust). I do not see that Christians are prohibited from serving in the armed forces any more than they are prohibited from serving in the police force, the FBI, etc.. Christians are not prohibited from serving in these institutions simply because they use deadly force, for deadly force is not an evil thing when it is applied in the proper context and with the right motive. Indeed, would that more Christians would be police officers! At this stage in my Christian walk, I believe if a Christian is required by law to fight in war, then first he should examine whether it is readily discernible that it is indeed a just war. If it is a just war, he can serve. If it an unjust war, he must not serve. On the other hand, if it is not readily discernible whether it is a just war, he should seek the mind of God and act accordingly, trusting that God will give him wisdom. War is an exceedingly serious thing, and before one aligns himself to participate in it, or chooses to exempt himself from it, he must do so only with the utmost sense of gravity. In some cases, to participate in war is to alighn oneself with the destroyer, while in other cases, to exempt oneself from service is to refuse to deliver innocent people who are being drawn toward death. Bdavid

Subject: THE MAN I AM STARING AT From: To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 23, 2000 at 16:50:00 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I walk into the room, and I stare into his eyes. This man I am looking at has done wrong against me and against God. I have come into this room to rebuke and correct him, though I do not want to. I ask him. 'What do you think you are doing?! Why do you still do these things?! I see you all the time, one day doing Godly things, the next when you are to do those things you are lazy! Instead of reading the Bible and studying you spend all day on the computer, or with video games, or you spend all day in front of the TV, when you should be studying scripture! And the things you do watch I know you would never let any one find you watching. You do not watch them as oft as you used to, but that is NO excuse! Even your actions very, when you should have patience and understanding, you have anger and frustration, when you are to be humble and kind you are self reliant and rude!' I am now mad, I start to spit a little when I talk to this man. 'When you go and you do ungodly things it makes me sick! When you have the thoughts you have, sometimes I want nothing to do with you!' Now I spit with every syllable, I don't care, it shows how upset I am with him. 'I am tired of you getting in our way of spiritual growth, for your laziness shames me. You always say you want spiritual growth but you hardly ever read, for you know that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the WORD OF GOD, how could you put it off?! You respect not your family most of the time! When I see what Jesus has done for you and where he has brought you from, His suffering and his dying, the physical and emotional hurt that he had when he took your sin away on that cross. I see how you live your Christian life, and this is how you repay him for saving your soul, by your sometimes forgetting him, and disobeying him.' Now we are both crying. 'Why do you still do what you know God does not want you to, and why do you put off what you know he wants you to do? You must forsake these ways of living and fully live as you know God and Christ want you to.' I wipe the tears from my eyes and leave the room, I come back in..... and wipe the spit off the mirror.

Subject: Re: THE MAN I AM STARING AT From: John To: me Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 23, 2000 at 18:37:18 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: We are all in some way conformed to this world, tied to a body of death that must be put down constantly. We have a self-image that cannot be tarnished, we protect it and excuse it. The greater our self-deception, the greater the contrast between who we think we are and what we are in reality becoming. The larger the contrast the greater the lie to support it. The larger the lie the more effort is required to feed our deception. We can spend our entire life trying to convince ourselves and others we are actually as untarnished as we dream ourselves to be. Each sin is a challenge to our perfect image. We may fool ourselves that our sin is our strength, so that sin is not sin. We almost always run from the truth of our deplorable state. We may distract ourselves with TV, radio, books, with a multitude of friends, with much comings and goings to stay busy. Religion is a tool to make our wrong feel right. We can become so busy with our church we neglect our family. We do good deeds to support our faltering image as a good person. We may recognize our sins and become angry. Then, like a savior unto ourselves we roll up our sleeves to fix ourselves. The more we try to make ourselves right, the further from right we are, and the greater our sin becomes. We are drawn to the self-preservation of our inner-man or ego, we feel as if we shall die when we are caught in a lie or our best supporting friend has left us. The pain of knowing how despicable we really are is too great. The pain of falling out of 'love' is really the pain of loosing someone who distracted you from you; and so back into 'love' you must go. We all want to be happy and at peace, but we can't figure out how to get there; the more we try the more worried we become that we may not find it. When we study our Bible with an intent to understand, we more and more become transformed in such a way that we think more like God does (spiritually minded). It is a process that alters our point-of-view. We become more aloof from ourselves, it can be as if we are observing ourselves and see our actions outside ourselves. Thus, when we say and do things we ought not to, we observe ourselves denying our sin, and can immediately recognize this. As long as we study God's word a part of us operates like an angel on our shoulder, judging our actions with discernment. Stop studying and we sink like Peter on a storm tossed sea. john

Subject: Re: THE MAN I AM STARING AT From: Tom To: John Date Posted: Fri, Nov 24, 2000 at 00:16:42 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: See Romans chapter 7: 1-25; and 8:1-4.

Subject: Why I did it From: To: Tom Date Posted: Fri, Nov 24, 2000 at 16:48:42 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: First I thank you for the vs in Romans it is a help. I did this to help others, (I hope that it will.) I have done this to my self time and again. I know some of my other Christian brethren think this on some degree. I also did this as an encouragement to others to pray endlessly for them selves, and to CONSTANTLY thank on the commandments of God and Christ. I also ask that you would pray for me as I do that the Lord will help me overcome these things. thank you

Subject: Re: Why I did it From: Tom To: Date Posted: Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 11:38:27 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: I want to encourage you by saying that you are not alone in your struggle with sin, each one of us have our struggles with sin. I would encourage you to look at the following scripture passages: 1 John 1:5-10; Gal.5:16-18. I would also encourage you to visit the Highway's Prayer Forum. Tom

Subject: Fasting From: Brother Bret To: All Date Posted: Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 11:39:37 (PST) Email Address: Lovitz5@aol.com Message: Hello Again All: One area of my Christian walk, that I must admit that I lack in complete understanding is the area of fasting. As a matter of fact, I do not know if this will come as a surprise to some or all of you, but I have never biblically fasted before. I see that it is associated with prayer. And it is my understanding that we should fast so that food and sex etc will not interfere with our seeking God's will and wisdom through prayer and 'being still.' There is no set length of time to fast either. With Christians, and people like myself who work while pastoring, how do you think fasting fits in to this? And do any of you mine sharing about times and resons why you fasted? Thank you...........Brother Bret

Subject: More Straining at gnats (NT) From: Jimmy To: Brother Bret Date Posted: Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 16:47:23 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: More straining at gnats :o)

Subject: Re: Fasting From: stan To: Brother Bret Date Posted: Tues, Nov 21, 2000 at 15:17:17 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I think that more Christians fast than you might know about (even though it is few in relation to how many of us there are). When in college I noticed during mission conferences that some of the missionaries didn't appear at lunch - I asked several, being my usual nosssssey self, and they reluctantly told me they were fasting and praying for the meetings. Have run into some pastors and others over the years that do it, but it is something usually quite personal and private between the person and the Lord these days. Ran into an Irishman once that told me of his mother - she had been setting one evening a week aside for prayer and fasting for many many years so she could pray for missions. Years ago when on deputation things were and had been for some time at a dead stop. Our pastor asked the congregation a week before hand to consider setting aside a Monday for fasting and praying for us. I don't have any idea how many participated, but a school I had been trying to get into for months called that day and asked me to come for a meeting. Later that day the pastor called and mentioned that someone had sent a check for a fair sized amount to be used for our deputation. That evening a pastor called to ask me to come for a week long mission conference. Based on the above you'd think I would be a fastor, but I'm only a pastor NOT! ;-) , I do fast now and then, but not as much as I should. stan

Subject: Re: Fasting From: laz To: Brother Bret Date Posted: Tues, Nov 21, 2000 at 08:01:34 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: BB - I'm like you...never fasted. I'd be interested in hearing some responses...lemme check out David Teh's... blessings, laz

Subject: Re: Fasting From: David Teh To: Brother Bret Date Posted: Tues, Nov 21, 2000 at 04:24:58 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hey BB, I've got the same confession.... Here's just a link to a series of sermons by Pastor John Piper http://www.soundofgrace.com/piper95/piper95.htm Look at the sermons from Jan 1 to Feb 19. If I am not wrong, they are the 'meat' for his book 'Hunger for God'.

Subject: Re: Fasting From: John To: all Date Posted: Wed, Nov 22, 2000 at 01:17:35 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Fasting, there's a concept. In Luke 5:34,35 Jesus speaks of fasting. Yet He is not talking about going without food, which the Pharisees implied was important. Jesus said, 'when the bridegroom is taken away, then the companions of the bridegroom will fast'. Who is the bride, and who is the bridegroom? Christ is the bridegroom, and the church (the elect) are the bride of Christ. When Christ was taken up, then salvation came, then the elect went out to bring the gospel. In Matt 17:21 Jesus remarked concerning a demon that couldn't be cast out, 'But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting'. Would less food have moved the legions of Satan? No, it is not food that Jesus is speaking of. In Isa 58:1-7 we find that the Jews were fasting beyond any command required of Scriptures. But they were not really humble in asking for forgiveness, they liked the works they did in fasting. To this God says 'Will you call this a fast, even an acceptable day to the Lord?' (vs 5). 'Is this not the fast which I chose, To loosen the bonds of wickedness, to undo the band of the yoke'. 'And to let the oppressed go free, and break every yoke'. (vs 6). The meaning of fasting is in providing for food for others. It is a spiritually hungry world, the fast that God chooses is to break the bonds of wickedness. 'Is it not to divide your bread with the hungry', 'and to bring the homeless poor into the house'. The hungry are spiritually hungry for the word of God. They are fed by the preaching of God's word concerning salvation. It is by this, that the yoke of wickedness and the yoke that binds one to Satan is loosed. That is, fasting involves the spreading of the gospel (bread) and salvation. We share this bread with the poor of spirit, those who have no spiritual home in the kingdom of God. Fasting is as 'when you see the naked, to cover him' (vs 7). The fasting that God wants is to provide for the naked. God provides the covering, it will be the robe of Christ's righteousness that covers the sins of the naked. That is why when Christ, the bridegroom leaves, the believers must fast. It is time for salvation, it is time to bring the gospel of Christ. This is the fasting that God wants. This is how the devil is cast out, as pictured by the demon possessed man. How do you get the demon out? You pray for salvation and fast, that is, bring the good news of salvation. God does the work, we are His ambassadors. As Vs 10 says 'And if you give yourself to the hungry, and satisfy the soul of the afflicted, then your light will rise in darkness...'. We are the light that shines in a dark, gloomy world. The afflicted are dying, they are under the sentence of death-- even the second death. We give ourselves to the hungry, feeding the multitude with the bread of life, that once eaten, you will never hunger again; and the water of life, which will forever satisfy your thirst. It is by this means that God's elect are 'like a watered garden, and like a spring of water whose waters do not fail'. (vs 11b) The world is dry and scorched, we fast by bringing the gospel, it is like water. Out of our belly shall come a spring of living water, as we bring the gospel to the dying. We are each little buckets, filled with the Spirit, commissioned and ready to nourish the spiritually dying. If we do these things, then we are truly believers. For only believers are cups of water, as the wicked are cups of poisoned water that kills. It is not about eating. Fasting is about speaking the word of God, providing hope to the hopeless, food to the hungry, water to the thirsty, clothes to the naked, a house to the homeless, a Father to the fatherless, and a Husband to the widow. It is all about Christ, and Him crucified. That is what I believe fasting is all about. Bringing the gospel. By the way: there is not any particular health value to not eating, if that should be someone's argument, in reality it is detrimental to good health (destroys the immune system first). Some would say it increases their spiritual attention or concentration. Fine, but it is not Biblically mandated. You could fast or you could go fishing. You are not more spiritual for doing one or the other. There is a danger however. Fasting is ego supporting. People are not impressed by a week of peaceful contemplation on a lake fishing, but they are if you suffer without food. It is ego enriching, 'look what I did', 'look how I suffered for God'. Well, God does not want it from us. God wants obedience. We should not fast unless we are 1) ignorant of what fasting really is and/or we 2) want attention and praise from men; in which case you have your reward. If fasting is not ego building enough, try praying on your knees until they bleed... certainly that will catch God's attention at your piety -- not! Vanity, vanity, it is all vanity. john

Subject: Re: Fishing From: stan To: John Date Posted: Wed, Nov 22, 2000 at 21:03:13 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Always open to fishing ;-) What's your take on the following? II Sam 12.21 Then said his servants unto him, What thing [is] this that thou hast done? thou didst fast and weep for the child, [while it was] alive; but when the child was dead, thou didst rise and eat bread. 22 And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell [whether] GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live? Estr 4.16 Go, gather together all the Jews that are present in Shushan, and fast ye for me, and neither eat nor drink three days, night or day: I also and my maidens will fast likewise; and so will I go in unto the king, which [is] not according to the law: and if I perish, I perish.

Subject: Re: Fishing From: john To: stan Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 23, 2000 at 04:47:57 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: My take is that David went without food. David petitioned God 'David therefore inquired of God for the child', hoping God would have mercy. Interestingly in Isaiah 38:1-5 Hezekiah has told he would die but Hezekiah simply wept and prayed to God to which God says, 'I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; behold, I will add fifteen years to your life'. I suppose David was correct. Who knows if God might be gracious and let the child live. David wasn't abstaining from food to impress God, he was unwilling to divert his attention from his cause to do anything to benefit himself. If your child was sick and dying and needed a doctor would you stop on the way to the emergency room at Burger King and eat a fish sandwich, fries and a large Coke? Neither would David. john

Subject: Re: Fasting From: Eric To: John Date Posted: Wed, Nov 22, 2000 at 09:25:09 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hello John, I must disagree with your spiritualization of fasting. It is abundantly clear that we are to understand fasting as an abstention from physical substances, and not spreading the gospel as you have alleged. Your exegetical method makes the written Word impossible to understand to the audience it was addressed to. Is your idea of fasting the same as the Christ's? Matthew 6:16 'And whenever you fast, do not put on a gloomy face as the hypocrites do, for they neglect their appearance in order to be seen fasting by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. 17 'But you, when you fast, anoint your head, and wash your face 18 so that you may not be seen fasting by men, but by your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will repay you. What about Paul's idea of fasting? Acts 13:1 Now there were at Antioch, in the church that was there, prophets and teachers: Barnabas, and Simeon who was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. 2 And while they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, 'Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.' 3 Then, when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. Also, your criticism of those saints who fast is downright arrogant. Fasting has been practiced throughout the ages, and to call those people who do it as ignorant of the true meaning of the act, or that they are attention seekers is not acceptable. God bless.

Subject: Re: Fasting From: John To: all Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 23, 2000 at 00:36:04 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: You asked, 'Is your idea of fasting the same as the Christ's?'. To which I answer: 'absolutely'. Do you read in Matt 6:16 that we are given permission to fast or do you understand these verses in light of everything God has to say about fasting. We know, as I explained, that fasting is to bring the gospel. Now if you find fasting to be 'not-eating' and that is what you understand it to be, then don't eat. Do you think that God will reward you for not-eating, or could there be something more in view. God Himself has determined what the meaning of fasting is. While the Jews saw fasting as not-eating God meant the ritual to symbolize something that should be internal to them. Just as the Sabbath was a day of rest, it too symbolized something internal, that we have our rest in the salvation of the Lord. Now, is it unfair that God uses levels of meaning, levels that require spiritual insight to understand? Not at all. We should be spiritual in nature, we should understand that God is Spirit and we should expect His Book to be more than a work of men. When God says 'Is this not the fast which I chose, to loosen the bonds of wickedness, to undo the bands of the yoke, and to let the oppressed go free, and break every yoke. Is it not to divide your bread with the hungry, and bring the cast-out poor into the house, when you see the naked to cover him; and not to hide yourself from your own flesh? God is not using the word 'fast' to mean 'not-eating'. He is talking of a spiritual truth. Matthew 6:16 'And whenever you fast, do not put on a gloomy face as the hypocrites do, for they neglect their appearance in order to be seen fasting by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward. The fasting done by men in verse 16 is simply not-eating and trying to act humble, it has its response in Isa 58:1-5. 17 'But you, when you fast, anoint your head, and wash your face 18 so that you may not be seen fasting by men, but by your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will repay you. The fasting done by believers is different. When you fast: meaning spread forth the gospel, anoint your head. Does this mean we should literally anoint our heads so our Father will repay us in some way? We should also wash our face. Is God concerned that we might be like a hypocrite with a dirty face? Verse 17 ties back to Isa 58, where the Jews complained that 'we have fasted and Thou dost not see?'. They made a spectacle of themselves, 'spreading out sackcloth and ashes as a bed'. In opposition to a sackcloth, God calls for anointing the head, a picture of our Prophet, Priest, and Kingly office in bringing the gospel. We are representatives of Christ the King, Priests who minister to the spiritually sick and dying, and a Prophet declaring the word of God that eternal life is available. To be anointed is to be commissioned, in this case by the Holy Spirit to bring the gospel. We are to wash too. Not as a hypocrite washes, on the outside only, but internally. We are to be washed clean of all our uncleanness; commonly referred to as regeneration. In this we are truly fasting as God desires fasting to be done. Then we can 'divide our bread with the hungry', we share the bread of life. The end result of our fast is that we 'loosen the bonds of the wicked', and 'undo the bands of the yoke', and 'let the oppressed go free'. This is the fast which God has chosen; to bring the gospel so that men can be free of the yoke of sin. We can only do this if we are washed and anointed, it is for believers only, the hypocrites lack a spiritual nature to do this – they see only 'no-food'. The prophetess Anna ministered in the temple 'night and day with fastings and prayers'. What she did is described in Vs 38 of Luke 2 '...she came up and giving thanks to God and continued to speak of Him to all those who were looking for redemption of Jerusalem'. In other words, Anna was a prophetess, she did the job of a prophet and declared the word of God to those looking for redemption. Her prayers were petitions that salvation will come through the Christ and her fasting was in bringing this gospel of salvation. Jesus was faulted for not having His disciples fast. He said, 'The attendants of the bridegroom cannot mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them. But the day will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast.' Mat 9:15. Do you think the disciples of John had any idea what Jesus was talking about? They thought of fasting as not-eating, yet Jesus spoke of fasting with a different meaning. What happened when the bridegroom was taken away, that is Jesus ascended to heaven? There was much sorrow at the departure of Jesus, but fifty days later came Pentecost, the beginning of the last days where 'I will pour forth of My Spirit upon all flesh ... and it shall be, that every one who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved'. This is the fasting that occurred when the bridegroom was taken away, a sending forth of the gospel. Is it any wonder that the Jews historically fasted on the Day of Atonement, what a spiritual picture God is drawing for us. It is interesting in Acts 13:1 how they were serving the Lord and fasting, that is, bringing the good news of salvation to the church of Antioch, and how Barnabas and Saul did likewise in Salamis where they 'proclaimed the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews...'. Likewise, when Saul was blinded by God he neither ate nor drank for three days. He was spiritually blind and spiritually hungry, but when he took food and was strengthened Saul 'immediately began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues...'. He did this not because of physical food, but because he regained 'his sight and was filled with the Holy Spirit'. Like an empty cup now filled with water Saul began to give of himself to feed the hungry sheep, and so he did throughout his life. This is the fast of every believer, to 'loosen the bonds of wickedness, to undo the band of the yoke, and to let the oppressed go free, and break every yoke'. This is how we fast, and the Father who is in secret will pay you openly. What is the payment that the Father gives? The same as Mat 16:27, where we are 'paid every man according to his works'. God is not paying us for how much food we abstain from. The open payment is found in 2Tim 4:8, 'in the future there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will pay to me on that day; and not for me only, but also to all who have loved His appearing'. God is saying in Mat 6 that our prayers for God's will being done to save His elect, and our fasting in bringing the bread of life, indicates that we are His; after the race is over we share His rule as kings with the King of kings. God has no interest in how much or how little food you eat. It is all about sharing the gospel and doing the work of a Prophet, Priest, and King. This is the fast which God chooses, 'If you give yourself to the hungry, and satisfy the soul of the afflicted' (Isa 58:10), then you are fasting as God intended. john

Subject: Re: Fasting From: Tom To: John Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 23, 2000 at 09:24:34 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: John I think you are over spiritualizing the word 'fast'. To my knowledge I have never seen the view you hold before. Yes, I believe fasting involves more than just not eating. But it involves that to, for when we don't eat, and we are spending time with God in prayer. We are in essence denying ourselves (our bodies) food, so we can spend the time on spiritual matters. This is not to be done in the presence of others, for it makes us look spiritual. It should be between God and the person fasting. We must always remember that even our Lord fasted in the wilderness. If fasting meant 'bringing the gospel of salvation', as you put it. Then, our Lord fasted in a strange place, for the wilderness is a place with no people.

Subject: Re: Fasting From: John To: Tom Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 23, 2000 at 17:21:34 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: On the contrary, it IS a wilderness that we live in temporarily on our way to Canaan. Yes, fast means to not eat food. Yes people have fasted for various reasons. I think the bigger issue is how to understand God's Book. Different interpretations of the word 'Israel' or 'Jerusalem' lead people to quite different results when considering who are God's elect. It is difficult for most people to believe that God uses words in ways not found in an expository dictionary. Why does God do this? Because the spiritual meaning is where the real important information is kept, it pertains to the things of God. Thus, darkness is spiritual darkness, a door or gate represents Christ, a mountain is a Kingdom, walls are believers, trees are believers, a stream is the Word of God, a goat is the unregenerate, healing is salvation, fields are people, islands are people, the sun is Christ, the moon is the Law, a head of grain may be the word of God, a storm may represent the Tribulation, a temple is Christ or believers, winter is Tribulation, a fig tree is the nation of Israel, a wedding is our union with Christ, a woman can be the OT congregation, Mary can represent the OT church, the number 7 can mean perfection, the number 12 fullness of all of something, and on and on. On the one hand a fig-tree is just a fig-tree, but on the other it is a spiritual picture of national Israel. If you see only a pointless story about Christ cursing a lone fig tree with no fruit, for instance, then you miss all the spiritual truth. Most people notice some obvious spiritual language, but look no further. I know those who don't see it will, and have, said this is highly dangerous. For instance, if I take Heb 13:1 where we are to show hospitality to strangers, someone will say that means we should be kind to people we don't know. What does being kind to strangers have to do with salvation? Nothing, even the unregenerate run shelters for vagrants. A stranger to God, however, is someone outside the family of God. Some may be of God's elect and as such we as angels (messengers) have shown hospitality (that is shared the gospel) with kindred elect, yet not know it. This one sentence is all about salvation and the gospel, yet hidden. The Bible has much plain text that is already spiritual, but much is also hidden. You can imagine the disciples frustration with Jesus, He did not speak straight, it was always a spiritual picture. I like John 16:29 where the disciples frustration shows: 'Lo, now You are speaking plainly, and are not using a proverb'. Sure, Jesus explained privately what He meant, but they still were confused. If the Word who was with God, and was God wrote the Word of God, do you suppose He spoke while on earth in a similar fashion to how he spoke throughout the ages to prophets of old? Think of Mary who wanted Jesus to find some wine at the wedding in Cana, yet Jesus' reply wasn't about wine, 'Woman, what do I have to do with you? My hour has not yet come'. Mary was talking about wine, Jesus was talking about shedding His blood on behalf of the Father's elect. It helps to have the mindset similar to this when studying the Bible, the purpose of the Bible is to describe God's salvation plan -- that was Jesus' focus and it should be ours. john

Subject: Re: Fasting From: Pilgrim To: John Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 23, 2000 at 19:32:11 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: John, The Bible's own hermeneutic would support spiritual truths being spoken of in many places. However, I see no justification whatsoever for your 'spiritualization' of the concept of fasting as found in the New Testament. Relegating everyone but yourself to a position of immaturity when it comes to comprehending God's Word is rather arrogant isn't it? Although a secondary source, consulting what the church in history has concluded about any particular doctrine serves as an efficient check and balance against outlandish interpretations. There is no little amount of documentation written against extreme 'spiritualization and allegorization' on record written by able men and expositors over the past 2000 years. The majority of aberrations and the foundation of most all the cults rests on such contriving. Grammatico-Historico hermeneutics (the Scriptures own method of self-attestation and interpretation) simply won't allow the 'explaining away' of the physical fasting spoken of and enjoined by the Lord Christ or His inspired Apostles. Whether there is some possible 'deeper spiritual understanding' that can be applicable is entirely another matter. Personally, what bothers me most, however, is your obstinance shown when the great weight of church history and cogent arguments by contemporary Christians is against you concerning your 'personal' formulations and/or interpretations of God's Word. As it is often said in the Scriptures themselves by our Lord Jesus Christ, 'He who has ears, let him HEAR!' In the end, the proverbial 'Lone Rangers' of the Bible will no doubt suffer much embarrassment and be chastised for their 'unique' use of the Lord's inspired Word. In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Fasting From: Tom To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 12:59:47 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Pilgrim I wonder if you would expand on why you believe that John's understanding is not correct. I have checked what John said on another board (thinking that his interpretation was unique). But I found quite the opposite. I found that on the other board, his interpretation was soundly agreed upon. Could you look at his points and show from scripture how they are wrong? Tom

Subject: What do you think Tom? From: Eric To: Tom Date Posted: Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 08:15:36 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Why do you find John's argument persuasive? Do you agree with his method of 'spiritual exegesis'? Do you think the people who recieved the original texts interpreted them the way John does? God bless.

Subject: Re: What do you think Tom? From: Tom To: Eric Date Posted: Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 12:20:51 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Eric That is a good question. It is not that I find John's arguements persuasive. In fact before I looked into this matter a little more, I was ready to dismiss his arguements altogether. I do however believe in some cases the Bible has more than just a physical application. For instance, the Jews were in the wilderness for 40 years before they entered into the promised land. Also, in Matthew 4 we see Jesus being led up of the spirit into the wilderness, where He fasted for 40 days and 40 nights. Although at this point I don't know a lot about the signifacance of these paralels. I do think they are in some way tied together. Tom

Subject: Re: What do you think Tom? From: Pilgrim To: Tom Date Posted: Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 12:58:00 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Eric That is a good question. It is not that I find John's arguements persuasive. In fact before I looked into this matter a little more, I was ready to dismiss his arguements altogether. I do however believe in some cases the Bible has more than just a physical application. For instance, the Jews were in the wilderness for 40 years before they entered into the promised land. Also, in Matthew 4 we see Jesus being led up of the spirit into the wilderness, where He fasted for 40 days and 40 nights. Although at this point I don't know a lot about the signifacance of these paralels. I do think they are in some way tied together. Tom --- Tom, As I pointed out to John H., there are many spiritual 'applications' which can be made from a historical text. But this is a far cry from completely denying the historical-grammatical structure of that text and actual teaching of it as he has clearly done on this matter of fasting. Symbolism, type/anti-type, apocalyptic writings, etc. are all legitimate forms found in the Scriptures. But there always has been a misuse of these types of grammar by people throughout the ages. Another example of this type of serious error was presented here by 'Robert' and his views of water baptism, if you recall? :-) In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: What do you think Tom? From: Tom To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 13:20:29 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Pilgrim I asked this in an above post. But could you deal with a few of the things that John said in his arguements? It may prove to be helpful to those like myself, are wondering about the matter. (believe me, I am not the only one) Tom

Subject: An Addition From: Tom To: Eric Date Posted: Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 12:50:48 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: I have been reading a book called 'Knowing Scripture' by RC Sproul. In it he says that each one of us takes our own preconcieved understandings into each text of scripture. He says that many times, because of these preconcieved understandings. A passage of scripture can say something that we totally miss, simply because of this understanding. He calls this 'subjective blindspots', and he uses an analogy of a friend and him building a do it yourself stereo. He read the instructions, and his friend built the stereo. When they had completed the stereo, they turned in on, but it didn't work. They dis-assembled and re-assembled the stereo eight more times, but each time the stereo didn't work. It was not until his friend and him traded places, with his friend reading the instructions and him building. Did they find out that one wire was not hooked up to the wrong terminal. Chances are that his mistaken perspective made him blind to the same mistake over and over again. This is how we often look at scripture, we need to be aware that the perspective we bring to the Word may well be a distortion of the truth. We need to learn to listen to the message of scripture without mixing in our own prejudices. This is why I am not writing off John's arguements just yet. Tom

Subject: Re: An Addition From: Pilgrim To: Tom Date Posted: Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 20:06:00 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Tom, Your application of the truth brought out by Dr. Sproul is totally irrelevant to this issue. The issue here is, CAN ONE TOTALLY DISMISS THE HISTORICAL AND GRAMMATICAL REALITY OF THE TEXT FOR THE SAKE OF SOME ALLEGED "DEEPER" SPIRITUAL TRUTH? No one has a warrant to spiritualize whatsoever one chooses and then boast about being 'more spiritually mature' while totally missing the fundamental teaching of the text.!! A text out of context is nothing less than PRETEXT! If you cannot see that the teaching of the Lord Christ and the other inspired writers is speaking of not eating in relation to fasting, nothing I can say will mean much. This is 'Hermeneutics 101'!! In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: An Addition From: Tom To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 01:01:25 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Pilgrim You said: If you cannot see that the teaching of the Lord Christ and the other inspired writers is speaking of not eating in relation to fasting, nothing I can say will mean much. This is 'Hermeneutics 101'!! I have had the same kind of alogation said about me by both sides of the issue now. Now I have had both sides ignore the questions I have raised, in favor of a statement like yours. I have never once said you are wrong on this issue. All I have asked for from both sides, was to deal with the issue. It may not be how you learn things, but I find that when I see the issue been dealt with head on. It is easier for me to find the truth in the matter. I am not saying you don't have some good points. For when you said: A text out of context is nothing less than PRETEXT! I certainly agree with this point, but what was said on the other board, makes me question whether they are really taking the text out of context. I don't want to take a dogmatic stand before I have anolised all the facts. Tom

Subject: Last Addition From: Pilgrim To: Tom Date Posted: Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 08:40:15 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Tom, You wrote: ' I don't want to take a dogmatic stand before I have anolised all the facts.' Well I would suggest you sit down, open the Scriptures and READ what the Lord Christ and His inspired apostles wrote concerning fasting. If you can conclude that fasting is 'preaching the gospel', then so be it. But in all seriousness, if you can in good conscious believe that the biblical definition of fasting in the N.T. is 'preaching the gospel', then you are in a whole lot more spiritual than anyone I know, including anyone and everyone who stood in the presence of those men and our Saviour, and heard those words spoken to them personally. For none of them ever understood that to be true. Secondly, if you choose to interpret Scripture in that manner (gross spiritualization and/or allegorization), then what becomes of absolute truth? What becomes of the perspicuity of the Scriptures? At the end of the day, the only ones able to truly understand God's Word are those who have been given 'maturity', which rules out 99.99% of all professing Christians in history. Personally, that's not a road I even want to think about traveling. Again, ANALYZE the TEXTS themselves. Compare Scripture with Scripture. APPLY the Grammatico-Historico hermeneutic of the Word itself. The conclusion that even the 'dullest' child of God could possibly come to is 'faith=gospel preaching' is foreign to even common sense!!! I am not about to do this for you. This is something YOU need to do for yourself. You have heard both sides, you say! Then go to the Scriptures and see if these things be true! Ask yourself the basic questions: 1) What would the actual hearers of those passages understand by them? 2) Is there any warrant linguistically to 'spiritualize' the word 'fast'? 3) Does the Scripture anywhere equate 'fast' with 'gospel preaching'? 4) Grammatically, what type of literary form do you find these words; e.g., narrative?, apocalyptic?, prose?, didactic?, etc. Hermeneutics 101! In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: An Addition From: Eric To: Tom Date Posted: Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 13:14:11 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hi Tom, I agree wholeheartedly with what you wrote. In fact, this is in essence what I wrote to you a few weeks ago in regard to your requesting Reformed materials. In that post I urged you to use Reformed references very sparingly, as they will tend to influence the way you approach the text (even though they are usually right.) However, one thing must be clear in your mind when approaching scripture, and that is that there was an original audience that the document was intended to communicate with. We must try and understand the text as closely as the original audience understood it. So, do you think the original audience of the gospel of Matthew understood the following passage the way John does, or the way the vast majority of all Christians have for the past 1900+ years? Matthew 6:16 'And whenever you fast, do not put on a gloomy face as the hypocrites do, for they neglect their appearance in order to be seen fasting by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. 17 'But you, when you fast, anoint your head, and wash your face 18 so that you may not be seen fasting by men, but by your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will repay you. This passage easily refutes John's point about fasting being the work of spreading the gospel--for Christ tells us to fast in secret! How can one spread the gospel secretly? It is absurd. God bless.

Subject: Re: An Addition From: Tom To: Eric Date Posted: Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 00:39:41 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Eric I have just recieved in the mail a tape series by RC Sproul called 'Foundations an overview of systematic theology'. If I am correct this series can only help in my understand of theology. You said: Matthew 6:16 'And whenever you fast, do not put on a gloomy face as the hypocrites do, for they neglect their appearance in order to be seen fasting by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. 17 'But you, when you fast, anoint your head, and wash your face 18 so that you may not be seen fasting by men, but by your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will repay you. This passage easily refutes John's point about fasting being the work of spreading the gospel--for Christ tells us to fast in secret! How can one spread the gospel secretly? It is absurd. I posted a similar statement on the other board I mentioned, if you are interested the responce, please go to the following site: http://mountainretreat.org/postit/ It is under the 'Wilderness' thread. Maybe you might want to add your 2 cents to the conversation. Tom

Subject: Re: An Addition From: Pilgrim To: Tom Date Posted: Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 08:45:11 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Tom, The 'Mountain Retreat' discussion forum?????? Now I understand your confusion! What you reap, that shall you sow! Pilgrim

Subject: I agree From: Eric To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 13:40:31 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: with Pilgrim. Tom, you must be careful with whom you discuss things with. I checked out that site, and while much scripture is quoted, it is so often misinterpreted and taken out of context that it can mislead somebody who is not careful. When somebody proclaims that they have some sort of special knowledge, or wisdom given to them by God, warning bells should be going off in your head. You mentioned that you had a book by R.C. Sproul called 'Knowing Scripture' or something like that. I remember reading that a long time ago, and I assure you that the promoters of the mountain retreat do not follow any sort of biblical interpretaion that is commended in Sproul's book. Be careful. God bless.

Subject: Re: I agree From: Dutch To: Eric Date Posted: Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 15:10:11 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Tom, you must be careful with whom you discuss things with. I checked out that site, and while much scripture is quoted, it is so often misinterpreted and taken out of context that it can mislead somebody who is not careful. When somebody proclaims that they have some sort of special knowledge, or wisdom given to them by God, warning bells should be going off in your head. --- That is a very misleading statement. I have never heard anyone at that site say they have any special knowledge or wisdom given them of god. All believers have the same wisdom and knowledge given of god. I think the scriptures quoted were very interesting, and supported his point very clearly. You might answer the message he gave you rather than throw stones. Dutch mountainretreat.org/postit/postit.cgi?action=mpp9050777&520=4952

Subject: Re: I agree From: Tom To: Dutch & Eric Date Posted: Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 01:03:35 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Eric I am afraid I will have to agree with Dutch on at least one point. You said: When somebody proclaims that they have some sort of special knowledge, or wisdom given to them by God, warning bells should be going off in your head. I have never seen Tony say that he has some sort of special knowledge or wisdom from God. Perhaps you can show me his quote, if I have missed it. That being said, I think I need to decide which of these two forums I participate in. They are too different, both can't be right at the same time. Tom

Subject: Look close... From: Eric To: Tom Date Posted: Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 09:43:48 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: ...Tom, and you will see it all over the place. Also, I picked up an anti-intellectualism in some of the messages, whereby people who study the work of great men of the past are somehow putting them ahead of the Bible. It smacks of the old fundamentalist attitude--just me and my Bible is all I need. The whole premise of this initial conversation over fasting is that Jesus was speaking spiritually about fasting, and that only people who have 'eyes to see' and 'ears to hear' can understand the real intent of Christ. Furthermore, people have been labeled as ignorant, or arrogant if they understand Jesus words differently then those who have been given 'eyes to see.' As others have tried pointing out to you and John, that this method of biblical interpretation makes the Bible impossible to understand. Instead of an objective source of truth, it becomse a subjective 'wax nose' that can be bent and twisted to suit our own fallen desires. BTW, I don't think you need to choose one board over another, but perhaps you should try not to cross-post messages and references. Take care and God bless.

Subject: My last post on this topic From: Tom To: Eric Date Posted: Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 23:35:54 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Something I don't think that has been dealt with is the meaning behind Isa 58:1-7. What do these verses say a true fast is? If I understand what it is saying, it is saying that a true fast is spreading the gospel, and helping the needy. Is that correct? If we can not take that meaning of fast into verses like Matthew 4:2, would I be correct to say that there is more than one kind of fast in the scriptures, and context determines which kind of fast it is referring to? Please explain. Tom

Subject: Re: Fasting From: john To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 15:42:12 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: As it is often said in the Scriptures themselves by our Lord Jesus Christ, 'He who has ears, let him HEAR!' SO TRUE!! john

Subject: Re: Fasting From: Tom To: john Date Posted: Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 17:52:28 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: John Am I to assume that you were referring to Pilgrim when you quoting the words of our Lord Jesus Christ? If so, please prove to me/us that your understanding of this matter is correct. I think you would be hard pressed in finding other believers who take your view. Tom

Subject: Re: Fasting From: John P To: Eric Date Posted: Wed, Nov 22, 2000 at 09:47:00 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I second Eric's response. Fasting is a Christian duty to be performed as a means of aiding us pray, be brought to humiliation in order to help the poor, etc. To spiritualize it misses the whole point. Christ's disciples will fast - if they fear God, it certainly won't puff them up (if nothing else, it will make them recognize how much of a blessing food really is, and thank God for it). Love, John P.

Subject: Tell No One From: Tom To: All Date Posted: Sat, Nov 18, 2000 at 17:00:06 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Several times in the gospels after Jesus healed someone, Jesus tells the person not to tell anyone about what how they were healed. (see Matt.8:4; 9:30; 12:16; 17:9; Mark 5:43; 7:36;8:26) I can only take a guess at why Jesus said this. My guess is that He knew that people wanted to set Jesus up as king, in order to deliver them from Roman yoke. Also that it would give the people the wrong idea about His kingdom. This would also impede Jesus from going to the cross. Am I correct about this? Tom

Subject: Pre-Trib vs. Post-Trib From: Brother Bret To: All Date Posted: Sat, Nov 18, 2000 at 10:51:07 (PST) Email Address: Lovitz5@aol.com Message: As some of may remember, I use to hold to a pretribulational, premillenial view. As a result of my continued studies, I have 'mostly' moved away from that position. I say 'mostly' because I still have a couple of hangups. Is the tribulation period a literal 7 year period and the 70th week of Daniel? If so, how does that relate to Christ's comments about no man knowing the day of the hour when the Son of man cometh? What about the several mentionings of the 3.5 years/1260 days in Revelation that some refer to as the 'Great Tribulation or Jacob's Trouble. The commentator from the 'New Geneva Study Bible' implies that the 70th week of Daniel was fulfilled during Christ's earthly ministry that was 'cut off' half way through (3.5 years). I defintley agree that the verses of Scripture used to try to show that the 'Church' will not be present for the Great Tribulation is mere speculation at best (1Th.1:10;5:9; 2Th.2:6-7; Rev.3:10). And that when we read Mt.24 we see the gathering of the elect from the four winds, and the taking of one out of two from the field and mill AFTER Great Tribulation (vss. 21;29-31; 36-41). Having said all of this, my hang up as applied is that we would be able to know the 'day or the hour' once the 7 (or 3.5) year Tribuation Period started. Yes or No? So that would imply a pre-trib rapture, or no literal 7 year Tribulation Period and the return of Christ at any time after 'general' Great Tribulation. I have heard some say that the 'day or the hour' is a literal day and hour that Christ means. But wouldn't that be the only time it is meant literally in regards to eschatology? Look forward to the responses. By the way, thanks to John Hampshire (wherever he is)who in the past wrote a great post with this issue. He just didn't deal with my specific hang ups! God's blessings! BB

Subject: Re: Pre-Trib vs. Post-Trib From: Prestor John To: Brother Bret Date Posted: Sun, Nov 19, 2000 at 19:51:31 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: And now the post-millenialist replies from the grammatical-historical view. Seventy weeks are decreed as to your people and as to your holy city, to finish the transgression and to make an end of sins, and to make atonement for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy. Know therefore and understand, that from the going out of the command to restore and to build Jerusalem, to Messiah the Prince, shall be seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks. The street shall be built again, and the wall, even in times of affliction. And after sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself. And the people of the ruler who shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. And the end of it shall be with the flood, and ruins are determined, until the end shall be war. And he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week. And in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease, and on a corner of the altar desolating abominations, even until the end. And that which was decreed shall be poured on the desolator. Daniel 9:24-27 Now Brother Bret, didn't God fulfill these previous prophecies in a literal manner? Wasn't the temple rebuilt (24), did not Christ come and bring reconciliation?(25) Did not His sacrifice put an end to the sacrifices going on in the temple? I know the answer is not immediately, but that isn't the point is it? Christ's sacrifice was the end all be all sacrifice any sacrifice after that was an abomination of God's altar. The Jewish leaders abominated the altar and so caused the destruction of the temple. Which last two verses point to. As to that quote in Matthew 24:36 that refers to the fact that no one could predict exactly when Titus the son of Vespasian would come and destroy the temple. All the weeks were completed Bro. Bret and the concept that the so called last week being uncompleted is in error. Prestor John Pewsitters

Subject: Re: Pre-Trib vs. Post-Trib From: Brother Bret To: Prestor John Date Posted: Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 11:31:29 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Brother PJ :^ ) You said: 'As to that quote in Matthew 24:36 that refers to the fact that no one could predict exactly when Titus the son of Vespasian would come and destroy the temple.' I think I may know what you going to say, but could you elaborate on this? How can you get from this passage we're discissing that it refers to 'Titus the son of Vespasian'? Thanks....................Brother Bret

Subject: Re: Pre-Trib vs. Post-Trib From: John To: Brother Bret Date Posted: Sun, Nov 19, 2000 at 01:07:01 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I think the Bible is fairly clear about these things, but you have to have the framework in which to place the verse, assembled correctly, or it won't fit; it is like putting a square pegs into a round hole : that is, post and pre-millennial leaves you forever struggling. You asked : Is the trib period a literal 7 year period? The answer is no, perhaps I can explain. Let's look at Dan 9:27: 'And He shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week He shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations He shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate' This seventieth seven is not the final tribulation period. In the middle of the seventieth seven, sacrifice and offering cease. Sacrifices were brought for about 11,000 years. From the beginning (about 11000 BC) Cain and Abel brought sacrifices to the Lord as pictures of the true sacrifice who would die in 33AD. The middle of the seventieth week – when sacrifices and offerings ended – can only be 33AD. Keep that date fixed, that is the date Christ died as our sacrifice. It might be good here to look at the other 69 weeks (or sevens) to see where the weeks start (we know the last week has Christ's sacrifice right in the middle). To skip to the chase, the beginning of the seventy weeks or sevens (week and seven are interchangeable) is the commandment to build Jerusalem in Dan 9:25: 'Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince there will be seven sevens and sixty-two sevens…'. There is a trick here: God is not speaking of rebuilding the physical city of Jerusalem. Forgetting that God's Book is spiritual will leave you struggling and bewildered. In 445BC, Nehemiah, the cup bearer for the Persian King Artaxerxes, asked permission to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, which he did. However, this is not the starting point for the seventy weeks for Artaxerxes gave permission, he did not command the rebuilding. Some theologians have manipulated numbers to get 69-sevens (483 years), but without regard for God's true use of numbers. Other theologians use king Cyrus who defeated Babylon in 559BC as the starting point. You can read about him in 2Chronicles 36:22-23. This rebuilding was predicted by Isaiah in Isa 44:28. However, there is no connection between 537BC and a seventy week time period. There is a third possibility that meets all the requirements of Dan 9:25. In the year 458BC, Ezra returned to Jerusalem to reestablish the Law. The command to reestablish the law is indeed equivalent to a command to build Jerusalem. You can read how Ezra was commanded by King Artaxerxes, in the year 458BC, to reestablish the law in Jerusalem, in Ezra 7:12-13, 23 and 26 also Ezra 7:10. You see, to reestablish the law is equivalent to bringing the Gospel, which is equivalent to building a city. Jerusalem is spiritually the city of believers as in Rev 21:2 – the bride of Christ. In the NT we find James in Acts 15:15-17 rightly understanding that the inclusion of Gentiles into the body of Christ was a fulfillment of OT prophesies that spoke of rebuilding of the walls and the ruins of Jerusalem. The bringing of the Gospel is an effort to build the city of Jerusalem (see Eph 2:20-22). Even Ezra who was concerned with teaching the Law of God spoke of a building activity in Ezra 9:9 '…to set up the house of our God, and to repair the desolations thereof, and to give us a wall in Judah and Jerusalem'. The reestablishing the law in 458BC was a command going forth to restore and build Jerusalem (as in Dan 9:25). From the building of the spiritual city mandated in 458BC to when Christ hung on the cross in 33AD, precisely 490 years are required (70x7=490). It was at the cross that Christ made reconciliation for iniquity, brought in everlasting righteousness, finished the transgression, and it was at the cross that God put His seal on vision and prophecy (see Dan 9:24). In the midst of the seventieth seven, sacrifice and offering will cease. We know this middle part is 33AD. The spring Passover Day when Christ hung on the cross was 3-1/2 years later than 29AD. It can be shown that 29AD is the resting point for the sixty-two sevens, when Christ was baptized and anointed officially as High Priest; officially declared to be the Messiah. That year also was the beginning of the seventieth week. Now we come to the last half (last 3-1/2 years) of the seventieth seven. After the sacrifice and oblation cease (the cross and the first 3-1/2 year period) we read in Dan 9:27 '...and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate [or upon the desolator]'. What is all that, and is it really 3-1/2 years? Nearing the end of time Rev 20 speaks of Satan's loosing, the deception of the nations; sin increases and Satan rules the congregations (2Thes2 and Matt 24:24). After this period of tribulation (the last or final tribulation) comes the end, the determined decree, that shall be poured upon the desolator. This is the consummation of all things, Judgment Day. We can see that the last half of the seventieth seven goes from the cross to Judgment Day itself, at the end of time. Remember, God is not saying there would be seventy weeks of years necessarily – they are seventy sevens (unspecified time periods). From Ezra to the cross was indeed a period of 490 years, yet God switches from literal years to figurative so that the last half of the last seven covers the NT period (the last 3-1/2 is figurative). One reason for the sudden shift from the cross to Judgment Day is that our salvation is partly completed and yet will one day be completed in full. At the cross the Messiah finished transgression, yet until we receive our resurrected bodies, He has not finished transgression in a total way. It should also be pointed out that the last half is 3-1/2 years; this is equal to 42 months or 1,260 days, the precise time period that Rev 11:3 is talking about: 'And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth'. The two witnesses represent the NT church (olive trees in Rev 11:4 and Rom 11 the body of Christ). Rev 11:4 says they are the two candlesticks standing before God on the earth. God speaks of two witnesses because it 'in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established' in 2Cor13:1. The two witnesses represent the NT church as it brings the Gospel. It is the NT period (1,260 days) that witnesses bring the Gospel, or as Dan 9:27 has it, the last half of the seventieth seven. In Rev 12:6 we find the half week theme again 'And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her 1,260 days'. The woman can be shown to be in this context the believers from whom Christ was born. Christ is the man child given birth by the woman (OT believers), yet the woman continues in the wilderness, where she is nourished by God (NT period). The wilderness sojourn, as typified by Israel's sojourn in the wilderness, is the NT period until we reach the land of Canaan (the new heaven and new earth). In Dan 12:12 we have this statement 'Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the 1335 days'. Could the 'he' in this verse be speaking of Christ? Jesus must wait for the exact moment to come, as Gal 4:4-5 says 'in the fullness of time'. Remember that when Jesus was taken up in His ascension He had said 'but if I depart, I will send Him unto you. And when He is come, He will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment', speaking of the Holy Spirit of God. It was at Pentecost on 33AD, fifty days after the cross that God began his plan to apply the atonement to the world. The period from Saturday after the crucifixion to the feast of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit was poured out, is 50 days. It was six day earlier than the crucifixion Saturday, called Palm Sunday, at which Christ came into Jerusalem and was proclaimed a king. In Exd 12:3 we read that it was on the tenth day of Nisan the Passover lamb was to be selected! It was to be killed on Nisan 14! In the year 33AD, when Jesus became our Passover lamb, the tenth day of Nisan began at sundown on Sunday, and continued until sundown on Monday. Tying this together we see that Palm Sunday occurred exactly three and a half years after Jesus was baptized: Jesus' baptism to Palm Sunday = 3 years = 1096 days ˝ year = 183 days Palm Sunday to Death on cross = 5 days Cross to Saturday in tomb = 1 day Saturday after crucifixion to Pentecost = 50 days Total time period is 1335 days (1096+183+5+1+50), the exact number prophesied in Dan 12:12, to the very day. As a side note, this means that Pentecost in AD33 was on May 24 (Jerusalem time). Working backward we can determine that Jesus was baptized by John in the year 29AD on September 28 (the date that begins the 1335 days). As it happens (exactly by Divine decree) September 28th, 29AD is Tishri 1, and Tishri 1 is the date of the Feast of Trumpets (read Lev 23:23-25). So the 1335 days of Dan 12:12 extends from the Feast of Trumpets to the Feast of Pentecost. Working further, if we are interested, we can know that Jesus was crucified on Friday, Nisan 14, our April 3, 33AD, which was the first day of the Passover. We know also that the Holy Spirit was poured out on Sunday May 24, 33AD. What of the birth of Jesus? Much evidence points to 7BC as the year of His birth. Luke 1:35-36 days that Jesus was probably conceived about six months after John the Baptist was conceived in his mother's womb. Based on Luke 1:5 concerning Zacharias being a priest during the course of Abia, we can learn that the course of Abia ended the fourth month of the Jewish calendar. Luke 1:23-24 infers that the conception of John the Baptist occurred shortly after the fourth month. Luke 1:36 says it was in the sixth month of Elizabeth's pregnancy that Mary was told that she would be with child by the Holy Spirit. So adding six months to the fourth month, we get about the tenth month or early on the eleventh month of the Jewish calendar for the conception of Jesus. The end of the tenth month was January 2, 7BC, Jesus would have been born about late September or early October of 7BC. As it happens, the Day of Atonement is October 4, the Feast of Trumpets was Sept 24, and the Feast of Tabernacles was Oct 9-16 of that year. Working differently we know that Mary spent three months with Elizabeth in Luke 1:56. From Luke 1:36 Mary was probably close to 3-1/2 months with child at the time she returned to her home from her visit with Elizabeth. John would have been conceived about July 15. Jesus was conceived about 5-1/2 to six month later or approximately January 1. Mary may have arrived at Elizabeth's house about January 15. Jesus was born then about nine months after January 1, or about October 1, 7BC. Because it was a Jubilee period beginning on October 4 with the blowing of the trumpets on the Day of Atonement there was no room in the inn due to the Jews who had come to celebrate the feast days of the seventh month. It is highly likely that Jesus was born on October 4th, 7BC. Sorry, you asked if the Tribulation would be a 7-year period. Well 7 and 70 are important numbers in the Bible, but they are symbolic, usually dealing witht the perfection of things. Because of the sins of Israel the OT church, God said they would be destroyed by the Babylonians. In Jer 25:11: 'And the whole land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment; and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years'. In 609BC God brought His judgment upon Israel, their last good king, Josiah, was killed in battle and they became subjugated by the Egyptians. Four years later in 605BC things went from bad to worse; Egypt's armies were defeated by the Babylonians and Israel came under subjugation to the Babylonians. This continued until 587BC when the Babylonian armies destroyed Jerusalem, including the temple--this ended Israel's existence as a nation. In 539BC, seventy years later (from 609BC) Babylon was conquered by the Medes and the Persians. King Cyrus allowed the return of some Israelites to their homeland, ending the 70 years prophesied by God in Lev 26 and Jer 25. This 70 year period therefore foreshadowed the final tribulation period. Israel was punished for its growing apostasy. Likewise will the NT church grow apostae and be punished. 2Chronicles 36:20-21 speaks of this seventy years as a Sabbath. In Matt 24:20 God warns 'But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath'. The word 'Sabbath' identifies with the seventy year Sabbath of Israel. Could the tribulation period be 70 years? No, I think this is a spiritual picture. In Rev 11:2 we read that the believers (the holy city) shall be tread under foot 42 months. This is the period that Satan rules in the churches. Rev 13:4-7 speaks of Satan the dragon giving power to the beast to speak blasphemies for 42 months. Could the final tribulation period extend for a period of 42 months (3-1/2 years)? I think these times to be symbolic for reason too lengthy to explain here. I think that 42 months, 70 and 7, to be figurative numbers (along with quite a few other numbers no mentioned), not the actual duration of the tribulation period. In Dan 8:13-14 the question of how long will Satan trod down the sanctuary as asked, and the answer was 'unto 2,300 evening mornings; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed'. The use of 'evening and morning' is fairly unusual in the Bible; signifying an accurate time period (as in the days of creation). Even Daniel 8:13-14 has an unusual confirmation of the 2,300 evening mornings of Dan 8:13-14 'The vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true'. It would seem the tribulation period should be 2,300 twenty-four hour days, which is about six years and four months. Even if this were correct, we cannot know the start of the final tribulation period to add 2,300 days to it and get Christ's return. The beginning of the tribulation period is an increase in apostasy until Satan's foothold is secure and truth is looked at as a lie (as it is in most all churches today). We cannot put a date to it anymore than we can put a date to our regeneration. Even worse, the Bible says in Matt 24:21-22 that those days (the tribulation period) will be shortened. The tribulation period IS a certain length of time, and that time period will be lessened, but by how much it not stated. It can be noted that the return of Christ at the end of time should fulfill a feast day that is symbolic to it. The one feast day where there is a blowing of a trumpet (1Cor 15-51-53) is the Day of Atonement (the only feast with trumpets blown). It could coincide with the Feast of Tabernacles too for other reasons. So, it is possible that Christ's return will be in September-October of some year yet to be. Also, since Luke 21:25-28 speaks concerning the days after the tribulation of those days, we know there will be a few days of terror (Rev 6:15-17) for the world building up to Christ's final return (Luke 21:28). While Christ will come as a thief in the night for the wicked, it will not be so for them that believe. The believers will be overjoyed. Hope this helps explain some things that are confusing. john

Subject: When Did The Father Give Us To Son From: Brother Bret To: All/ 2nd Attempt :^ ) Date Posted: Sat, Nov 18, 2000 at 10:18:29 (PST) Email Address: Lovitz5@juno.com Message: Hi Again Everyone: Last week I posted a question about when the Father gave us to the Son. Rod responded to it, but didn't clearly answer my question (probably because I didn't phrase it correctly) :^ ). When Jesus said 'All that the GIVES Me shall come to Me...' When do you believe that takes place? Before the foundations of the world? When He effectually calls/draws us? At the cross? Do you think it's clear Scripturally regarding the timing, or a little vague? Look forward to your responses. God's blessings according to His sovereign will! Brother Bret Cornerstone Community Baptist Church www.ccbcfl.org

Subject: Re: When Did The Father Give Us To Son From: Rod To: Brother Bret Date Posted: Sat, Nov 18, 2000 at 17:30:05 (PST) Email Address: na Message: BB, Sorry you found my answer unclear. I concluded my post with the statement that they were His from all eternity. I said earlier that they were His by right of purchase in blood in time, as well as by creation. What I meant to convey by all that is that there was never a time that they weren't given to Him by the Father as part of the working of the counsel of the Triune God. They were His as a gift from the time that the foreknowledge of God predestinated them to election. As the Father God takes first place among co-equals in the relationship to God the Son and God the Spirit, He gifts the Son with the sheep, but it's not only a matter of when, but of relationship within the Trinity. All that still has to be accomplished in time, but its achievement is certain and not limited by time. I hope that is a more clear presentation of my stance.

Subject: Re: When Did The Father Give Us To Son From: Tom To: Brother Bret Date Posted: Sat, Nov 18, 2000 at 11:15:27 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Brother Bret I think Eph. 1:4 answers that question. What do you think? Tom

Subject: Re: When Did The Father Give Us To Son From: Brother Bret To: Tom Date Posted: Sat, Nov 18, 2000 at 22:41:35 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hi Tom: It shows God choosing us before the foundations of the world. But nothing there about when He gave us to the Son :^ ). 2Th.2:13 & 2Tim.1:9 would be a litlle close but not as clear on 'giving us to the Son.' Thanks though, BB

Subject: Re: When Did The Father Give Us To Son From: Pilgrim To: Brother Bret Date Posted: Sun, Nov 19, 2000 at 06:48:33 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Bro Bret, As Rod pointed out to you, all the elect were given to the Son in eternity. ALL THINGS were determined by God's Foreordination and immutable counsel in one 'divine moment'. However, the decree of God is just that; a decree of what shall be in time; God's time. Let's take for example God's decree that the Son should become man and make atonement for the elect. The redemption of all for whom the Father gave to the Son was determined in eternity: Gal 4:4 'But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.' Atonement was eternally determined but the application of that determination took place in time. The elect's justification was eternally decreed (Rom 8:30), but it is applied in time. Thus, likewise, the Father gave the elect to the Son in eternity, but they are joined to Christ, the incarnate Son of God in time. The sheep were always the possession of Christ, but are bought by the shedding of His precious blood in time. Look at Psalm 110:3 which says, 'Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.'. It is perfectly clear here, that these words were spoken long before those who are referred to as 'thy people' were actually 'willing'. They belonged to the Son before they were born and it is in the future that they were to be joined to Him, as the verb shows 'shall be willing'. So, to sum up: All the elect were given to the Son by the Father in eternity and they are joined to Him in God's determined time. :-) In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: When Did The Father Give Us To Son From: stan To: Brother Bret Date Posted: Sat, Nov 18, 2000 at 10:39:36 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: You might find your answer in looking at the tense of verbs in the verse. I would assume all that stuff was before the foundations of the world as to the plan of it, but the reality of it seems to be your desire. jo 6.45 II Tim 2.19 Geneva Bible Notes: The gift of faith proceeds from the free election of the Father in Christ, after which everlasting life necessarily follows: therefore faith in Christ Jesus is a sure witness of our election, and therefore of our glorification, which is to come. Adam Clarke: Shall come to me] All that are drawn by the Father, Joh 6:44, i.e. all those who are influenced by his Spirit, and yield to those influences: for as many as are LED (not driven or dragged) by the Spirit of God, they are the children of God, Ro 8:14. God sent his prophets to proclaim his salvation to this people; and he accompanied their preaching with the influence of his Spirit. Those who yielded were saved: those who did not yield to these drawings were lost. This Spirit still continued to work and to allure; but the people being uncircumcised both in heart and ears, they always resisted the Holy Ghost; as their fathers did, so did they; Ac 7:51. And though Christ would have gathered them together, as a hen would her chickens under her wings, yet they would not. See ACC for Mt 23:37. Those who come at the call of God, he is represented here as giving to Christ, because it is through his blood alone that they can be saved. God, by his Spirit, convinces of sin, righteousness, and judgment; those who acknowledge their iniquity, and their need of salvation, he gives to Christ, i.e. points out unto them the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world. Our Lord may here also refer to the calling of the Gentiles; for these, according to the ancient promise, Ps 2:8, were given to Christ: and they, on the preaching of the Gospel, gladly came unto him Barnes: Verse 37. All. The original word is in the neuter gender, but it is used, doubtless, for the masculine, or perhaps refers to his people considered as a mass or body, and means that every individual that the Father had given him should come to him. The Father giveth me. We here learn that those who come to Christ, and who will be saved, are given to him by God. 1st. God promised him that he should see of the travail of his soul--that is, 'the fruit of his wearisome toil' (Lowth), and should be satisfied, Isa 53:11. 2nd. All men are sinners, and none have any claim to mercy, and he may therefore bestow salvation on whom he pleases. 3rd. All men of themselves are disposed to reject the gospel, Joh 5:40. 4th. God enables those who do believe to do it. He draws them to him by his Word and Spirit; he opens their hearts to understand the Scriptures (Ac 16:14); and he grants to them repentance, Ac 11:18; 2Ti 2:25. 5th. All those who become Christians may therefore be said to be given to Jesus as the reward of his sufferings, for his death was the price by which they were redeemed. Paul says (Eph 1:4,5) that, 'he hath chosen us in him (that is, in Christ) before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love; having predestinated us unto the adoption of children to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will.' Shall come to me. This is an expression denoting that they would believe on him. To come to one implies our need of help, our confidence that he can aid us, and our readiness to trust to him. The sinner comes to Jesus feeling that he is poor, and needy, and wretched, and casts himself on his mercy, believing that he alone can save him. This expression also proves that men are not compelled to believe on Christ. Though they who believe are given to him, and though his Spirit works in them faith and repentance, yet they are made willing in the day of his power, Ps 110:3. No man is compelled to go to heaven against his will, and no man is compelled to go to hell against his will. The Spirit of God inclines the will of one, and he comes freely as a moral agent. The other chooses the way to death; and, though God is constantly using means to save him, yet he prefers the path that leads down to woe. Him that cometh. Every one that comes--that is, every one that comes in a proper manner, feeling that he is a lost and ruined sinner. This invitation is wide, and full, and free. It shows the unbounded mercy of God; and it shows, also, that the reason, and the only reason, why men are not saved, is that they will not come to Christ. Of any sinner it may be said that if he had been willing to come to Christ he might have come and been saved. As he chooses not to come, he cannot blame God because he saves others who are willing, no matter from what cause, and who thus are made partakers of everlasting life.

Subject: just trying to understand From: Grace To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 16, 2000 at 19:37:46 (PST) Email Address: dizzy_stars@hotmail.com Message: I don't really know if anybody reads these or responds to them,I don't really know how these postings work. But I'll come back and check for a response in a few days. I hope what I'm about to ask doesn't offend anyone. I don't really believe in god but an english project brought me to research the subject of predestination and I was hoping someone could help me understand it more. I was wondering if you believe in predestination, and if you do do you still try to lead a good life? I mean if you're destined to go to heaven and God will forgive you for every thing bad you've done, because I know that everybody will do something wrong in their life,and nobody deserves to go to heaven. wouldn't you live it up even more and do whatever you want if God is just going to forgive you anyways for everything? I mean God's allready decided what will happen to you after you die, no matter what you do in your life, so wouldn't you not care what you do and just forget about being good and indulge yourself in everything that's said to be bad but is also good? I'm not saying that people should do things like kill or commit adultery, morals like that should still be kept. But I think people should not have to feel guilty in enjoy sex and things like that. or if you're going to hell anyways wouldn't you do whatever you want. you're going to hell anyways why not give them a better reason for sending you there. well that's my opinion and maybe someone could explain to me why you still go by the book if your afterlife is allready decided for you? I hope that no one will be offended by this it certainly wasn't my intention. I'm only looking for a little bit of understanding. thanks Grace Grace

Subject: Re: just trying to understand From: Tom To: Grace Date Posted: Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 09:13:08 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Grace The advice that Rod gave is very good. But I would like to point something out. No true child of God (Christian), believes in taking their faith for granted. If you see someone who claims to be a Christian, but lives in a callus manner, thinking that it doesn't matter how they act or believe. Then chances are they aren't truly saved. The word 'believe' when it is referring to Jesus, is something more than just believing something exists, it has the connotation of action behind it. As to the word 'predestination'. I hope the following scripture gives you the idea of what it means to be predestinated. Romans 8:29 'For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, ... I want to make a point here that I hope you don't miss. How can someone who claims to be a Christian, but lives in a callous manner, be conformed to the image of God's Son, if they are not living by the word of God (Bible)? Tom

Subject: Re: just trying to understand From: Rod To: Grace Date Posted: Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 08:29:53 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Grace, You made this statement in your post: 'I don't really believe in god....' If that is so, then you will never understand the doctrine of predestination. You can learn some things about it, but knowledge of God and being His child is necessary to understanding His ways. If you are serious about wanting to know about predestination, then click on the logo at the top of this page on the right side and scroll down to 'search the Highway.' Type in 'predestination' and you will be directed to some of the resources here on the subject. You will also note that below on this page there are a number of posts on 'double predestination.' If you had a choice in the subject of your 'paper,' I would suggest you revise it to something less ambitious than this topic. OTOH, if you don't have a choice and/or choose to carry on, may God cause you to come to a saving knowledge of Himself.

Subject: The Potter's Freedom From: David Teh To: All Date Posted: Tues, Nov 14, 2000 at 07:15:45 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hi folks, In my search for Thomas Goodwin's books, I came across Trinity Book Service (http://store.yahoo.com/trinitybookservice/index.html). Prices are pretty good. Anyhow, there's this book featured by the title of 'The Potter's Freedom' by James R. White. Anyone had a chance to take a look at it yet?

Subject: I've got it. From: Anne To: David Teh Date Posted: Tues, Nov 14, 2000 at 07:32:47 (PST) Email Address: anneivy@home.com Message: I read most of it, and particularly enjoyed the first part. It swiftly became redundant, though, so I lost interest about half way through. White's book is a refutation of Norman Geisler's book, 'Chosen But Free.' Point by point, verging on sentence by sentence. Me-o-o-o-w! ;-> If you want one, Amazon has a used copy for sale, going for $9.99. Anne

Subject: Thanks! From: David Teh To: Anne Date Posted: Tues, Nov 14, 2000 at 07:50:39 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hi Anne, Thanks!

Subject: Christians and revolution From: Rod To: All Date Posted: Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 09:02:38 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Disclaimer: This is a theological topic and not a political one. Current events and their results have prompted the discussion, but it is not limited to the present time. It is a general principle under consideration, the precept of the Bible. In view of the disputed presidential election in the U.S. and fears that the 'wrong person' will win the election following the recount, some of the folks on some secular boards I'm on have recklessly (and irresponsibly) mentioned resistence and rebellion against the government. I should say that many of the people on these boards claim to be Christians and several are pastors/preachers, though none show a great depth of theological knowledge so far as I can see (these are secular boards and theology isn't the thrust, so it's hard to tell). The preachers seem to be mostly of the charismatic bent, but again, identification is difficult given the scant evidence. Without going into the Biblical evidence at this point, I will state my belief that revolution against the existing government(s) would seem to be something forbidden to Christians, all Christians. What specific evidence from the Bible can be cited to oppose or support my conclusion? (In case anyone is wondering, I'm not at this time planning to try to persuade these people. Most of their talk is empty, I think, and born of frustration. I do think it's misguided and ill-advised.)

Subject: Re: Christians and revolution From: Pilgrim To: Rod Date Posted: Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 13:04:06 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Rod, Personally I think there IS warrant in the Scriptures for a Christian to 'rebel' against the government when that government specifically requires by law that which is contrary to God's commandments. We have some good examples in the Scripture for this I think, e.g., Daniel, who was forbidden to pray to his God and to give unfeigned obedience to the Babylonian king. He obviously didn't comply to that particular order! :-) Again, in the New Testament, we find Peter and the other apostles refusing to comply with the orders of the high priest and the chief priests along with the captain of the guard, etc. to stop proclaiming the Lord Christ as the Messiah. In more recent times, I cannot but help remember Nazi Germany which sought to exterminate the Jews and others by official mandate. Doubtless, most Christians would see that situation as clearly one that must have been ignored, and even act to overthrow Hitler and his henchmen. Hypothetically I might suggest that if the government should demand by law that any particular individual perform abortions, murder adults, etc., that a Christian must act in civil disobedience. I can give other relevant scenarios as well, but I'll stop there for I think this is enough to show evidence that Christians are at times obligated to commit 'revolution' to one degree or another due to government corruption which is a direct transgression of God's holy law. Lastly, to reject any 'revolution' whatsoever, then this would of course condemn the American Revolution and many current revolutions being fought in Africa and Third World countries where some governments are so wickedly corrupt and are committing blatant genocide of its populace. :-) In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Christians and revolution From: Rod To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 15:55:32 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Pilgrim, I'm afraid this would be one of the rare instances in which we are in radical disagreement. :>) 'When speaking of 'revolution,' I am speaking of the action of taking up arms and the concentrated effort to overthrow an existing government by force of arms and violent opposition, outside lawful, peaceful, or nonviolent means. In the case of Daniel, he did ignore and violate the governmental decree, but he didn't take up arms against the king or try to overthrow the regime. So far as the Scriptural account is concerned, he didn't even try to influence others to follow his example (if he did, we aren't told of it). He did rebel, but he didn't cause or participate in a revolution. He broke the law (civil disobedience) and suffered the consequences, which only God prevented from resulting in death. This isn't my definition of revolution. :>) I see much the same situation with the Apostles in the infant church in defiance of the Jewish law. They didn't take up arms against either the Jews or the civil government of Rome. They did disobey the injunction of the Jewish council, but they did so nonviolently. I cannot regard this as 'revolution,' though the message and result were revolutionary. When the Apostles themselves were martyred, they apparently didn't call for or expect their followers to take up arms against the government for that action to try to bring about it's overthrow, though it was surely hateful to them. We find, instead, Biblical support for existing government in such NT passages as Rom. 13:1-7 and 1 Tim. 2:1-3, even the tyrannical form of government under the cruel despots like the insane Nero of Rome who ruled from A.D. 54-68, the time during which these two epistles are said to have been written. It is said that Nero lighted his parties with the burning corpses of Christians whom he had executed, surely as awful an act as can be contemplated. We can surely suppose that Christians, including Paul and the other Apostles deplored and resisted these actions, but we don't find evidence of armed uprisings to combat them. When you write, 'Hypothetically I might suggest that if the government should demand by law that any particular individual perform abortions, murder adults, etc., that a Christian must act in civil disobedience,' then I would agree, but it is noteworthy that it is an individual decision, not a mass revolt by means of armed intervention to overthrow the government in view here. that differs dramatically from the 'revolution' I am speaking of. Yes, we have every right to oppose and disobey laws and actions which are immoral and opposed to God, but I see no precedent in the Bible to take up arms to overthrow an existing government. I would like to be wrong in this, because it goes against the grain to say it, as I have great admiration for many of the heores of the American Revolution and, though I abhor the idea of slavery, I do feel that the Southern U.S. states had many valid points of contention against the federal government in the American Civil War (called a 'rebellion' by the North), but unless someone can show me Scriptural evidence to the contrary, I must oppose such ideas as contrary to the teaching of the Bible.

Subject: Right you are, Rod. From: Anne To: Rod Date Posted: Tues, Nov 14, 2000 at 05:40:40 (PST) Email Address: anneivy@home.com Message: The more I read Scripture, the more I am convinced Christians are not given a mandate to overthrow the government. We are to regard ourselves as primarily citizens of the kingdom of Heaven, and thus, mere sojourners in this world. And at the risk of alienating everybody, yeah, this even includes the American Revolution. Leaving England for the New World was fine. Promoting an armed revolution because we were weary of kings was not. Refusing, civilly and politely, to commit evil at the behest of the Powers That Be is absolutely correct, but no where in Scripture are Christians instructed to take up arms to effect a forceable change of government. Paul was plain about this, telling us to respect whichever authority God has placed us under -- and Paul was under a jolly unrighteous government, himself! When someone tried to trip Christ up about it, He asked for a coin, queried whose face was on it, then tossed it back to the coin's owner, noting 'Then render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and to God, that which is God's.' When He engaged in a display of holy wrath it was not against the ungodly governmental authorities, but against the temple authorities. We are so much more concerned and fretful about ungodly government than Christ ever was. Anne

Subject: Re: Right you are, Rod. From: Rod To: Anne Date Posted: Tues, Nov 14, 2000 at 09:12:19 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Anne, As a former teacher of U.S. history and one who has great admiration for what the 'founding fathers' wrought, it is hard for me to take this position, but I must. And I think you have stated it very well. The thoughts of John Locke and others who influenced Jefferson so much and who taught that men had a moral obligation to rebel against an unjustly ruling government fare very poorly when examined in the light of Scripture. Yet it must be pointed out that the non-Christian isn't bound by the same rules as constrain us. Consequently, for them the act and fact of revolution is acceptable, as are many things contrary to the Christian life. The Christian, when he finds himself in the midst of a revolution, will likely have some difficult and 'interesting' choices to make.

Subject: Something to Consider! From: Pilgrim To: Rod Date Posted: Tues, Nov 14, 2000 at 13:28:40 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Rod and Anne, Let's not forget that the 'Pilgrims' left Great Britain to seek freedom from persecution; to be able to worship God as the Scriptures demanded of them. Thus, leaving there and establishing a beforehand non-established land (aside from the aboriginal population), if in doing so they abdicated their citizenship and thus effectively were no longer under British rule, then when the British invaded their new land and tried to re-establish themselves, the Colonists were then in fact justified in resisting Britain's attempts. This then would not be technically classified as a 'revolution' but rather a repulsion of a foreign government which had no authority over them. :-) In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Right you are, Rod. From: Anne To: Rod Date Posted: Tues, Nov 14, 2000 at 10:32:16 (PST) Email Address: anneivy@home.com Message: The thing is, Christians are, don't you agree, to be on the lookout for sacred cows, no matter what they are, nor how nicely they've been groomed and brushed? I remember the first time I read an exchange about obedience -- outside of sin -- to all governmental authorities. Before long someone was warning that if we pushed 'obedience to GA' too far, we'd run afoul of the American Revolution. I was struck all a-heap! The more I read the Bible, without any preconceived notions (as best I could, anyway) the more I became uncomfortable with the wholesale, off-the-cuff, automatic assumption held by virtually all of us that Christians were justified in taking up arms to break free of England. It is, in fact, directly at odds with Scripture, whether we like it or not. Trouble is, we take as a given. . . set in stone. . . . not subject to argument, that the American Revolution was justified, Biblically speaking. This has led to the odd position of testing Scripture against American history books, rather than Scripture itself. Now, does this mean I'm making plans to pull up stakes and head for Canada or somewhere? Heck, no. So the FF's were led astray in their desire to break away from England? Well, gee, how awful of them. I, naturally, have never been led astray by any desires of mine! Ho ho ho. ;-> They were people, just like us. And thus, they could err in judgment, just as we do. Isn't it peculiar how we have tended to elevate them to the point whatever they did was right, and not to be questioned? Foolishness! Any action performed by any human should be subjected to rigorous discernment by us. Even if it means we must admit we are benefitting from our predecessors' faulty judgment. Anne

Subject: Re: Right you are, Rod. From: Tom To: Anne Date Posted: Tues, Nov 14, 2000 at 12:59:11 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Anne I just want to make sure I understand what you are saying. Are you advocating passivism? For example, do you think that the allies were wrong to war against Hitler? Remember if you say yes, you are basically saying that you would allow Germany to take over the world. Yes, I realise that if God had willed it, there would be absolutely nothing the allies could do to stop Germany. But does that mean the allies were wrong to go to war? Is it a lack of faith, to go to war, instead of just trusting God to do His will? (I am talking about Christians here) Tom

Subject: Re: Right you are, Rod. From: Anne To: Tom Date Posted: Tues, Nov 14, 2000 at 16:08:57 (PST) Email Address: anneivy@home.com Message: I grant you it feels (I loathe using that word in contexts such as this!) as if it is certainly acceptable to defend oneself, or, for that matter, others, such as those being slain during the Holocaust. It has always been my custom to believe this to be true, and would need to search Scripture to see if God says anything to the contrary. This is completely different from people deciding they want to forcibly change governments, though, don't you think? Hey, make no mistake! From what I can recall, which is not a lot, admittedly, England was a foolish steward of her colonies. But I fear that Scripturally it would be hard to justify the Stamp Act or increased taxes on tea and glass as Christian reasons to revolt against a feckless, yet legitimate, government. Let's recall that not everyone saw the need nor desired to break away from England's mantle! Yes, their taxes were high, but still these American colonists resisted revolution, and I'd have to do some serious research to validate this, but I thought I read once that the verses in Romans that Rod cited were cited by some of them as arguments against an armed revolt. To be truthful, we in modern America are accustomed to hearing Scripture misused to support unbiblical positions, and to see Christian thought be a minority view, even in many of today's churches. Why are we so convinced the majority opinion that prevailed in the 1700's was necessarily the most godly one? When we get down to brass tacks, how often does that happen? When a passel o' people get together, isn't a true Christian position, on whatever subject, likely to be overruled as foolish? Perhaps it was just humanity's inherent gift for rationalizing that which we are determined to do anyway, that allowed Christians back then to bless a revolution. Putting a shiny, white, high-gloss finish on our own desires and behavior is one of the things sinful man does best, wouldn't you agree? Anne

Subject: Add'l thoughts. . . . . From: Anne To: Anne Date Posted: Tues, Nov 14, 2000 at 07:17:06 (PST) Email Address: anneivy@home.com Message: Thinking about it, isn't it odd that while we have no problem saying that just because something works out beneficially on a personal level, it should not be construed to mean the action involved was acceptable to God, we have a harder time doing the same on a larger scale? When it is pointed out that women in the pulpit must be blessed by God because they do such a bang-up job, and their churches are growing, we -- I believe correctly -- insist that outward success does not validate unscriptural behavior. Ditto with divorce and remarriage. How often do we hear that because second or even third marriages turn out well, this proves that divorce is okey-doke? Again, outward success doesn not validate divorce. But for some reason, let it be on a national scale, and this rule doesn't apply. America is the most prosperous, strong nation on the planet. That is considered to be proof positive that armed revolutions are godly, no matter what Scripture says. How come what is an invalid, fallacious argument on a small scale suddenly turns into a valid argument on a large scale? Anne

Subject: Re: Christians and revolution From: Tom To: Rod Date Posted: Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 16:23:35 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Rod I don't mean to answer for Pilgrim, but unless I am missing something, in reality you are not in radical disagreement with Pilgrim.(though I could be wrong) If you saw my post under this heading, it was designed to find out Pilgrim's view on the matter you brought up. Tom

Subject: Re: Christians and revolution From: Tom To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 14:10:34 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Pilgrim I agree with what you said. But do you think in the election mess, there is a cause to revolt? If so, to what extent? Tom

Subject: Re: Christians and revolution From: Pilgrim To: Tom Date Posted: Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 20:28:27 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Tom, If you are referring to the Presidential election in the U.S., I certainly don't see any reason for anyone to 'revolt'! :-) If Gore should win, that would be revolting indeed, hahaha, but no revolt. I also think that there are exceptions to the 'revolution' that Rod is speaking about. Although I would agree with 99% of what he is espousing, I can't bring myself to say that no individual or group in Nazi Germany had a 'right' to bear arms against that regime. To simply stand by and watch millions of victims being slaughtered seems to violate the most fundamental principle of biblical law; to love thy neighbor as thyself. Some might consider a mass armed uprising to be a 'revolution'; I would consider it just plain old 'self-defense'. In the case of the persecution of Christians, this was a direct attack upon their religion and the Lord Christ through them. In the case of Nazi Germany, Mussolini in Italy, Stalin in Russia, etc., their cruelty was aimed at humanity in general for the sake of establishing their own power. This view has mainly been that of the U.S. and other sovereign mainline countries to justify their intervention into the political affairs of other nations, where genocide and atrocities are being committed against mankind. It may not technical fit Rod's definition of 'revolution', but if it does, then I'm for it! :-) In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Technical definition From: Rod To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 22:38:23 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Brother, My dictionary defines 'revolution' as: 'the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler, and substitution of another, by the governed'--Webster'sNew Collegiate Dictionary. This is the context of the original question. I see this as substantially different from the actions of sovereign nations against one another as civil governments aren't the same as a child of God in relationship and responsibility before his Lord. I would agree there is some degree of merit in the 'self-defense' argument you made. However, in the face of the persecution and death of first century Christians and the universal lack of 'self-defense' by the Apostles and their immediate followers, I can't buy into it, as much as my natural inclination is to do it. It seems to me that more aptly than 'self-defense,' it would be a 'pre-emptive strike.' I hope it's obvious that I'm in no way defending cruelty or atrocity (I'm sure I don't have to point that out), but the issues here are crucial. This may not be a problem now and I pray that it is for none of us, but it certainly has been in the not so distant past. It could be again at some point in the future of this generation.

Subject: Re: Technical definition From: Pilgrim To: Rod Date Posted: Tues, Nov 14, 2000 at 08:47:54 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Rod, We do agree on most aspects of this 'revolution' topic, but let me ask for clarification here, so that I am crystal clear what you are advocating. :-) Would I be correct in assuming that you would totally reject any effort of the German citizenry to overthrow Adolf Hitler and the Nazi government as being valid? That such a 'revolution' would be against God and disallowed by Scripture? Further, that the only source of 'legitimate relief' for these German Jewish citizens would be from without national Germany? And further, if no one was willing and/or able to respond to their plight, then it is 'God's will' that they all be tortured and slaughtered mercilessly while the entire citizenry of Germany must passively observe their annihilation? So, to sum up, your position would be that WHATEVER a government does is to be accepted [not necessarily approved] by the citizens ruled by that government, even if the government orders that all its citizens be murdered? There can NEVER be any armed resistance against a government? Do I have that right? :-) No, I am not advocating 'Situation Ethics'! I am just trying to understand your position first. And then when I do, if I do, hahaha, then possibly we can discuss the biblical validity or invalidity of the position. Thanks for your patience. In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Technical definition From: Rod To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Tues, Nov 14, 2000 at 10:04:20 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Pilgrim, First of all, I have to say that I have never seriously considered this whole concept of participating in a revolution before. It is distasteful to me on a number of levels. One is that I want, like 'everyone else,' to live a peaceful life and to avoid conflict and violence. And I struggle mightily with this because I hate injustice and wrong, cruel actions. As I see the Bible's teaching, I think it's pretty explicit, as evidenced by the examples I've cited. Then, factoring in the implications of the nonactions and nonteaching of the Apostles, when their own lives and the lives of those whom they loved and who followed them were in very real danger, when a madman ruled Rome which governed the world of their day, when 'self-defense' and protection of their own lives was a very real possible cause, then I have a hard time saying there is any reason why anyone should take up arms to overthrow a regime. If I remember correctly, tradition says that all the Apostles were murdered by the government (executed), except John, who was imprisoned late in his life on Patmos. We are talking here of a large-scale, cooperative effort, a unified movement dedicated to concentrated, sustained military action to bring about all the cessation of all actions of the government, making that government cease forever while replacing it by another. I cannot see one Biblical example of that other than the God-ordained holy warfare of Israel against her enemies in taking the land God had given them. Even then, this was an action of a sovereign nation founded by God Who gave a mandate to punish His enemies and accomplish His will, something no other nation or group has had direct instruction to do. Such a revolutionary overthrow is very different from hiding and saving Jews in defiance of an immoral law or action, or the peaceful, rightful protesting and opposition of abortion by every legal, nonviolent means possible. If we really believe in stopping atrocity, we would have to rebel on the basis of abortion. Countless numbers of these 'executions' have taken place with the full authority and approval of our government. 'Partial-birth' abortions are particularly cruel and abominable. Furthermore, they are legally sanctioned. Surely these compare to any other crimes against humanity commited elsewhere, but which take place every day in this nation I live in. If action to overthrow the Nazis was demanded and justified by those within Germany, then undoubtedly such action is likewise demanded and justified in defense of babies who are defenseless and 'innocent' in human terms and who have literally no one to defend them while being perfectly weak and unable to defend themselves. Yet I see no one doing anything in the way of armed rebellion and revolution because of it. I do see some sporadic acts of terrorism in the name of God, such as the bombing of clinics, but no actual revolution. We have the right of individual self-defense when our lives are threatened by other individuals and we have the obligation to help others in immediate danger around us. We, like the Apostles, must 'obey God rather than men.' This I believe. But I also must believe that, if the armed overthrow of evil governments by an uprising of the righteous people were Scriptural, it would have been advocated, discussed, and accomplished in the first century of the Church. The Bible is silent about it insofar as the teaching of the Apostles. It is not silent about individual and collective acts of disobedience to laws and injustice.

Subject: Re: Technical definition From: Pilgrim To: Rod Date Posted: Tues, Nov 14, 2000 at 13:21:56 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Rod, I think we are essentially in agreement from what I have understood of your reply above. Overthrowing and government is different than resisting a government, even with force if need be to protect the lives of others who are innocent victims of a Fascist madman and those who blindly follow him. The latter I would subscribe to without fear of transgressing a biblical mandate. From my perspective, this would forbid the bombing of legal murder establishments that kill untold numbers of unborn children daily. But it would encourage the giving of one's life in defense of the unborn should that become necessary. :-) I also would have sanctioned the killing of Nazi storm troopers who would invade a private dwelling for the sole purpose of capturing and executing Jews; this would of course include my own life and/or my families. Armed resistance is something I cringe to think of as becoming a reality, but I am not opposed to going that far. I am deeply grateful for those who have done so in the past and will do so again if necessary in the future. On the 'biblical evidence' you presented, let me say we must be very careful to distinguish between what was done by others and that which is prescriptive for all. You did bring out a good example using the nation of Israel, which was a Theocracy and the only nation that ever will have that privilege on this earth. And that privilege has been removed from them as well. So that there is now nor ever will be another Theocracy. What I am driving at here, is that what the apostles did may not necessarily be applicable to us to mimic in our lives. Sometimes trying to make this distinction is a very complex and difficult thing to do. :-) Peace. In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Technical definition From: Bdavid To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 23, 2000 at 20:50:38 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I enjoyed reading this thread, but I desire some things to be clarified. Defining some terms will help explain my questions. 1. passive resistance - This involves disobeying laws, but not militantly so. The apostles refusal to obey the high priests command to stop preaching the gospel would fall into this category. The apostles did not obey that law, but they also did not organize an effort to assassinate the high priest, hence they were 'passively resistant.' 2. militant resistance - This involves 'taking up of arms' against the government when the government is acting is a grossly unjust manner. Bonhoeffer's cooperation in the assasination attempt of hitler would fall into this category. 3. revolution - a concentrated, sustained military effort by citizenry to overthrow an existing government. By the previous definitions, no 'revolution' involves passive resistance, but rather always involves militant resistance. 4. non-revolutionary militant resistance - Pilgrims storm trooper scenario would fall into this category. If Nazi storm troopers entered a home with intent to murder one's family members, then a father killing those storm troopers would constitute militant resistance, though not necessarily revolution. If I understand the previous posts correctly,here is what I understand is being advocated. Keep in mind I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the previous posts. I simply desire clarification. My understanding from the previous posts is: 1. 'revolution' (as defined above) is never, under any circumstances warranted by the governed, irrespective of how gross the injustices committed by the government. Bonhoeffer thus acted without biblical authority, as would any citizen who sought to be part of an organized effort to assassinate a president, defeat the military, etc.. 2. non-revolutionary militant resistance is acceptable outside religious contexts. The storm trooper example would follow here. A father would be justified in defending his family from such troopers, even to the point of being militantly resistant, yea, even to the point of killing those troopers, to protect his family. 3. non-revolutionary militant resistance is unacceptable when the government persecution is of a religious nature. Modifying the nazi storm trooper example will make this point. If Roman soldiers were ordered by Nero to apprehend individual Christians and put them to death on account of their faith in Christ, a father can passively resist the soldiers by blockading the door, seeking to let his family escape by letting them down the wall of the city in a basket, etc., but he should not militantly resist by killing the invading soldiers for he was being persecuted for the cause of Christ. Do these three points accurately describe what is being advocated? Am I understanding this thread correctly? Bdavid

Subject: Re: Technical definition From: Rod To: Bdavid Date Posted: Fri, Nov 24, 2000 at 11:35:18 (PST) Email Address: na Message: bdavid, You have done an admirable job of blending the various ideas and contentions into one in the above thread. Yet the issue is so complex and there are such diverse views that these are not the views of one person, but a composite. I don't think I could subscribe to all of them. I would have continued the thread in greater detail, but it was getting very cumbersome and 'the longer I chewed it, the bigger it got!' For example, 'self-defense' as I employed the term, was applied to actions of individuals, not governments, in defense of one's life or the life of other innocents against criminal actions of other individuals or grousp of them. It's been a long time since I studied this, but as I recall, Hitler's initial attacks on the Jews ('the night of broken glass', for example) were not actions by the government, but by armed thugs (who later became 'official'). If that is a correct assessment, then armed resistance seems to me to have been be completely justified, if it had been employed. If it were employed, it was sporadic and isolated, the aggressive actions being so swift and unexpected against a people ill-repared to defend their lives and homes. Sheltering, hiding, and otherwise aiding Jews who were seeking to avoid the Nazis also seems to fall under the acceptable catagory, even if established government activity were involved, as part of the non-violent, 'passive resistance' you spoke of. My nature and sense of outrage wants to say the armed resistance is good and desirable also, but I cannot, based on the Biblical examples of nonviolence I have cited and referred to before. Again, it's been thirty years or so since I looked into this, but the plot to kill Hitler with the bomb was very intricate. It involved several individuals, as I recall, and wasn't specifically 'Christian' in its inception, but was a sort of 'negociated plan' in which the British government gave its approval and agreed to negociate a peace with the resultant 'ruling faction' if the attempt proved successful. It was neither a traditional military 'revolution' in which a concerted military effort was waged, nor simply an act of terrorism. It was a premeditated murder (attempted) deemed justifiable by the participants due to the stakes involved. The murder was what we now normally refer to as 'an assassination' of a head of state or ranking government official which is deemed 'justifiable' by those who perpetrate the act on the basis of what is in their best interests or is 'morally just' as they determine it to be. Your remark that the decision has to be judged on the actions of the individual Christian is on target, in my opinion: 'Bonhoeffer thus acted without biblical authority, as would any citizen who sought to be part of an organized effort to assassinate a president, defeat the military, etc..' The expression, 'any citizen,' however, goes beyond the scope of the discussion, as we have been discussing only those citizens who are also foremost of the citizenship of Heaven. The non-Christian is not bound by, nor does he accept, the same standards as the child of God. The world's concept of 'morality' and 'justice' are different from the honest Christian's, though the basis of the concepts may derive from religious (not necessarily 'Christian') precepts.

Subject: Re: Technical definition From: Bdavid To: Rod Date Posted: Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 06:03:13 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Rod, Well said. What are your thoughts on these points: 1. God has established nations to establish laws to maintain order and avenge evil doers so as to maintain justice. 2. Laws which nations establish will fall into only one of three categories: righteous laws (a prohibition against incest), morally neutral laws (the requirement to carry a drivers license when driving), and evil laws (a 'one child policty' where parents are required to abort their child. 3. God requires Christians to obey the government as respects righteous laws, for by definition the laws are righteous, and to violate them is to sin both in not submitting to the government and also in the act inself. For example, a governments prohibition against incest aligns with God's probition, so to disregard that law is to be guilty of two sins: failure to submit to the governing authorities, as well as guilty of sexual impurity. 4. Christians are to submit to morally neutral laws, for by definition the laws in themselves do not have a moral character. Christians are to submit to those laws not because the laws are righteous in themselves, but simply because God requires Christians to submit to the governing authorities so as to maintain social order. Speed limits, the requirement of liability insurance, etc., Christians are to submit to these laws. 5. Christians are to submit to unrighteous laws, insofar as submitting to those laws does not constitute a violation of a greater scripture principle. For example, a king may establish a 75% tax so as to satisfy his greed, and in such a case the 75% tax is an unrighteous law for it is oppresive and rooted in greed. However, submitting to such a tax does not is not in itself an unjust thing. No one could rightfully accuse a Christian of injustice by paying such a tax. However, if a King had a one child policy, requiring parents to abort their second child, this law is also unrighteous but falls into a different category. Submission to this law would involve violating God's law of 'do not murder.' Christians are under no obligation to submit to this law. I recognize this is a brief summary, but would you agree with the essence of it? Bdavid

Subject: Re: Technical definition From: Pilgrim To: Bdavid Date Posted: Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 07:49:49 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Bdavid, If I may make a comment here on something you wrote, realizing that these questions were directly asked of Rod? Excuse my impetuosity and rudeness. You wrote: '2. Laws which nations establish will fall into only one of three categories: righteous laws . . . , morally neutral laws . . . , and evil laws . . .' What I find acceptable is this second category of law; morally neutral laws. I don't believe there can be such a thing as 'morally neutral'. Something is either approved of God or disapproved; it is either good or evil; expressive of God's righteousness or sinful. Even the biblical category of those things which are considered 'Adiophora' (indifferent), are morally good and approved of God. The 'indifference' pertains not to the inherent moral status of the item or action, but that of the choice of the individual. Whether one eats chocolate cake with pistachio frosting or abstains is not a matter of 'right and wrong' but a matter of either partaking of something which is good or not partaking of that which is good. The person is under no commandment or obligation to partake and therefore the choice to do so or not is a matter of 'indifference'! However, no one is enjoined to do that which is evil! :-) The point I am trying to make here is that a law, established by man, can only fall into two categories; morally good or morally evil. If a law is evil, and it directly commands a Christian to do that which is against the law(s) of God, then it cannot be obeyed. Otherwise, from what I gathered from a very cursory reading of your post, I think I could affirm what you wrote. :-) In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Technical definition From: Rod To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 10:46:37 (PST) Email Address: na Message: You know what, Bdavid and Pilgrim? After a very cursory reading of each post, paradoxically, I think I agree with each of you! :>)

Subject: Re: Technical definition From: Bdavid To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 09:05:39 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Pilgrim, I don't mind at all that you responded to the question I addressed to Rod. In fact I'm glad you did. You wrote: ' Something is either approved of God or disapproved; it is either good (morally) or evil (morally); expressive of God's righteousness or sinful' I do not think we disagree on this matter; it may just be a matter of semantics. When I was suggesting that a law could be 'morally neutral,' I was speaking in reference to moral absolutes. For example, if a country at one time prohibited abortion on demand, then that law is a just law. But if the country then later reversed its policy and commanded abortions after a family had one child, then that law is an evil law, for to obey such a reversal would involve violating scripture. This scenario does not apply to other laws, however, such as speed limits. If a country prohibits driving over 55, Christians can submit to that law. But if the country reverses itself and commands people to drive 65 on the highways, Christians can submit to that reversal as well. Such reversals in the national highway speed limit from 55 to 65 are of no moral consequence to Christians; it does not constrain them to disobey God's law, for absolutes are not involved and the law is in this sense 'neutral'. This could not be said of a reversal in abortion law, as previously described. Bdavid

Subject: Re: Technical definition From: Pilgrim To: Bdavid Date Posted: Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 13:22:07 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Bdavid, Understood! :-) I was just trying to comment on the fundamental aspect of 'morality and law'; i.e., that a law is either moral or immoral. There can be no in between 'neutrality' regardless of the aspect of that law to which it addresses, e.g., speed limits. In the case of setting speeds for roads traveled, they are to be construed as being 'moral' and not 'neutral'. I am assuming here, semantics aside, that we are in agreement. :-) I am very sensitive to this particular issue for one specific area where the contention of 'neutrality' is often used, is with the issue of music. The majority of professing Christians today would contend that music is something 'neutral' and thus relegated to a matter of 'taste'; to which I strongly oppose! Of course, this is something far off topic from this thread, and I apologize for including it here. 'The Devil made me do it!' hahaha :-) In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Technical definition From: Bdavid To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 20:54:34 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Pilgrim, Amen! Time to discuss the topic of contemporary christian music in another thread! :-) Bdavid

Subject: Re: Technical definition From: Rod To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Tues, Nov 14, 2000 at 14:39:23 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Peace, my brother. :>)

Subject: Excellent point Rod! nt From: Eric To: Rod Date Posted: Tues, Nov 14, 2000 at 10:34:37 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: nt

Subject: Re: Christians and revolution From: Tom To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 21:50:24 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Thanks Pilrim I agree with you on what you said.:-) Tom

Subject: 2 New Articles on Predestination From: Pilgrim To: All Date Posted: Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 20:23:07 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: All, Due to the current discussion on Double Predestination and more specifically on the complex doctrines of Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism, I have added two new articles to the PREDESTINATION section. Both are from Herman Bavinck's Doctrine of God translated into English by Dr. William Hendriksen. The first article is on the Development of the Doctrine of Predestination, with a primary focus on the Reformed churches. See it here: HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE The second article deals specifically with a discussion concerning Infra- and Supralapsarianism. See it here: INFRA- AND SUPRA- May these be of help to those who are wanting to know more of God and of His 'secret work'. And may they be an source of further edification, encouragement and humility before God to all! In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: A comparison of... From: David Teh To: All Date Posted: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 04:46:09 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hi folks, Between John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, John Owen and Thomas Goodwin.....are there any difference in their theology? I know this is a tall order....but I would be interested. 8-P By the way, is there a source out there for really discounted prices of Thomas Goodwin's 12-volume works (published by Tanski Publications)?

Subject: Re: A comparison of... From: JOwen To: David Teh Date Posted: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 09:14:48 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: That is a tall order! 3 of the 4 (some would argue 4/4) were not Presbyterian, but Reformed Congregationalists. The Savoy Confession would set forth all the doctrinal distinctive of Thomas Goodwin, John Owen, and Jonathan Edwards. All 4 gentlemen were Historicist postmillennialists. Calvin is harder to nail down because so many camps claim he represents their doctrine. The Dutch, the Scottish, the English, the Swiss, the American, etc, all claim Calvin not only in their generalities but also their particulars. That seems to be the problem; Calvin was too far removed by time from the glory of the second reformation to pinpoint his place. Calvin set forth particular doctrines, but those great scholars of the next reformation perfected them. Which particular doctrines would you like to know about in respect to their differences? In almost any doctrine you pick, it will be an emphasis difference rather than a qualitative difference. We have a bookstore up here in Canada that carries Goodwin's 12 volumes for I think $255 Cdn. That would translate into about $180 US with the current exchange. Let me know if that is a good enough deal for you. JOwen.

Subject: Re: A comparison of... From: David Teh To: JOwen Date Posted: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 16:53:03 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hi JOwen, Thanks for the insight. Off the cuff, I would say the doctrines of salvation (justification, sanctification etc), and the natures of unregenerated and regenerated man would be of chief concern. Would you have the contact of the bookstore and do they deliver overseas to Asia Pacific? Another tall order, anyone seen a software package that includes the complete works of all 4 gentlemen - Owen, Goodwin, Calvin and Edwards? :)

Subject: Re: A comparison of... From: Five Sola To: David Teh Date Posted: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 18:35:04 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: David, Try Ages Software. They have a collection of all of Calvins works (sermons, commentaries, institutes, and more) for about $49 (I think that is the current price. And another CD which has some of edwards stuff, and a historic Reformation which as all nicene father, luther and I think puritans for about $99. It a very good deal. I have spurgeon collection and the basic one (which has some dudes, ie charismagic junk, but even that has been good for research.) the address is http://www.ageslibrary.com/ enjoy Five Sola

Subject: Re: A comparison of... From: David Teh To: Five Sola Date Posted: Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 01:41:25 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hi!! I've been looking at the Ages packages for a while and yes, they are good! Apparently, Goodwin's works are not included in any package now. Anyone knows how that might be accomplished? Are his works still copyrighted?

Subject: Re-Double Predestination From: Tom To: All Date Posted: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 01:16:15 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: I want to be more of an observer of this topic, but as I was observing a post on another Reformed board. I thought that if someone would be able to refute what the poster says, in a point by point form (or at least part of it). It might go a long way to me putting a conclusion to this issue, on my part. However, it is your opinion and others are just as sure of their opinion and can prove their opinion using other parts of the Bible. <<< I hear what you are saying, and there is indeed merit to it, no question. But you're still missing the point, and I'll state it again. My opinion means nothing, and neither does theirs, or anyone's. What means something is 'what scripture does, and does not say.' I can quote scripture 'WORD FOR WORD' which says that believers are 'PREDESTINATED' to be conformed to the image of Christ. No One (and I do mean no one) can quote God anywhere saying that Man was 'PREDESTINATED' to damnation. That's not my opinion, that is an undeniable fact! Because God doesn't use that word predestinated [proorizo] with relationship to those damned. It is man 'himself' who is so presumptuous as to put words into God's mouth saying He has Predestinated to Damnation. No, He has ordained to condemnation. A different word and meaning. Predestination implies an act of deciding or fixing ahead of time. i.e., deciding one will be righteous or deciding one would be unrighteous. God 'DID NOT' decide anyone would be unrighteous, He 'Did' Decide some would be righteous. Thus He uses that word Predestination to define them! He didn't dicide that the unrighteous would be unrighteous, He allowed them to REMAIN unrighteous, thus He uses the word ordained to define that. By not Electing them, He ordained their condemnation. Not Decided it, they did that by their own sin. But the Righteous had to have their fate DECIDED. They (unlike the reprobates) God had to predecide to 'Force' them righteous. Drawn, Dragged, Predestinated to be drawn and dragged!! Sure, I have no doubt that 'some' Reformed brethren believe 'Double Predestination' refers to what they have worked out in their own minds which is quite biblical, however, that wording is distinctly unbiblical pure and simple, and in my view should never be usded! It is confusing to some, and misleading to most, and serves not one wit of purpose other than the two previous i mentioned. The question is not 'why not use it,' the question is, 'Why Use It?' ..why Indeed! Let me ask you a question. If God uses the word ordained or appointed to damnation, and never, Ever, EVER! uses the wording 'PREDESTINATED' unto damnation, then why do you think Theologians are so determined to use the word Predestinated when it's not the God inspired word for those damned? Is the word God 'DID' use not good enough? Don't you think that if God had wanted the word Predestinated to be used for those damned as well as those Saved, He would have inspired it to be used? Well, He didn't! And while to many that means nothing, to me that means something. Every word is inspired, God didn't inspire the use of the word Predestinated to refer to those damned for a reason. And Blessed is the man who discerns that reason. Frankly, I could understand the intrepid use of this word if God had actually used the word for the damned. But to argue we are Biblically justified in using the word Predestination of the damned, when God not only does not use it, but it implies God's predetermining men to be evil, is (in my humble opinion) quite presumptuous and arrogant. I think many (and this is a constant problem in the Church today) are clouding the lines between interpretation, and the faithful testimony of Canon. i.e., 'Predestinated unto damnation' is not the Word of God, it is man's interpretation of God saying He 'ordained or appointed'. On the other hand, 'Predestinated to be conformed to the image of Christ' is unadulterated Word of God, the faithful testimony (not interpretation) of Holy Writ! I'm sorry to say that today, far too many do not see the difference between what is testimony, and what is interpretation.

Subject: Re: Re-Double Predestination From: Rod To: Tom Date Posted: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 13:07:42 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Tom, I'm very hesitant to get into things like this because it really is a difficulty compounded by the fact that the term 'double predestination' is man-made, not in the Scriptures. And, unlike the Trinity, it isn't as often directly dealt with, marked out, and delineated as is the fact of the triunity of God, a fact also never directly stated. It is man's attempt to make the incomprehensible more understandable. I had a hard time reading the rant of your quoted poster, but I read part of it. One thing he said is something I have said and believed for a long time. 'Predestination' as it is specifically used in the Bible is to something positive and wonderful: conformation to the image of the Son of God unto glorification with Him (Rom. 8:14-17; 28-30), to the adoption of sons foreknown and foreordained from the foundations of eternity (Eph. 1:4-5), based on nothing but the counsel of God's will (verse 11) which is for his 'good pleasure' (verse 9). 'Good' seems to be a key concept here. His will is 'good' in that it pleases Himself, proof of its ultimate 'goodness,' but it's 'good' also in the moral sense, in that we know from our reading and belief of the Scriptures that whatever God does is morally 'good' and not evil or unjust. His whole will, as I know you believe, is pure and just and good; that is unquestionable. Which brings us to the reprobation part, the part which troubles so many. 'Double predestination' is a concept which seems to indicate that one thing was done and the other was done simutaneously, and somewhat independently of one another. That is, paradoxically, both true, and untrue. The initial thing must be that God determined, based on His 'foreknowledge' (meaning 'fore-love' as well as His knowldege of all things which would occur) that he would, in love and mercy, based on nothing but the love He had for unknown reasons for the elect, save that group and predestinate them to be conformed to the image of His Son as previously indicated. That last sentence is very complicated, but I included several things in it for a reason. That reason was to show that God's 'predestination,' as laid out in the Bible is rooted and founded in love. It is a love which can't be understood or reasoned by us; it is simply unknown in original terms and to be basked in. Because God loved the elect before they were and before they were 'loveable' in human terms, He had mercy on them (see Eph. 2:4-10, esp. verse 4). That love and mercy displayed itself in His desire that they be with Him always and be elevated to glorification with His Son. Simultaneously with that predestination to election, based soley on 'foreknowledge,' had to be the passing by, the willful rejection of predestinating all the remainder of humanity. There is no other way to view it. Some were 'fore-loved' to this predestination based on God's love and mercy; others were not. Yet, owing to the nature of God, we cannot lay injustice or evil at God's feet. Throughout the Bible He says things which declare to us that He is untouchable by those things, that they are apart from Him, that He is the 'holy God' in all the awesome aspects of the term. So the fact that some were passed by, not predestinated, designated 'reprobate' is not an indictment of God. It simply can't be for He has declared Himself holy and blameless. If we can believe anything about God, we must believe He is as He describes Himsel, 'Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory,' the thing which the seraphim cried to one another in Isaiah's vision of the Lord in chapter 6. Thrice holy is our Triune God. If that is not believeable and accepted, there is no reason to accept by faith any of His other pronouncements and truths. That men are lost is, rather, a consequence and outcome of that predestination. They sin and God hasn't determined to love them to predestination to conformation to the image of His Son. And it is an outcome which was simultaneous with the predestination to election for the simple reason that the non-elect were always that: They weren't predestinated to election. Furthermore, it has to be recognized and emphasized that God elected some with the full knowledge and intent that the others wouldn't be elect. That is described somewhat in Rom. 9:6-24. Jacob, who had nothing loveable in him (as his life proved), was chosen by God for salvation and to be the founder of the nation, to be 'Israel'--'Jacob have I loved' (past tense) from the beginning, before his birth. Esau, just as unloveable and just as close to Jacob, humanly speaking as possible, being his fraternal twin, was not chosen, except in a role of subordination and subjection, since God, by comparison, 'hated him.' And why? '...that the purpose of election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth' (verse 11). Jacob was effectually called; Esau was not. 'Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated' (verse 13). Stark reality. One was predestinated to life and glory with the Son of God, the other wasn't. But (and note this) God wasn't responsible for Esau's sin in a moral sense. Esau sold his birthright and sinned. Jacob schemed and connived throughout his whole time at home and with Laban, but God, for no other reason than election, saved him and helped him throughout his life. Without that love and mercy, that predestination, he would have been lost as other men. Such is the shining love and mercy of God, the One who is 'holy, holy, holy.'

Subject: Re: Re-Double Predestination From: Tom To: Rod Date Posted: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 22:52:53 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Rod Thanks for that responce. I can thankfully say that today the truth of the matter donned(sp?) on me. Basically in a nut shell I would put it this way. Predestination implies double predestination. God knows whom he is predestinating to salvation and knows that these are the only people who will be saved, thus the rest will be damned. The one choice determines the eternal destiny for every one. So you have double predestination in fact even if you do not want to call half of the result by the name 'predestination'. In this way I agree with 'double predestination'. But I think sometimes when we use terms like 'double predestination'. We can make the matter more complicated than it is. Along my journey of studying this issue, I have run into people who discribe 'double predestination' in a matter that seems to put God is a sinful possition. Something also donned on me, I believe the things that the person said, in his post that I re-copied, are a matter of semantics. I told him what I told you above, and he said he agreed with how I put it. But he believes using the words 'double predestination' has created more confusion than it is worth. Tom

Subject: Re: Re-Double Predestination From: Rod To: Tom Date Posted: Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 07:37:44 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Tom, I personally don't like the term either, but can't come up with a better. I feel that 'predestination' is a special reservation for the elect alone and I don't like the use of the term when God never uses it in relation to the non-elect. As I perceive the Bible's teaching, you have stated the issue very succinctly.

Subject: Re: Re-Double Predestination From: Pilgrim313 To: Tom Date Posted: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 05:23:06 (PST) Email Address: carolecoley@earthlink.net Message: Tom: I find that the following quote from Dr. Alan Cairns, Faith Free Presby. Church, gives a good understanding of what you are dealing with. Hope it helps. 'Double Predestination. The theory that by predestinating some to salvation by a free and sovereign decree, God in the same way predestinated all others to be damned. It is a very deficient theory, for it makes condemnation to rest upon an arbitrary decree of God, without reference to a sinner's guilt. It therefore presents a false view of reprobation. Spurgeon's maxim is well woth remembering; 'Salvvation is all of grace, damnation is all of sin.' The elect receive a slavation with they have not personally merited. Their election is entirely sovereign and takes no account whatever of their personal merits. Reprobation is partly sovereign and partly judicial. The reprobate recive a damnation which they have fully and personally merited. No man goes to hell merely because he is not elect. All who perish do so because they personally deserve to perish. God's predetermination that the reprobate should perish everlastingly takes note of their sin, and is based upon His holy hatred of it.'

Subject: ????? From: geo To: Pilgrim313 Date Posted: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 16:24:44 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Pilgrim, What about verses such as Prov. 16:4, Isa. 45:7, Rev. 13:8, 1Peter 2:9 and Romans 9:20-21? Your Supralapsarian friend, george

Subject: Re : ????? From: john To: geo Date Posted: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 20:51:59 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Prov. 16:4, Isa. 45:7, Rev. 13:8, 1Peter 2:9 and Romans 9:20-21? In order to stand on the day of evil (Prov 16:4, Eph 6:13, Jer 17:18) one must have the whole armor of God, that is salvation. The day of Evil is Judgment Day. Prov 16:4 says, 'The Lord hath made all for Himself; yea, even the wicked for the day of evil', basically God is saying the wicked are created by God for one end... Judgment Day. The verse says God made ALL things, amongst the things He made were men who would end up under damnation; it doesn't say God decreed evil in men by positive action. The word 'evil' has meanings such as distress, misery, wrong. In 1 Sa 10:19 it is God who rescued the Hebrews out of their adversities (evil) or calamities. In Isa 45:7 the inference is that God created the misery which Israel finds itself, because of disobedience. On the other hand blessing and damnation are equally in view, Vs 8 'Let the earth open up and salvation bear fruit' speaks of this salvation (actually the whole chapter speaks of God's salvation). The calamity or evil that Vs 7 has in view is Judgment Day as well as diverse tribulations. God causes these things both, but the HOW is not explained. Rev 13:8 simply states that unless one is not amongst God's elect, they will behave as evil men and worship Satan. It doesn't follow that God has predestined men to be evil, they just are evil because, apparently, God has not acted to make them otherwise. Ditto with 1 Ptr 2:9, God certainly has chosen some for salvation, but that's as far as it goes. Rom 9:21 certainly God prepared beforehand the elect for glory as vessels of mercy. God also endures with patience the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction. How they became vessels of wrath, and how God prepared them is not explained. It says God hated Esau, God has mercy on some and not others and hardens the ones He hates. If this is how He prepares them, where is double predestination in all this? Not to say it cannot be, just the verses given do not show a positive act by God. God hates evil. Esau was evil in God's mind before he was created. Jacob was evil too, but provision was made (in Christ) to appease God's anger. The ones who have no provision made continue in evil, to which God continues to hate them, and on Judgment Day they are punished. If God chose the elect from eternity past, it is hard to say that God did not also choose (by default) who are not the elect. Yet isn't that more a negative or passive choosing by God of the non-elect? The positive action was ONLY in choosing who would find salvation in Christ. While the reason for not choosing some may be equated to God's raising up Pharaoh –'TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER BY YOU' – the non-elect serve a precise purpose in God's salvation plan. God makes one lump of clay for honorable use and another for common use – but they originate in the same lump. The original lump was for common use, but by positive action God has transformed some for honorable use, which is His right as owner of the clay. He did not force clay to be of common use, the entire lump of humanity is this way. The idea of double predestination implies God took positive action to put mankind into a state of rebellion. Neither Infra nor Supra will go that far, God cannot be responsible for making men sin against their will. The Son of God in the Garden said to the Serpent 'Because you have done this…', the responsibility for sin lies at its root with Satan, he was the first liar even before Eve and Adam. The only conclusion I can find is that Satan was created perfectly devoted to God until the creation of man turned him. The only reason this could happen is because God designed Satan to be able to do this and He set up the testing program allowing it to happen exactly according to His decree. Interesting how God used man to test Satan and Satan to test man to bring forth rebellion in both. Yet, I do not see God guilty for Satan's rebellion. God was not under compulsion to keep Satan protected. He was not under compulsion to make Satan this way or that. He was not under compulsion to avoid a situation harmful to Satan. How God designed Satan so that he could be enticed is identical to how he designed Adam and Eve. I have my ideas. It would not be caused by God acting positively toward His creations, rather, it seems to be a by-product of having a creation that needs something for fulfillment (originally God was that source). How being fulfilled by God from the start, Satan or Adam were able to possess an unfilled need is worth exploring—-it is the key to the origin of sin. john

Subject: What do the verses say? From: george To: john Date Posted: Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 08:21:49 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: John, One must carry into his interpretation his own preconcieved presupposition to come up with your answers to each verse given by me. Prov. 16:4, says that God 'created all for Himself, yes even the wicked for the day of doom.' The verse doesn't say, if a person doesn't believe in Jesus at the end of his time on earth, he then has determined his destination. The verse says God has determine his destination, 'even the wicked for the day of doom.' Doesn't this verse coincide nicely with 1Peter 2:9, 'They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.'? Did these individuals appoint themselves by their disobedience? The verse seems to imply that even their disobedience was appointed. Which brings up Satan and the rebellion in the garden. Did not God know and plan the very fall of Adam and Eve, and use Satan as the instrument? Being omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, as only a true God can be, answers my question. Isaiah 45:7, in context is speaking of using Cyrus as God's instrument to 'subdue nations before him..' and then God justifies His sovereign right to do so. After all, He says, 'there is none besides Me. I am the Lord, and there is no other: I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil...' This Hebrew word is the same word used in the garden for the tree of good and evil. God doesn't play by the same rules as his subjects. 'His ways are not our ways.' Romans 9:20-21, begins with the premise, 'who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, Why have you made me like this?' Which by the way is also found in Isaiah 45:9, coincidence? No, way! What then is the answer? 'Does not the Potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?' Does not the following verses say God endures with longsufferring the vessels of wrath, that He prepared for destruction (not the individual), that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy? As good as the notion that God actively is involved with the elect and passively passes by the reprobate (preterition), one must read into these verses that presupposition, for it's not found in the verses. John, I believe that we are culpable for the decisions we make, but even those decisions were determined long ago by God and fit into His plans. Romans 11:36, 'For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be the glory forever. Amen.' george

Subject: Re: What do the verses say? From: Tom To: george Date Posted: Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 12:36:46 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: George Do you admitt that all that God needs to do is not elect someone, and that person automatically by their own sin nature will die in their sin? If you do, keep that in mind, as you look at the verses in question. That is something that has helped me, as I look at this matter. Tom

Subject: The mysterious counsel of God? From: george To: Tom Date Posted: Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 16:31:56 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Tom, I would admit that this is the case. The problem arises when one tries to understand when did God elect someone, before the consequences of the fall or after.And were the consequences, the deciding factor of His sovereign choice?If the fall wasn't the deciding aspect of election, then one has to come to grips with a God who may of created evil for His own purposes, or for His own glory and man is of secondary concern, though benefits greatly. Remember if this is the scenario, God is none the less, righteous and Holy. Finite man just can't comprehend a God who is able to use evil in a first causal scheme of things and not be evil. The supralapsarian position is supported by a great amount of Scripture, though it has very few supporters. george

Subject: Re: The mysterious counsel of God? From: Pilgrim To: george Date Posted: Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 20:33:21 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: George, You know brother, all that you have presented for 'your view', ala Supralapsarianism, can be just as quickly and surely be agreed upon by a quasi-Infralapsarian like me! :-) The decree (decrees) were all done in eternity before God created anything. What was foreordained by the Lord God was done so according to His infinite wisdom and will. I do however believe that God took 'into account' [remember, this is still part and only existent in the divine intuition] the Fall, which He also ordained for His glory. What we are discussing here is a deep mystery and therefore no one should allow themselves to become dogmatic about their respective view; either Infralapsarian or Supralapsarian. :-) Scripturally and logically, these are the only two reasonable choices one can hold to without degrading the biblical definition of Deity. My labeling myself a 'quasi-Infralapsarian' is for a reason and I feel a very good one indeed. I hold firmly to a Double-Predestination and thus reject any and all attempts to make God PASSIVE in anything, but especially in His decree to save and/or to damn. It is verily impossible that God merely 'passes by' a certain portion of the human race and 'leaves them to their own devices'! This approach would force God to abdicate His sovereignty. I am sure you would heartily agree here! Although God does indeed 'interact' with His creation, His involvement with it is only the bringing to fruition all that He, in eternity, foreordained. To 'pass by' is no less a concrete decree than the one to save. Unfortunately, many make this 'passing by' PASSIVE. But our forebearers used no such terminology, but rather spoke of a 'positive/negative' predestination to distinguish between all that was involved in the salvation of some and the damnation of others. In the 'positive' decree to save, God becomes personally active in that He regenerates; recreates a soul, becomes incarnate, suffers vicariously and substitutionally for the sins of those who He has foreknown/foreloved and so providentially directs and upholds them throughout their earthly existence that they are infallibly brought to glorification. In the 'negative' decree to damn, He 'simply' decreed the Fall and ultimately renders justice and judgment upon all who are not included in the decree to save. There is no need for the LORD God to 'intervene' into the lives of these individuals, since the Fall, and consequently their own acts secure their end. This is not to say that God does not providentially direct these individuals in their sinful acts however! The crucifixion is the paradigm to show that indeed, God is active in ALL the affairs of men; elect and reprobate alike. Again, and lastly, I am a 'quasi-Infralapsarian' because there is enough 'evidence' in the Scriptures to support both views, in my estimation. Herman Bavinck, in his Doctrine of God has written some of the most succinct and I believe wisest words on this perennial debate. I will assume you have read this section as well! :-) In His Grace, Pilgrim Addendum: 'Pilgrim313' asked below why should any Christian bother with such matters! My answer is simply, because it is a matter that reveals the majesty and wonder of God which at the end of the day, forces any true believer to lie prostrate and worship the one and only true God Who is sovereign over all! "Whether God has decreed all things that ever come to pass or not, all that own the being of a God, own that He knows all things beforehand. Now, it is self-evident that if He knows all things beforehand, He either doth approve of them or doth not approve of them; that is, He either is willing they should be, or He is not willing they should be. But to will that they should be is to decree them." — Jonathan Edwards "It has been well said that 'true worship is based upon recognized greatness, and greatness is superlatively seen in Sovereignty, and at no other footstool will men really worship." — A.W. Pink

Subject: Re: The mysterious counsel of God? From: george To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 07:36:21 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Pilgrim, I enjoy reading your response. The Lord has blessed you with savvy. Yes, I have read Herman Bavinck and agree that he is a good reference on the subject. He leans more to the supralapsarian position, which is OK in my humble opinion. george

Subject: Re: The mysterious counsel of God? From: Rod To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 21:23:50 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Pilgrim, I appreciated very much what you just wrote, things which need to be emphasized. In particular, this portion is to be underscored: ''In the 'positive' decree to save, God becomes personally active in that He regenerates; recreates a soul, becomes incarnate suffers vicariously and substitutionally for the sins of those who He has foreknown/foreloved and so providentially directs and upholds them throughout their earthly existence that they are infallibly brought to glorification. In the 'negative' decree to damn, He 'simply' decreed the Fall and ultimately renders justice and judgment upon all who are not included in the decree to save. There is no need for the LORD God to 'intervene' into the lives of these individuals, since the Fall, and consequently their own acts secure their end. This is not to say that God does not providentially direct these individuals in their sinful acts however! The crucifixion is the paradigm to show that indeed, God is active in ALL the affairs of men; elect and reprobate alike.'' While I think it is most important to declare that, Biblically, 'predestination' is specifically to life, there is the natural 'flip side' to that decree with God directing and at the helm as the absolute Sovereign of all His creation. He will work 'all things together for good that love God....' In doing so, He works in the lives of those passed by whom He purposed to pass by in His supreme plan and whom, as you pointed out, He directs in Providence to bring the plan to fruition. It's all in His intention and action to bring about the punishment and damnation of those whom He has not elected, whose sin He has determined from eternity to use in His good purpose as the 'holy God.' That mystery is impenetrable by the likes of men, but is, nevertheless, undeniable by the careful student of the Bible.

Subject: Re: The mysterious counsel of God? From: Pilgrim To: Rod Date Posted: Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 12:02:16 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Rod, Thanks brother, for your words of kindness and respect. Due to the nature and subject of this most recent topic of 'Double Predestination and Reprobation' I have posted an article by the well known Christian and theologian, Benjamin Breckenridge Warfield What Fatalism Is, in The Highway's 'Predestination' section. Also, in that same section, there is an excellent book by John Bunyan Reprobation Asserted, which is well worth the time to read. And of interest to some, it is a short book! :~). Enjoy! In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: The mysterious counsel of God? From: Rod To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 15:14:43 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Thanks, Pilgrim, I take this excerpt from Warfield's little article: ''Now, is it not remarkable that men with hearts on fire with love to God should not know him from Fate? Of course, the reason is not far to seek. Like other men, and like the singer in the sweet hymn that begins, "I was a wandering sheep," they have a natural objection to being "controlled."'' I heard someone say long ago, I think quoting or at least paraphrasing A. W. Pink, that the reason people didn't believe the principles of sovereign grace and 'Calvinism' is human 'pride.' Man naturally wants to be the 'captian of his own soul and destiny.' To charge that a belief in what boils down to the absolute sovereignty of God is fatalism is both unjustified and demonstrative of an immature faith. Not to be able to accept that God does arrange all the affairs and events of men to His purpose,and that for the benefit of his elect to His own glory, is to ignore passages such as Acts 2:22-36 which you cited as well as the much lesser known Job 13:15 that Warfield cites. It ignores the plaintive cry of Jeremiah 3:1-21: 'He hath enclosed my ways with hewn stone; he hath made my paths crooked. He was to me like a bear lying in wait, and like a lion in secret places. He hath turned aside my ways, and pulled me in pieces; he hath made me desolate. He hath bent his bow, and set me as a mark for the arrow. He hath caused the arrows of his quiver to enter into my heart...My soul hath them still in remembrance, and is humbled in me. This I recall to my mind; therefore have I hope. It is because of the LORD's mercies that we are not consumed...' (verses 9-22). A few verses later the prophet says, 'Who is he who saith, and it cometh to pass, when the LORD commandeth it not? Out of the mouth of the Most High proceedeth not evil and good? Why doth a living man complain, a man for the punishment of his sins?' (verses 37-39). I hate to keep singing the same song, but it seems so hard to grasp: 'And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose' (Rom. 8:28). In accomplishing His purposes God does things both incomprehensible to man and which seem harsh, even 'wrong,' when trust in Him isn't implicit as it was with Job and Jeremiah, as evidenced by the woeful cry of the Lord Jesus who was judicially made to be sin for us: 'My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?' Job and Jeremiah benefitted spiritually from their sufferings and became closer to God. Because the Lord Jesus suffered unfairly for others, those others benefitted spiritually and now are enabled by His action to become so close to God that they are joint-heirs with their Savior. God directs the events and affairs of His creation. He uses all things, even evil, including evil men and the Enemy, to accomplish His 'good pleasure.' The child of God who refuses to see this does God an injustice and has a hard lesson yet to learn. May God enable us to see this truth and to glorify Him with Job and Jeremiah in all His goodness.

Subject: Re: The mysterious counsel of God? From: Tom To: george Date Posted: Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 19:17:50 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Since Eph.1:4 tells us that we were elected from the foundations of the world. The only way my mind can think of this issue, is that since God knew long before the fall that man would fall. He decided to elect some before the foundations of the world. I don't think knowing man would sin is the same as making man sin. Man sinned on his own behalf, God didn't force him to sin. Adam was created with a free will (unlike us) but provide Adam and Eve with the choice of obeying God or not. They will choose sin. When they sinned, it was an indication that they believed the serpents cleaver lies above God's truth. Tom

Subject: Re: The mysterious counsel of God? From: Pilgrim313 To: george Date Posted: Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 16:46:16 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: George: you wrote: 'The problem arises when one tries to understand when did God elect someone, before the consequences of the fall or after.And were the consequences, the deciding factor of His sovereign choice?If the fall wasn't the deciding aspect of election, then one has to come to grips with a God who may of created evil for His own purposes, or for His own glory and man is of secondary concern, though benefits greatly.' I must in all sincerity ask you, What difference does it make to a True Christian, when, or why God elected him/her? When one truly knows the Lord Jesus Christ, our lives are to be Holy unto Him, taken up with Him, and Lived thru/with Him....Do you really beleive that one needs to 'ponder' ''now, I wonder when it was that God actually elected me''???? I do read in Scripture, that 'I beseech you therefore, brethren by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to ;this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.' Rm.12:1,2....funny, I don't remember ever reading a commandment about trying to 'ponder' about when God elected us to salvation. :)

Subject: Re: The mysterious counsel of God? From: george To: Pilgrim313 Date Posted: Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 07:31:12 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Pilrim 313, I agree that it is really of least importance and basically impossible to dwell and or figure out God's sovereign choice in respect to the elect and the reprobate. The problem, I have found, is that we are challenged by Arminian-Palagian theologies at every bend. To try and understand Infra-Supralapsarian positions, is not a bad thing, except when we get dogmatic, and darn right ugly. I hold more to the supra position, but both positions are supported by Scripture. george

Subject: Re: Re-Double Predestination From: David Teh To: Pilgrim313 Date Posted: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 06:34:09 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hi...er...Pilgrim(is that you, Pilgrim? what's the 313?), I did a quick read of what Tom posted. It seems like the poster's disagreement with, say, Dr. Sproul's article on double predestination, borders on semantics?

Subject: Re: Re-Double Predestination From: laz To: David Teh Date Posted: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 11:45:00 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: David - I think it's another 'pilgrim'....and I agree with your point about semantics. I see a distinction without a difference. If God 'appoints' some to damnation...just when does this person think God made that decision? Since God is immutable, that decision to appoint some for salvation and others to damnation necessarily takes place before time itself...as all such knowledge has been forever rooted in the very mind of an unchangable God. Maybe the word 'predestination' is always used in the positive sense - with regard to the Elect? blessings, laz

Subject: Good Advice or Bad Advice? From: Tom To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 09, 2000 at 13:00:36 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Good Advice or Bad Advice? Over the course of one's Christian walk, they are going to run into many different views of the same issue. The Infra-Supra-lapsarian debate is no exception to this. When we run into difficult passages of scripture and are having difficulty deciding what to make of it. We must remember that scripture should be spiritual discerned. In other words we should not just use our own understanding to get to the bottom of the issue. We should face the issue in prayer. While it is good to consult more mature believers on issues. In the end they are not the one's responsible for what you believe, YOU are. No matter what someone says concerning the issue, if in the end, your conscience tells you they are wrong, go with it, no matter how much someone protests otherwise. That doesn't mean that they are wrong, it just means that you are being honest. God knows what you truly believe, and you can not hide that from Him, so why try?

Subject: Re: Good Advice or Bad Advice? From: laz To: Tom Date Posted: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 12:09:33 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: It's not only good advice, but biblical as it's the Spirit of God bearing witness with ours that confirms what we are to believe about Him (Rom9:1, 8:16; 1Joh5:6). laz

Subject: Re: Good Advice or Bad Advice? From: john To: Tom Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 09, 2000 at 21:19:00 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Tom, True. Scripture is written, and must be interpreted to have meaning. The interpretation must survive the challenge of everything else written in the Bible; the Scriptures are one and cannot be broken. We should challenge each other to compare Scripture with Scripture, forcing our errors to the forefront for removal. Steel sharpens steel -- or as in the case of modern Christianity, a wet-noodle sharpens a wet-noodle. john

Subject: Re: Good Advice or Bad Advice? From: Tom To: john Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 09, 2000 at 23:29:31 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: John So I take it that you think it is good advice. Tom

Subject: Cessation of Sign Gifts From: Brother Bret/ 1 More :^ ) To: All Date Posted: Sun, Nov 05, 2000 at 19:48:19 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hello Again: I am in a discussion right now with someone who wants me to prove to him Scripturally (but believes I can't) that certain gifts (sign gifts) have ceased. In dealing with Tongues I have always used 1Cor.13:8-11, showing that the Tongues 'ceased on their own' in verse 8, and that they are not mentioned with Knowledge and Prophecy which will fail/vanish away when that which is perfect will come (the eternal state). Then there is the gradual decline of the sign gifts as the infant church got older, and of course the purpose of the gifts (1Cor.14:20-22; Is.28:11-12;Heb.2:4). Any other support? Or do you believe they have not ceased either :^ )? BB

Subject: The Missing Gifts From: Jimmy To: Brother Bret/ 1 More :^ ) Date Posted: Mon, Nov 06, 2000 at 09:07:50 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Bret, You wrote: 'Then there is the gradual decline of the sign gifts as the infant church got older, … Now, I'm not arguing for the continuation of the gifts, but :o) this statement of yours could just as easily be used by those that do argue for the continuation of the gifts. The gifts of the Spirit that we read about in the New Testament did not suddenly and abruptly stop, their manifestation gradually disappeared as a professional clergy came into power. It could be argued that the gifts of the Spirit are quenched in proportion to the power of the 'clergy' class. 1 Thess. 5:19 Quench not the Spirit. 1 Thess. 5:20 Despise not prophesyings. Quench means, literally, to put out a fire by drowning it with water. Here it is used in reference to the gifts of the Spirit. Therefore it could be argued that the gifts of the Spirit can be 'quenched.' This warning about quenching the Spirit has to do with the manifestations of the gifts of the Spirit in a 'local' Church. When Paul, by the Spirit, commands, 'Stop putting out the spirit's fire,' (as verse 19 can be translated), It means he wants them to stop hindering the ministry of the gifts of the Spirit. Here in Thessalonia leadership based upon 'official' position, based upon man's natural ability to organize rather than the spiritual abilities of the Spirit had begun to take over. To organize, to take charge, and to 'keep order' men were persuading people to quench their gifts. Some had probably abused the 'liberty of the Spirit' while others may have tried to fake the gifts of the Spirit. The more sober-minded among them overreacted and, in the name of order, had organized a more structured worship service, a worship service that they could control. Organization means the restriction of individual liberty, in the interest of order. As organization grew the manifesting of the gift of the Spirit diminished. By the end of the second century ministering through the gifts of the Spirit had been, for the most part, replaced by 'official ministers'. As the people of God were divided into 'clergy' and 'laity' the gifts of the Spirit stopped being manifested. As a special class of 'ministers' took over the operation of the 'church' the gifts of the Spirit ceased to function. The 'clergy' with their organizing power did not want or need prophets and other Spirit gifted people interfering in their business. It could be argued that the Church of God was now 'hidden' and in its place was an organization of man. This organization 'church' was being directed by 'officials' by a 'clergy' class instead of by the Holy Spirit. Christians were being 'ministered' to with the 'natural' abilities of a clergy class instead of ministering the gifts of the Spirit one to another. Sincerely, Jimmy

Subject: Re: The Missing Gifts From: laz To: Jimmy Date Posted: Mon, Nov 06, 2000 at 14:13:12 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Funny how the seven letters to the seven Churches in Revelation...Christ does not rebuke any of these churches over the grievous sin of 'quenching'? hmmmm laz

Subject: Nicolaitanes From: Jimmy To: laz Date Posted: Mon, Nov 06, 2000 at 16:51:31 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hi Laz, You wrote: Funny how the seven letters to the seven Churches in Revelation...Christ does not rebuke any of these churches over the grievous sin of 'quenching'? Rev. 2:6 But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate. Rev. 2:15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate. No group known as the Nicolaitians can be found in church history. One explanation of who the Nicolaitanes were is that Nicolaus of Antioch (Acts 6:5), another of the 'deacons' mentioned with Philip and Stephen, is supposed to have given his name to a group in the early church who sought to work out a compromise with paganism. A compromise that enabled Christians to take part in some of the social and religious activities of the society in which they lived. All this explanation has to go on is the similarity of the names Nicolaus and Nicolaitians. Nicolaus of Antioch is also said to have been a faithful husband who brought up his children in purity. Nicolaitanes in Greek is composed of two words. The word Nikao, in the original Greek word 'Nikaolaos,' means conquer or above others. The word Laos, in the original Greek word 'Nikaolaos,' means common people, secular people, or laity. It also means laymen in contrast with the experts and professionals. The word Nicolaitanes means, 'to conquer the laymen.' It means that there is a special group of people 'inside' a trade or profession while the rest are the 'lay people', the people 'outside' the trade or profession. If we go by their name the Nicolaitanes refers to a group or class of people who have made themseves higher than the 'common' believer. They have made themselves higher by bringing a class distinction into Christianity. Nicolaitians are the 'clergy class', the 'conquerors of the common people.'Nicolaitians are the professionals of Christianity, teaching that God has called them to a higher calling than that of the 'common' Christian. Sincerely, Jimmy

Subject: Re: Nicolaitanes From: stan To: Jimmy Date Posted: Mon, Nov 06, 2000 at 18:30:32 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: you mention: The word Nicolaitanes means, 'to conquer the laymen.' It means that there is a special group of people 'inside' a trade or profession while the rest are the 'lay people', the people 'outside' the trade or profession. Could you footnote that for us. stan

Subject: Re: Nicolaitanes From: Jimmy To: stan Date Posted: Mon, Nov 06, 2000 at 19:01:03 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hi Stan, I'm not sure what you mean by a footnote but here is a quote from the 1917 Scofield: [1] {Nicolaitanes} From \\nikao\\, 'to conquer,' and \\laos\\, 'the people,' or 'laity.' There is no ancient authority for a \\sect\\ of the Nicolaitanes. If the word is symbolic it refers to the earliest form of the notion of a priestly order, or 'clergy,' which later divided an equal brotherhood # Mt 23:8 into 'priests' and 'laity.' What in Ephesus was 'deeds' # Eph 2:6 had become in Pergamos a 'doctrine # Re 2:15 Sincerely, Jimmy

Subject: No 'ancient authority'? From: Theo To: Jimmy Date Posted: Mon, Nov 06, 2000 at 20:05:35 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Jimmy, I am somewhat suprised about there being no 'ancient authority' for a sect of the Nicolaitans. Irenaeus of Lyon lived in the 2nd century; he was born about 130 A.D. He actually as a child heard Polycarp, and saw men who had known the Apostle John. In his 'Against Heresies', i.26.3, he says that 'The Nicolaitanes are the followers of that Nicolas who was one of the seven first ordained to the diaconate by the Apostles. They lead lives of unrestrained indulgence. The character of these men is very plainly pointed out in the Apocalypse of John, [when they are represented] as teaching that it is a matter of indifference to practice adultery, and to eat things sacrificed to idols. Wherefore the Word has also spoken of them thus: 'But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate.'' Irenaeus later (in the third book of 'Against Heresies') appears to label this group as a Gnostic group--which might fit well with John's warning against them. I realize there are modern authors who disagree with this, but the 'two Greek words' theory appears to have first been promulgated by C.A. Neumann in 1712, per the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, published by Eerdmans. In Christ the King, Theo PS: The above is adapted from a post I did elsewhere (another of my infrequent appearances.) :-)

Subject: Re: Nicolaitanes From: stan To: Jimmy Date Posted: Mon, Nov 06, 2000 at 20:04:32 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: By footnote I wanted you to tell us your source for your definition. I could only find one author that mentions your definition and he said that 'some' say that it means, which is not much of an authority. The lexicon I use defines it as 'destruction of people' which lacks the indications you imply. Laity in Scofields note might well be an interpretation on his part rather than translation/meaning. Your note does not appear in my later Scofield. Maybe some of our resident language experts might share some of their knowledge :-) stan

Subject: Re: The Missing Gifts/ ROFLOL-nt From: Bro.Bret To: Jimmy Date Posted: Mon, Nov 06, 2000 at 11:14:47 (PST) Email Address: Lovitz5@juno.com Message:

Subject: See, Bret, it's all YOUR fault! :>) nt From: Rod To: Jimmy Date Posted: Mon, Nov 06, 2000 at 09:28:59 (PST) Email Address: na Message:

Subject: Re: Cessation of Sign Gifts From: Pilgrim To: Brother Bret/ 1 More :^ ) Date Posted: Sun, Nov 05, 2000 at 20:20:48 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Bret, There are a couple of good articles on The Highway home page in the Calvinism and the Reformed Faith section. And JOwen wrote a very good polemic against the continuation of the 'revelatory gifts' below here: JOwen's Article. In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Cessation of Sign Gifts From: Brother Bret To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Mon, Nov 06, 2000 at 11:23:23 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Pilgrim: The J.Owens article was not hyperlinked in your response, and I don't see anything in the section you referred to above :^ ) Thanks, sorry! BB

Subject: Re: Cessation of Sign Gifts From: JOwen To: Brother Bret Date Posted: Mon, Nov 06, 2000 at 16:35:39 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: ** Brother Bert*** Here it is again. If I might, I would like to give you my take on the subject of the gifts. I was raised a Pentecostal, and am now approaching ordination in an Exclusive Psalmnodist Presbyterian Church. You can only imagine the road the Lord has put me on to lead me to this point. What a gracious Lord and Redeemer! I hope this will help in some small way. Major Premise: The Extraordinary gifts have ceased. It is my purpose now to prove three things; first, that the extraordinary gifts have ceased, second, immediate prophecy was an extraordinary gift, and last, all post canonical prophecy is mediate. For clarifications sake, immediate means by way of direct revelation, and mediate means by way of the Word only. Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known (1 Cor 13-8-11). The Apostle in this text contrasts the revelatory gifts of prophecy, special knowledge and tongues, which by nature are dark and dim in contrast to the complete canon of Scripture (which was completed with the 27 books of the N.T.). That which was to replace the partial and do away with it was something designated "perfect." "But when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away." It is difficult to miss the antithetic parallel between the "partial" thing and the "perfect" ("complete, mature, full") thing. Since the "partial" speaks of prophecy and other modes of revelational insight (v. 8), then it would seem that the "perfect," which would supplant these, represents the perfect and final New Testament Scripture (Jas. 1:21). This is due to the fact that modes of revelation are being purposely contrasted. Thus, it makes the man of God adequately equipped to all the tasks before him (2 Tim. 3:16-17). In other words, there is a coming time when will occur the completion of the revelatory process of God. Recognize also that, "face to face" is an adverbial phrase; it does not have an object. Second, "face to face" is contrasted with a "dim mirror." Since "face to face" is adverbial without an object, the idea that it refers to Christ must be assumed or inferred. And since Paul has been contrasting forms of revelation throughout verses 8-12, it makes much more sense to interpret "face to face" in the sense of clearness (or perspicuity), in contrast to the dim mirror. The "perfect" is the closed cannon of scripture, and all we need for life and godliness. Within the context of 1 Corinthians 12 we do not need to do any herminutical gymnastics to see that 1 Corinthians 13:8-10 is dealing with immediate revelation. The word "tongues" in this passage means the gift of speaking in a language previously unknown to the speaker. The word "knowledge" is similar to tongues in that it is also an immediate gift; a gift of special understanding and wisdom that is a form of direct revelation from God. It would be foolish to think that we will no longer know anything when the cannon is completed, or in heaven for that matter. Scripture tells us otherwise. This word knowledge is a miraculous and immediate gift, designed for the benefit of those who are in an imperfect or dim setting i.e. the New Testament Christians. It is only fitting to agree that the context of the word prophecy in the same verse is also an immediate revelatory gift. Any who would try and repudiate this fact would be arguing against logic and sound hermeneutics. Minor premise: Immediate Prophecy was a Revelatory Gift Since Paul was referring to the universal church in Ephesians 2:20 and the Apostles and prophets laid the church's foundation by receiving and transmitting revelation (3:5), the implication is that once the Church was established the gift would be discontinued. By its very nature, a foundation cannot be continuously re-laid. This verse clearly implies that Paul viewed revelation as occurring during a specific, no repeatable era, with the church of subsequent ages commanded to discover its foundation in those apostles and prophets, or more specifically, in their doctrine as it is recorded in the Scriptures. Since the passage labels prophesy in itself as a foundational gift, the inevitable conclusion is that New Testament prophecy ceased along with the gift of apostleship. There are those who would argue that while the revelatory gift of prophesy as it pertains to the foundation of the Church has ceased, yet there is still a smaller, less pronounced immediate prophesy that is perpetual, and in fact has continued for almost 2000 years. I see a sound biblical exegetical foundation for cessationism (as mentioned above), but I am still not convinced of a sound scriptural basis for the perpetual nature of a lesser immediate gift. I do believe that the word prophecy is used post canon, but I believe it means something very different than what is being espoused by some. ERGO: All Post- canonical Prophecy is Mediate. Vines Complete Expository Dictionary of the Old and New Testament is quite clear on the word propheteia when he says, Though much of the OT prophecy was purely predictive, see Micah 5:2, e.g., and cf. John 11:51, prophecy is not necessarily, nor even primarily fore-telling… it is the forth-telling of the will of God, whether with reference to the past, the present, or the future. As Mr. Vine has pointed out there are many times in scripture where the word prophecy is used in a generic sense. Used in a way that is not immediate, but rather in a mediate sense. Lets examine briefly a few examples. Revelation 10:8-11 " And the voice which I heard from heaven spake unto me again, and said, Go and take the little book which is open in the hand of the angel which standeth upon the sea and upon the earth. And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, give me the little book. And he said unto me, Take it, and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey. And I took the little book out of the angel's hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter. And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings." It is common among orthodox reformed theologians to interpret this passage, as a commission from he Lord to John to preach is the revealed will of God. Romans 12: 4-8 "For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith; Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching. Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness." Here we see a clear teaching of the ordinary offices that are given for the well being of the church. It would be poor hermeneutics to read into this text a list of regular offices, and then slip in one extraordinary special office. And if the Lord is giving an example of an extraordinary office here, why just this one? Why not tongues? Why not the gift of healing? And why if this is truly the gift of immediate prophecy is it given in increments, "according to the proportion of faith"? If immediate prophecy is direct revelation, how can it be done "according to the proportion of faith"? If it is true revelation it must be 100% true, clear, and concise. There is no middle ground when immediate prophecy is given. When it says, "let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith." It is speaking about mediate prophecy and scriptural reason. In this verse the word prophesy means exactly what Vine says it does, and that is "Speak forth the mind and council of God." There are other scriptures that I could use to display the mediate use of prophecy but I think it would be redundant. The point of this exercise is to show that the words prophecy and prophesy can and do mean something other than just immediate revelation. If I have shed any light on the topic at hand I hope I have established three things. 1. That the revelatory gifts have ceased with the close of the apostolic era, and the completion of the canon of scripture. 2. That immediate prophecy was a foundational revelatory gift. 3. That post-canonical prophecy can and does mean mediate revelation, and is the simple proclamation of the revealed will of God. It must be understood that we have all we need for life and godliness. To say that we believe in immediate prophecy tells those around us that the Word of God contained in the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments is NOT the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy Him, but there is still a need for something more. The Word is all we need, by the power of the Spirit. Blessings, JOwen

Subject: Re: Cessation of Sign Gifts From: stan To: Brother Bret/ 1 More :^ ) Date Posted: Sun, Nov 05, 2000 at 19:57:17 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I usually use a logical series. Usually Scripture is errelavant to the tongues speaker as they will see what they want in any passage you bring to bear. 1. God healed through Paul in early Acts by napkins being taken from him, yet later in life he could not heal his own thorn, Timothy's stomach or Tromphius. ( II Tim.4.20) 2. Mark says you can take up serpents and drink nasties and not be hurt. The south has many graveyards with snake handlers in them - tongues I believe is in the text so if ya guna speak ya guna handle and drink! 3. If all else fails I usually invite them to town to go to the local hospital to empty it with me. Have never had anyone even respond much less take me up on the offer. Crude but usually effective on the boards ;-) stan

Subject: Re: Cessation of Sign Gifts From: laz To: stan Date Posted: Mon, Nov 06, 2000 at 14:30:15 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but what gets me is that those mainstream evangelical churches that hold to sign gifts are, almost without exception, filled with some of the grossest distortions of simple historic christian doctrine. The Neopentecostals being the most notorious. Also, what has neopentecostalism...even the charismatic movement in general, profitted the Body these last 25 years? laz laz

Subject: Re: Well, now there is ....... From: stan To: laz Date Posted: Mon, Nov 06, 2000 at 15:27:58 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Jim Bakker and Tammy and Benney and ................... ;-) to make a long answer to your question - zero. :-) if you want a shorter answer - 0 I'm sure they have done some good, but really have only caused division and proliferation of false doctrine - IMOM!

Subject: The Trinity From: Tom To: All Date Posted: Sun, Nov 05, 2000 at 19:36:08 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Some time ago now, when we were discussing the Trinity, I believe someone said something to the effect of: When the doctrine of the Trinity was being formed by the early Christians against movements like the Montanists. One of the people that was involved in this process knew of at least one of the Apostles. Am I correct about this? If so, who was it and where can I get some information about this? If it isn't correct, when was the earliest recording of the doctrine of the Trinity. Tom

Subject: Re: The Trinity From: JOwen To: Tom Date Posted: Sun, Nov 05, 2000 at 22:41:26 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Tom, The formulation of the Trinity came about by the controversy created by Arius and Arianism. There were no contemporaries of the Apostles living during this time. Not that the rudimentary elements of the doctrine of the tri-unity were absent from the earliest apologists such as Tertullian (160-220 A.D.). The subject was put to rest at the Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.). Earliest record of the doctrine of the Trinity? Well that is a hard one to answer. I would say Tertullian (160-220 A.D.) was the First to assert clearly the tri-personality of the Godhead, and the substantial unity/personality of the three Persons. Hope this helps. JOwen

Subject: Re: The Trinity From: Tom To: JOwen Date Posted: Mon, Nov 06, 2000 at 11:54:34 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: JOwen See my other post about this topic. Although the word Trinity was not used, the first rendering of a statement with a trinitarian aspect, was written by a desciple of the Apostle John, by the name of Polycarp. Tom

Subject: Re: The Trinity From: Tom To: Tom Date Posted: Sun, Nov 05, 2000 at 22:22:12 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: I found the answer to my own question. For those who are interested. Here it is: Polycarp (70-155/160). Bishop of Smyrna. Disciple of John the Apostle. 'O Lord God almighty...I bless you and glorify you through the eternal and heavenly high priest Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, through whom be glory to you, with Him and the Holy Spirit, both now and forever' (n. 14, ed. Funk; PG 5.1040). Justin Martyr (100?-165?). He was a Christian apologist and martyr. 'For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water' (First Apol., LXI). Ignatius of Antioch (died 98/117). Bishop of Antioch. He wrote much in defense of Christianity. 'In Christ Jesus our Lord, by whom and with whom be glory and power to the Father with the Holy Spirit for ever' (n. 7; PG 5.988). 'We have also as a Physician the Lord our God Jesus the Christ the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For 'the Word was made flesh.' Being incorporeal, He was in the body; being impassible, He was in a passable body; being immortal, He was in a mortal body; being life, He became subject to corruption, that He might free our souls from death and corruption, and heal them, and might restore them to health, when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts.' (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 1, p. 52, Ephesians 7.) Irenaeus (115-190). As a boy he listened to Polycarp, the disciple of John. He became Bishop of Lyons. 'The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: ...one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father 'to gather all things in one,' and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, 'every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess; to him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all...'' (Against Heresies X.l) Tertullian (160-215). African apologist and theologian. He wrote much in defense of Christianity. 'We define that there are two, the Father and the Son, and three with the Holy Spirit, and this number is made by the pattern of salvation...[which] brings about unity in trinity, interrelating the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three, not in dignity, but in degree, not in substance but in form, not in power but in kind. They are of one substance and power, because there is one God from whom these degrees, forms and kinds devolve in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.' (Adv. Prax. 23; PL 2.156-7). Origen (185-254). Alexandrian theologian. A disciple of Origen. Defended Christianity. He wrote much about Christianity. 'If anyone would say that the Word of God or the Wisdom of God had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten Father, since he denies that he was always Father, and that he has always begotten the Word, and that he always had wisdom in all previous times or ages or whatever can be imagined in priority...There can be no more ancient title of almighty God than that of Father, and it is through the Son that he is Father' (De Princ. 1.2.; PG 11.132). 'For if [the Holy Spirit were not eternally as He is, and had received knowledge at some time and then became the Holy Spirit] this were the case, the Holy Spirit would never be reckoned in the unity of the Trinity, i.e., along with the unchangeable Father and His Son, unless He had always been the Holy Spirit.' (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 4, p. 253, de Principiis, 1.111.4) 'Moreover, nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity alone contains all things by His word and reason, and by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all things which are worthy of sanctification...' (Roberts and Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, p. 255, de Principii., I. iii. 7). If, as the anti-Trinitarians maintain, the Trinity is not a biblical doctrine and was never taught until the council of Nicea in 325, then why do these quotes exist? The answer is simple: the Trinity is a biblical doctrine and it was taught before the council of Nicea in 325 A.D. Part of the reason that the Trinity doctrine was not 'officially' taught until the time of the Council of Nicea is because Christianity was illegal until shortly before the council. It wasn't really possible for official Christian groups to meet and discuss doctrine. For the most part, they were fearful of making public pronouncements concerning their faith. Additionally, if a group had attacked the person of Adam, the early church would have responded with an official doctrine of who Adam was. As it was, the person of Christ was attacked. When the Church defended the deity of Christ, the doctrine of the Trinity was further defined. The early church believed in the Trinity, as is evidenced by the quotes above, and it wasn't necessary to really make them official. It wasn't until errors started to creep in, that councils began to meet to discuss the Trinity as well as other doctrines that came under fire. Tom

Subject: Re: The Trinity From: mstuart59 To: Tom Date Posted: Tues, Nov 07, 2000 at 08:33:25 (PST) Email Address: mstuart59@prodigy.net Message: Since you are discussing the concept of the Trinity, I thought I'd add a thought you might find interesting. I think it's natural for those of us who believe in God to contemplate (now and then) the idea of what God is like. I just read a book (of fiction) that made me stop and consider this very question. It's a fantasy book, but it seems to me that the writer is writing from a very Christian point of view. The book is titled 'Saint Jack and Toad/Third Angel of the Apocalypse' and is written by Philip J. Carraher. It's an entertaining book. Has now a bit of a cult following, I understand. I happened upon it at 1stbooks.com on the web and decided to buy it. Good entertaining book but it's one of its 'theological' statements I'd like to talk about. I'm writing specifically about a couple of paragraphs in it. At one point Saint Jack (the main character) questions two angels (they befriend him to help him in his epic quest) about the nature of God. (They, the angels, appear to him in the form of rats in his basement.) The angels tell him that: 'You imagine God to be like you. Except superhuman. You've created God in your image.God's not like that.' It struck me that that is the way we imagine God. Most of us. As a bearded man on a painted ceiling. Then the author goes on to say that it is not humankind that is made in God's image, but rather the world in which we live. To quote the book: 'Your world and its small section of the universe, Jack, and it is a marvel, a wonder of subtle choreography and artistry, but for all its marvels it's only a pale imitation of the true jewel. You humans live in what is a mere suggestion of God. You glimpse only luminous sparks so to speak and not the full blazing sunlight that is God...' This idea struck me as quite good when I read it, if not profound. The thought that it is our Earth (or rather Life on Earth)that is made in the image of God rather than the human being strikes me as one that would tend to eliminate (subtly) the many differences between the peoples of the Earth. It would help us think of ourselves as all one family. And under this kind of all encompassing image of God, those silly arguments about whether God is white or black or a woman would also be eliminated. It would also offer an explanation of the Trinity. Just as Life (with a capital L) 'enwraps' all of the Earth with itself and is one thing that remains mysterious to us and reveals itself to us only it the form of the creatures and plants it displays to us, so God could be One Who can display Himself to us in various forms yet still remain One. That, is God can reveal Himself as Jesus, and as the Holy Spirit and still be One. I don't think the author (Carraher) is offering us pantheism for he specifically says God is absent from Earth but rather is stiving for a better 'image' to help us understand the nature of God. I do like this image as I think it offers a better idea of what God is like than the 'superhuman' God or even Saint Patrick's three leaf clover. I wonder what you and others might think of it. n't see why. Imagining God as a kind of all encompassing entity Who encompasses all of Heaven just as Nature encompasses all of Life on Earth, but with Nature's indifference replaced by God's love, seems to me to be a beautiful concept. It seems to me to be quite a wonderful way of imagining what God is like. And there seems to be Scripture to support this viewpoint. Specifically Rom 1 18-23. There it is said: 'For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen.' Do you have an objection to this image of what God is like? Regards, Mary Stuart

Subject: Re: The Trinity From: Five Sola To: mstuart59 Date Posted: Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 13:18:17 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Mary, I would have to say that the book may be a good book as a fictional story and thus could be enjoyed as that but it sounds as if it doesn't hold true in its theological content when compared with God's Words about Himself. As John already pointed out, it has a new age sound to it especially if it is saying the Earth is made in the image of God. I also wanted to bring up a point in reference to what you said: 'I don't think the author (Carraher) is offering us pantheism for he specifically says God is absent from Earth but rather is striving for a better 'image' to help us understand the nature of God. ' Well, the author errs tremendously in saying that God is 'absent' from the Earth. For God is ever present (omnipresent), and thus exists among us. He is not absent from His creation, up in Heaven watching history unfold but actively involved in the creation He made and sustains. you said: 'The angels tell him that: 'You imagine God to be like you. Except superhuman. You've created God in your image. God's not like that.' It struck me that this is the way we imagine God. Most of us. As a bearded man on a painted ceiling. ' You do have a point. God is not like us but better, a mere super human, in that point the author is true. God is the absolute perfection of the qualities He possess. Some we have (ie, strength, logic, goodness, etc) although severely marred, but He possess traits we could never hope to obtain (ie. Infiniteness, self-subsistence, etc). And it is true that many view God as an elderly grandfather waiting to grant the wishes of His children, among other false ideas concerning God, and thus we must always be on the guard, consistently in study, to protect our minds from these idols we create of God. Five Sola

Subject: Re: The Trinity From: John To: mstuart59 Date Posted: Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 05:26:30 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hi Mary, You didn't buy that book in a new age bookstore did you? hehe I would suggest you ignore the fantasy book and concentrate on trying to understand God's Book. To correct the author: we ARE all made in God's image -- and as such we are by design fulfilled only when we abide with God in obedience. The 'world' is not made in God's image, it is not a 'suggestion of God'. This to me sounds like new age philosophy. Gia, Mother Earth lives, breathes, thinks, and cares collectively through all living things and must be protected as the source of life, sort of idea. You might want to research what the phrase 'image of God' means in the Bible. By the way, since we are all created in the image of God, and are all of the family of Adam, we are all one (unhappy) family. There is no need to appeal to Nature as being in God's image (whatever that means). We can not look at a pine tree and see the image of God, nor is God somehow manifest through rocks, lizards, or an occasional opossum. Rather than offering a 'better' idea of what God is like, I tend to think it offers no idea whatsoever of what God is like. God is a Being--Spirit, three Persons, yet One. He is not a part of His creation, He is not IN Nature (whatever nature is supposed to represent). Being Holy He is separate from us, like east is from west, His ways are unfathomable to us except as He chooses to reveal Himself. He has revealed some of His character in creation, in history, and most of all-- in the Bible. His love, which you mentioned, is not like some life-force, it is manifest in deed and action. That is, God's Love is demonstrated toward His elect by the death of His Son. There is nothing in nature to compare with this. If people choose to think of God as black, or female, or an old man with a beard-- then they are no better off than those who make God into Divine Energy, Radiant Cosmic Love, a Life-force in nature, or whatever the popular craze is. By the way, how apropos that the book's author has a cult following – it certainly has no relation to Christianity. john sses all of Heaven just as Nature encompasses all of Life on Earth, but with Nature's indifference replaced by God's love, seems to me to be a beautiful concept. It seems to me to be quite a wonderful way of imagining what God is like. And there seems to be Scripture to support this viewpoint. Specifically Rom 1 18-23. There it is said: 'For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen.' Do you have an objection to this image of what God is like?

Subject: 'All That The Father Gives Me' From: Brother Bret To: All Date Posted: Sun, Nov 05, 2000 at 19:34:30 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: We know that there are several passages that say that there are those that the Father gave to the Son (Jn.6:37,39;17:2,6,9,11,24). What scripture would you use to show that the Father gave His sheep/elect to the Son before the foundations of the world and/or to die on the cross of Calvary for? Would you say that verses like 2Tim.1:9 and 2Th.2:13,14 are sufficient? Or is it possible that the Father gives the elect to the Son when He effectually calls them? Look forward to your responses, thanks again! Brother Bret

Subject: Re: 'All That The Father Gives Me' From: Rod To: Brother Bret Date Posted: Sun, Nov 05, 2000 at 20:46:46 (PST) Email Address: na Message: BB, Please consider this: 'And other sheep I have [now], that are not of this fold; them also I must bring' (John 10:16). Twice in this section he says he is going to lay down His life 'for the sheep' (verses 11, 15). Though their salvation was yet future, yet they were 'sheep' which He must bring and for whom He lay down His life. Both the fact of their being sheep and the fact of His laying down His life was spoken of as already factual, though neither had they yet been saved nor had He yet laid down His life. It is is in the context of this same passage that the Lord Jesus proclaims that no one can 'pluck [these sheep] out of my hand' or out of my Father's hand' for the simple reason that 'I and the Father are one' (verses 28-30). What the Son possesses He possesses by dual right: First is the right He has owing to the fact that He is co-equal to the Father; second is the right of purchase by His righteous life and sinless sacrifice. The Word of God proclaims that He is 'the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world' (Rev. 13:8), that He has accomplished from the beginning what He accomplishes in time. That is the reason Paul writes in 2 Cor. 5:21 that 'he hath made him, who knew no sin, to be sin for us [believers, sheep], that we [believers and sheep] might be made the righteousness of God in him.' Paul and the other inspired writers don't include themselves in with the unbelievers and lost in the designation of 'we' and 'us' when they use those terms. The elect are clearly in mind here. I think the inevitable conclusion is that the sheep are His eternally, being predestined to be conformed to the image of the Son of God due to the foreknowledge of God in eternity (Rom. 8:29).

Subject: 1 Tim. 4:10 From: Brother Bret To: All Date Posted: Sun, Nov 05, 2000 at 19:22:29 (PST) Email Address: Lovitz5@juno.com Message: Hello everyone: The opportunity of exegeting 1Tim.4:10 has arisen one again. I realize that there are 4 point Calvinists out there that hold to universal atonement. There are 2 basic possible interpretations I hold to regarding this verse of Scripture: 1) As in other places, 'all' does not always mean each and every single person, but rather all 'kinds' of men without distinction; 2) Christ being the 'Savior of all men' includes everyone in the same sense that Christ is Lord over all whether they all acknowledge it or not. Would be interested in your thoughts on this verse, or if you believe there is a more accurate interpretation. Thanks.....Brother Bret

Subject: Re: 1 Tim. 4:10 From: stan To: Brother Bret Date Posted: Sun, Nov 05, 2000 at 19:50:16 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Ran across this awhile back - might give you something to waste your time on ;-) Kent suggests: 1. Universalist Interpretation: All mankind will ultimately be saved. 2. Providential Interpretation: This thought takes a lesser view of the term Saviour and suggests that all mankind is saved via the rain and sun that God provides and that the believer receives even more blessing from this grace from God. 3. Potential-actual Interpretation: This is one of the more popular thoughts that says that the potential for salvation was provided by Christ, but that only those that believe receive the benefit thereof. 4. Temporal-eternal Interpretation: God gives preservation and deliverance in this life, but for those that believe this preservation carries forward into eternity. He quotes Purdy on this position. 'God is the Saviour of all men in that on a temporal basis he gives them life and strength, awakens within them high ideals, provides for their pleasure and sustenance, and graciously allows them to live for a time in the light of His countenance. 'God is specially the Savior of believers in that he has a special call for them, answers their prayers, and provides for their well-being, not only in this life, but also in the life which is to come.' (Purdy, Warren E.; THE MEANING OF THE PHRASE 'SAVIOR OF ALL MEN' IN FIRST TIMOTHY 4:10; Unpublished critical monograph, Grace Theological Seminary; 1954, p. 48.) noticed I don't have bio. info on kent - can get it if you need it - it was a comentary on the Pastoral epistles as I remember.

Subject: Re: 1 Tim. 4:10/ P.S. From: Brother Bret To: Brother Bret Date Posted: Sun, Nov 05, 2000 at 19:24:52 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I realize there is at least one article on the Highway about this, and I think that is the one I printed out. Would appreciate your personal interpretation also :^ ) BB

Subject: Re: 1 Tim. 4:10/ P.S. From: John To: Brother Bret Date Posted: Sun, Nov 05, 2000 at 21:47:57 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: IAW 1Tim 2:3-4 God desires all men to be saved...who gave Himself a ransom for all...A ransom for all? Whom? Every single person? Then all are ransomed! Mat 20:28 says the 'Son of Man' gave His life as a 'ransom for many'. Many is NOT all, it is a selected group. What is the solution? John 4:42, Jesus is the 'Savior of the world'; John 3:17 'the world should be saved through Him'. Does this mean Jesus is the Savior of everyone in the world? No. John 17:25 Jesus speaks of the world this way 'O righteous Father, although the world has not known Thee, yet I have known Thee; and these have known that Thou didst send Me; and I have made Thy name known to them, and will make it known; that the love wherewith Thou didst love Me may be in them, and I in them.' Jesus is saying that the world does not know the Father, but He has made it known to them.... Who are the 'them' that it is made known to? Is it everyone in the world... or those Jesus mentioned earlier: 'I do not ask in behalf of these alone [the disciples], but for those also who believe in Me through their word'. Clearly, Jesus seeks not the world, but rather those who believe the truth, the ones who Jesus in Verse 9 says, 'I pray on their behalf; I do not pray on behalf of the world, but of those whom Thou hast given Me; for they are Thine...'. Jesus is praying on the behalf of a sub-group of the world. The world itself will not believe the Father, but the sub-group of the world, all of these will know the Father because Jesus has made the Father's name known to them, and they are the ones who have believed in Him through the preaching of the word. So we can understand that in the world there is only ONE savior, that being Jesus Christ; thus Jesus IS the 'Savior of the world'. As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up' (John 3:14) As we remember of Numbers 21:8, the Lord told Moses to make a Seraph, and set it upon a pole. The Seraph is described in Isa 6:6, the Seraphim (two Seraph) took away the iniquity of Isaiah, his sins were forgiven. These Seraphim stood above the Lord as a picture of the Lord Jesus Christ who comes with healing in His wings. It was the Son of God which Isaiah saw, yet covered by six wings so as not to destroy, for no one can see the face of God and live. Jesus was raised up likewise, so that like Moses' snake in the wilderness that 'everyone who is bitten, when he looks at it , he shall live', John 3:16 likewise says, '...that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life'. The imagery is the same. Jesus indeed is the savior of all men, there is none other name given -- He is the Seraph who can spiritually heal all those who come to Him. This is why 1Tim 4:10 says, '...because we have fixed our hope on the living God…', they have come for healing and have been healed. And as the last of verse 10, '...who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers'; while raised for all to gaze upon, it is only those who fix their hope on the living God, who come to the Healing Seraph that ultimately are saved. A Savior of all men. But not all men will have Him as a savior, only those the Father gave to Him will believe. Yet there is no other savior given to the world, but especially it is effectual for the believers, for they are healed! john

Subject: Oneness Pentecostal From: Don To: All Date Posted: Sat, Nov 04, 2000 at 22:35:30 (PST) Email Address: dhardy8@hotmail.com Message: Please, if ANY of you feels led.... answer any of the questions i have posted from the Oneness Pentecosal forum below addressed to Pilgrim I would really like to hear your response Thank you :) Shalom :) Don

Subject: Re: Oneness Pentecostal From: Rod To: Don Date Posted: Sat, Nov 04, 2000 at 22:50:35 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Don, There are too many questions to be dealt with. The details are too great and the rebuttal would take a tremendous amount of time and space. Are you asking because you're troubled that they may be right? If so, remember that the Christian Church, from it's inception has been trinitarian in nature and that this is heresy. It's easy to ask questions and to drag red herrings with them. If you do legitimately feel that these are questions which seriously threaten the truth of the Trinity and (sorry, but I've been entrapped by people before) sincerely believe in the Triune God, but have a need for validation of your belief, may I suggest you pick one or two questions from the list you'd most want asked and post them here. If, however, you are baiting us, speaking for myself, please don't bother. If my suspicions are unfounded, I sincerely apologize, but like I said, I've been burned once too often by those who pose as seekers when they aren't.

Subject: Re: Oneness Pentecostal From: Tom To: Rod Date Posted: Sun, Nov 05, 2000 at 10:18:48 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Rod I will rouch for Don, he is not bating you, and what he said about the Oneness Penticostals is true. In a way, I think it is great that he had the confidence to come to this board, to search out the answers. Tom

Subject: Re: Oneness Pentecostal From: Rod To: Tom Date Posted: Sun, Nov 05, 2000 at 11:12:31 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Thanks, Tom, I certainly want to encourage anyone who is a sincere seeker, but I don't remember seeing Don's name here before as a poster (sorry if I just missed it) and, therefore, had nothing to go on.

Subject: Re: Oneness Pentecostal From: laz To: Rod Date Posted: Mon, Nov 06, 2000 at 06:33:24 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Rod - Don is an old timer...we've had 'fun' with him in the past...he's a good man...and hopefully a more enlightened one since the last time we've seen him...been about a year? Tom certainly can vouch for Don.... hehe! blessings to you, Tom AND Don. Welcome back Don!! laz

Subject: Re: Oneness Pentecostal From: Don To: laz Date Posted: Mon, Nov 06, 2000 at 11:14:04 (PST) Email Address: dhardy8@hotmail.com Message: Hi Laz, yes its been a long time indeed! and about the second....i wont even go there!! ROFL!!! HeHe!!!! Don

Subject: Re: Oneness Pentecostal From: Rod To: laz Date Posted: Mon, Nov 06, 2000 at 09:53:01 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Thanks, laz, I could be wrong (I frequently am), but I don't remember seeing Don here before. I believe I've been here over a year, a year and some months. We (the body of Christ) need all the good men we can get, like Don and laz, like Tom, 'an Israelite indeed in whom there is no guile.'

Subject: Re: Oneness Pentecostal From: Prestor John To: Rod Date Posted: Tues, Nov 07, 2000 at 05:23:02 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Thanks, laz, I could be wrong (I frequently am), but I don't remember seeing Don here before. I believe I've been here over a year, a year and some months. We (the body of Christ) need all the good men we can get, like Don and laz, like Tom, 'an Israelite indeed in whom there is no guile.' --- What you talking 'bout Rod? Israelite? I thought he was Canadian!! hehehe Prestor (just when you thought he was gone)John http://www.pewsitters.com

Subject: Re: Oneness Pentecostal From: Rod To: Prestor John Date Posted: Tues, Nov 07, 2000 at 09:30:15 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Prestor John, Canadian, Israelite...those guys just can't make up their minds! :>) I did wonder if you were gone. Glad to see you again.

Subject: Re: Oneness Pentecostal From: Tom To: Rod Date Posted: Tues, Nov 07, 2000 at 11:04:28 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Rod If you are referring to Don's use of the word 'shalom'. He just likes the word. Tom

Subject: Re: Oneness Pentecostal From: Rod To: Tom Date Posted: Tues, Nov 07, 2000 at 11:38:48 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Tom, My reference was a quote from the Lord Jesus about Nathanael (John 1:47). It was meant to be a complimentary description of yourself, Tom, nothing more, nothing less.

Subject: Re: Oneness Pentecostal From: Tom To: Rod Date Posted: Tues, Nov 07, 2000 at 13:33:03 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Thanks Rod

Subject: Re: Oneness Pentecostal From: Don To: Rod Date Posted: Sun, Nov 05, 2000 at 08:01:29 (PST) Email Address: dhardy8@hotmail.com Message: Im sorry Rod you feel this way, but NO im not baiting anyone, and im fully convinced already of the TRIUNE GOD i serve, like i said ive been frequenting theses forums for some time now to witness to these people, only because i care, and i thought maybe i could get alittle more insight here, i know Pilgrim has been to Bible School and has written many on this subject, so please if you will, my motives are good! If you feel you can only answer a few, then go for it. Have a good Day! :) Don

Subject: Re: Oneness Pentecostal From: Rod To: Don Date Posted: Sun, Nov 05, 2000 at 13:11:02 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Well, Don, I'd ask you to see the above post to Tom first of all. I do congratulate you for wanting to know the truth and being sincere in your efforts to learn and to reach out. First, let me encourage you to trust that, even though you might not know how to answer all these questions, they aren't a threat to the Christian who knows his Bible, trusts the Lord, and believes in authentic, traditional Christianity. That is not to say that one who can't answer all the questions doesn't know his Bible, but that it is possible for one to know his Bible in general and not be able to refute instantly all these questions. The questioner has used, in this instance, a 'shotgun' approach, saturating his target audience with what he believes in an overwhelming array of questions which conclusiviely demonstrate his postition's truthfullness. Not so. Rather he displays his ignorance of God's true ways and nature, as well as his own heresy. I have not had any formal training in Bible schools or seminary, so you may not want to trust my answers, but I will start you off this way: 'SKYNNER PLS. ANSWER THESE 1 AT A TIME**** Did Jesus Christ have two fathers? The Father is the Father of the Son (I John 1:3), yet the child born of Mary was conceived by the Holy Ghost (Matthew 1:18, 20: Luke 1:35). Which one is the true father? Some trinitarians say that the Holy Ghost was merely the Fathers's agent in conception -- a process they compare to artificial insemination. 2. How many spirits are there? God the Father is a Spirit (John 4:24), the Lord Jesus is a Spiri (II Corinthians 3:17), and the Holy Spirit is a Spirit by definition. Yet there is one Spirit (I Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians 4:4).' As I say, this person has asked a myraid of questions. A book could be written on this section alone! It would be literally impossible to deal with each of these things on a board like this. A copy of a book or two on systematic theology, such a s Hodge's 2 volume set would be very helpful to you, I think. The fundamental error this man has made is this: He makes the false assumption that the Lord Jesus Christ 'became' the Son of God when He 'became flesh,' when He was conceived and born of Mary. This is totally false and cannot but lead to error. The Second Person of the Trinty is eternal. There was never a time when He didn't exist. There was never a time when He wasn't the Son of God, or when the First Person wasn't the Father God. It is an eternal relationship. To assume otherwise is a deep and grievous error, one which cannot but lead to heresy. It is founded on a false reading of the Bible and not being led by God's Spirit. In the most important verse to the Jewish people in all the OT, Deut. 6:4, we find the principle of a Triune God affirmed: 'Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD.' The word 'LORD' is substituted for the sacred name of God to the Jewish people, 'Jehovah,' or 'Yahweh.' It is singular. The word 'God' is the word 'Elohim,' a plural form. It is a plurality of commonality, so to speak. It is similar to a cluster, so I understand it. If we have a bunch of grapes, there would be individual grapes, but each grape is an example of what a grape is and it is all that a grape is, in and of itself. It's a poor human example, but that's what is the idea here: The word Elohim indicates that there are more than one personality within God, but that all (and each) of them are the One God. 'Hear, O Israel: Yahweh our Elohim is one Yahweh.' As to the direct question your 'pal' asked, he again stumbles at foundational truth, assuming that the Son is created: 'Did Jesus Christ have two fathers?' How ridiculous. Again, a knowledge of the Bible in general is needed to perceive that this is the incorrect approach. 'But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law' (Gal. 4:4). Notice that God didn't 'create' the Son, He already existed to be 'sent.' He was 'made' of a woman in the same sense that the Word was 'made flesh and dwelt among us' in John 1:14, but the 'Word was with God' and 'was God' we're told in John 1:1 and the second verse says, 'All things were made by him.' He was God. He was With God. He created all things. At the due time in God's plan, He 'became flesh and dwelt among us.' He wasn't created and didn't come into being at that time, but took on also a human nature that He might, as a Man who was Perfect, redeem His own: 'Wherefore, when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body thou hast prepared me' (Heb. 10:5). The Son is more than His human body. He is more than just another human born of a woman. He was the Son Who existed as God from eternity and was 'sent' at the proper time to do a job that only He could do. And He alone was able to perform it purely because He was God from eternity and could do for man what man had utterly failed to do for himself. ________________________ Regarding the issue of the Spirit, I'll be brief. Your correspondent has a real problem with this one as evidenced by Rom. 8:9: 'But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. None of whose? Well, God's. And Christ's, Who is God because it is obvious that the same Spirit is in view here. Yet the Spirit is clearly spoken of in this verse as manifesting Himself in different ways. In fact, in pointing out different verses about the Spirit of God, the poster has proved the Trinitarian posititon: God does manifest Himself in different ways by his different Persons in different offices. The Triune God is Spirit. In John 15:26, a Person, 'the Comforter,' 'the Spirit of truth' will come 'and he shall testify of me,' a direct reference in inspired Scripture to the plurality of the Persons, the same thought being reiterated in 16:15. ____________________ Don, I've just scratched the surface of this issue. I haven't even touched it really. So you can see that it is impossible to do what you requested in answering all this foolish man's questions and inferences. Yes, God is One God. There is no question about that. All real Christians believe in One God. But all real Christians are also trinitarian; it is one of the marks of a Christian. No one can read the Bible and not see that the God of the Bible manifests Himself in different ways and works in different ways through His Persons which He has described for us in the Word: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each being God, yet each having functions which are His to pursue and fulfill within the plan that He as God determined in eternity past. I urge you not to be troubled by this heresy. And I suggest that you not allow yourself to be troubled overmuch by the questions of one who is misguided and misled and who obviously has no desire to accept any evidence to the contrary of his position. That is not to say not to witness to the truth, but the truth and its acceptance is not dependent on our eloquence or ability, but on the Spirit of God who makes the Word of faith real to men. I pray that the Spirit of God will break through on this person so that he may come to the truth.

Subject: Re: Oneness Pentecostal From: Don To: Rod Date Posted: Mon, Nov 06, 2000 at 08:14:00 (PST) Email Address: dhardy8@hotmail.com Message: Rod, thank you for your time in responding i appreciate it. :) Just wanted to clarify, im not troubled in any way concerning these questions, ive been fully convinced of the Trinity for 18yrs now, and i feel in my heart that the Lord is leading me to witness to these people, the reason i came here is to get some more input on this issue, i really appreciate the time you have spent on this. God Bless you Bro :) Don This is where ive been going, the topic is 'Only One GOD-The Father' http://www.delphi.com/bobzone/messages/?msg=6.1

Subject: Re: Oneness Pentecostal From: Rod To: Don Date Posted: Mon, Nov 06, 2000 at 09:43:54 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Don, I'm extremely pleased to hear that this is settled in your mind and that you've been steadfast these many years. I went over briefly to the site you mentioned, but the debating of people with closed minds isn't my desire, nor do I believe it is my calling. If I might suggest something: I think if you examine the list of questions this Curt asked and chase down his references, you'll find that they just don't add up the way he portrays them to. Since you have so many years in the faith, I honestly don't think you'll have any trouble spotting many fallacies and inconsistencies. It isn't that I'm unwilling to answer questions and to try to share on this issue, it's just that it is so monumental in scope and not really fruitful since this Curt is not listening anyway. May the Lord reward you for your tender heart.

Subject: Re: Oneness Pentecostal From: Don To: Rod Date Posted: Mon, Nov 06, 2000 at 11:09:26 (PST) Email Address: dhardy8@hotmail.com Message: Thank you once again Rod, I sure can appreciate the fact that this isnt everyones calling indeed! :) Nor would the average Christian go where i go! LOL I might be called a Gleaner by some, anyways....your probly right about Curt, i will do some search on where he gets his stuff, it sure is like a breath of fresh air when you have support on what your doing, i appreciate Tom (my Brother) coming over there and giving his beliefs about the Trinity Thank you once again for you help! :) God bless you Rod Don

Subject: Clarifacation Please From: Tom To: All Date Posted: Sat, Nov 04, 2000 at 08:57:26 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Hi I am observing the ongoing conversation on another Reformed board, and one the poster's askeds the following question: Thank you for clarifying this doctrine a little for me. I'm not really sure exactly what double predestination is, perhaps you could explain this for me. <<< The forum host asnwered this way: Don't lose any sleep over it, many of those Christians who parrot the idea are not sure what 'Double Predestination' is, because if they were, they wouldn't be supporting it. Basically it is the idea that God Predestinated or Elected man to sin to His Glory, before they had done anything. Just as God predestinated us to salvation that we cannot sin, to His Glory, before we had done anything. i.e., 'Double' Predestination. Would you agree that is what Double Predestination is? If it isn't, then since this person should know what it is, he is leading people astray. Tom

Subject: Clarification Given From: Pilgrim To: Tom Date Posted: Sun, Nov 05, 2000 at 08:01:52 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Tom, Now, am I mistaken or did you say you had read R.C. Sproul's article, 'Double Predestination'? If you have read this article, then you MUST know that the statement made by the host of that other board is not only off the mark, but out of the ball park. His 'summary' (which is a euphemism to be sure) of the doctrine isn't even close. It doesn't even rate as a distortion, in my opinion. Tom, it's simply awful! hehehe. Once again, Double Predestination is a truth taught in the Bible. Double Predestination, even if it wasn't spelled out in the Bible would of necessity have to be true, because what is even more clearly taught in the Bible is that God is Sovereign and NOTHING takes place without it first being originated in the 'mind of God' and then foreordained. There can be no such thing as something occurring 'in time' which God is not only not aware of, but has also designed and providentially governs. (Isa. 40: 21-26; 41:21-24; 43:10-13; 46:9, 10; Psa 33:8-11; Prov 19:21; Dan 4:35; et al) HIS sovereignty extends, yes, even to the appointing of those who will be redeemed and those who will not (Psa 110:3; Matt 22: 14; Joh 6:37; 17:2, 6, 9, 11, 24; Eph 2:1-13; 3:11; Rom 8:29, 30; 9:6-24; 2Tim 1:9; 1Pet 2:8; et al). In His Grace, Pilgrim 'The Sovereignty of God is the stumbling block on which thousands fall and perish; and if we go contending with God about His sovereignty it will be our eternal ruin. It is absolutely necessary that we should submit to God as an absolute sovereign, and the sovereign of our souls; as one who may have mercy on whom He will have mercy and harden whom He will!' - Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758)

Subject: Re: Clarification Given From: Tom To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Sun, Nov 05, 2000 at 10:08:56 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Pilgrim To be quite honest, although I read RC Sproul's article twice. I really didn't understand it. I guess I can't understand double predestination because, my understanding of what it is, is flawed. In my mind I can not understand how if double predestination is true, how God isn't ultimately responcible for sin. I know He isn't responcible for sin, fallen man is, but the more I try to wrap my mind around this double predestination concept, the more confused I get. I think I am just going to end this by saying that this is a mystery beyond my understanding, and God isn't the God of confusion. So I will have to trust in His soveriegnty. Tom

Subject: Re: Clarification Given From: mstuart59 To: Tom Date Posted: Tues, Nov 07, 2000 at 08:38:47 (PST) Email Address: mstuart59@prodigy.net Message: The answer is simple. Predestination does not apply fully to humans. That's why we have free will, to make a choice between sin and God.

Subject: Re: Clarification Given From: Tom To: mstuart59 Date Posted: Tues, Nov 07, 2000 at 11:17:42 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Mary We don't have free-will. We have free agency to rome only in our totally depravity (non-Christians) and to obey God (Christians). Christians however, as long as they are on this earth, wrestle and die dayly to themselves. We have no condemnation because we(Christians) are in Christ Jesus(see Romans 8:1). Tom

Subject: What? From: Rod To: mstuart59 Date Posted: Tues, Nov 07, 2000 at 09:43:03 (PST) Email Address: na Message: To whom does predestination apply 'fully'? Where is 'partial predestination' found in the holy Word? Please cite chapter and verse. Mary, I think you definitely be aware that 'predestination' doesn't equate in any way with 'robotics.' That is a concept foreign to the Scriptures, but 'predestination' is most decidedly a concept and a precept of God stated definitely and without doubt in more than one instance in the Bible. Yet just as definitely mankind is said to be responsible for their actions, individually, collectively.

Subject: Re: Clarification Given From: laz To: Tom Date Posted: Mon, Nov 06, 2000 at 14:37:21 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Tom - if you believe that God, being impassible, has ordained ALL THINGS...ALL EVENTS....ALL CIRCUMSTANCES...ALL THOUGHTS, etc ... since every subatomic interaction in the cosmos, past/present/futre has already originated in the unlimited (and unfathomable) mind of God (since there is NOTHING for God to 'learn') ...then double predestination is a piece of cake. ;-) laz

Subject: Re: Clarification Given From: Tom To: laz Date Posted: Mon, Nov 06, 2000 at 14:55:37 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Laz Not sure God ordains all things, events, thoughts etc.., or He just allows all things for His ultimate glory. If He ordains sin, isn't it the same as saying, God is the author of sin? Forgive my simple mind, but that is the problem I am having with the issue. But I still trust that God has everything in control. Tom

Subject: Clarification Wanted From: Pilgrim To: Tom Date Posted: Mon, Nov 06, 2000 at 18:50:55 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Tom, The Scriptures are perspicuous on the issue of God foreordaining ALL THINGS! It isn't even a debatable point for me, nor has it ever been for any of the Reformers, Puritans, historic denominations, et al. It is only recently, with the influx of Semi-Pelagianism, Liberalism and now the Openness of God heretics that this is again being denied. And you wrote: Not sure God ordains all things, events, thoughts etc.., or He just allows all things for His ultimate glory. What I can't fathom here is that you confess that the biblical doctrine of Double Predestination is 'beyond you' but you then make this statement above. How, then, can Double Predestination, which laz coined as being a 'piece of cake' be so difficult to comprehend compared to your present view that God is not Sovereign, as the Scriptures define sovereignty? My more specific question for you is this: 'If God has not foreordained all things, then what becomes of the divine and incommunicable attributes of Omniscience, Omnipresence and Omnipotence?' As I see it, anything less that a complete and full foreordination leads to a 'god' who is less than God and ultimately relegates the Most High God to something akin to the 'little Dutch boy who is constantly trying to plug up the holes in the dike after they appear.' :-). Is this type of premature statement the result of your own inability to fathom the depths of God and a falling back on your own finite reason? Without doubt, to embrace what you have said results in catastrophic and insurmountable problems far in excess of accepting that God has Foredained all things. And NO!, God's decreeing sin through secondary causation is not the same as decreeing that a person, totally averse to sin, commit sin against his will. As has been pointed out here myriad times in various discussions, the crucifixion is the ultimate paradigm of the coexistence of Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility. In His Sovereign Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Clarification Wanted From: Tom To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Mon, Nov 06, 2000 at 23:54:18 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Pilgrim I guess my statement is made because I can not fathom this doctrine in my mind. However, I can not fathom the other alternative either. So, I guess this matter is bigger than me, and I am just going to have to place the matter in the Lord's hands. It is true that I shouldn't try to fall back on my own reasoning either, for I know better than that. But this isn't a matter of my not trusting God, in whatever He deams is right. It is a matter of just trying to gain more knowledge, not to puff myself up, but to hopefully gain wisdom in order to live a more Godly life. My life is open to Him, and even if I didn't reveal to this board what is on my mind, I ultimately know that I can not hide any of my thoughts to Him. So other than prayer and personal Bible study, I don't know of another way, to get the questions that are on mind answered. I realize you have been very patient with me and I really appreciate that. I have a feeling, that one day I going see the truth about this matter, and I am going to feel quite foolish. That has been the case with many other areas in theology. Tom

Subject: Re: Clarification Wanted From: Pilgrim To: Tom Date Posted: Tues, Nov 07, 2000 at 07:25:59 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Tom, There are just some things that are beyond us; and that better be true! For if any man were able to comprehend the infinite wisdom of God, he'd be God! On the other hand, the Scriptures must and do contain truths which deal with the Infinite God of all; His being and work over all His creation. If there weren't 'mysteries', unfathomable elements of the supernatural, then God would be nothing more than the product of a man's vivid imagination. So Tom, like the Trinity, which I unashamedly confess is a doctrine I cannot even begin to comprehend, I accept by faith; not a blind faith, for this blessed doctrine is clearly a teaching of God's infallible Word which is seared in the mind and heart by the Spirit of God Himself. Secondly, not everyone is given to know the same things by the Spirit. What everyone IS given is the truth which is needed for them personally to know at each stage of their life. Further, each child of God is given to know the 'basics' to which all other doctrines must agree. For example, this very matter of Double Predestination: It upholds and exemplifies the three most basic attributes of God; Omnipotence, Omniscience and Omnipresence. ANY doctrine which denigrates, diminishes or denies any of these fundamental attributes can and must be automatically deemed wrong and rejected. A Th.D. isn't a requirement to be able to discern truth from error. :-) In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Clarification Wanted From: Tom To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 09, 2000 at 01:36:59 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Pilgrim I read John's post below on Infra and Supra-lapsarianism. If I understand what he said, and if what he said is correct. It says that Infra's believe God allows sin. Tom

Subject: Re: Clarification Wanted From: John To: Tom Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 09, 2000 at 05:27:49 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The two positions, as I understand it, are dancing around a fundamental problem: How did sin come into the human race without making God guilty of authoring it? Neither camp would dream of God being guilty of forcing Adam into sin. Yet, ultimately both must say God's will is done. One camp says God 'permitted' sin to occur for His divine purpose. But really, what does it mean when we say 'permitted'? We cannot really escape God's sovereignty by hedging. Neither can we say God mandated Adam to sin, for then we are close to alleviating Adam of sin - for who can resist God. In my mind (a bit too fertile some would say) I find a solution to the origin of sin. Man was going to sin precisely as he did because God decreed it BUT also because we are by design ready (even as perfect beings) to reject God. Adam, by design, would have NEVER sinned in a stable environment. But give him an opportunity to choose between God and something else --and the something else wins. No test, no sin -- provide a Law and sin is revealed. So in this the Supra position is correct -- God decreed all events -- and by design God exploited His own design to manifest rebellion. God did not force Adam into it, He merely gave Adam a test to exploit him. Adam had no thought to rebel until the idea was implanted and grew. Satan had no thought to rebel (for how long who knows) but God implanted the idea and it grew. I say, as all Hampshlapsarians do, that the fall of Satan was coincident with the creation of Adam -- Satan's testing program. Just as Adam fell by design, Satan by design fell. Again, there was no sin in Adam or Satan originally, no design flaw (so to speak)--they were perfect in all there ways -- until sin was found. All it took was a test to bring it forth. Certainly God is not guilty of sin for testing His own creation (knowing that it would bring forth sin). Something may be in harmony in one environment, but introduce a new element (man) and the harmony is disrupted. I see no reason why God should walk on eggshells (so to speak) to avoid tripping up His creation. Is God guilty for designing Adam such. I say no. God is not required to design a man who cannot rebel. Yet, I reject free-will -- Adam was in bondage to God (until something blocked his view of God). His bondage merely altered -- his allegiance changed and he was in bondage to Satan. This is not Infra or Supralapsarianism, it is Hampshlapsarianism and has at most one adherent. I see then, both God decreeing the fall and God absolved from being guilty of forcing His will upon Adam. To answer your post -- Infras believe God allows or permitted sin (at least according to my reformed texts). Yet knowing that God is Sovereign they split the hair -- God permitted what must occur (think about that for awhile). I don't think anyone really understands what that means. Infras feel it necessary to defend God, they keep God as far away from being guilty of decreeing sin upon Adam as possible, yet still trying to keep God in-charge. I think they both have the noblest reasons at heart, thus the Reformers allowed both positions without condemning either. I think they understood the mystery of sin was too deep to understand, yet leaned toward keeping God's reputation from harm (Infra position). john

Subject: Re: Hampshlapsarianism From: Pilgrim To: John Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 09, 2000 at 20:50:59 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: John, The word permitted as used in the infralapsarian formulations is in fact an accommodation; a two-fold one to be sure. On the one hand, it was used, as you have mentioned already, to prevent the unwarranted accusation by some that they make God the author of sin (those accusations come anyway, despite their attempts at avoiding them! haha). But on the other hand, they were also trying to avoid the unjust charge that is more common by many, i.e., that if God decreed the Fall [which Infralapsarianism affirms], then Adam had no choice BUT to sin. It was in God's infinite wisdom that Adam sin and the fall of mankind result. The ultimate aim being His own glory and the good of the pinnacle of His creation. No, I'm not about to even question 'why' or 'how' this is accomplished, but only state that there is sufficient biblical support for this. You wrote: 'In my mind (a bit too fertile some would say) I find a solution to the origin of sin. . .' Yes, I would agree that your mind is a bit too something; fertile I don't think quite describes it accurately however! :-) If in fact, you have indeed found a solution to the 'origin of sin', then you John are the ONLY human ever to do so, and I suspect the only one who ever will! :-) From all that we are given to know from the inspired Word of God, there simply is NOTHING that even hints as to how sin entered into God's creation. Apart from the fact that nothing occurs which God has not foreordained and that God cannot and is not the author of sin, there just isn't anything that would help us to understand how a perfect spirit being such as Lucifer/Satan rebelled against his Creator. Neither Satan nor Adam had an innate predisposition to evil. And in the case of Adam, even the temptation of the serpent would not have been sufficient to sway him from perfect obedience. Personally, I am more than comfortable in letting it occupy a spot as one of the greatest 'mysteries' of all time. Jonathan Edwards spent a considerable amount of time contemplating over this question, and never was able to arrive at an answer of any kind. And Edwards has a far more 'fertile mind' than you... LOL! and far more cerebral than me. For me, wisdom dictates that this question is far better off left to God, Who alone KNOWS! :-) Humbled by His Majesty, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Clarification Wanted From: Tom To: John Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 09, 2000 at 11:06:53 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: You know sometimes I think man complicates things. Their discriptions of what they believe about a certain issue. Is more complicated than scripture itself(at least to me). Why can't we just try to stick with scripture, and what is unclear, just chalk it up to God only revealing what He wanted. From the discriptions of Infra and Supra-lapsarianism, they both admitt that they create problems. Is this right? Should we be doing that? Tom

Subject: Re: Clarification Wanted From: John To: Tom Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 09, 2000 at 21:02:44 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Tom, IMO, it isn't for us to limit what can be known. You know, there are those who say concerning the end of all things that it cannot be known -- they say it'll all 'Pan' out. I find 100% reconciliation with all Scripture in the amillenial view... it is clear as daylight, yet why can't they see it? (hehe) Perhaps at the bottom, the controlling factor is not Scripture but the need to support a particular worldview; a need, in this case, to set Christ up as King on earth. Why is Arminianism alive and well, because there is a lack of truth? No, I say it is because there is an overwhelming desire in men to keep themselves, even a small part, in control-- always the king-maker; a little-disillusioned-wannabe--god. When it comes to putting the puzzle of Scripture together we all have a pre-conceived notion as to how the pieces should fit. We may try force or plead ignorance to support our hasty conclusions. We demand God fit our notions, and if He doesn't, we often try deception through complicated wordings that mask our ignorance. I suppose there is some comfort in gaining many adherents to a doctrine we lack confidence in. Is it, might makes right? Speaking of the source for Adam's rebellion we are at a loss. The pieces do not tie neatly together -- or so it seems. We have Copernicus and Galileo, attempting to understand a heliocentric system. The Catholic Church had no room for a sun-centered system -- why? Because we must defend God's creation by keeping our Earth in the center. Did God really need defending? When Johannes Kepler and Isaac Newton observed elliptical orbits, the working hypothesis of wheels-within-wheels became too cumbersome, the hypothesis didn't fit the evidence. Thinking men, unable to rest until they found a solution, eventually pieced the puzzle together correctly. I cannot accept gray. Truth is either 0 or 1, yes or no, right or wrong, on or off. There is no room for spliced mutations synthesized by committee vote -- especially with God's Truth. God cannot decree a thing and permit the thing also; when we must hold contradictions together to explain our doctrine, it is likely our assumptions (presumptions) are incorrect. Like a working-hypotheses, if it falls apart upon scrutiny then we discard the postulate and start again. The shame is only in trying to hold contradiction together. It is OK not to know. It is also noble to search out a matter to see if it be so. But it is dangerous to gloss over error with fancy words designed to obstruct truth. I am not speaking of Supra/Infra so much as all the muttled gray-mush that passes for doctrine. I think any offering of doctrine that cannot be understood by a young child is probably best filed under the header 'Phoney-baloney'. That is not to say we should understand God as if we were God, only that if we dare to form doctrine, we should be able to defend it and explain it. If we cannot explain it, then it cannot be! (if in Latin you would be impressed). john

Subject: Explain Trinity... From: laz To: John Date Posted: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 11:30:03 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: John - you said: I am not speaking of Supra/Infra so much as all the muttled gray-mush that passes for doctrine. I think any offering of doctrine that cannot be understood by a young child is probably best filed under the header 'Phoney-baloney'. That is not to say we should understand God as if we were God, only that if we dare to form doctrine, we should be able to defend it and explain it. If we cannot explain it, then it cannot be! (if in Latin you would be impressed). Hmmm,you must not be a trinitarian since I just KNOW you can't explain it. laz

Subject: Re: Clarification Wanted From: Tom To: John Date Posted: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 00:34:26 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: John Sometimes I get lost as I read your posts, so when you read what follows, it may not be because you didn't explain what you said. It may be that I just didn't understand it. I am not sure you understood what I was trying to say. I do believe that the truth of almost any matter, can be found from the scriptures themselves, scripture interprets scripture. But sometimes, we use too many words to discribe what we believe to be biblical. The issue we have been discussing, 'double predestination' is one where when I read an article on it. I need to read it several times just to make sure I know what the author is saying. Sometimes, the article doesn't even have one scripture verse mentioned. Then when someone comes along and says that the article isn't biblical and quotes scripture and sticks with scripture to prove it. I can tell you from personal experience, that although just because someone uses scripture to prove their point, doesn't nessasarily mean that they are right. Some people are very skilled at using the scriptures in an unbiblical manner, some don't even know it. Someone like myself, who takes a while to process information, has to constantly remind themselves of this fact. But I can tell you, that sometimes the one who uses more scripture to prove their point, is more persuasive than someone who uses other means, such as analogies and words that are not found in scripture. For instance, they may say something like: 'Are you more interested in what scripture says, or are you more interested in what tradition says.' Comments like that, can be disarming, even when you believe this particular Church tradition is upholding scripture. I believe in the Trinity whole heartedly, but I would rather be able to explain the Trinity from the pages of scripture(thankfully I can), than be able to give good explanations of the Trinity that aren't found directly from scripture. I find that as I minister to someone, say over coffee. When I explain something the way I learned it from theology. I get more puzzled faces, than when I just stick to scripture and not use any fancy words. It is not that I mind fancy words, they sometimes help me learn. But sometimes, I find it hard to put into layman's terms what I have learned. Which makes the doctrine worthwhile to me, but worthless to those I am trying to minister to. I better cut it there, I am rambling. Talk about using too many words.:-) Tom

Subject: Re: Clarification Wanted From: john To: Tom Date Posted: Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 22:13:19 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hi Tom, There is a child's game called 'Why?'. You simply say 'why' every time someone says something until they cry uncle. At some point we all must say 'I don't know'. Now, does that mean if we ask why enough concerning, let's say, the doctrine of the Trinity it is falsified? I think not. We are responsible to explain what we believe to be true. To really 'believe' something it must be assimilated into us, we must live it. If we cannot explain it, then it is not part of us, though perhaps in some superficial way ( as in the unregenerate). That is why I personally am wary of Scripture quoting Christians. Quoting what God says doesn't require understanding, a parrot can do likewise. Now, if we can explain it in our own words and show ownership we show integrity in ourselves. If someone quotes Scripture to show me wrong, then it is incumbent upon me to knit that Scripture reference together as a cohesive whole so I can maintain harmony and logic. Perhaps I can't and must modify my understanding of certain verses. The verses are immovable and unbreakable, I must change myself to fit them (and as such be transformed into the image of Christ via the Word). The problem arises that men will not modify themselves to fit Scripture, but rather choose to ignore or mangle Scripture in deception to themselves and others; such is the nature of the unregenerate who hate the light. Notice, it is not just because we can babble on about Scripture that proves our understanding, but that we have harmony of truth. Just as someone without understanding can bang a piano, the sound created witnessing either to harmony or to deception. A real musician makes beautiful melody via harmony of sounds, so it is with truth. Since we do not deal with only one Scripture alone (Scripture interprets Scripture), it is a harmony we seek between a multitude of instruments all playing the same tune (the Scriptures are one). Believers carry this new song or orchestrated harmony within themselves. The more we incorporate Scripture into our band of harmonic doctrines, the greater our confidence that our doctrines sing together well because they are indeed true (which builds faith in God and faith that we are His). Someone preaches a sermon or you read an article -- is it Biblical or not? What we really are asking is: Do they play a tune you recognize. The question as to who is off-key should drive the true Christian to the Scriptures. We all must build our orchestra one instrument at a time. BTW: I can't imagine why anyone would get lost ready my posts (hehe). You know, I'll go back and read a post several days later and not remember writing most of it, it at times is a surprise. Must have something to do with levels of conscienceness or senility, one of the two. john

Subject: Re: Clarification Wanted From: Tom To: john Date Posted: Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 12:48:50 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: John What I meant by my post, was that when someone uses scripture more than just theological words, they seem to be more persuasive. I don't mean they shouldn't show what a particular passage means in context, or show what a particular word means. Indeed that is nessasary, otherwise we can make the scriptures say whatever we want them to say. Tom

Subject: Hampshlapsarianism ? I LOVE IT!! (NT) From: laz To: John Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 09, 2000 at 09:11:29 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message:

Subject: Supra/Infra -- no solution in sight From: John To: All Date Posted: Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 19:17:21 (PST) Email Address: hampshij@ppp.kornet.net Message: Originally, the difference between Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism was over the fall of man—--was it decreed by God. Was the sin of Adam predestined by God (Supra) or did God merely allow it and use it for His benefit (Infra)? Calvin held the Supra position. After Calvin's era the dispute changed emphasis. Many Infras agreed that the fall was part of the decree and many Supras admitted that God weighed men's sin into His decree. Both camps understand that God's decrees as eternal, without temporal succession. The original dispute over whether God decreed the fall has passed; if you are Reformed (not Arminian) then God decreed the fall; both Supra and Infras agree the fall was planned by God in His decree. Both reject the idea that God is, or could be, the author of sin. The debate narrowed. Supras allow God to permit sin, admitting Adam could not have not sinned. Infras say God decreed Adam's fall into sin, yet the decree only permitted sin rather than mandated it. Supras emphasize the positive decree for sin--—thus heading in the direction of making God the author of sin. Infra's emphasize God as permitting or allowing sin--—thus heading toward the error of Arminianism (free-agents). However, Infras and Supras deny equally that God is the author of sin. Even in God's permission or allowance of Adam's sin, both agree sin was a certainty. Supra's position is misstated by some, in which the Supra become guilty of God predestining men for eternal destruction, simply by His will, like a tyrant, without regard to men's sin. In this error God simply destroys His creatures to show His attributes. Supras actually are careful to add that the damnation by God of the wicked is an act of His will. This act of condemnation results from God's Divine Justice before men's sin. According to Supras, man is predestinated to be created and then to fall. According to Infras man is predestined by God while created and while fallen. Supras follow this decree of redemption: God decrees the salvation of some and the damnation of the rest, in His mind, prior to creation. In time, God creates His elect and the reprobate. God allows the fall. God justifies the elect and condemns the non-elect. Infras follow this decree of redemption: God decrees to make men holy and blessed. God allows men to fall by their own self-determination of will. God then decrees to save some of the guilty. God permits the rest to continue in their sin and will punish them as their sin deserves. According to Supras, God always planned from eternity past to act upon His elect whom He foreknew; there was never a moment that God did not recognize their special status--—the elect were always God's beloved. According to Infras, this personal attention toward the elect did not occur until after the fall, when God decreed who the elect were and decreed to save them. Supralapsarian position is aided by: Ps 115:3, Prov 16:4, Isa 10:15, 45:9, Jer 18:6, Matt 11:25-26, 20:15, Rom 9:17,19-21. The Supras use the potter as a picture of God's sovereignty over His creation—--to make a vessel for glory and others for damnation--—all prior to creation ('Why didst Thou make me thus?'). The emphasis shows God as decreeing to save prior to creation. Example: Jesus says 'I will utter things hidden from the foundation of the world' (Matt 13:35). The Supras have an answer as to why God created the world and permitted the fall, while the Infra's are unsure. The Supras give full justice to God. The Infra's must ultimately say too, that God decreed the fall by God's Sovereign good pleasure. Supras, however, by stating God did not mandate sin, but decreed it to happen, fail to find a solution to the problem of sin. They cannot say that God decreed to bring sin into the world by His own direct means. Supras cannot go beyond this: That God willed to permit sin. Man is certain to be created and certain to fall (creabilis et labilis). Supras do not allow God to decree both election and damnation equally. Infras state that Christ as Mediator of the covenant of grace can only be though of as Infra—--that is, there can only be a mediator after the entrance of sin (something to mediate). Infralapsarian position is aided by: Matt 11:25-26, John 15:19, Rom 8:28,30; 9:15-16; Eph 1:4-12; 2Tim 1:9. These passages imply the fall of man came before God's election unto salvation. The Reformed Churches in their official standards have always adopted the Infra position (Synod of Dort, Westminster Assembly). Objections to the Infra position are: It does not solve the sin problem (neither does the Supra position). They avoid God willing sin, making God to only permit sin. Does this mean that sin was permitted but unaccounted for? Did sin frustrate God's plan? To say yes is to join the Arminians. Infras make sin God's permissive decree -- permitted yet definite to occur. If asked why God would decree to permit sin, they must state it is God's good pleasure to do so, and come into agreement with the Supra camp. Is the reprobation of the wicked also God's good pleasure then? The Infra will say no, making the decree of God toward the reprobate conditional--—which leads again toward Arminianism. Sin is common to all fallen men, and cannot be the cause of reprobation by God. Why did God pass by those who are not elect? Not because they sin, we all sin... but by His own good pleasure--—thus, Infras ultimately join the Supra camp when pushed. The Supra and Infra positions are not antithetical, they are an examination of a problem from differing points of view. Both can find support in Scripture—--Supra's in the Sovereignty of God and Infra's in the mercy and justice of God. Both views, when dealing with the question of sin, make sin a permissive decree (unless God be the author of sin). The Supra position finds merit because it has God's decrees as a unit--—there is one final aim in view, that God willed sin (in some sense) and it was used by God according to reach His objectives according to His pre-creation plan. The Infra position finds merit in that Adam's sin cannot be viewed as merely a means to an end! Sin is not an element of progress, but rather as a disturbance of God's prefect order. The Reformed standards hold to the Infra's position, BUT do not condemn the Supra. In any case, it is a tough nut to crack. john

Subject: What to do with this passage From: Eric To: All Date Posted: Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 12:35:09 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Luke 4:5-7 ' And he led Him up and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. 6 And the devil said to Him,'I will give You all this domain and its glory; for it has been handed over to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. 7 'Therefore if You worship before me, it shall all be Yours.' What is the best response to questions about this passage relating it to God's sovereignty and the scope of Satan's power? God bless.

Subject: Re: What to do with this passage From: Rod To: Eric Date Posted: Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 14:01:07 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Eric, This is a 'federal headship' issue. The first 'son of God', Adam, the created son of God (luke 3:38) was given 'dominion' (an interesting word that people no longer use nor understand) over the earth (Gen. 1:28). But, when he sinned, he surrendered his dominion to Satan and became a sinner, a slave to sin and one under the control of Satan until God redeemed him. Yet, even in the salvation of Adam, the 'dominion' over the earth was lost, his special status had been surrendered and Satan had wrested control from him by deceit and temptation. Satan still rules the world of lost men, as is testified by the Apostle Paul and the other Bible writers who refer to his obvious authority over lost men and the things of this world (see for one example 2 Cor. 4:4, where the word 'world' in the KJV is more properly rendered 'age', according to some). The 'second' man, the 'last Adam' (see 1 Cor. 15:45, 47), the eternal Son of God "who became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14) redeemed his own, also reclaiming the lost authority to rule, crushing the power and authority of Satan in the process. That this extends over the kingdoms of the earth can be seen from Ps. 2, where the coming King is portrayed in an astounding manner which leaves us breathless as we contemplate it. He has this authority doubly: as God the sovereign and as the 'last Adam' Who reclaimed what Adam had lost by His life, obedience, and substitutionary death. God has never ceased to be sovereign in all this. He still was overruling and directing all these events from the beginning of eternity, using Satan as a tool to accomplish His ends and knowing all the while from before the first moment of any created creature, even Satan, that He was going to accomplish all His pleasure and His supreme purpose (cp. Acts 2:23,30-36 and John 8:44, as well as Eph. 2:1-3). When in Rom. 8:28 the Spirit of God pronounces through Paul that 'all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose,' it means just that: 'all things' which have ever occurred, which ever will occur. That fact is only possible because God is and has been sovereign in all things at all times from the beginning of eternity. There was never any danger of the Lord Jesus failing and submitting to Satan as Adam the First did. As God, He could not do it and as the Servant of God, THE Son of God, it was His whole purpose in the Triune God's supreme plan that He redeem what Adam had lost. He was 'the second man,' the 'last Adam,' the One on whom the plan of God in eternity hinged and turned. He is sitting at the right hand of God, the place of honor, (Heb. 1:3) until such time as it pleases God to 'make thine enemies thy footstool' (Ps. 110:1; Heb. 1:13, 10:13). God's sovereignty was/is the determining factor in all events of history. There was never any danger of that sovereignty being threatened.

Subject: Re: What to do with this passage From: Eric To: Rod Date Posted: Sat, Nov 04, 2000 at 08:17:44 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hi Rod, Thanks for your response. I agree with what you said, but in referring specificaly to the passage, are we to understand that Satan was lying when he told Jesus that the dominion of the earth was his, and that he could give it to Christ, and that Christ just ignored the lie instead of expounding on God's sovereignty. Do you know of any other passages in scripture that are similiar to this? This question came up in relation to the Word of Faith belief system. Thanks for your help.

Subject: Re: What to do with this passage From: Rod To: Eric Date Posted: Sat, Nov 04, 2000 at 12:13:44 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Eric, In view of the 'dominion' which Adam surrendered to Satan, and in the context of the other temptations which were very real in the sense that the things suggested could have been done, it was a legitimate offer. It had to be, otherwise, it couldn't have been a 'temptation.' There would have been no purpose for the Lord Jesus to have expounded for Satan the true situation. Satan knew and knows that he is subject to God's overruling authority (see Job 1:6 and 2:1, where the strong indication is that Satan had to appear to give an account of himself before God). The Enemy knows and uses Scripture, was initially created higher than other creatures and had a special postion before God, and clearly understands the position of the Lord God--remember, he wanted to be like God and rebelled against that very authority. Furthermore, God doesn't intend to redeem Satan. So then, there are two reasons why he wasn't worthy of any response except the brief truth pinpointing the thing which Satan had violated when he initially sinned: 'Begone, Satan; for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord, thy God, and him only shalt thou serve' (Matt. 4:10). That was God's law given to Moses and it was the principle on which all the creatures of God are to operate. This answer was on two levels: it was a rebuke to the rebel and a statement of what the Lord Jesus, the God-Man Who came to reclaim that which was lost, was to do in the process of his redemptive work. As to similar passages, we are farily limited in that, but If you look at the Genesis account, the serpent mixed truth with the lie to deceive Eve: 'Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden,' using the negative statement of emphasizing the freedom which God had allowed them to eat of all trees, while subtly omitting the exception. Then, after the partial truth, he spoke more truth, wrapped in a lie, 'Ye shall not surely die; for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil.' All true, except the fact that they shouldn't die. And except the fact that the 'knowing good and evil' would be a result of their being evil, not still innocent, and lost in spiritual death, headed toward physical death in a lost eternity. Compare also, the account in Acts 16:16-18 where Paul directly rebuked the 'spirit' for speaking about whom he and Silas were and what their mission was. He didn't speak to the spirit in dialogue and he didn't tolerate its proclamations, even the truthful parts, he was 'grieved' by the pronouncements of the evil spirit. The incident with the demons in the region of Gadara (Mark 5:1-20; Luke 8:26-40) also gives insight in how the Lord Jesus doesn't allow the proclamation of God's Word by evil spirits and doesn't 'dialogue' with them about it.

Subject: Thanks Rod nt From: Eric To: Rod Date Posted: Sat, Nov 04, 2000 at 13:12:25 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: nt

Subject: To Pilgrim (Oneness Pentecostal) From: Don To: PILGRIM Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 02, 2000 at 22:54:14 (PST) Email Address: dhardy8@hotmail.com Message: Hello Pilgrim, Long time no see! the reason i am posting this is recently i have been frequenting a oneness pentecostal forum at Delphi forums, and i have used one of your studies about the Trinity, excellent work on your part i might add! anyways, one person in paticular a oneness pentecostal, posted 26 questions for us Trinitarians, and my first thought was, there was no better person in my mind that could better answer scripturely and tie it all in more accurately than you, could you please go through these questions and give your best shot, some are soooo easy and others make you think, but Bless GOD HE has all the answers! AMEN!! Curt's list of questions against the trinity,,posted in the Oneness Apostolic forum.) SKYNNER PLS. ANSWER THESE 1 AT A TIME**** Did Jesus Christ have two fathers? The Father is the Father of the Son (I John 1:3), yet the child born of Mary was conceived by the Holy Ghost (Matthew 1:18, 20: Luke 1:35). Which one is the true father? Some trinitarians say that the Holy Ghost was merely the Fathers's agent in conception -- a process they compare to artificial insemination. 2. How many spirits are there? God the Father is a Spirit (John 4:24), the Lord Jesus is a Spirit (II Corinthians 3:17), and the Holy Spirit is a Spirit by definition. Yet there is one Spirit (I Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians 4:4). 3. If Father and Son are co-equal persons, why did Jesus pray to the Father? (Matthew 11:25). Can God pray to God? 4. God is omniscient (all knowing). How can the Son not know as much as the Father (Matthew 24:36; Mark 13:32) without destroying His omniscience and thus His deity? 5. God is omnipotent (all powerful). How can the Son not have any power except what the Father gives Him? (John 5:19, 30; 6:38)? 6. What about other verses of Scripture indicating an inequality of the Son and the Father? (John 8:42; 14:28; I Corinthians 11:3). 7. Did 'God the Son' die? The Bible says the Son died (Romans 5:10). If so, can God die? Can part of God die? 8. How can there be an eternal son when the Bible speaks of the BEGOTTEN Son, clearly indicating that the Son had a beginning? (John 3:16; Hebrews 1:5-6)? 9. If the Son is eternal and existed at creation, who was His mother at that time? We know the son was made (born)of a woman (Galatians 4:4). 10. Did 'God the Son' surrender His omnipresence (everywhere present at the same time) while on earth? If so, how could he still be God? 11. If the Son is eternal and immutable (unchangeable), how can the reign of the son have an ending? (I Corinthians 15:24-28). 12. If in answer to questions 3 through 11 one says only the human Son of God was limited in knowledge, was limited in power, and died, then how can one speak of 'God the Son'? Are there two Sons? 13. Whom do we worship and to whom do we pray? Jesus said to worship the Father (John 4:21-24), yet Stephen prayed to Jesus (Acts 7:59-60). 14. Can there be more than three persons in the Godhead? Certainly the Old Testament does not teach there but emphasized oneness. If the New Testament adds to the Old Testament message and teaches three persons, then what is to prevent subsequent revelations of additional persons? If we apply trinitarian logic to interpret some verses of Scripture, we could teach a fourth person (Isaiah 48:16; Colossians 1:3; 2:2; I Thessalonians 3:11; James 1:27). Likewise, we could interpret some verses of Scripture to mean six more persons (Revelation 3:1; 5:6). 15. Are there three Spirits in the Christian's heart? Father, Jesus, and the Spirit all dwell within a Christian (John 14:17, 23; Romans 8:9; Ephesians 3:14-17). Yet there is one spirit (I Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians 4:4). 16. There is only one throne in heaven (Revelation 4:2). Who sits upon it? We know Jesus does (Revelation 1:8, 18, 4:8). Where do the Father and the Holy Spirit sit? 17. If Jesus is on the throne, how can He sit on the right hand of God? (Mark 16:19). Does He sit or stand on the right hand of God? (Acts 7:55). Or is He in the Father's bosom? (John 1:18). 18. Is Jesus in the Godhead or is the Godhead in Jesus? Colossians 2:9 says the latter. 19. Given Matthew 28:19, why did the apostles consistently baptize both Jews and Gentiles using the name of Jesus, even to the extent of rebaptism? (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5; 22:16; I Corinthians 1:13). 20. Who raised Jesus from the dead? Did the Father (Ephesians 1:20), or Jesus (John 2:19:21), or the Spirit? (Romans 8:11). 21. If Son and Holy Ghost are co-equal persons in the Godhead, why is blasphemy to the Holy Ghost unforgivable but blasphemy of the Son is not? (Luke 12:10). 22. If the Holy Ghost is a co-equal member of the trinity, why does the Bible always speak of Him being sent from the Father or from Jesus? (John 14:26); 15:26). 23. Does the Father know something that the Holy Spirit does not know? If so, how can they be co-equal? Only the Father knows the day and hour of the Second Coming of Christ (Mark 13:32). 24. Did the trinity make the Old and New covenants? We know the LORD (Jehovah) did (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Hebrews 8:7-13). If Jehovah is a trinity then Father, Son and Spirit all had to die to make the new covenant effective Hebrews 9:16-17). 25. If the Spirit proceeds from the Father, is the Spirit also a son of the Father? If not, why not? 26. If the Spirit proceeds from the Son, is the Spirit the grandson of the Father? If not, why not? Don :) Shalom :)

Subject: New 'Hymn' From: Pilgrim To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 02, 2000 at 12:55:55 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I apologize for being rather lax in varying the songs for this and other forums over the past few months. However, I will strive to be more diligent in the future, D.v. to provide some edifying music to listen to as you either read and/or participate here. For those who are not privy to what I'm referring to, just click the musical note image in the upper right hand table at the top of this page to listen to the current selection. In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: New 'Hymn' From: RJ To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 01:42:04 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Pilgrim, Thank you for the newest music selection a favorite of mine...:-)....here are the words. 'The LORD hath appeared of old unto me saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.' -Jeremiah 31:3 Jesu Joy of Man's Desiring Jesus, joy of our desiring, Holy wisdom, love most bright; Drawn by Thee, our souls aspiring Soar to uncreated light. Word of God, our flesh that fashioned, With the fire of life impassioned, Striving still to truth unknown, Soaring, dying round Thy throne. Through the way where hope is guiding, Hark, what peaceful music rings; Where the flock, in Thee confiding, Drink of joy from deathless springs. Theirs is beauty's fairest pleasure; Theirs is wisdom's holiest treasure. Thou dost ever lead Thine own In the love of joys unknown. Words: Martin Janus, 1661; translator anonymous. Music: Johann Schop; arranged by Johann Sebastian Bach, 1723. * * * * * * * * In His Grace, -RJ :-) < --- --

Subject: Re: New 'Hymn' From: JOwen To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 02, 2000 at 20:00:58 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Will that be a 'psalm tune' Pilgrim. Hee-hee. JOwen

Subject: Delving into things beyond me From: Rod To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 02, 2000 at 11:50:47 (PST) Email Address: na Message: I really should leave this whole 'double predestination' thing alone. I am not intellectually capable of understanding what God did/does in all this. Furthermore, not being given to real scholarship, I react negatively to all the semantics, terms, and designations. In spite of that, yet without trying to provide answers to the questions, I would like to make some personal observations. First of all, the general thrust of all the Bible is toward the 'positive' aspect of God's predestination. One is predestinated to eternal life, to being conformed to the image of the Son of God by the purpose and grace of God. That is 'positive' in two senses: 1) It has the Lord God definitely and specifically designating a group of humans who are yet future and who are to reap the benefits of his love and mercy in spite of their not deserving it; 2) it is 'positive' in the sense that to be so predestinated is a designation to an unfathomably wonderful relationship with that same Lord God on the earth which deepens into an even more incomprehensible and fabulous estate at our glorification. When the Bible speaks specifically of 'predestination' that is the major emphasis and the direction the Spirit takes, the effects produced on those chosen and marked out from all eternity to be so showered with God's love and blessing. Even when Paul writes about 'Jacob have I loved; Esau have I hated,' it is in the context of the chapter to demonstrate the awesome effects of the sovereignty of God in relation to God's elect, as shown by this statement later on: '...that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had before prepared unto glory' (Rom. 9:23). Surely this is one of the overriding purposes of the Lord God in all His work toward man. Yet, going back to verse 14 of this chapter, we see that we must recognize another, more important aspect of all this, a feature which is crucial and foundational. 'Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.' Whatever God does is designed to prove His righteousness because it is His nature, His being, His character. That righteousness must show through because whatever God does then reflects Who He is. Being only one thing (righteous), He doesn't have to consider His actions as a man does. He doesn't have to stop and think, 'Now, if I choose plan X, it will reflect badly on me, so I'll choose plan Y.' Man (saved men) has the ability to do (limited) righteousness and unrighteous deeds, but God has only the ability and desire to do absolute righteousness, a fact which Scripture declares loudly to all who will read and heed. The nineteenth verse presents us humans with something we don't like to confront because it is hard for us to come up against this truth. 'Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?' I used to think that this man asking this hypothetical question was in error, that God didn't make him thus, but that isn't so, at least in the overall sense. Ultimately, we have to conclude that God did create man and did so with the provision that he would sin, knowing and purposing that sinful man whom he did not choose to redeem in predestination to conformation to the image of His Son would be doomed to hell in consequence of their own sin. Paul's 'man' knew that much, so he asks, 'Why doth he yet find fault?' You see, it's a matter of blame in question here. Is God to blame for man's sin or is the man to blame and responsible before God. But the Spirit, working through the Apsotle, says, 'Nay, but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?' There is no fault with God, only with man, even though God is behind all things. That is the sticking point, the mystery we can't yet penetrate and may never be able to. God is 'willing' (strongest possible terms; cp. 2 Peter 3:7-9) to demonstrate his wrath, his just wrath, on the 'vessels of wrath,' but withholds that judgment for a time with the express purpose of benefit for His 'vessels of mercy' whom He has just as surely created for that wonderful grace and all of it, His entire plan and purpose toward mankind, demonstrates that He is righteous! This is a pivotal point in Scripture, one of the most telling and revealing passages of who God is and how He exercises His power within the confines (note the word) of His own nature, a nature bound to do what is just and righteous. Note in comparison that He had to 'find a way' to make man whom He redeems 'just' so that His nature won't be violated: 'To declare I say, at this time his righteousness, that he might be just AND THE JUSTIFIER of him who believeth in Jesus' (Rom. 3:26). Above all He is righteous and just. His own nature and identity demand that He must find a way (I'm speaking in human terms; it was no chore for Him to do so) to make men just so that His justice wouldn't be violated and that only just and righteous people should share with Him and be with Him in eternity. His method, the only method, was imputation of righteousness in place of unrighteousness which was imputed to Another. Such imputation was born of love without foundation so far as we can see and expresses itself actively in merciful action on the part of the Triune God. We can never hope that in this world the type of questioner of Paul's letter, 'Why doth he yet find fault?' will ever accept or understand these concepts. What we strive for is that the Christian, the one led by the Spirit of the Lord God will see and accept that this is the one manner, the only acceptable manner by which God can demonstrate His righteousness and mercy and glory. Is it just? It is just because God is just, if we believe His Word by faith. Is it right? It is right because that same Word says He is not unrighteous. Is it fair? Well, fairness is rooted in justice, so that has been answered already. The only place it isn't 'fair' is that undeserving people receive glory because their sin was unfairly imputed to the Savior. When Paul's theoretical man, or any man, by implication, asks, 'Why doth he yet find fault?', such a person is finding fault with the plan of God, with God Himself, in effect, indicting God. When any of us demand that Scripture and God change His method and declarations in the Word, we are doing the same thing, saying, de facto, that we know better than God and that He can't be trusted to justly and righteously conduct Himself in His universe.

Subject: Re: Delving into things beyond me From: Tom To: Rod Date Posted: Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 00:37:17 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Rod You said: I really should leave this whole 'double predestination' thing alone. I am not intellectually capable of understanding what God did/does in all this. Furthermore, not being given to real scholarship, I react negatively to all the semantics, terms, and designations. If that is true of you, it is even more so with me. I think I would be better served to be an observer on this one. Also, I think you did a pretty good job at explaining what you believe on the subject.:-) Tom

Subject: Thanks, brother Tom. nt From: Rod To: Tom Date Posted: Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 09:15:17 (PST) Email Address: na Message:

Subject: Re: Delving into things beyond me From: Jimmy To: Rod Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 02, 2000 at 12:46:29 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Rod, I'm trying to understand this doctrine, it seems to be a contradiction. If I understand you correctly you believe that you were predestined for salvation before you were even born, is this correct? If that's the case then you came into this world as a 'chosen' one. You differ, from your very beginning, from those that came into this world as the not chosen, the lost. You never where, nor could you ever be 'lost.' You really did not need to be 'saved' because you were never really 'lost.' You were never in danger of God's judgment. It seems that you do believe that you were at one time 'lost' but I don't understand how that can be. If you came into this world as a 'chosen' one, predestined for salvation and someone else came into this world, as an 'un-chosen one' you are not and never could be on the same footing. While you are to be 'saved' no matter what you do the other one is 'lost' no matter what they do. You were never really a child of wrath or a vessel of dishonor, never really at enmity with God. It's all pretend. Sincerely, Jimmy

Subject: Delving into things beyond you From: Pilgrim To: Jimmy Date Posted: Tues, Nov 07, 2000 at 17:41:49 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Jimmy, You are confusing the ETERNAL decree to predestinate with the TEMPORAL application of that decree. ALL men are born under condemnation and the elect 'were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. ' Eph 2:2, 3. The very same principle and truth can be seen in the vicarious substitutionary atonement of the Lord Christ. All those who were predestinated to salvation, were in the infinite wisdom and mind of God already His; so much so, that Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit uses the 'aorist'/past tense to describe their 'calling, justification and glorification' Rom 8:29, 30. Yet these same elect individuals are called and justified in TIME by God's sovereign providence and will and will be glorified at the last day. Christ Jesus ACCOMPLISHED the work He was ordained to do, but that work (atonement) has no effect on anyone until it is APPLIED. God uses His ordained MEANS to ACCOMPLISH what He in eternity has decreed. One last example for you would be the prophesies given in the Old Testament. They were as good as done, since God Himself, through the prophets spoke those 'predictions'. Yet they did not occur until sometimes hundreds of years later. Isa 46:10 'Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:' In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Don't believe me, believe From: Rod To: Jimmy Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 02, 2000 at 13:24:32 (PST) Email Address: na Message: the Bible and God. Jimmy: 'If you came into this world as a 'chosen' one, predestined for salvation and someone else came into this world, as an 'un-chosen one' you are not and never could be on the same footing. While you are to be 'saved' no matter what you do the other one is 'lost' no matter what they do. You were never really a child of wrath or a vessel of dishonor, never really at enmity with God. It's all pretend.' The Bible: 'And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even our father, Isaac (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil,THAT THE PURPOSE OF GOD ACCORDING TO ELECTION MIGHT STAND, not of works, but of him that calleth), it was said unto her, The elder should serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved [having not yet been born], but Esau have I hated' (Rom. 9:10-13). ''And you hath he made alive [who did it and why?], who were dead in trespasses and sins;...among whom also we all had our manner of life in times past in the lust of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature the children of wrath, EVEN AS OTHERS. But God...hath made us alive together with Christ (by grace are ye saved)' (Eph. 2:1-5). And that was solely because 'according as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him, in love having predestinated us unto the adoption of sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of his will' (Eph. 1:4-5). You wrote to open your post: 'I'm trying to understand this doctrine, it seems to be a contradiction.' If you're really trying to understand, just read Romans 9 and Ephesians 1 and 2. It's all there. Be careful you don't contradict God.

Subject: Re: Don't believe me, believe From: Jimmy To: Rod Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 02, 2000 at 14:17:14 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hi Rod, Am I to take your reply to mean that you were indeed born a 'chosen' one and were never ever really lost? That means that you were born intrinsically different than other human beings. You were never really a 'lost sinner', you were born 'saved.' Actually I'm rather familiar with Romans 9 and Ephesians 1 and 2 and I'm also familiar with the various systems of theology based upon them. You refer to Roman's 9:10-13 in support of your notion that you were born a 'chosen' one and were never really in danger of God's wrath but verse 12 clearly states the purpose of the 'election' spoken of here: Rom. 9:12 'It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.' Verse 12 tells us, in no uncertain terms, that the purpose of God's 'election' in this section of Scripture was service and not salvation. 'The elder shall serve the younger.' This is a thread that runs all through God's word. The first born serves the younger. The greater shall serve the lesser. God sets to one side the elder or the first and chooses the second. God choose the ignorant to confound the wise, the weak to bring down the strong. In Ephesians Jesus Christ is the Elected One, and all that are IN Him take part in His election. Sincerely, Jimmy

Subject: Re: Don't believe me, believe From: Rod To: Jimmy Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 02, 2000 at 14:59:59 (PST) Email Address: na Message: You may have read the passages, but you are 'familiar' with neither.

Subject: Run don't walk From: Eric To: All Date Posted: Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 10:03:09 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: to your video store. You all have been waiting for it, and now it's here 'Revelation--the movie' is at a video store near you. '...a must see for all Christians.'--Dispensationalism Today raves. '...if you see only one theologically deep movie this year, this is it!'--Dallas Theological Seminary Journal Benny Hinn says: 'Now, I finally have an understanding of biblical interpretation, this movie has really opened my eyes.' '...even tops the Omega Code.'--Charisma Magazine 'They ripped off my book!' Tim Lahaye I heard a one hour radio call in show where all the callers were raving about this movie, and how it really has made the bible make sense to them. The host even made the comment that it's is not the bible, but some people don't like to read so this movie might be a good alternative for them. What is the world coming to? God bless.

Subject: Re: Run don't walk From: Five Sola To: Eric Date Posted: Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 12:06:19 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Eric, so true! it is sad. The church today is more interested in sensationalism and being spoon fed rather than true study and finding out for themselves. I love this comment... ' '...even tops the Omega Code.'--Charisma Magazine' doesn't take much, since Omega Code is a non-christian movie 99.9% heresy .01% cultic (that is being gracious) and all anti-biblical. :-) Five Sola

Subject: Re: Run don't walk From: Brother Bret To: Five Sola Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 02, 2000 at 11:58:05 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Ah come on! You mean the part when the 'wind' was swirling and flashbacks on how he was treated, and he said 'Jesus save me' wasn't real enough for you??? :^ ) Which movie is this one? There is another one out on video later to be released in the theater, called 'Left Behind.' What also bothers me, is the 'selling out' to Hollywood Actors, and the fact Christ is hardly mentioned in most of them, let alone the pre-trib, premil position being so dogmatically protrayed in details that no one knows mostly about. By the way, Pilgrim, Laz, JOwen, Mebaser, and others, I no longer hold to a 'strong' pre-trib/pre-mil position. I guess you could say I'm in transition...hehe :^ ) BB P.S. How many 'professing Christians' will there be STUNNED when they see themselves going through 'great tribulation.' And...about when in history did the 'church' start holding to a pre-trib/pre-mil position in greater numbers? BB Brother Bret www.ccbcfl.org

Subject: Calvinist Romanist? From: laz To: All Date Posted: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 20:46:41 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Please, can anyone explain this webpage? This guy sounds like a calvinist as he coherently picks apart easy believism and shows that salvation is by grace thru faith...both coming from God. wassuup wid dat? did I miss somethin'? laz Romanist Apologist Who Sounds LIke a Calvinist www.geocities.com/churchguide/objfaith4.html

Subject: Re: Calvinist Romanist? From: stan To: laz Date Posted: Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 15:01:14 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: By grace that comes from God means one thing for him and another for you - I hope ;-) Grace is from God, but funneled through holy mother church and there is no other channel. You can witness to most RC's and use the usual terms and many if not most will agree with you all the way, but what you mean is not what they mean. You need to get into their dictionary! 'What are the principal ways of obtaining grace? - The principal ways of obtaining grace are prayer and the sacraments, especially the Holy Eucharist.' from p 81 MY CATHOLIC FAITH by Louis LaRavoire Morrow. stan

Subject: Re: Calvinist Romanist? From: laz To: stan Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 02, 2000 at 06:36:32 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Thanks Stan...but that's my point about this website...his 'dictionary' is so 'calvinistic' in places in fact, he makes more sense than most evangelicals! Have you gone thru his Q&A's yet...it's worth checking out. Laz

Subject: Re: Calvinist Romanist? From: stan To: laz Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 02, 2000 at 14:56:03 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Read parts of a number of his pages and sounds like holy mother church - rejects security of the believer and stands with mom on number of other issues. The Cath. church has for probably 20 years been trying to find ways to sound evangelical. They sing a lot of the charismatic songs and talk the same talk, but mean something else. Even the charismatic catholics talk evangelical, but always in relation to holy mother church, Mary and the rest of it. One once said that tongues really enhanced his worship of Mary!

Subject: Re: Calvinist Romanist? From: Anne To: stan Date Posted: Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 04:58:00 (PST) Email Address: anneivy@home.com Message: Even the charismatic catholics talk evangelical, but always in relation to holy mother church, Mary and the rest of it. One once said that tongues really enhanced his worship of Mary! 'Always' is overdoing it a bit, Stan. I wasn't anything approaching a charismatic kinda Catholic, but the ones I knew didn't fit the pattern you've described at all. Not saying there aren't any that do, mind! There are how many Catholics? Over a billion? Gee, and you found one who said something wierd about tongues and Mary? Guys, there are so many of 'em, we can find a 'Catholic' to say darn near anything, if we look hard enough. But let's not generalize the peculiar ones we run across over to the RC church as a whole. I've come across some Pretty Peculiar Calvinists, and I'd hate to think noncalvinists are taking Reformed Greenwich time from them, going around and crowing about the strange stuff all Calvinists believe. Anne

Subject: Re: Calvinist Romanist? From: Mud on me face........Naaaaaahhh. To: Anne Date Posted: Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 20:06:51 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The term 'always' was in relation to their evangelicalness as it related to their holy mother churchedness. If they ain't holy mother churched, then they would be unholy churched and part of another group/body. The always was not in relation to the 'one' I mentioned. I wasn't speaking of 'all' catholics nor classifying all catholics as charismatic. You mentioned: '...let's not generalize the peculiar ones we run across over to the RC church as a whole.' Sorry, but I reread my post a number of times and this is not what I did, nor did I mean to. When I said 'One once said that tongues really enhanced his worship of Mary!' it was mostly an illustration of what I was talking about - their evangelicalness realting to their mother churchedness - labeling the man 'peculiar' was your decision not mine. Indeed, if I were a tongues speaker and a Catholic I would assume this would be my experience. You also mentioned: 'I've come across some Pretty Peculiar Calvinists, and I'd hate to think noncalvinists are taking Reformed Greenwich time from them, going around and crowing about the strange stuff all Calvinists believe.' Since I'm not a Calvinist I won't comment on your term 'PECULIAR' ;-), but thus being a noncalvinist must take exception with your term 'crowing' - hey I hain't no chicken! stan

Subject: Taking a different tack From: Rod To: Mud on me face........Naaaaaahhh. Date Posted: Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 21:35:36 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Stan, This remark struck me: 'Since I'm not a Calvinist....' I'm curious. If you ain't a Calvinist, what is you? :>)

Subject: Re: I'd rather ..... From: stan To: Rod Date Posted: Sat, Nov 04, 2000 at 20:42:46 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: sit on that tack of yours than try to get into that on this board ;-) Actually if not a calvinist then one of the other guys ;-) but not one of those armyenian guys! stan

Subject: Cluck, cluck :>) From: Rod To: stan Date Posted: Sat, Nov 04, 2000 at 22:02:28 (PST) Email Address: na Message: stan, Okay, I withdraw the question. Reluctantly.

Subject: Re: Calvinist Romanist? From: Pilgrim To: Anne Date Posted: Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 07:20:54 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Anne, Dear lady, but non-Calvinists do indeed take the weirdest views of professing Calvinists and make them their strawman paradigm to burn at the stake of their own distorted reason and musings!  . If you want to read weird stuff that people claiming to be Calvinists believe, just think of that 'other' forum over yonder where there are more diverse views in one place than I have ever seen before; and all claiming to be Calvinists. Much to their disappointment, they ain't.. LOL. Now, I agree that not ALL Catholics speak of 'mother church' etc. And certainly not all are quasi-Charismatics, although there are many. And to be honest, I don't think Stan was even implying that they were, but rather that all Catholics, by virtue of the very foundation of Roman Catholicism rest ultimately in 'mother church' and give worshipful adoration to Mary, etc. I am personally familiar with Charismagic Catholics, and they do speak just like a typical Evan-jelly-cal 'Christian' and why is that? Because the soteriology of the two are almost identical. :-) It is semi-Pelagianism at the core with stylized embellishments being added to personalize it. Evangelicalism has in essence returned to Rome. This was tried in 1618, shortly after the Reformation had taken place. [I am reminded of the Israelites who had just been delivered from the Egyptian bondage only to begin complaining of the lack of food and the hardships that were ahead.] But there were a group of 'Protestants' who protested that the Reformers had gone 'too far' and therefore offered a more 'reasonable' body of doctrine which they hoped would have been found acceptable and sanctioned as biblical truth. What they presented in their Gravaman was nothing more than a bastardized form of the doctrine which Luther and Co. had rejected. The particularly 'Catholic' trappings were discarded but the dogma was the same; ala Semi-Pelagianism. As you well know, concerning that Quinquarticular Controversy, they and their heresy were rejected unanimously by the tribunal. Today, however, their heresy has been warmly accepted and made popular in the modern church. So it is no wonder it is hard to distinguish between the two. :-) In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: As the French say . . . . From: Anne To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 09:18:00 (PST) Email Address: anneivy@home.com Message: La plus ca change, la plus ca meme chose! IOW, the more things change, the more they remain the same. (I wish I knew how to do letters with the proper French squiggles and ^'s over and under them!) Anne

Subject: Re: French 'squiggles'. . . :-) From: Pilgrim To: Anne Date Posted: Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 12:55:09 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: La plus ca change, la plus ca meme chose! IOW, the more things change, the more they remain the same. (I wish I knew how to do letters with the proper French squiggles and ^'s over and under them!) Anne --- Anne, Go to 'Start/Programs/Accessories/System Tools/Character Map'. . . there you will find most of the accents. :-) In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: French 'squiggles'. . . :-) From: Anne To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 14:27:16 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: La plus ça change, la plus ça męme chose. Comme ça? Hey, this is cool! Took me a few minutes to figure out how to copy them, but now I've got the hang of it. Thanks! Anne

Subject: Re: Calvinist Romanist? From: Rod To: laz Date Posted: Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 08:29:43 (PST) Email Address: na Message: laz, I tried to read his stuff, but got to the 'initial justification' error in the opening and gagged on it. Had to quit right there.

Subject: Re: Calvinist Romanist? From: Anne To: laz Date Posted: Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 07:12:26 (PST) Email Address: anneivy@home.com Message: The trouble with Catholicism is that it is so big, it's all over the place, regarding how its adherents understand doctrine. Also, a sermon lasts about 10 minutes. It's hard to get much taught in 10 minutes, and it usually isn't doctrinal, anyway. Truth is, in all the years I was Catholic, I can't bring to mind a single sermon. Not one! Totally different from the preaching at Christ Chapel, in which I have been simply reveling. ;-> So most Catholics quit any doctrinal study after they are confirmed, usually at about age 12 to 14. I can easily imagine that those Catholics who are devoted to Scripture can wind up with a 'Calvinist' POV, totally unaware of how at odds it is with the official church line., even with studying Trent, considering quotes such as the one provided in the article. So a Calvinist Catholic is perfectly possible. Well, you know . . . . like Augustine. And Anselm. And Chrysotom. So let's just cheerfully encourage such belief when we run across it! I'm trying hard to turn Kirstin, my 25 year old daughter, into a Calvinist Catholic. I give her books like 'Stepping Heavenward', which teaches the doctrines of grace quietly, yet firmly. It matters not to me how she gets to the truth, so long as she does, and I know from personal experience that attacking someone's church is virtually guaranteed to be counterproductive. . . . . the more people critcized Catholicism to me, the more firmly I clung to it and defended it. Of course, those same people aren't any happier with my Reformed faith, and criticize it just as hard, and to just as little effect. There's no pleasing some people, have you ever noticed that? ;-> Ciao! Anne

Subject: Re: Calvinist Romanist? From: Pilgrim To: laz Date Posted: Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 06:44:44 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: laz, The simple answer is that there is a vast difference in the definition of terms, eg., grace, faith, original sin, etc. ;-)! He, being a Roman Catholic would deny outright Soli Fide [simul iustus et peccatore]. The serpent's deceit is deceitful indeed! See the November Article of the Month Faith and Justification by William Webster. In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Calvinist Romanist? From: laz To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 11:16:29 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: That's just my point...this guy has done a decent job of scaling the language barrier and comes across as being calvinistic....honest injun! I agree that he is off on 'initial justification' as Rod mentioned...but if you follow the rest of his points on the nature of grace, faith, works .... and how he attacks easy-believism, legalism, and antinomianism...he sounds like one of us - soteriologically speaking! blessings, laz

Subject: For those who are interested From: Tom To: All Date Posted: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 15:14:44 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: For those who are interested, I was told that Dr. Michael Horton will be on the Bible Answer Man tonight. He will be discussing the Reformation. I for one am looking forward to it. Tom

Subject: Re: For those who are interested From: Five Sola To: Tom Date Posted: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 15:23:27 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Drat! I will be in class. :-( I have been disappointed in Hanagraff in recent months but it might be interesting to catch the show online later tonight. Five Sola

Subject: Double Predestination From: Tom To: All Date Posted: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 13:51:32 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Up until very recently, I believed in double predestination, without question. But now since I saw a recent conversation on another Reformed board, I am not so sure that 'double predestination' is biblical. I don't see anywhere in scripture that says God predestines people to hell and heaven. God's word seems to be saying man goes to Hell because of his own sin, not because God beforehand predetermined or Pre-Chose to send anyone to hell. God, being omniscient, foresaw that man would fall and that not one would choose to serve Him, and 'knowing this,' He Predetermined to save some of them anyway. These are the the elect, these are the predestinated. Some use the story of Jacob and Essah to prove 'double predestination'. But does saying Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated, equate to 'I have predestinated and Chosen Esau to damnation.'? What it seems to be saying (at least to me)is that God loved Jacob, and predestinated Him, while He did not Love Esau. 1st John 4:19 says 'We love him, because he first loved us.' Esau, like all the rest of wicked man who is not Chosen of God 'by His own Sovereign will and for His own Purposes, are not Chosen of God. They are the opposite of Chosen, they are 'Not Chosen!' They do not come under the Love of God. But they, as created pots of the potter, are used of God to His own Glory. ..just as Pilate was, who crucified Jesus. Did God Predestinate Him to damnation? No, His own wicked heart brought him to the point that He was, and God used him to His own Glory! Indeed God allowed him to reach that point, to His own Glory. He was not Predestinated, He was allowed to be as evil as his wicked heart needed to do what he did. Perhaps I am misunderstanding something? Or perhaps I am being nitpicky, but those are my thoughts on the issue at this present time. Tom

Subject: Ask yourself this... From: Eric To: Tom Date Posted: Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 09:39:41 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: What is the reason people are in hell? Is it because they sinned, or is it because God decided that the majority of mankind will be in hell (w/o thought to sin). Do you believe in the free offer of the gospel Tom? Does Christ really mean it when He says whoever comes to will find rest? Does God mean it when He says that He desires that all men repent and turn to Him? Do you believe Paul when he says in Acts 17:26-27 From one ancestor he made all nations to inhabit the whole earth, and he allotted the times of their existence and the boundaries of the places where they would live, so that they would search for God and perhaps grope for him and find him—though indeed he is not far from each one of us. This verse eliminates the supra position. God sets the time and place of our births, for the express purpose of reaching out to him and finding him. If the supra position is true, then one must believe that God really didn't do what Paul said He did. The reason people are in hell, is because of their sin, and not because God decreed that they would be there. God doesn't delight in the death of the wicked, but rather He delights in justice. If supra is true, sin is an excuse to send people to hell, and not the reason. Do not push the potter and clay analogy too far. God is free to do with whatever He wants with His creation, but He is bound by His own character. We do know that God is ultimately loving and just and merciful and holy. From the sum total of the biblical portrait of God, can you fathom God creating your mother/father/wife for the express purpose of tormenting them forever in hell? Those who hold to Reformed theology are split on this issue, but that shouldn't be important--who cares what label you put on your theology, but rather does it line up with the bible? BTW, the answer to the common objections is as follows: Yes, God desires all to be saved. Yes, God could justly elect all. No, all are not saved. No, God is not saddened by this fact. Yes, God did know when creating the world that sin was a reality, and that hell would be populated. No, creation could not turn out any better than it will. God bless.

Subject: Re: Ask yourself this... From: Five Sola To: Eric Date Posted: Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 12:02:07 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Eric, I feel that you are misrepresenting the Reformed position. You have done so in the past. I will assume (for the benefit of charity) that it is due to lack of knowledge and thus stating the assumptions of Reformed theology. I just charge you to study better, my brother. Now first, I am probably not the best to address this but I thought I would give it a try...we learn through discourse :-) (and of course study). You said: 'Is it because they sinned, or is it because God decided that the majority of mankind will be in hell (w/o thought to sin). ' Granted you did not say this was a comparison between Reformed theology and some other theology but I would like to point out something that maybe you overlooked. Reformed theology (as I understand it) would agree 100% with man is in Hell because they 'have sinned'. God only punishes for the sin that they have committed both personally and through Adam (let's not get into another long discussion of Federal Headship and Original sin please :-) ). Now I am not sure on the Reformed (or Biblical) position on this (I'm still learning) but we do know that election not based on anything that man has done, good or evil, so at the point I am at now is that reprobation is the same. I am unsure how this works out yet for then that brings into question on the issue of sin, but if it is sin alone that makes the decision then it is Conditional Reprobation. Maybe that is the point that it is conditional reprobation and unconditional election but that just doesn't sound right. (a little help here Pilgrim :-) ) you said: 'Do you believe in the free offer of the gospel Tom? ' Reformed response: Yes, even though the gospel is more news or an announcement. (ie, You are going to Hell because of you sin and disobedience to God's Law, Submit to God's Son as Savior and Lord and you will be forgiven.) We may be meaning the same thing but I am hesitant of the term 'offer' because of it's continual misuse in modern evangelicalism (ie, Here is God's gift waiting for you to take it... utter nonsense and completely unbiblical) 'Does Christ really mean it when He says whoever comes to will find rest?' Reformed response: Yes, I don't see how it applies specifically to the topic of Double Predestination (of course, it may not have been your intent to stick strictly to that topic in this post. :-) ) 'Does God mean it when He says that He desires that all men repent and turn to Him?' Reformed response: Yes, in the sense that the verse means that God 'desires', then of course it means it. (more detailed response below) 'Do you believe Paul when he says in Acts 17:26-27 ' I will leave this one to one of the more experienced guys (gals) here. I have an idea of what the actual meaning is but I will not be able to actually put in words :-) But if my understanding of it is correct, I agree with Paul (of course) and see no conflict with double predestination. 'God doesn't delight in the death of the wicked, but rather He delights in justice. ' Amen! You said: 'Yes, God desires all to be saved. ' now I wanted to give a fully explanation here and ask you a question. My question is... How do you understand 'desire' to mean? For there is different ways this is explained. If by 'desire' you mean that God trully wants all to be saved...then aren't we left with a God who wants something to be done in His creation but unfortunately is unable to accomplish it (if He could then all would be saved). That is a scary thought that God is not strong enough to accomplish His desires. If this is one He cannot then what other desires are left unaccomplished...Maybe His desire to preserve my salvation is one that will fail also and thus I will spend an eternity in Hell. See how if followed to it's logical end we are left with a insignificant 'god'. I would rather consider God choosing those who go to Heaven and Hell and it offend MY ideas of what God should be, and yet know that He does no thing that is not for my good and His Glory. I can trust that and accept that I will understand fully when I see him face to face. Five Sola

Subject: Re: Ask yourself this... From: Eric To: Five Sola Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 02, 2000 at 07:51:28 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hello Five Sola, You charged that I am misrepresenting the Reformed system. I am not. Please show me where I have made a misrepresentation, and I will apologize for it. As far as studying better, I think you would agree that sometimes people come to different conclusions while studying the same material. I get the sense that you place an importance on what the 'REFORMED' position is. Who cares! Let's make sure it is biblical. There are gaps and errors in any system of theology, so be careful. I will try to answer most of your questions quickly. Reformed theology has supra and infralapsarian adherents. Supra's would say that the primary reason people are in hell, is because God wants them there. Remember that supra's believe that God chose to populate hell before considering sin! Perhaps a little more study is in order for you. :) You pointed out that you think that reprobation might be determined w/o any thought to sin--if you believe this, then you are supra. Your objection to the free offer of the gospel, is not a Reformed position. Salvation is a gift from the Lord, we must apprehend that gift if we are to be saved--this is biblical. Now the reason we apprehend it is rooted in election. Don't make the mistake in thinking that man is not responsible to receive Christ--we definitely are. God desires all men to be saved. It really is quite clear. It also is quite clear that all men are not saved. So my conclusion is that God's desire is that, but that is not as high(strong) a desire as the magnification of His glory in election. In other words, God could save all, but to the detriment of His glory in election, so God places his desire in election above his desire for all to be saved. Make sense? This is pretty standard for most Calvinists. I would urge you to re-read your post. It seems to be filled with contradictions. You seem to want to affirm both the supra and infra positions. They both can't be right. Take care and God bless.

Subject: Re: Ask yourself this... From: Tom To: Five Sola Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 02, 2000 at 01:41:38 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: I think the truth can be found out about which is correct, the active/passive or the active/active possition. Can be found out by looking at Romans 9:18 'Therefore hath He mercy on whom He hath mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth'. What I mean by that is, I think if the Lord hardens by passing by individuals, then the correct possition is active/passive. By this the person's sin condition sends them to hell, not God. Where as, if hardeneth means that God plays a part by making the person sin, not just taking His hand of restraint away. Then the active/active position is correct. Personally speaking, I think all God needs to do is withhold His hand of grace from anyone and they will naturally choose the way that leads to hell. When God withholds His grace, His will is being done in the un-elect. Take for instance Pharaoh, it seems that God used Pharaoh's natural condition to accomplish His goal, to lead the Jews out of Egypt. Maybe I am not understand the active/active position correctly? But I don't see another way to look at it. But I don't want to misrepresent someone's view either. So in a nut shell, does God make people sin, or does He just allow them to, so that the purpose of God according to election, might stand? Tom

Subject: Re: Ask yourself this... From: Pilgrim To: Tom Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 02, 2000 at 09:13:30 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Tom, Perhaps you are confusing 'Active/Active' with 'Positive/Positive'? Read Sproul's article on Double Predestination :-). In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: I think you need to look deeper From: Eric To: Tom Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 02, 2000 at 07:29:44 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Before deciding about double or single predestination, you must come to terms with the infra or supralapsarian position. These categories tend to spill over into each other, but should be thought of seperately. If you hold to infralapsarianism (which you should since it is biblical), then you probably will fall towards an Active/Passive position. Which I believe is correct. If you hold to the supralapsarian position (which is unbiblical) then you logically must believe in Active/Active. While these issues might seem trivial, they really are not if you are ever asked why a good God would send people to hell. We must be prepared to give an answer. to this common question. If you are infra, you will say because God is just, and he punishes sin. If you are supra, you will say because God is sovereign, and he is most glorified in expressing His sovereignty. God bless.

Subject: Re: I think you need to look deeper From: Five Sola To: Eric Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 02, 2000 at 15:36:19 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Eric, I will respond to your response to me tommorow possibly (it is just before class and I only have a few minutes :-) ) but I am curious in what you mean.... 'If you are infra, you will say because God is just, and he punishes sin. If you are supra, you will say because God is sovereign, and he is most glorified in expressing His sovereignty. ' Are you implying God cannot be sovereign AND just? or are you just trying to indicate how each position would respond explain his position? Five Sola

Subject: Re: I think you need to look deeper From: Eric To: Five Sola Date Posted: Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 07:19:16 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The supra position believes that God chose to create some men to torment them in hell eternally w/o thought to their sin. While they won't come out and say it this way, it is the only logical conclusion from their beliefs. Therefore people are in hell because this is how God expresses His sovereignty over His creation. The infra position believes that God chose to create mankind, and after considering our sin, he elected some to be saved from their sin, the rest will be in hell because of their sin. God is still just as sovereign in either system, but they do differ dramatically in their view of God's character. For punishment to be just, a sin must be committed. If God created people for the express purpose of sending them to hell, w/o thought to their sin, then a) hell is not a place of punishment and wrath, or b) God is not just. Neither option is acceptable biblically, therefore supralapsarianism is a serious error. Take care and God bless.

Subject: I think you need to look more carefully. . . From: Pilgrim To: Eric Date Posted: Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 07:37:36 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Eric, You have misrepresented the Supralapsarian position sir. :-) BOTH Supras and Infras believe and teach that all men that occupy hell, do so because they are guilty of sin. BOTH positions clearly state that God decreed the Fall and that He would rescue a remnant from the consequences of that Fall. The difference between the two positions is again, the order of the decrees and not the essence of the decrees. And no, I am not a Supralapsarian! I just think it is only right that another's position be accurately presented before castigating and/or rejecting it. In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Please correct me then... From: Eric To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 12:20:35 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Is this not the essence of the supralapsarian position: A.) God chooses to create the universe. B.) God chooses to create man C.) God chooses to create some men that will be elect, and some men that will be reprobate w/o contemplating them as sinners. D.) God chooses to ordain the fall. If we are talking logical order, then the reason some men are reprobate is not because of the fall (because that comes logically before the fall) but because God created them for the express purpose of damnation. Here is a quote from Phil Johnson's website (a strong Calvinist who I believe works closely with John Macarthur) SUPRALAPSARIANISM is the view that God, contemplating man as yet unfallen, chose some to receive eternal life and rejected all others. So a supralapsarian would say that the reprobate (non-elect)—vessels of wrath fitted for destruction (Rom. 9:22)—were first ordained to that role, and then the means by which they fell into sin was ordained. In other words, supralapsarianism suggests that God's decree of election logically preceded His decree to permit Adam's fall—so that their damnation is first of all an act of divine sovereignty, and only secondarily an act of divine justice. Is this not the essence of the infralapsarian position: A.) God chooses to create the universe. B.) God chooses to create man C.) God chooses to ordain the fall. D.) God elects some of fallen humanity and the rest are reprobate. Again, in the supra position, what is the primary reason hell is populated? According to it's own definition, the exact number of people in hell was set before God even contemplated human beings as sinners! It really doesn't matter what words are used to try and soften the internal logic of the doctrine, it all comes out the same. And if this is the case, there is no way that God can mean it when He says that He desires all men to repent, or that He doesn't delight in the death of the wicked. We can't just throw those passages out of the bible, or try and interpret them away. They are God breathed words, and we had better fit our theology around them, instead of the other way around, which I am afraid that the supra's do. Now don't go calling me an Arminian because I used a couple of their favorite verses. :) If I am in substantive error on the supra vs infra issue, please correct me, as I do not want to misrepresent either side. Take care and God bless.

Subject: Re: Please correct me then... From: Pilgrim To: Eric Date Posted: Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 13:06:58 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Eric, Yes, you are in substantive error. :-) The reason being is that in both the Supralapsarian and Infralapsarian positions, the Fall is included in the singular decree of God. It is through the Fall that all men are guilty of being sinners. Thus their own willful sinfulness is the proximate cause of their damnation. It would make relatively no difference in what 'order' the decree was conceived in the mind of God to elect or reprobate. As another has pointed out to you, God is perfect in all His works (Deut 32:4), and His damnation of the reprobate is undeniably just (Gen 18:25). Scripture teaches that God is the indisputable Sovereign and that all men are responsible for their thoughts words and deeds. The Lord God has never taken one 'innocent, pure and holy' being and forced that being to become evil. Men sin willingly! Yes, this is one of the great antinomies of the Bible; God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. And I must say boldly, that Mr. Spurgeon was unfortunately wrong when he described these two trues as 'parallel lines which will some day meet in eternity'! If they are indeed parallel, which they doubtless are. They cannot and shall never meet. The fact is that only in the infinite mind of God can these two truths be understood without contradiction. However, since they are infallibly taught throughout God's infallible Word, then we must tenaciously guard their integrity. All attempts to reconcile them lead to error to one degree or another. In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Maybe I am missing something! From: Eric To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 13:40:15 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: First off, I have never hinted that God was unjust. Whatever He does must be just, and therefore we must always take this into account when we are formulating our theology. Second, you seem to eliminate the distinction between the supra and infra positions. Every definition I have read has said that the supra position holds that God does not take man's sin into account while determining the elect and reprobate. If that is not true, then there is no difference between the two positions! Gods reprobation comes logically prior to sin, and therefore justice and God's holiness necessitates no demand that people be punished, for they have done nothing wrong--they are sinless!!!! You use the phrase 'proximate cause' to soften the fact that the ultimate cause of people being in hell is God's decree and not their sin. ISTM that the supra position eliminates the reality of Adam's federal headship and relegates it as a means to an end in causing hell to be populated. You have not yet shown me where I am in error in discussing the positions--I am not saying that I am not, but rather that you have not demonstrated it yet. Take care and God bless.

Subject: Re: Still missing something! From: Pilgrim To: Eric Date Posted: Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 17:38:56 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Eric, What seems to be a problem for you is recognizing that the 'order' of the decrees is what distinguishes the two positions and that only. Both theological camps confess that the 'decrees' are in fact one solitary DECREE. God's foreordination of the cosmos was done in one divine 'intuition' and not over time, as time is a creation of God as well, created to accommodate finite creatures. In the Supra view, the Fall was determined by God as the JUST means to judge those not elected to salvation. This then eliminates the unwarranted charge that God is the ultimate cause of their damnation, and the most heinous charge that God, therefore, is ultimately the author of sin. The Westminster Assembly had members who held to the Supralapsarian view, albeit the Infralapsarian view became the official position. None of those who held to the Supra position were castigated or ostracized for holding an 'unbiblical' or heretical view. It was recognized that the Supra view was viable, but held in the minority. I would therefore urge you to consider taking a more 'congenial' approach to this very complex and difficult doctrine! :-) In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Let's just say that From: Eric To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Sat, Nov 04, 2000 at 07:50:54 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Supralapsarianism is logically inconsistent. For the final time, I will point out the inconsistency of the position. A) God reprobates w/o consideration of man's sin. B) God ordains the fall as the vehicle to justly condemn the reprobate You seem to want to shy away from A. but that is THE definition of supralapsarianism. The supras maintain that God is just in condemning to hell because of man's sin. This is irrational. Again, talking logical order here, and not sequential, they are placing the effect (hell) logically prior to the cause (sin)! For one to be logically consistent w/in the supra's position, you must maintain that the cause of man being sent to hell is God's decree, and the effect of that decree is sin. This is hyper-calvinism, and the reason that all hyper-calvinists are supralapsarian. I maintain that any supra that is not a hyper-calvinist is inconsistent in their thinking. Sort of like an Arminian who insists that their free choice to believe in Christ is not the cause of their salvation. As to me being more congenial in my approach with those who hold the supra position, I don't recall ever posting with anybody on this board who holds to that position. We have been speaking about the position, and not specific individuals who hold that position. But, I do remember being called out because I was not willing to say that all Catholics are going to hell. Take care and God bless.

Subject: Re: Conditional/Unconditional. . . From: Pilgrim To: Five Sola Date Posted: Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 18:30:33 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Five Sola, On this matter of 'unconditional election' and 'conditional reprobation'! This is a faulty distinction to be sure. Both election reprobation are 'unconditional' in the sense that nothing in man is influential in God's decree to save some and damn others. The fact that God foreordained the Fall, and that all men were to be found guilty is what lies behind His determination. ALL are 'seen' as worthy of damnation. Thus those predestined to salvation are elected in Christ and saved FROM sin. Those predestinated to damnation are non-elected to receive saving grace in Christ and are left to stand on their demerits before the bar of heaven. The 'dilemma' here for many is that this seems unfair in their eyes and according to their own ideas of what is 'just'. The fact that God has determined to save even one individual is incomprehensible and transcends the human intellect. Words like 'mercy' and 'grace' fall far short of describing the love of God in Christ Jesus given to those who are deserving of eternal damnation. What is incontrovertible is the unwavering desire of the reprobate to denigrate, discredit and deny God. Although they would surely confess that they have no desire to spend eternity in hell, they also have no desire whatsoever to turn to Christ, Who alone can rescue them from their miserable destiny. All those who will be condemned to spend eternity in unending torment are deserving of such and live their entire lives in preparation for it. Hell will be populated with deserving sinners and no one else. And God from eternity determined who they should be by a sovereign decree of preterition. And it is here that we are faced with that infamous biblical antinomy of Divine Sovereignty and Individual Responsibility. Yes, men are either saved or damned due to God's immutable counsel. AND each person is responsible for either repenting of their sins, or repudiating the grace of God in Christ Jesus, Who alone can deliver them from their sins. In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Conditional/Unconditional. . . From: Jimmy To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 02, 2000 at 08:46:47 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Pilgrim, You wrote: 'The fact that God has determined to save even one individual is incomprehensible and transcends the human intellect.' The fact that God is a Savior is not 'incomprehensible' at all! Nor does the fact that God desires to save transcend the human intellect, not if you truly believe that God actually created humanity. You seem to believe that God lost control of His creation, and that His creation is now so flawed that He does not want to save it, that's nonsense! I have no problem at all seeing God as Creator and Saviour, it's not incomprehensible and it does not transcend the human intellect. What, do you think that He created humanity just so He would have them to destroy? Now that truly is 'incomprehensible' :o) Thank God that He holds His creation in much higher esteem than you do. Sincerely, Jimmy

Subject: Re: Conditional/Unconditional. . . From: John To: Jimmy Date Posted: Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 01:40:40 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: It is comprehensible that God saves—as a concept, it is not so comprehensible when we consider the cost. For most religious folks who attach themselves to Christianity, the emphasis is on the old rugged cross. In a very comprehensible way the salvation of God becomes the death on a cross. This is not beyond human understanding. But if we ask what was the cost to God in a personal way, then the answer is incomprehensible (at least to me). The cost to God was infinite. How long does God's anger burn against those who have offended Him? Forever. How long does the separation from all of God's Being last? Forever. How severe is it to a man to be separated in the lake of fire from all that is God -- to be cast away into eternal darkness, in endless hopelessness. Can you comprehend it? Now, we must understand that Jesus Christ, the God-Man, has undergone exactly this suffering as levied upon the wicked, except on behalf of His elect. Yet, we should not equate the separation of a created being from our Creator with the suffering of God separated from God! Do you comprehend it?, if you do, then you don't. Ever more to the point, do we comprehend the love of God toward His elect such that He would condescend to do this? To suffer His Son (God) to be punished by God, for no crime of His own, yet in a moment He punished His Son--God forsaking God. It is no small thing to understand, why would God design a salvation plan that cost Him everything! There is NOTHING that God could do to Himself where He would suffer more, and all on our wretched behalf. It is only incomprehensible! Can you comprehend the fact that God knew YOU and loved YOU (assuming you are one of His) not from the date of your birth, not from the creation of the world, but BEFORE time, BEFORE there was a cosmos? What do you comprehend of a God who kept you in His thoughts continuously for all eternity past--essentially endlessly. That He has known puny me forever is just incomprehensible to me. Since God is outside created time we can say I have always existed, I exist now, and I will always exist--in God's mind I have never been less or more before Him. He has seen Me eternally--past, present, and future. That's incomprehensible. Salvation is so much more than Jesus with nails in His hands. It begins in forever-past and is executed in time, but it never concludes--His salvation is of endless duration; and all of this is quite incomprehensible. I would think this is the meaning Pilgrim intended to convey. John

Subject: Re: Conditional/Unconditional. . . From: Jimmy To: John Date Posted: Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 08:00:38 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: John, You really got off on a tangent, :o) the statement that I objected to from Pilgrim was: 'The fact that God has determined to save even one individual is incomprehensible and transcends the human intellect.' God obviously believes that His creation is worth saving because, after all, it is the work of His own hands. If God did not believe that it was worth saving then He would not have created it in the first place. What is so incomprehensible about that? How does that transcend the human intellect? Sincerely, Jimmy

Subject: Re: Conditional/Unconditional. . . From: Tom To: Jimmy Date Posted: Sat, Nov 04, 2000 at 00:30:09 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Jimmy Let me try this one. :) Pilgrim said: 'The fact that God has determined to save even one individual is incomprehensible and transcends the human intellect.' Then you said: God obviously believes that His creation is worth saving because, after all, it is the work of His own hands. If God did not believe that it was worth saving then He would not have created it in the first place. What is so incomprehensible about that? How does that transcend the human intellect? I agree with what Pilgrim says, and I also agree with what you said:-o Let me explain. If you have ever done a study on the holiness of God, you would have caught a glimps of just how holy God is. For example, when Moses returned off the mountain, back to his people, he had to conceal his face, because he had been in the presence of the most high God. The Israelites could not look at Moses because what shown from Moses face made them catch just a glimps of their own sinfulness. It was too much for them to behold. Well in the same way that the light of God's holiness exposes sinfulness, it is equally true that God can not even look at sin. Of course, that is where our Lord Jesus comes in, when God looks at the elect, it is not their sin that he beholds, it is Christ's righteousness. Yes it is true that God must have thought it worth while to save some of His creation. But what a terrible cost it was to do so! More than we can ever realize. I am not the best person at discribing things like this, however I hope I have got the message accross. If you would like to read a great book on the subject of the holiness of God. I would recommend 'The Holiness Of God' by RC Sproul. Tom

Subject: Re: Conditional/Unconditional. . . From: Pilgrim To: Jimmy Date Posted: Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 13:17:58 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Jimmy, John was wonderfully accurate in his reply to you above and that it was my intention also. It would seem that to those who have been given God's unmerited favor and shown mercy are the ones who are able to comprehend the incomprehensibility of God's salvation in the Lord Christ. As Brother Bret also stated so movingly, 'Why would God take notice of such a sinner as I?' Salvific grace opens one's eyes to the holiness of God and the corruption of the heart. And as one lives by grace throughout the years, these two fundamental truths become more and more impressed upon the soul. It is the confession of all God's children: Isa 6:5 'Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts.' and 2Sam 9:8 'And he bowed himself, and said, What is thy servant, that thou shouldest look upon such a dead dog as I am?' When one even begins to 'know' the thrice Holy God, the infinite sinfulness which resides in one's own heart, and the infinite price paid by the Lord Christ to redeem black-hearted wretches like you and me, then and only then will these truths become INCOMPREHENSIBLE and lead to the true adoration and worship of the Living God. In His Grace, Pilgrim 'Should the Lord Jesus appear now to any of us in His majesty and glory, it would not be to our edification nor consolation. For we are not meet nor able, by the power of any light or grace that we have received, or can receive, to bear the immediate appearance and representation of them. His beloved apostle John had leaned on His bosom probably many a time in his life, in the intimate familiarities of love; but when He afterward appeared to him in His glory, 'he fell at his feet as dead' (Rev. 1:17). And when He appeared to Paul, all the account he could give thereof was 'that he saw a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun'; where-upon he and all that were with him 'fell to the ground' (Acts 26 :13,14).' —John Owen 'The Glory of Christ' p. 174

Subject: Re: Conditional/Unconditional. . . From: Pilgrim To: John Date Posted: Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 07:45:24 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: John, EXACTLY and AMEN! Rom 11:33 'O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! 34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? 35 Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? 36 For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.' In His Incomprehensible Grace Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Conditional/Unconditional. . . From: Tom To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Sat, Nov 04, 2000 at 00:33:23 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: WOW AMEN!

Subject: Re: Conditional/Unconditional. . . From: Brother Bret To: Jimmy Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 02, 2000 at 11:41:40 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Jimmy: I think you have completely missed the point Pilgrim was making about God, sin and salvation. I will let him answer in his own words should he choose to do so. As for me though, even though I see through a glass darkly and cannot complete grasp in my heart what God through the Lord Christ has done for us, I'm still in awe that a holy, sovereign, omnipotent, omniscient God would even want to save a wicked sinner like me!!! Yes He is love. But that love does not supercede His other attributes. He loves those that He gave to the Son before the foundations of the world to die on the cross for, to bring glory and honor to Himself! He was not obligated to show this love! We certainly are not deserving of such love either! I'm most grateful to our Lord that He included me in this plan! Because equally if not more amazing is why in the world He would choose someone like me, and pass over so many others! Praise God for His grace that in my finite mind, is multitple. Shown in His sovereign election before creation, shown when He have me to the Son, shown 2000 years ago at Calvary, shown almost 14 years ago when He effectually called me, shown again when He justified me, and when He shows it one more time when He ultimately glorifies me. That is amazing grace! God saving sinners, even one, as Pilgrim shared! Brother Bret Cornerstone Community Baptist Church www.ccbcfl.org

Subject: Pilgrim do you hold to infra? nt From: Eric To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 02, 2000 at 07:52:28 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: nt

Subject: Re: Pilgrim do you hold to infra? nt From: Pilgrim To: Eric Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 02, 2000 at 09:03:57 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Eric, Mainly Infralapsarianism! :-) I think Herman Bavinck has some interesting comments on this in his Doctrine of God. In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Conditional/Unconditional. . . From: Five Sola To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 19:41:05 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Pilgrim, That is what I sorta thought. I know that God predestines our election/reprobation not based on any foreseen evil or good (Rom 9) but then I know that it is man's sin that damns him to Hell. I just didn't have the ability to describe it as clearly as you did (I guess that comes with more study and age :-) ) I know the Arminians will say that those two cannot exist but then who are they to talk of consistency. LOL And like I told Eric, I would rather leave God with the decision knowing His decisions are always just and good, even if I don't fully understand them, then to lower God to my level so I can comprehend Him 'better'. Five Sola

Subject: Re: Double Predestination From: Pilgrim To: Tom Date Posted: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 15:43:12 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Tom, Somehow you have become a bit confused, and I suspect due at least in part, to what has been said elsewhere. :-) Five Sola has rightly pointed out that God in predestinating the lot of mankind is either 'Active/Active' or 'Active/Passive'. And I believe he is further right in holding to the 'Active/Active' position. Now, so as not to confuse you further, this 'Active/Active' view is NOT the same as what hyper-Supralapsarianism teaches. This whole issue revolves around one's view of the 'order of the decrees'. Yes, with God there is in essence but one decree, but in systematic theology, we speak of 'decrees' due to the finiteness of our minds and for the sake of being able to distinguish the works of God. [see the article by A.W. Pink The Decrees of God]. Secondly, another fundamental concern is how God's decree to save a people for Himself stands in relation to the Fall. Supra's believe that God decreed to save before He created mankind and obviously before the Fall. Infra's believe that God decreed the Fall before He decreed to save. The later [Infralapsarianism], thus holds that God decreed to save a remnant of fallen mankind and decreed to reprobate those not elected in Christ. In both views, God is 'active'. If one would posit that God only 'actively' predestinates and elects but simply 'passes by' those He has determined not to save, then this immediately raises a specter against God's immutable sovereignty. Because God's Foreordination, which includes Predestination and Election were all determined in eternity and in 'an instant' within the Godhead, it then follows of necessity that God knew those who were to be saved and those who were going to be damned. Perhaps you haven't read Dr. R.C. Sproul's article: Double Predestination? He gives a simple but accurate description of this doctrine which so many find objectionable. :-) In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Double Predestination From: John To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 02, 2000 at 04:12:25 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: >>>Supra's believe that God decreed to save before He created mankind and obviously before the Fall. >>>Infra's believe that God decreed the Fall before He decreed to save. Christ is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8), so, one might suppose that before the creation God decreed to save, no? If the Infra position grates against Scripture, why the controversy? If predestination of the elect to eternal life was the 'mystery of His will' and based on His 'good pleasure' which He 'purposed in Himself' --- was there a time when God did not purpose it (Eph 1:9). Could God's will be altered through time (or pre-time)? At what point did God change from not willing it to be so to desiring it. Who was His counselor, whose opinion swayed Him? It seems only logical and Scriptural to remark that God must have ALWAYS desired to save, the decree or will to do this was always with God from eternity past. Is the Infra-Supra debate the result of people with too much time on their hands? (or is there a hidden complication?) john

Subject: Re: Double Predestination From: Five Sola To: John Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 02, 2000 at 15:30:59 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: John, I have only LIMITED knowledge of the infra/supra position. I have not even bothered to study it really (much more important things.) I can see its importance to an extent, it all depends on where you start in the scheme of things. From the definition Pilgrim gave and some basic chats I had with someone of infra position, I would tend to say I would support infra (this is unstudied of course) but for the basic reason is that why would God decree to save if He had not yet decreed the Fall(sin) {supra}. Just in the logical sense, I would think God must decree the fall/sin before He had a 'reason' to decree redemption. of course this gets very abstract when talking in reference to an infinite creator. :-) So like I said, it probably has its importance but at the time I have things to study higher on my list of priorities. :-) Five Sola

Subject: Re: Double Predestination From: Anne To: John Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 02, 2000 at 05:23:36 (PST) Email Address: anneivy@home.com Message: Is the Infra-Supra debate the result of people with too much time on their hands? (or is there a hidden complication?) I used to fret and chew over this issue, until I tried to discern precisely what difference it made, one way or t'other. After serious ear-scratching, hair-twisting, and staring into space, I decided that the only real reason for my interest was curiosity. Hmmmm . . . . Since God tells us what we need to know, and only what we need to know, and He hasn't included this info, then we don't need to know. So I've shelved the whole thing, personally. Anne

Subject: Re: Double Predestination From: Tom To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 14:00:23 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Pilgrim I read Sproul's article about 'Double Predestination'. I have to say that I was a little disapointed. He didn't use scripture to back up what he said. Tom

Subject: Oh Tom! :-( NT From: Pilgrim To: Tom Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 02, 2000 at 09:15:59 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message:

Subject: Re: Oh Tom! :-( NT From: Tom To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Thurs, Nov 02, 2000 at 15:20:27 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Pilgrim I guess I owe you an explanation, in to why I said that. For me, I am starting to notice that in many cases someone's arguements of theology, is much more difficult to grasp than what scripture is. It was not that I disagreed with what Dr. Sproul said, I just want to learn what the scriptures say, not just what so and so believes. In the case of Sproul's article this was the case. One of my faults is, I know more about what the creeds and what Reformed believers believe. Than I do on what the scriptures say themselves. (Yes I know that what the creeds and what Reformed believers believe is based on scripture.) I think you would agree, that I should do something to remmedy that. Tom

Subject: Oh Tom! :-) From: Pilgrim To: Tom Date Posted: Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 07:57:17 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Tom, What you desire is certainly commendable and to be pursued. But me thinks you are looking for an 'easy' way to get what you want. :-) What you are wanting isn't to be found in short and pithy forum messages. Nor are you going to find it in brief articles posted on the Internet. You will only find it by reading the Scriptures for yourself; diligent study over many years. There are indeed books, large tomes that are certainly helpful which contain myriad Scripture references, e.g., the Systematic Theologies of Louis Berkhof, Charles Hodge, W.G.T. Shedd, Robert L. Dabney, et al. There are books dedicated specifically to particular topics, e.g., L. Boettner's The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, Herman Bavinck's The Doctrine of God, and John Calvin's The Eternal Predestination of God all of which are excellent. And of course there are many more which are worthy of reading, especially those of the more theological Puritans, e.g., Jonathan Edwards, John Owen, Thomas Boston, Thomas Goodwin, etc., etc. In other words Tom, take your time and do it right.... :-) It takes a lifetime, but it sure makes life a wonderful time. In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Oh Tom! :-) From: Tom To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 13:47:14 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Thankyou Pilgrim Yes if age has showed me one thing, it is that I can't hope to learn anything over night. I just ordered a tapes series by RC Sproul called 'Foundations'. It is an overview of systematic theology. From the write-ups about this series, it sounds like something that might help me. I also recently bought Sproul's book called 'Knowing Scripture'. Tom

Subject: Hey Tom From: Eric To: Tom Date Posted: Sat, Nov 04, 2000 at 08:11:42 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Sorry to butt in on your conversation, but I would just like to offer a couple of thoughts on the subject. While I think that the Reformed materials Pilgrim suggested, as well as the resources offered by Ligonier, are quite good, I would urge you to use those sparingly, especially the systematic theology resources. Too often, one can get set w/in a particular theological framework whereby you automatically begin to categorize and understand passages w/in that context instead of w/in the context of the particular book of the Bible. You will make errors along the way, but you will find that sometimes this is the best way of learning. Calvin, who is probably the greatest theologian in history even said that he believed that only 80% of his theology was correct. I think through study you will eventually wind up aand hold to most of what the Reformed believe, but the journey is most important. Just as an example, I argued on this board about Federal headship, and how we all stand guilty under Adam. After several go 'rounds with some on this board, I still didn't think that they were right, yet I kept on studying and searching on my own, and eventually did come around to accept the Reformed view. I believe that my understanding of this issue is much better (not the how, but the scriptural reasons), than it would have been if I just looked at the WCF and the scriptural references and accepted it. Don't be afraid to be wrong, and don't be afraid to test your beliefs against others (as long as you have an open mind). Anyway, if you are interested, I will recommend a couple of resources that will help you study on your own. Just let me know. Take care and God bless.

Subject: Re: Hey Tom From: Tom To: Eric Date Posted: Sat, Nov 04, 2000 at 17:22:44 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Eric Thanks for the advice the resource offer. It is true that we need to know scripture for ourselves, not always what other people believe scripture to be saying. I appreciate the offer for the resources, but I already have enough on my plate as it is. As to using the resourses sparingly, I only want to use it in order to learn how to study the scriptures better. I am currently reading RC Sproul's 'Knowing Scripture' and already I see some good advice. Tom

Subject: Re: Double Predestination From: Tom To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 01:05:25 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Pilgrim I am going to read the articles you mentioned, but for the sake of clarity, since this kind of topic takes me a lot of time to understand. Could you please deal with the points I made in order, so I would be able to examine what you are saying in light of my understanding? Please use scripture so I can learn it from scripture not just from a human perspective. What I mean by that, lately I have noticed that although I can give a pretty good discription of many of the doctrines of the faith. I however, am ashamed to admit that many times when I am asked to give scripture support for what I say, I have trouble giving it. This isn't because I haven't studied scripture on the issue. But because, I have formed a way to learn doctrine without nessasarily being able to quote a scripture to back it up. I am no longer satified with learning doctrine this way. In fact, I am going to order a course put out by RC Sproul on systematic theology, in hopes to rectify this problem. I hope you understand what I am trying to get at. Tom

Subject: Re: Double Predestination From: Five Sola To: Tom Date Posted: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 15:14:19 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Tom, I was a single Predestinator (real word? :-) ) until someone pointed out an inconsistancy (sp?) with my thinking. If you believe in true Predestination of the elect then you must believe in a predestination of the non-elect. If only to say that those God did not choose (the 'leftover') are by default chosen for reprobation. Now let me make a clarification, one that I was asking a while back. There are two views on double predestination in the Reformed camp. One is refered to (I think I am getting the labels right) as Active/passive and the other is Active/Active. These refer to God's involvement in the predestining of the Elect & Reprobate, respectively. So someone who believes that God actively chooses those who go to Heaven and then simply passes by or over the remaining is a active/passive (by the way, this is what the Westminster Confession of Faith supports or at least as a minimum for belief in the Reformed Faith), then one who believes that God Actively chooses both those for election and reprobation is an active/active. At this point I am in the active/active camp. I am still studying but from what I see I cannot say that God is not involved in both decisions, now there may be different reasons for the decision for election than for reprobation but I am still studying that. We do know that neither good nor evil causes Gods decision to love or hate the individual (ie jacob/esau, national israel/other 'pagan' nations) but we do not know the mind of God so I won't go any further. I just know that both decision bring forth His Glory as all things do. Five Sola

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: THe Gifts From: JOwen To: All Date Posted: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 09:08:35 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: If I might, I would like to give you my take on the subject of the gifts. I was raised a Pentecostal, and am now approaching ordination in an Exclusive Psalmnodist Presbyterian Church. You can only imagine the road the Lord has put me on to lead me to this point. What a gracious Lord and Redeemer! I hope this will help in some small way. Major Premise: The Extraordinary gifts have ceased. It is my purpose now to prove three things; first, that the extraordinary gifts have ceased, second, immediate prophecy was an extraordinary gift, and last, all post canonical prophecy is mediate. For clarifications sake, immediate means by way of direct revelation, and mediate means by way of the Word only. Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known (1 Cor 13-8-11). The Apostle in this text contrasts the revelatory gifts of prophecy, special knowledge and tongues, which by nature are dark and dim in contrast to the complete canon of Scripture (which was completed with the 27 books of the N.T.). That which was to replace the partial and do away with it was something designated "perfect." "But when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away." It is difficult to miss the antithetic parallel between the "partial" thing and the "perfect" ("complete, mature, full") thing. Since the "partial" speaks of prophecy and other modes of revelational insight (v. 8), then it would seem that the "perfect," which would supplant these, represents the perfect and final New Testament Scripture (Jas. 1:21). This is due to the fact that modes of revelation are being purposely contrasted. Thus, it makes the man of God adequately equipped to all the tasks before him (2 Tim. 3:16-17). In other words, there is a coming time when will occur the completion of the revelatory process of God. Recognize also that, "face to face" is an adverbial phrase; it does not have an object. Second, "face to face" is contrasted with a "dim mirror." Since "face to face" is adverbial without an object, the idea that it refers to Christ must be assumed or inferred. And since Paul has been contrasting forms of revelation throughout verses 8-12, it makes much more sense to interpret "face to face" in the sense of clearness (or perspicuity), in contrast to the dim mirror. The "perfect" is the closed cannon of scripture, and all we need for life and godliness. Within the context of 1 Corinthians 12 we do not need to do any herminutical gymnastics to see that 1 Corinthians 13:8-10 is dealing with immediate revelation. The word "tongues" in this passage means the gift of speaking in a language previously unknown to the speaker. The word "knowledge" is similar to tongues in that it is also an immediate gift; a gift of special understanding and wisdom that is a form of direct revelation from God. It would be foolish to think that we will no longer know anything when the cannon is completed, or in heaven for that matter. Scripture tells us otherwise. This word knowledge is a miraculous and immediate gift, designed for the benefit of those who are in an imperfect or dim setting i.e. the New Testament Christians. It is only fitting to agree that the context of the word prophecy in the same verse is also an immediate revelatory gift. Any who would try and repudiate this fact would be arguing against logic and sound hermeneutics. Minor premise: Immediate Prophecy was a Revelatory Gift Since Paul was referring to the universal church in Ephesians 2:20 and the Apostles and prophets laid the church's foundation by receiving and transmitting revelation (3:5), the implication is that once the Church was established the gift would be discontinued. By its very nature, a foundation cannot be continuously re-laid. This verse clearly implies that Paul viewed revelation as occurring during a specific, no repeatable era, with the church of subsequent ages commanded to discover its foundation in those apostles and prophets, or more specifically, in their doctrine as it is recorded in the Scriptures. Since the passage labels prophesy in itself as a foundational gift, the inevitable conclusion is that New Testament prophecy ceased along with the gift of apostleship. There are those who would argue that while the revelatory gift of prophesy as it pertains to the foundation of the Church has ceased, yet there is still a smaller, less pronounced immediate prophesy that is perpetual, and in fact has continued for almost 2000 years. I see a sound biblical exegetical foundation for cessationism (as mentioned above), but I am still not convinced of a sound scriptural basis for the perpetual nature of a lesser immediate gift. I do believe that the word prophecy is used post canon, but I believe it means something very different than what is being espoused by some. ERGO: All Post- canonical Prophecy is Mediate. Vines Complete Expository Dictionary of the Old and New Testament is quite clear on the word propheteia when he says, Though much of the OT prophecy was purely predictive, see Micah 5:2, e.g., and cf. John 11:51, prophecy is not necessarily, nor even primarily fore-telling… it is the forth-telling of the will of God, whether with reference to the past, the present, or the future. As Mr. Vine has pointed out there are many times in scripture where the word prophecy is used in a generic sense. Used in a way that is not immediate, but rather in a mediate sense. Lets examine briefly a few examples. Revelation 10:8-11 " And the voice which I heard from heaven spake unto me again, and said, Go and take the little book which is open in the hand of the angel which standeth upon the sea and upon the earth. And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, give me the little book. And he said unto me, Take it, and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey. And I took the little book out of the angel's hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter. And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings." It is common among orthodox reformed theologians to interpret this passage, as a commission from he Lord to John to preach is the revealed will of God. Romans 12: 4-8 "For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith; Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching. Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness." Here we see a clear teaching of the ordinary offices that are given for the well being of the church. It would be poor hermeneutics to read into this text a list of regular offices, and then slip in one extraordinary special office. And if the Lord is giving an example of an extraordinary office here, why just this one? Why not tongues? Why not the gift of healing? And why if this is truly the gift of immediate prophecy is it given in increments, "according to the proportion of faith"? If immediate prophecy is direct revelation, how can it be done "according to the proportion of faith"? If it is true revelation it must be 100% true, clear, and concise. There is no middle ground when immediate prophecy is given. When it says, "let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith." It is speaking about mediate prophecy and scriptural reason. In this verse the word prophesy means exactly what Vine says it does, and that is "Speak forth the mind and council of God." There are other scriptures that I could use to display the mediate use of prophecy but I think it would be redundant. The point of this exercise is to show that the words prophecy and prophesy can and do mean something other than just immediate revelation. If I have shed any light on the topic at hand I hope I have established three things. 1. That the revelatory gifts have ceased with the close of the apostolic era, and the completion of the canon of scripture. 2. That immediate prophecy was a foundational revelatory gift. 3. That post-canonical prophecy can and does mean mediate revelation, and is the simple proclamation of the revealed will of God. It must be understood that we have all we need for life and godliness. To say that we believe in immediate prophecy tells those around us that the Word of God contained in the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments is NOT the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy Him, but there is still a need for something more. The Word is all we need, by the power of the Spirit. Blessings, JOwen