Go To Home Page
Messiah

Key: = Posted Today and Yesterday



'Theology Discussion Group'

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

« Forum Guidelines »

Total Messages Loaded: 287

reformedeagle -:- Looking for a church home -:- Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 23:43:56 (PST)

Hail -:- KJV-onlyism -:- Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 15:49:12 (PST)
_ Webservant -:- Re: KJV-onlyism -:- Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 19:52:19 (PST)
__ John P. -:- Re: KJV-onlyism -:- Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 10:55:02 (PST)
___ Tom -:- Re: KJV-onlyism -:- Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 17:18:05 (PST)
____ John P -:- Re: KJV-onlyism -:- Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 19:11:36 (PST)
_ Brother Bret -:- Re: KJV-onlyism -:- Thurs, Dec 28, 2000 at 21:13:13 (PST)
__ stan -:- Re: You are ...... -:- Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 06:22:42 (PST)
___ Hail -:- Re: You are ...... -:- Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 19:09:01 (PST)
____ Tom -:- Re: You are ...... -:- Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 14:19:28 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: KJV-onlyism -:- Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 21:47:18 (PST)
__ Hail -:- Re: KJV-onlyism -:- Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 17:09:03 (PST)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re: KJV-onlyism -:- Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 09:15:06 (PST)
____ stan -:- Re: Goodness .... -:- Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 14:53:03 (PST)
_____ Tom -:- Re: Goodness .... -:- Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 17:08:43 (PST)
______ stan -:- Re: Ever ..... -:- Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 18:12:31 (PST)
_______ Tom -:- Re: Ever ..... -:- Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 18:24:11 (PST)
__ stan -:- Re: KJV-onlyism -:- Thurs, Dec 28, 2000 at 16:05:00 (PST)
_ Prestor John -:- Re: KJV-onlyism -:- Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 20:24:40 (PST)

Anne -:- Luke 2:14...which translation? -:- Tues, Dec 26, 2000 at 11:21:59 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: Luke 2:14...which translation? -:- Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 07:03:36 (PST)

Kenneth -:- Justification in Luther -:- Sat, Dec 23, 2000 at 15:00:50 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: Justification in Luther -:- Sat, Dec 23, 2000 at 17:26:10 (PST)

Prestor John -:- Christmas Message -:- Fri, Dec 22, 2000 at 16:57:13 (PST)
_ JOwen -:- Re: Christmas Message -:- Sat, Dec 23, 2000 at 08:50:39 (PST)
__ Brother Bret -:- Re: Christmas Message -:- Sat, Dec 23, 2000 at 12:42:24 (PST)
__ RJ -:- Re: Christmas Message -:- Sat, Dec 23, 2000 at 10:50:56 (PST)
___ JOwen -:- Re: Christmas Message -:- Mon, Dec 25, 2000 at 12:55:52 (PST)
____ Prestor John -:- Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 19:51:50 (PST)
_____ Marrowman -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 18:41:38 (PST)
______ Chris -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 20:44:32 (PST)
_______ Pilgrim -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 20:57:24 (PST)
________ marrowman -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 21:49:31 (PST)
_________ Pilgrim -:- Get a Job?? -:- Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 08:56:49 (PST)
__________ Marrowman -:- Re: Get a Job? -:- Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 14:41:11 (PST)
___________ Marrowman -:- Re: Get a Job? -:- Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 15:11:28 (PST)
__________ chris -:- Re:JOwen, Puritan, Marrowman -:- Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 10:18:46 (PST)
___________ Tom -:- Re: Re:JOwen, Puritan, Marrowman -:- Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 18:15:26 (PST)
_____ JOwen -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Thurs, Dec 28, 2000 at 15:51:03 (PST)
______ Prestor John -:- On second thought... -:- Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 09:34:20 (PST)
_______ JOwen -:- Re: On second thought... -:- Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 10:06:10 (PST)
_____ Chris -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Thurs, Dec 28, 2000 at 08:17:28 (PST)
______ Prestor John -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Thurs, Dec 28, 2000 at 10:25:30 (PST)
_______ Chris -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Thurs, Dec 28, 2000 at 19:20:25 (PST)
________ Puritan -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 04:42:43 (PST)
_________ marrowman -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 19:20:30 (PST)
__________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 20:38:49 (PST)
___________ JOwen -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 22:16:53 (PST)
____________ Marrowman -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 22:42:41 (PST)
_________ chris -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 16:27:05 (PST)
__________ Marrowman -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 19:30:42 (PST)
___________ Tom -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Mon, Jan 01, 2001 at 00:55:44 (PST)
____________ marrowman -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Mon, Jan 01, 2001 at 01:28:54 (PST)
_____________ Marrowman -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Mon, Jan 01, 2001 at 03:47:35 (PST)
_____________ Marrowman -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Mon, Jan 01, 2001 at 03:19:00 (PST)
___________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 20:50:58 (PST)
____________ JOwen -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 22:28:50 (PST)
___________ Chris -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 20:31:58 (PST)
_________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 08:32:23 (PST)
__________ Marrowman -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 19:24:46 (PST)
_______ puritan -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Thurs, Dec 28, 2000 at 16:57:22 (PST)
________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Thurs, Dec 28, 2000 at 21:22:49 (PST)
_________ JOwen -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 10:04:08 (PST)
Pilgrim -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 13:45:08 (PST)
___________ JOwen -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 16:04:28 (PST)
____________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 01:50:29 (PST)
_____________ Marrowman -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 19:46:45 (PST)
_____________ JOwen -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 13:14:56 (PST)
______________ Pilgrim -:- One Last Attempt! -:- Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 21:24:07 (PST)
_____________ Puritan -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 07:06:47 (PST)
______________ Prestor John -:- Oh JOwen!!!! -:- Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 16:25:24 (PST)
______________ lurkerJr -:- What about the Tree? -:- Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 09:40:06 (PST)
_______________ marrowman -:- Re: What about the Tree? -:- Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 20:21:20 (PST)
________________ Marrowman -:- Re: What about the Tree? -:- Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 20:32:36 (PST)
______________ laz -:- Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch -:- Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 08:41:58 (PST)
____ Brother Bret -:- Re: Christmas Message -:- Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 13:20:31 (PST)
____ chris -:- Re: Christmas Message -:- Mon, Dec 25, 2000 at 13:36:23 (PST)
___ laz -:- Re: Christmas Message -:- Sat, Dec 23, 2000 at 19:10:55 (PST)
_ Brother Bret -:- Re: Christmas Message -:- Fri, Dec 22, 2000 at 19:55:41 (PST)
__ chris -:- Re: Christmas Message -:- Sun, Dec 24, 2000 at 14:14:44 (PST)

Tom -:- Proclamation of the Gospel -:- Thurs, Dec 21, 2000 at 13:52:06 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: Proclamation of the Gospel -:- Thurs, Dec 21, 2000 at 15:05:05 (PST)
__ asheep -:- Re: Proclamation of the Gospel -:- Sat, Dec 23, 2000 at 23:27:25 (PST)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re: Proclamation of the Gospel -:- Sun, Dec 24, 2000 at 08:05:14 (PST)
____ sheep -:- Re: Proclamation of the Gospel -:- Sun, Dec 24, 2000 at 23:02:46 (PST)
_____ Pilgrim -:- Re: Proclamation of the Gospel -:- Mon, Dec 25, 2000 at 14:16:45 (PST)
____ sheep -:- Re: Proclamation of the Gospel -:- Sun, Dec 24, 2000 at 22:56:27 (PST)
__ laz -:- Re: Proclamation of the Gospel -:- Fri, Dec 22, 2000 at 07:21:47 (PST)
___ Tom -:- Re: Proclamation of the Gospel -:- Fri, Dec 22, 2000 at 12:29:55 (PST)
__ Tom -:- Re: Proclamation of the Gospel -:- Thurs, Dec 21, 2000 at 23:41:24 (PST)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re: Proclamation of the Gospel -:- Fri, Dec 22, 2000 at 11:26:33 (PST)
____ Tom -:- Re: Proclamation of the Gospel -:- Fri, Dec 22, 2000 at 12:45:35 (PST)
___ laz -:- Re: Proclamation of the Gospel -:- Fri, Dec 22, 2000 at 07:40:26 (PST)
____ Tom -:- Re: Proclamation of the Gospel -:- Fri, Dec 22, 2000 at 13:09:31 (PST)

laz -:- Three Wise Men -:- Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 13:32:10 (PST)
_ Prestor John -:- The three wise guys -:- Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 21:19:50 (PST)
_ stan -:- Re: The names are .... -:- Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 15:42:27 (PST)
_ stan -:- Re: Three Wise Men -:- Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 14:47:31 (PST)
__ laz -:- Re: Three Wise Men -:- Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 20:50:11 (PST)

Prestor John -:- To re-baptize or not to re-baptize -:- Tues, Dec 19, 2000 at 19:42:26 (PST)
_ Tom -:- Re: To re-baptize or not to re-baptize -:- Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 09:16:46 (PST)
__ Prestor John -:- Re: To re-baptize or not to re-baptize -:- Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 20:44:48 (PST)
___ Tom -:- Re: To re-baptize or not to re-baptize -:- Thurs, Dec 21, 2000 at 14:01:51 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: To re-baptize or not to re-baptize -:- Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 05:44:06 (PST)
__ Prestor John -:- Re: To re-baptize or not to re-baptize -:- Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 21:08:20 (PST)
__ stan -:- Re: Say what? -:- Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 14:51:12 (PST)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re: Say what? -:- Thurs, Dec 21, 2000 at 07:31:11 (PST)
____ stan -:- Re: Say what? -:- Thurs, Dec 21, 2000 at 17:08:03 (PST)
_____ Pilgrim -:- Say again. . .!! -:- Thurs, Dec 21, 2000 at 19:41:58 (PST)
____ Tom -:- Re: Say what? -:- Thurs, Dec 21, 2000 at 14:18:01 (PST)
_ stan -:- Re: To re-baptize or not to re-baptize -:- Tues, Dec 19, 2000 at 20:19:37 (PST)

Jimmy -:- The very first commandment :o) -:- Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 15:45:38 (PST)
_ Puritan -:- Re: The very first commandment :o) -:- Thurs, Dec 14, 2000 at 17:48:11 (PST)
__ Pilgrim -:- Re: The very first commandment :o) -:- Thurs, Dec 14, 2000 at 22:00:20 (PST)
___ Tom -:- Re: The very first commandment :o) -:- Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 11:09:21 (PST)
____ Pilgrim -:- Re: The very first commandment :o) -:- Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 12:42:32 (PST)
_____ Puritan -:- Re: The very first commandment :o) -:- Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 08:43:02 (PST)
_____ Tom -:- Re: The very first commandment :o) -:- Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 14:44:08 (PST)
______ Pilgrim -:- Re: The very first commandment :o) -:- Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 09:10:59 (PST)
_______ Rod -:- Re: The very first commandment :o) -:- Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 13:15:35 (PST)
_______ Tom -:- Re: The very first commandment :o) -:- Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 11:23:01 (PST)
______ Rod -:- The nature of the statement -:- Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 16:11:44 (PST)
_______ Tom -:- Re: The nature of the statement -:- Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 16:35:02 (PST)
________ Rod -:- Re: The nature of the statement -:- Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 20:02:20 (PST)
_________ Tom -:- Re: The nature of the statement -:- Tues, Dec 19, 2000 at 07:54:25 (PST)
_ Tom -:- Re: The very first commandment :o) -:- Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 23:58:27 (PST)
__ Jimmy -:- Re: The very first commandment :o) -:- Tues, Dec 19, 2000 at 17:54:03 (PST)
___ Tom -:- Re: The very first commandment :o) -:- Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 09:27:25 (PST)
___ laz -:- Re: The very first commandment :o) -:- Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 08:29:35 (PST)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re: The very first commandment :o) -:- Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 05:25:06 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: The very first commandment :o) -:- Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 20:46:06 (PST)

Anne -:- Why circumcision? -:- Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 14:31:22 (PST)
_ Rod -:- Re: Why circumcision?? -:- Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 12:51:08 (PST)
_ laz -:- Re: Why circumcision? -:- Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 12:37:17 (PST)
_ stan -:- Re: Why circumcision? -:- Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 15:00:42 (PST)

saved -:- The Majesty of Christ -:- Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 08:44:14 (PST)

Puritan -:- Is time created? -:- Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 05:17:17 (PST)
_ Brother Bret -:- Re: Is time created? -:- Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 19:45:11 (PST)
_ stan -:- Re: Is time created? -:- Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 15:55:08 (PST)
_ Rod -:- Re: Is time created? -:- Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 14:44:13 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: Is time created? -:- Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 07:57:28 (PST)
__ laz -:- Re: Is time created? -:- Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 10:49:15 (PST)
___ sean -:- Re: Is time created? -:- Thurs, Dec 28, 2000 at 14:14:01 (PST)

Brother Bret -:- Speaking of Music :- ) -:- Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 13:01:14 (PST)
_ Puritan -:- Re: Speaking of Music :- ) -:- Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 18:24:12 (PST)
__ Brother Bret -:- Re: Speaking of Music :- ) -:- Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 19:32:22 (PST)
___ laz -:- Re: Speaking of Music :- ) -:- Thurs, Dec 07, 2000 at 11:35:08 (PST)
____ puritan -:- Re: Speaking of Music :- ) -:- Thurs, Dec 07, 2000 at 17:22:43 (PST)
_____ laz -:- Re: Speaking of Music :- ) -:- Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 05:41:03 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: Speaking of Music :- ) -:- Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 20:49:10 (PST)
__ stan -:- Re: Thanks for sharing the site! NT -:- Tues, Dec 05, 2000 at 20:28:16 (PST)
_ saved -:- Re: Speaking of Music :- ) -:- Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 17:47:27 (PST)
__ JOwen -:- Re: Speaking of Music :- ) -:- Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 23:47:41 (PST)
___ Tom -:- Re: Speaking of Music :- ) -:- Tues, Dec 05, 2000 at 00:13:27 (PST)
____ Rod -:- Re: Speaking of Music :- ) -:- Tues, Dec 05, 2000 at 10:39:04 (PST)
_____ Tom -:- Re: Speaking of Music :- ) -:- Tues, Dec 05, 2000 at 13:49:19 (PST)
______ Rod -:- I understood, Tom, just... -:- Tues, Dec 05, 2000 at 15:10:43 (PST)
_______ Prestor John -:- Re: I understood, Tom, just... -:- Thurs, Dec 07, 2000 at 21:57:01 (PST)
________ Rod -:- Re: I understood, Tom, just... -:- Thurs, Dec 07, 2000 at 23:54:45 (PST)
_________ Prestor John -:- Re: I understood, Tom, just... -:- Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 19:54:41 (PST)
__________ Rod -:- My brother loves to -:- Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 22:35:28 (PST)
___________ stan -:- Re: My what .... -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 19:03:41 (PST)
____________ Prestor John -:- Re: My what .... -:- Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 20:56:25 (PST)
_____________ stan -:- Re: yes .... -:- Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 15:45:40 (PST)
______________ Pilgrim -:- Re: yes .... -:- Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 20:50:21 (PST)
_______________ stan -:- Re: UUuuuugggghhhh! NT ;-) -:- Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 15:16:44 (PST)

Eric -:- Amillenialism vs Historicism -:- Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 15:01:56 (PST)
_ JOwen -:- Re: Amillenialism vs Historicism -:- Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 18:27:26 (PST)
__ Tom -:- Re: Amillenialism vs Historicism -:- Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 07:20:43 (PST)
___ Jowen -:- Re: Amillenialism vs Historicism Tom -:- Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 23:40:05 (PST)
____ Tom -:- Re: Amillenialism vs Historicism Tom -:- Tues, Dec 05, 2000 at 14:15:30 (PST)
_____ Pilgrim -:- Re: Amillenialism vs Historicism Tom -:- Tues, Dec 05, 2000 at 17:09:04 (PST)
______ Tom -:- Re: Amillenialism vs Historicism Tom -:- Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 01:37:19 (PST)
_______ Tom -:- Re: Amillenialism vs Historicism Tom -:- Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 01:04:35 (PST)
_______ laz -:- Re: Amillenialism vs Historicism Tom -:- Thurs, Dec 07, 2000 at 11:33:12 (PST)
__ Brother Bret -:- Re: Amillenialism vs Historicism -:- Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 21:50:43 (PST)
___ JOwen -:- Re: Amillenialism vs Historicism -:- Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 22:36:52 (PST)
____ Eric -:- Let me clarify the question -:- Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 07:36:11 (PST)
_____ Pilgrim -:- Re: Let me clarify the question -:- Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 20:24:40 (PST)
______ Eric -:- Thanks! nt -:- Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 08:53:44 (PST)

Hail -:- Contemporary Music -:- Thurs, Nov 30, 2000 at 07:02:24 (PST)
_ Lurker Jr -:- Rap Music Comin' On... -:- Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 09:51:04 (PST)
_ Brother Bret -:- Re: Contemporary Music -:- Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 22:49:20 (PST)
__ Bdavid -:- Re: Contemporary Music -:- Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 06:27:42 (PST)
___ Brother Bret -:- Re: Contemporary Music -:- Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 12:25:28 (PST)

Tom -:- My last post on this topic -:- Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 23:38:44 (PST)
_ Tom -:- Something Just Occured to Me -:- Thurs, Nov 30, 2000 at 00:33:19 (PST)
__ Rod -:- Re: Something Just Occured to Me -:- Thurs, Nov 30, 2000 at 11:18:18 (PST)
___ Tom -:- Re: Something Just Occured to Me -:- Tues, Dec 19, 2000 at 13:06:16 (PST)
___ Tom -:- Re: Something Just Occured to Me -:- Thurs, Nov 30, 2000 at 12:39:56 (PST)
____ Rod -:- Re: Something Just Occured to Me -:- Thurs, Nov 30, 2000 at 12:58:55 (PST)
_____ Tom -:- Re: Something Just Occured to Me -:- Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 00:44:42 (PST)
__ Eric -:- Re: Something Just Occured to Me -:- Thurs, Nov 30, 2000 at 08:08:00 (PST)

laz -:- NEW SEMINARY?? -:- Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 22:36:37 (PST)

Bdavid -:- Contemporary music (melody) -:- Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 11:19:01 (PST)
_ saved -:- Re: Contemporary music (melody) -:- Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 17:54:01 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: Contemporary music (melody) -:- Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 18:02:38 (PST)
__ Bdavid -:- Re: Contemporary music (melody) -:- Thurs, Nov 30, 2000 at 09:56:07 (PST)
_ Eric -:- Re: Contemporary music (melody) -:- Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 13:28:48 (PST)
__ Bdavid -:- Re: Contemporary music (melody) -:- Thurs, Nov 30, 2000 at 10:31:02 (PST)
_ Brother Bret -:- Re: Contemporary music (melody) -:- Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 13:18:35 (PST)
__ Bdavid -:- Re: Contemporary music (melody) -:- Thurs, Nov 30, 2000 at 10:51:28 (PST)
__ John -:- Re: Contemporary music (melody) -:- Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 18:02:22 (PST)
___ Bdavid -:- Re: Contemporary music (melody) -:- Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 22:15:17 (PST)
____ Pilgrim -:- Re: Contemporary music (melody) -:- Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 09:17:23 (PST)
_____ Bdavid -:- Re: Contemporary music (melody) -:- Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 13:28:09 (PST)
______ Pilgrim -:- Re: Contemporary music (melody) -:- Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 20:45:05 (PST)
_______ Bdavid -:- Re: Contemporary music (melody) -:- Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 22:10:18 (PST)
________ Pilgrim -:- Re: Contemporary music (melody) -:- Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 21:39:51 (PST)

Tom -:- eugenes-logos-graphe approach -:- Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 09:29:37 (PST)
_ stan -:- Re: eugenes-logos-graphe approach -:- Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 19:10:19 (PST)

Bdavid -:- Contemporary Christian music -:- Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 20:52:42 (PST)
_ Jimmy -:- Straining at gnats :o) (NT) -:- Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 16:43:59 (PST)
__ Bdavid -:- Re: Straining at gnats :o) (NT) -:- Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 17:22:03 (PST)
___ Jimmy -:- Phenomena VS nomena -:- Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 17:38:12 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: Contemporary Christian music -:- Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 21:29:44 (PST)
__ Bdavid -:- Re: Contemporary Christian music -:- Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 09:08:05 (PST)
___ Pilgrim -:- Re: Contemporary Christian music -:- Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 18:46:07 (PST)
____ Bdavid -:- Re: Contemporary Christian music -:- Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 20:05:14 (PST)
_____ Brother Bret -:- Re: Contemporary Christian music -:- Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 20:58:31 (PST)
______ Bdavid -:- Re: Contemporary Christian music -:- Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 08:13:30 (PST)
_______ Brother Bret -:- Re: Contemporary Christian music -:- Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 21:38:13 (PST)
_______ Pilgrim -:- Re: Contemporary Christian music -:- Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 12:42:54 (PST)
________ Bdavid -:- Re: THE REAL ISSUE HERE -:- Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 10:26:51 (PST)
_________ Pilgrim -:- Re: THE REAL ISSUE HERE -:- Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 17:35:10 (PST)
________ Tom -:- Re: Contemporary Christian music -:- Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 13:10:37 (PST)
_________ Michael -:- Greens' theology -:- Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 06:16:41 (PST)
__________ Tom -:- Re: Greens' theology -:- Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 09:22:19 (PST)
___________ MikeT -:- Re: Greens' theology -:- Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 20:46:38 (PST)
____________ Tom -:- Re: Greens' theology -:- Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 00:42:03 (PST)
___________ Brother Bret -:- Re: Greens' theology -:- Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 12:59:12 (PST)
____________ Tom -:- Re: Greens' theology -:- Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 13:19:25 (PST)
_____________ Mike T -:- thanks Tom & Brett... -:- Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 20:50:38 (PST)
______________ Tom -:- Re: thanks Tom & Brett... -:- Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 00:49:22 (PST)
__________ Eric -:- Try 'Caedmons Call' very good nt -:- Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 07:32:09 (PST)
______ Tom -:- Re: Contemporary Christian music -:- Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 08:05:28 (PST)
_______ Pilgrim -:- Re: Contemporary Christian music -:- Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 12:48:37 (PST)
_______ Eric -:- Good point -:- Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 08:35:17 (PST)
____ stan -:- Re: My half cent worth. -:- Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 19:46:41 (PST)
_____ Rod -:- I see we've had -:- Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 10:41:00 (PST)
______ stan -:- Re: What's really... -:- Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 19:21:44 (PST)
_______ Rod -:- Re: What's really... -:- Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 20:07:14 (PST)
__ Bdavid -:- Re: Contemporary Christian music -:- Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 23:12:47 (PST)

JOwen -:- A Long Shot...A Book -:- Fri, Nov 24, 2000 at 08:44:05 (PST)
_ Pilgrim -:- Re: A Long Shot...A Book -:- Fri, Nov 24, 2000 at 17:28:38 (PST)

Bdavid -:- should christians fight in war? -:- Thurs, Nov 23, 2000 at 23:06:14 (PST)
_ john -:- Re: should christians fight in war? -:- Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 17:01:58 (PST)
__ Bdavid -:- Re: should christians fight in war? -:- Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 23:57:59 (PST)

-:- THE MAN I AM STARING AT -:- Thurs, Nov 23, 2000 at 16:50:00 (PST)
_ John -:- Re: THE MAN I AM STARING AT -:- Thurs, Nov 23, 2000 at 18:37:18 (PST)
__ Tom -:- Re: THE MAN I AM STARING AT -:- Fri, Nov 24, 2000 at 00:16:42 (PST)
___ -:- Why I did it -:- Fri, Nov 24, 2000 at 16:48:42 (PST)
____ Tom -:- Re: Why I did it -:- Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 11:38:27 (PST)

Brother Bret -:- Fasting -:- Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 11:39:37 (PST)
_ Jimmy -:- More Straining at gnats (NT) -:- Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 16:47:23 (PST)
_ stan -:- Re: Fasting -:- Tues, Nov 21, 2000 at 15:17:17 (PST)
_ laz -:- Re: Fasting -:- Tues, Nov 21, 2000 at 08:01:34 (PST)
_ David Teh -:- Re: Fasting -:- Tues, Nov 21, 2000 at 04:24:58 (PST)
__ John -:- Re: Fasting -:- Wed, Nov 22, 2000 at 01:17:35 (PST)
___ stan -:- Re: Fishing -:- Wed, Nov 22, 2000 at 21:03:13 (PST)
____ john -:- Re: Fishing -:- Thurs, Nov 23, 2000 at 04:47:57 (PST)
___ Eric -:- Re: Fasting -:- Wed, Nov 22, 2000 at 09:25:09 (PST)
____ John -:- Re: Fasting -:- Thurs, Nov 23, 2000 at 00:36:04 (PST)
_____ Tom -:- Re: Fasting -:- Thurs, Nov 23, 2000 at 09:24:34 (PST)
______ John -:- Re: Fasting -:- Thurs, Nov 23, 2000 at 17:21:34 (PST)
_______ Pilgrim -:- Re: Fasting -:- Thurs, Nov 23, 2000 at 19:32:11 (PST)
________ Tom -:- Re: Fasting -:- Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 12:59:47 (PST)
_________ Eric -:- What do you think Tom? -:- Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 08:15:36 (PST)
__________ Tom -:- Re: What do you think Tom? -:- Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 12:20:51 (PST)
___________ Pilgrim -:- Re: What do you think Tom? -:- Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 12:58:00 (PST)
____________ Tom -:- Re: What do you think Tom? -:- Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 13:20:29 (PST)
___________ Tom -:- An Addition -:- Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 12:50:48 (PST)
____________ Pilgrim -:- Re: An Addition -:- Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 20:06:00 (PST)
_____________ Tom -:- Re: An Addition -:- Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 01:01:25 (PST)
______________ Pilgrim -:- Last Addition -:- Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 08:40:15 (PST)
____________ Eric -:- Re: An Addition -:- Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 13:14:11 (PST)
_____________ Tom -:- Re: An Addition -:- Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 00:39:41 (PST)
______________ Pilgrim -:- Re: An Addition -:- Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 08:45:11 (PST)
_______________ Eric -:- I agree -:- Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 13:40:31 (PST)
________________ Dutch -:- Re: I agree -:- Tues, Nov 28, 2000 at 15:10:11 (PST)
_________________ Tom -:- Re: I agree -:- Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 01:03:35 (PST)
__________________ Eric -:- Look close... -:- Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 09:43:48 (PST)
___________________ Tom -:- My last post on this topic -:- Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 23:35:54 (PST)
________ john -:- Re: Fasting -:- Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 15:42:12 (PST)
_________ Tom -:- Re: Fasting -:- Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 17:52:28 (PST)
____ John P -:- Re: Fasting -:- Wed, Nov 22, 2000 at 09:47:00 (PST)

Powerforum Plus+
Paradise Web Enhancements
Copyright 1997,1998

Subject: Looking for a church home
From: reformedeagle
To: All
Date Posted: Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 23:43:56 (PST)
Email Address: reformedeagle_lv_nv@msn.com

Message:
I am looking for a group to worship with in the greater Las Vegas, Nevada area which is baptistic, holds to the doctrines of grace, and to a reformed government. Denominational or non-denominational is unimportant. It can be a mission, a church, or just a group of like-minded people who have not yet formed a church. If you belong to or know of such a group, please e-mail me at reformedeagle_lv_nv@msn.com. Thank you.
Subject: KJV-onlyism
From: Hail
To: All
Date Posted: Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 15:49:12 (PST)
Email Address: hailstreak@cs.com

Message:
I am in an e-mail debate with a staunch KJV-onlyist that insists the KJV is the only true Word of God. The person brought up this verse: Matthew 5:18 'For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.' How would you go about showing that God's Word is inerrant in light of the fact that no single translation is 100% correct to every jot and tittle? Thanks, Hail
Subject: Re: KJV-onlyism
From: Webservant
To: Hail
Date Posted: Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 19:52:19 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I am in an e-mail debate with a staunch KJV-onlyist that insists the KJV is the only true Word of God. The person brought up this verse: Matthew 5:18 'For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.' How would you go about showing that God's Word is inerrant in light of the fact that no single translation is 100% correct to every jot and tittle? Thanks, Hail
---
Common sense should tell anyone that the KJV is only a translation for the original Greek and Hebrew. And the Bible has been translated into many other languages. The Word of God in its purest form would be in the original languages. Language changes all the time. For one thing, new words are added every day. Old English is now archaic, and many of the words have lost their meaning over the centuries. However, while KJV is only a translation, it is a superior translation, in my humble opinion, for several reasons. For one thing, the concordances are keyed to the KJV. For another, it seems to be easier to memorize. Also, it seems that the later translations have tried to accomodate our modern culture to some degree. Incidentally, nowhere in the verse you mentioned did I find the KJV mentioned. Stratford Orthodox Presbyterian Church www.stratfordopc.org/
Subject: Re: KJV-onlyism
From: John P.
To: Webservant
Date Posted: Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 10:55:02 (PST)
Email Address: putz7@msn.com

Message:
One more reason why the KJV is a superior translation: in the original Greek, and I believe the Hebrew, too (although I don't know Hebrew), there is a distinction made between second person singular and second person plural verbs and pronouns. This distinction is not made in modern translations and is made in the KJV. For instance, in a modern translation, the pronoun, 'you,' is used for both a single individual, and a group of individuals. For instance, in Romans 2:4 (New American Standard Version), we read as follows: 'or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?' That is a second person singular in the original. In Romans 1:6 (same version), we read, 'among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ.' In this instance, the 'you' is a second person plural in the original language. However, if you didn't notice, there is no distinction in the modern translation - the same word, 'you,' is used in both instances. In the KJV, however, a second person singular is almost always found as a 'Thou,' or a, 'thee,' and a second person plural is almost always found as a, 'Ye,' or a, 'you.' The importance of this rests in the fact that the KJV is making a distinction that is made in the original languages, while the modern translations almost wholly neglect it. In some cases, this can be rather important in our interpretation of a passage. As an example of a passage that demonstrates its importance is Philippians 1:6. Here are the four major translations of this verse: Phil 1:6 6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ: (KJV) Phil 1:6 6 {For I am} confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus. (NAS) Phil 1:6 6 being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus. (NIV) Phil 1:6 6 being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ; (NKJ) Although all of these translations use the pronoun, 'you,' the KJV's use of this pronoun in this place indicates that the, 'you,' is plural. If it weren't, it would be translated as, 'thee.' The other translations, however, leave the passage ambiguous because they would use the word, 'you,' whether the original indicated a singular individual or group of individuals. Thus, some people who use modern translations will argue for the perseverance of the saints from this passage as though it conclusively proves their point, when, at best, it just shows that perseverance of the saints is a possibility. For, the verse actually is saying something to the affect of, 'God, who has begun a good work among (GR - 'en') the whole group of Philippians will bring it to perfection.' NOT, 'God, who has begun a good work in an individual will bring the work in that individual to perfection.' Now, I believe in the perseverance of the saints - but, knowing this, I wouldn't use this verse to defend it. This distinction is important in other places, too. Also, as a side note, you have probably noticed that some people in prayer address God with, 'Thee's,' and, 'Thou's.' Some people find this offensive, and complain that these people are, 'holier than thou,' types. Although I don't think it is necessarily a sin to pray with pronouns such as, 'you,' I think it is more appropriate to use the, 'Thee's,' and, 'Thou's,' because the men in Scripture always (so far as I have studied it) addressed God in the second person singular. If the English langauge can make this distinction - and it can - then I can't seem to find a reason why we shouldn't make that same distinction in our prayers. I'll stop here, though. John P.
Subject: Re: KJV-onlyism
From: Tom
To: John P.
Date Posted: Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 17:18:05 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
John I believe you bring up a good point about the thees and thous. However, I would be curious as to your responce to some of the accusations at the following site: http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm#errors Tom
Subject: Re: KJV-onlyism
From: John P
To: Tom
Date Posted: Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 19:11:36 (PST)
Email Address: putz7@msn.com

Message:
Greetings Tom, I wasn't intending on saying that the KJV is an infallible translation. Only the autographs are infallible. I do believe that the KJV is the only translation that should be used in corporate worship, but not because it is without error - it was the only translation that was authorized by what I recognize as a lawful General Assembly. I don't have time to discuss that, for the time being. All I was pointing out is the fact that the KJV is a translation which is far superior to modern translations, for many reasons - not the least of which is the, 'thee's and thou's.' I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear - I should have taken more time to state my position more fully. Love, John P.
Subject: Re: KJV-onlyism
From: Brother Bret
To: Hail
Date Posted: Thurs, Dec 28, 2000 at 21:13:13 (PST)
Email Address: Lovitz5@juno.com

Message:
A couple more thoughts? When the word of God was translated into other languages, whether English or otherwise, was it in the language that was common to the people at that time? When a preacher or Christian is preaching or teaching from the King James Version, don't they expound and proclaim it in the common language for our day? How often does what the preacher say end up matching the New King James or New American Standard versions? As Pilgrim also said, the KJV is my main version and what I use from the pulpit. But I also use the NKJV greatly, as well as other versions for comparable study. Brother Bret Cornerstone Community Baptist Church www.ccbcfl.org
Subject: Re: You are ......
From: stan
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 06:22:42 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
trying to use logic and that is a subject many kjvonlyers never bother with ;-) or just don't understand. I think as you dig into the movement you will find that they are getting off base in a lot of other areas as well - really odd ball doctrine. I know - I know! Who am I to talk about other peoples odd doctrines ;-) http://www.bible.ca used to have a section on kjvonly - had a lot of questions for the kjv only folk for those that are interested. stan
Subject: Re: You are ......
From: Hail
To: stan
Date Posted: Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 19:09:01 (PST)
Email Address: hailstreak@cs.com

Message:
Stan and all, Bible.ca still has the KJV-only page. It is located at http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm. I just found it, and the plethora of information has helped me better understand and refute the KJV-only issue. Hail
Subject: Re: You are ......
From: Tom
To: Hail
Date Posted: Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 14:19:28 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
I found what that site had to say on the subject to be quite good. But on another issue that I found on the site, they believe in baptismal regeneration. They have a section on topics like this. Tom
Subject: Re: KJV-onlyism
From: Pilgrim
To: Hail
Date Posted: Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 21:47:18 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hail,
I have no desire to get into a long and detailed treatise on the errors espoused by the 'KJV only' advocates. But rather I'll just throw out a few comments which I think address the more salient points necessary. :-) 1. Is it really true that Moses spoke in Elizabethan English? 2. What of the Cloverdale, Geneva and Tyndale Bibles, which the KJV is based upon? How can one bifurcate these and other translations, including the Latin Vulgate and Septuagint which the KJV is inseparably bound? 3. No worthy scholar would nor ever has proposed that ANY translation (including the KJV) is 'infallible and inerrant'!! Only the original manuscripts are recognized as possessing these qualities. ALL translations, regardless of language, are inherently 'flawed'. Some more than others. The KJV, in my opinion, is an excellent translation, but so is the American Standard (orig. Revised Version), and the New King James. 4. The real debate actually is with the Textual Manuscript Evidence and not with the translations. 5. The translators of the KJV, although they have done an exemplary job, were not 'inspired' and thus there are places where their translation is wanting, as one consults and studies the Textus Receptus upon which it is based. Like anyone, they were bound by their limited knowledge of history and culture of biblical times. And thus their translation is not as accurate as it might be compared to the new 'light' we now possess due to archaeology and other sources of historical significance. Okay, that's enough... LOL! BTW, I use the KJV as my main English translation. So I'm not overly biased against it!
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: KJV-onlyism
From: Hail
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 17:09:03 (PST)
Email Address: hailstreak@cs.com

Message:
Thank you for the information, Pilgrim! The argument of the person I am debating with is entirely based on the assumption that God used 70 scholars in 1607 to correctly translate Scripture. My question to this person was, 'How do you know this?' I find it interesting that the entire KJV-only argument is based on pure assumption. I think the KJV-onlyers need to use some common sense here. :-) Hail
Subject: Re: KJV-onlyism
From: Pilgrim
To: Hail
Date Posted: Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 09:15:06 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hail,
Yes, there is a whole lot of 'assumption' going on in that camp. Using their illogical premise, why isn't the Septuagint the only inspired translation? After all, there were '70 scholars' involved in that one too? :-)
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Goodness ....
From: stan
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 14:53:03 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
maybe you've got something there Pilgram, write us a book and we will be able to start a new movement!!!!!!! ;-) Seppey only lives!
Subject: Re: Goodness ....
From: Tom
To: stan
Date Posted: Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 17:08:43 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
Stan Forgive me for my ignorance, but what was your point in your comment to Pilgrim? Tom
Subject: Re: Ever .....
From: stan
To: Tom
Date Posted: Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 18:12:31 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
hear of humor? Sorry, will try to refrain from further outbursts. shlep
Subject: Re: Ever .....
From: Tom
To: stan
Date Posted: Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 18:24:11 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
Stan Yes I have heard of humor. I use it myself from time to time, lol. However, when I do, I do it for a purpose, I wasn't sure what your purpose was. Tom
Subject: Re: KJV-onlyism
From: stan
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Thurs, Dec 28, 2000 at 16:05:00 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Having been around the block a time or two with a kjv onlyer or two I would suggest the following concerning your answers. I speak from experience with their followers, not the volumes of books on the subject - have not wasted my time reading those! 1. Irrelevant. 2. Irrelevant. 3. Irrelevant. 4. In some KVJonliers minds - in others Irrelevant. 5. Irrelevant. There are lots of shades of kjvonlyism of late - it is a doctrine that is in flux ;-) The kjv is the inspired book not the originals, though some might go back to the originals I don't think most do anymore. This covers number two - it doesn't matter what the kjv is based on it is the one that is inspired. No worthy scholar - in their eyes their mentors are worthy scholars ;-) but you are quite correct to point out the originals are the ones that were inspired and I would also agree on the 'no worthy scholar' point. Actually I've seen a few doctrinal statements quite lacking in this over the years - not mentioning in the original. In years past the Textus Receptus was held to be the correct side of things, but many of the kjvers now don't bother with it - it is the kjv that is inspired, no matter where it came from. I did see one the other day that mentioned that the kjv is the inspired version for the English speaking folk. This gets them out of the doghouse with the argument that the gospel can't be given to non English speaking people. Not sure what the fellow would have suggested that the inspired version would be for other languages. stan
Subject: Re: KJV-onlyism
From: Prestor John
To: Hail
Date Posted: Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 20:24:40 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Well Hail, I'd like to point out that verse says not one jot or tittle will pass from the law. I don't see anything saying: 'the King James Version, plus by that reasoning if its not of the law then its subject to error. So what do we do with the Psalms, Proverbs, Galatians, etc . . .? That's not law, is it? Also where does it say how God will preserve His Word? Does it mean that God will never allow the substance of what His Word says to be changed or does it mean that there will always be one 'pure' translation no matter the language? See the passage doesn't even address those concerns does it? So in reality it can't really be used to prop up that sad old song about KJV being the one true version can it? Prestor John Armchair theologian, curmudgeon and esperantist Servabo Fidem!
Subject: Luke 2:14...which translation?
From: Anne
To: All
Date Posted: Tues, Dec 26, 2000 at 11:21:59 (PST)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
NIV: 'Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests.' RSV/NASB: 'Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men with whom he is pleased!' NKJV/KJV: 'Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace, goodwill toward men!' YLT: 'Glory in the highest to God, and upon earth peace, among men -- good will.' There's a significant disparity between the NIV/RSV/NASB translations and the KJV/NKJV/YLT translations, since the former do not possess the universal greeting motif of the latter. Any thoughts as to why there is such a difference between them, and which is most likely to be accurate? Hoping everyone here had a holy, blessed, and joyful Christmas,BTW! Anne
Subject: Re: Luke 2:14...which translation?
From: Pilgrim
To: Anne
Date Posted: Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 07:03:36 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Anne, Basically this difference is due not to the translators, but the manuscripts used by the translators; Nestle-Kurt Aland or Majority Text or the 'Received' Text; Textus Receptus. Pilgrim
Subject: Justification in Luther
From: Kenneth
To: All
Date Posted: Sat, Dec 23, 2000 at 15:00:50 (PST)
Email Address: vandahl@post10.tele.dk

Message:
I have just been reading a sermon by Luther on Gal 4:1-7 that seems to make justification a rather psycological occurence rather than a legal one. There is something very subjective to it, something like Christ sets us free to do good voluntarily, but it is not made clear whether this liberation is merely psycological or also and primarily forensic. Is there somewhere in Luther where it is clearly stated that justification is an objective occurrence? Or, that in justification the person as such is set free, not only this person's mind or will? Kenneth
Subject: Re: Justification in Luther
From: Pilgrim
To: Kenneth
Date Posted: Sat, Dec 23, 2000 at 17:26:10 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Kenneth,
There can be no doubt that Martin Luther was one of the greatest defenders of 'Sola Fide'; Justification by Faith Alone. His position was one which proclaimed an immediate and actual forensic justification at the moment a person believed on Christ Jesus. His 'by-word' is well known: simul iustus et peccatore translated: 'simultaneously justified and sinner'! I think you will find more than sufficient evidence that Luther held to a forensic justification in his two volume commentary on 'Galatians' [Luther's Works, vol. 26 and 27, American Edition]. Even many of his own hymns testify to this fact.
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Christmas Message
From: Prestor John
To: All
Date Posted: Fri, Dec 22, 2000 at 16:57:13 (PST)
Email Address: pdnelson@icehouse.net

Message:
And with two days to spare I wish all of you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Prestor John's Demesne Christmas Message for 2000 www.icehouse.net/pdnelson/index.htm
Subject: Re: Christmas Message
From: JOwen
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Sat, Dec 23, 2000 at 08:50:39 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Thanks for the sentiments, but our family and church does not take part in this roman holy day. Happy New Year. JOwen Romans 12:2 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.
Subject: Re: Christmas Message
From: Brother Bret
To: JOwen
Date Posted: Sat, Dec 23, 2000 at 12:42:24 (PST)
Email Address: Lovitz5@juno.com

Message:
JOwen: I'll be the first one to admit, that I have struggled with aspects of the 'celebration' part of Christmas. But if I have my history correct, isn't this something that was started by Constantine in the 4th century before the Roman Catholic Church got rolling as an organzation and later became corrupt? Brother Bret
Subject: Re: Christmas Message
From: RJ
To: JOwen
Date Posted: Sat, Dec 23, 2000 at 10:50:56 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Thanks for the sentiments, but our family and church does not take part in this roman holy day. Happy New Year. JOwen Romans 12:2 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.
---
JOwen, This is a surprise!..Please explain why you do not celebrate? In His Grace, RJ
Subject: Re: Christmas Message
From: JOwen
To: RJ
Date Posted: Mon, Dec 25, 2000 at 12:55:52 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
The 25th of December, Christmas, is rooted in pagan idol worship. "Many of the earth's inhabitants were sun worshipers because the course of their lives depended on its yearly round in the heavens, and feasts were held to aid its return from distant wanderings. In the south of Europe, in Egypt and Persia, the sun gods were worshipped with elaborate ceremonies at the season of the winter solstice, as a fitting time to pay tribute to the benign god of plenty, while in Rome the Saturnalia reigned for a week. In northern lands mid-December was a critical time, for the days became shorter and shorter and the sun was weak and far away. Thus these ancient peoples held feast at the same period that Christmas is now observed (Encyclopedia Britannica 1961 ed., 5:643). During the winter solstice period the Babylonians worshipped Tammuz;( Ibid., 5:642.) the Greeks and Romans worshipped Jupiter, Mithra, Saturn, Hercules, Bacchus, and Adonis; the Egyptians worshipped Osiris and Horus; the Scandinavians worshipped Odin (or Woden). "Among the German and Celtic tribes the winter solstice was considered an important point of the year, and they held their chief festival of Yul to commemorate the return of the burning wheel. The holly, the mistletoe, the Yul log, and the wassail bowl are relics of pre-Christian times."( Ibid., 5:642). The Apostolic church did not celebrate Christ mass, nor was it celebrated in the first few centries until A.D. 245, Origen (Hom. 8 on Leviticus) repudiated the idea of keeping the birthday of Christ, "as if he were a king Pharaoh." The reason that Christmas became a church holy day has nothing to do with the Bible. The Bible does not give the date of Christ's birth. Nowhere in the Bible are we commanded to celebrate Christmas. Christmas (as well as many other pagan practices) was adopted by the Roman church as a missionary strategy. It is interesting to see the motives behind the use of pagan festivles by the Roman Catholic Church. I believe they used it as a point of evangelism. Look at Pope Gregory I's instructions to missionaries, given in A.D. 601: "Because they [the pagans] were wont to sacrifice oxen to devils, some celebration should be given in exchange for this. . . they should celebrate a religious feast and worship God by their feasting, so that still keeping outward pleasures, they may more readily receive spiritual joys”( The United Church Observer, Santa's Family Tree, Dec. 1976, p. 14). This syncretism with paganism explains why Christmas customs are pagan to the core. The Christmas tree came into use because sacred trees were an important aspect of pagan worship during the winter solstice season. In Babylon, the evergreen tree represented Nimrod coming to life again in Tammuz who was supposedly born of a virgin, Semiramus. In Rome, they decorated fir trees with red berries to celebrate Saturnalia. The Scandinavians brought a sacred fir tree into their homes in honor of their god Odin. "When the pagans of Northern Europe became Christians, they made their sacred evergreen trees part of the Christian festival, and decorated the trees with gilded nuts, candles (a carry-over from sun worship), and apples to stand for the stars, moon, and sun” (World Book Encyclopedia, (1955 ed.), 3:1425.). The Roman Catholic Church hates the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Roman church uses human inventions, such as Christmas, to keep millions of people in darkness. The fact that millions of Bible-believing Protestants are observing a Roman Catholic holy day which has not been commanded anywhere in God's Word reveals the sad state of modern Evangelicalism. "We cannot conform, communicate, and symbolize with the idolatrous Papists, in the use of the same, without making ourselves idolaters by participation." Our attitude should be that of the Protestant Reformer Bucer who said, "I would to God that every holy day whatsoever besides the Lord's day were abolished. That zeal which brought them first in, was without all warrant of the Word, and merely followed corrupt reason, forsooth to drive out the holy days of the pagans, as one nail drives out another. Those holy days have been so tainted with superstitions that I wonder we tremble not at their very names” (A Fresh Suit Against Human Ceremonies in God's Worship, (n.p., 1633), p. 360.). My thoughts on this subject are plain. If you do celebrate the 25th of December, please do not bring Christ into it. He never asked you to bring his name into this Roman holy day. Have you presents, your turkey, family get together, and tree, but please don’t bring Jesus into your celebration, please. I know I will be labeled a legalist by many on this list…so be it. I am in good conscience and good company. Matthew 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Subject: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch
From: Prestor John
To: JOwen
Date Posted: Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 19:51:50 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
You know JOwen I don't mind that you don't celebrate the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. Your loss, I've known a few of your ilk and they always appeared to be the happiest when cutting off their own nose to spite their face. See the point is this you could have look at my greeting and then said: 'Well another person going around with Merry Christmas on their lips bah humbug.' See you could have been like Scrooge keeping Christmas the way you do (or don't as the is case )and allowing us who have the pleasure of celebrating the holiday alone. However, you instead are of those that want to stop Christmas from coming at all. Now it maybe that your shoes are too tight or your head's not screwed on quite right, or that your heart is two sizes too small. Or perhaps, just perhaps its because you desperately want to out do your Puritan heroes. Now JOwen the Puritan's did a lot of good things I love reading the real John Owen's writings but the Puritans had the bad habit of tossing the baby out with the bath water. Your battle cry being: 'if Christ did not tell me to do it I won't!' The trouble is neither did Christ specifically command you to do what you are doing. Now let's take a look at your statement about December 25th being rooted in pagan idol worship. And your absolutely correct, but then what isn't? The days of the week, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, etc... are all based upon pagan gods. So are the months, so unless your calendar is based on the Jewish one (in which it would show you that Monday was the 28th of Kislev) by using that Gregorian device you are commingling with the pagans. Along with this I have to ask this: Why is it wrong to replace pagan festivals with Christian ones? When the early church fathers decided upon a liturgical year it was with the expressed purpose of showing God's sovereignty over time (hours, seasons, days) and to focus our thoughts upon Christ's life. As well as developing a reading schedule that would have the entire Bible read in a three year time during the services. The idea being to change the people's thoughts on how they viewed the days. And lastly in regards to your Christmas tree fetish. I give you a link by Pastor Richard P. Bucher The Origin and Meaning of the Christmas Tree A Lutheran Pastor who says it much better than I could. BTW did you know that Martin Luther celebrated Christmas? Some of his best sermons on grace were preached on that day. God bless us everyone!! Prestor John
Subject: Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch
From: Marrowman
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 18:41:38 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi all, The trouble with this kind of reasoning , is there nothing biblical in it. What ever happened to the doctrine of 'sola scriptura' where the Bible is the ultimate authority on all matters of faith and practice. I have seen it so many times. First someone uses a scriptural principle then any rebutals to it come in the form of 'I feel' or ... did u know that ' Martin Luther or whoever did this or that ?'. Historical testimony is fine in its place...but give me a break... lets begin 1st by refering 'To the law and to the testimony:' (Isaiah 8:20). I could care less what this person or that person did in worship throughout history... For we are not to'follow a multitude to do evil' (Exodus 23:2).When it comes to *God's worship* he will *tell us* what He wants. For He is the owner of such things. We'must worship Him in spirit and in truth'.(John 14:17) How could anyone think that God would be pleased with any worship that is based on lies. All across the world there are nativity scenes in the stable surrounded by animals with three wise men from the east bearing gifts. But Scripturally there: * is no inkeeper in the Bible, much less a kindly inkeeper who offered his stable for Joseph and Mary. * is never any indication the the Baby was in a stable * are no animals mentioned- anywhere. * are no wise men at the the birth of Christ ... they did not show up for almost 2 years after His birth ... and even then they visited them at a house. I'm sure we could find more lies ... but this should suffice to make my point. As far as celebrating the birth of Christ goes ... where does God ask for such a thing? If He actually desired such a thing ... would He not have given us warrant to do so? Leviticus 10:1 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he *commanded them not.* Jeremiah 10:2 'Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen' Do you not think that if God wanted us to worship Him in this manner ... He would have supplied us with ... LOL... at least the correct day. Not some Romish makeover of a pagan holyday! Jeremiah 10:3-4 For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not. Mark 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. Deuteronomy 12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. If any care what the Bible actually has to say on this matter. see : http://www.reformed.com/pub/xmas.htm Christmass www.reformed.com/pub/xmas.htm
Subject: Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch
From: Chris
To: Marrowman
Date Posted: Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 20:44:32 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Marrowman, Does the Bible also deal with Legalism, Touch not Taste not, Handle not. We are so concerned about our own Ideas and knowledge that we will miss the whole point of the Freedom we have in Christ and will end up in the Bondage of Mens own Standards or prefrences. But I for one wont serve Men though because of Love would rather be obedient to the Scriptures than to see one of my Brothers to offend and sin. Then i would have to give an account for it. We all again need to reflect on what is going on here. Now I do agree that there is alot of Verses in the Bible that deal with certain issues that we are dealing with, but why are we Judging one anothers motives and intentions and we dont even know each other. JOwen, Puritan, and Marrowman dont want to observe Christmas, that is fine and I admire you all for that, the rest of us dont have a problem with it, according to the Word of God, if they have such a problem with it then we should not Celebrate it at all as the world stands in their presence. And the same thing goes for anyone else within the local Churchs.(If it becomes an issue and cant be settled)
Subject: Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch
From: Pilgrim
To: Chris
Date Posted: Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 20:57:24 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Chris,
John Calvin was of the same mind when it came to the liberty which we have in Christ. And he was no Antinomian! :-) And he was imminently a man who knew and believed the Scriptures:
'The third part of this liberty is that we are not bound before God to any observance of external things which are in themselves indifferent, ('adiafora') but that we are now at full liberty either to use or omit them. The knowledge of this liberty is very necessary to us; where it is wanting our consciences will have no rest, there will be no end of superstition. In the present day many think us absurd in raising a question as to the free eating of flesh, the free use of dress and holidays, and similar frivolous trifles, as they think them; but they are of more importance than is commonly supposed. For when once the conscience is entangled in the net, it enters a long and inextricable labyrinth, from which it is afterwards most difficult to escape. When a man begins to doubt whether it is lawful for him to use linen for sheets, shirts, napkins, and handkerchiefs, he will not long be secure as to hemp, and will at last have doubts as to tow; for he will revolve in his mind whether he cannot sup without napkins, or dispense with handkerchiefs. Should he deem a daintier food unlawful, he will afterwards feel uneasy for using loafbread and common eatables, because he will think that his body might possibly be supported on a still meaner food. If he hesitates as to a more genial wine, he will scarcely drink the worst with a good conscience; at last he will not dare to touch water if more than usually sweet and pure. In fine, he will come to this, that he will deem it criminal to trample on a straw lying in his way. For it is no trivial dispute that is here commenced, the point in debate being, whether the use of this thing or that is in accordance with the divine will, which ought to take precedence of all our acts and counsels. Here some must by despair be hurried into an abyss, while others, despising God and casting off his fear, will not be able to make a way for themselves without ruin. When men are involved in such doubts whatever be the direction in which they turn, every thing they see must offend their conscience.' (BOOK III CHAPTER 19 SECTION 7)
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch
From: marrowman
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 21:49:31 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim wrote: Agreed ... but has was also no innovator of God's worship ethier. John Calvin was not condoning additions to God's worship as indifferent. Liberty in Christ is not liberty to sin.One of the aspects to having liberty in Christ is, no longer being bound by the types and shadows that point to Christ. Including those days that were appointed by God .... and were allowed for a brief transitional time (until the destruction of the temple in 70 AD). Here is a bit of what Calvin actually believed concerning men worshipping 'God according to their own fancies' '...which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart.' '...God here cuts off from men every occasion for making evasions, since he condemns by this one phrase, 'I have not commanded them,' whatever the Jews devised. There is then no other argument needed to condemn superstitions, than that they are not commanded by God: for when men allow themselves to worship God according to their own fancies, and attend not to his commands, they pervert true religion. And if this principle was adopted by the Papists, all those fictitious modes of worship, in which they absurdly exercise themselves, would fall to the ground. It is indeed a horrible thing for the Papists to seek to discharge their duties towards God by performing their own superstitions. There is an immense number of them, as it is well known, and as it manifestly appears. Were they to admit this principle, that we cannot rightly worship God except by obeying his word, they would be delivered from their deep abyss of error. The Prophet's words then are very important, when he says, that God had commanded no such thing, and that it never came to his mind; as though he had said, that men assume too much wisdom, when they devise what he never required, nay, what he never knew.' --John Calvin, Commentary on Jeremiah 7:31
Subject: Get a Job?
From: Pilgrim
To: marrowman
Date Posted: Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 08:56:49 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
marrowman,
Again, you are erecting some strange strawman and falsely accusing us of 'false worship'. Perhaps you are visually impaired? and therefore have missed how many times your contentions have been clearly denied? Or perhaps more likely, you are so ingrained and blinded by your personal prejudices and allegiances to 16th century issues that you can't comprehend the truth of this matter?
1) We are not conducting 'worship services' on December 25th! 2) We are not 'worshipping' the Lord Christ in a Roman state church mass. 3) We are not 'worshipping' the Lord Christ through symbols, e.g., lights, trees, etc. 4) We are not involved in O.T. idolatrous practices which your irrelevant quoting of passages would imply.
If you are so intent on wiping out the idolatrous practices to which you are so concerned, then may I seriously suggest you direct your venomous accusations toward those who are truly guilty of these things? ie., the Roman Catholic Church, of whom YOU recognize as a legitimate church! Personally, I don't recognize the RCC as a church at all! :-) And therefore, whatever they do is idolatrous and blasphemous as far as I am concerned. And/or you can picket those Protestant assemblies who do hold corporate worship services and set up trees as idols, through which they believe they can reach God. I think if you would do this, you wouldn't have much to do?? The bottom line is that whatever I do on December 25th is MY business and not YOURS! My private and silent contemplations, meditations and prayers to God are just that: PRIVATE and are not subject to yours or anyone else's false accusations. Nor am I subject to your Pharisaical impositions of what you or anyone else thinks is allowed on December 25th in my home nor what I choose to do outside my home, e.g., feeding the poor, visiting the infirmed, etc.
In the Freedom of Christ my LORD, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Get a Job?
From: Marrowman
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 14:41:11 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
If it is not a 'worship' day then what is it then? You say, 'whatever I do on December 25th is MY business and not YOURS!' This may be true sir but the issue is that a man was asked a question by RJ 'Please explain why you do not celebrate?'. A few of your 'ilk' postal on the man! Just for answering and explaining his convictions to someone who seem truly curious. I have found it quite common for those of your persuation to re-invent word definitions and facts to justify there unbiblical practices. So I would like to know your definition of 'worship' ? Websters dictionary uses these terms to define'worship': Worship- worthiness, honor, reverence, repute, or respect paid to a divine being, an act of expressing such reverence: to perform or take part in an act of worship. It can also mean an extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem. Hmmmmm.... so is it Christ or the day? You have not yet explained what this day is to you ... if it is not a worship day then, I ask again what is it? You are using this non-worship day defence to try and get out of have to defend you actions by scripture. So be it ... if not an act of worship then it is in vain ... it is mingling holy with unholy. ect Rudolph the Red Nosed Drunkard Rudolph the red nosed drunkard, had a very shiny nose and if you ever saw it, you'd say he's so drunk he glows! All of the pagan witches, used to go and do the same, Get drunk, indulge on Christmass, though it had another name! Then one Saturnalia eve, churches came to say, 'Woden, Yule, Tammuz you like? Just do it for Jesus Christ!' Then how the pagans loved them, and they shouted out hey wow! We'll keep our pagan worship, just offer it to Jesus now! Marrowman I would like to have a penny for everytime a Biblical principle has been defended in history and someone cries ' Pharisaical' or 'legalistic'
Subject: Re: Get a Job?
From: Marrowman
To: Marrowman
Date Posted: Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 15:11:28 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I know how difficult it is to persuade the world that God disapproves of all modes of worship not expressly sanctioned by His Word. The opposite persuasion which cleaves to them, being seated, as it were, in their very bones and marrow, is, that whatever they do has in itself a sufficient sanction, provided it exhibits some kind of zeal for the honor of God. But since God not only regards as frivolous, but also plainly abominates, whatever we undertake from zeal to His worship, if at variance with His command, what do we gain by a contrary course? The words of God are clear and distinct, 'Obedience is better than sacrifice.' 'In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men,' 1 Sam. 15:22; Matt. 15:9. Every addition of His word, especially in this matter, is a lie. Mere 'will worship' (ethelothreeskia) is vanity [Col. 2:23]. This is the decision, and when once the judge has decided, it is no longer time to debate. John Calvin (Calvin, Tracts, Vol. 1, pp. 128-29.) Deuteronomy 12:1-4: These are the statutes and judgments, which ye shall observe to do in the land, which the LORD God of thy fathers giveth thee to possess it, all the days that ye live upon the earth. Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree: And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place. Ye shall not do so unto the LORD your God. II Corinthians 6:16-18: And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. Acts 5:29: Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. Luke 16:15: That which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God. Deuteronomy 12:29-32: When the LORD thy God shall cut off the nations from before thee, whither thou goest to possess them, and thou succeedest them, and dwellest in their land; Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods. What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. I Corinthians 10:20: But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Hebrews 11:6: But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Romans 14:23: And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. Romans 10:2-3: For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. Matthew 15:1-9: ... But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? ... ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. Mark 7:6-9: ... in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. I Peter 1:18: Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers. Leviticus 10:1-3: And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not. And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD. Then Moses said unto Aaron, This is it that the LORD spake, saying, I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me, and before all the people I will be glorified. And Aaron held his peace. Deuteronomy 13: ... And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee. (v.5) Deuteronomy 17:1-5: ... if it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel: Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die. Colossians 2:18-23: Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God. Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men? Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh. I Samuel 15:22-23: And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king. I Kings 12:32-13:5: And Jeroboam ordained a feast in the eighth month, on the fifteenth day of the month, like unto the feast that is in Judah, and he offered upon the altar. So did he in Bethel, sacrificing unto the calves that he had made: and he placed in Bethel the priests of the high places which he had made. So he offered upon the altar which he had made in Bethel the fifteenth day of the eighth month, even in the month which he had devised of his own heart; and ordained a feast unto the children of Israel: and he offered upon the altar, and burnt incense.... Exodus 32:5-7: And when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation, and said, To morrow is a feast to the LORD. And they rose up early on the morrow, and offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play. And the LORD said unto Moses, Go, get thee down; for thy people, which thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves. Daniel 7:25: And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. II Thessalonians 2:3-10: Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.... Revelation 13:11-12: And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. Jeremiah 10:2-5: Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not. They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.
Subject: Re:JOwen, Puritan, Marrowman
From: chris
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 10:18:46 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Brethren, clearly by reading Pilgrims response this seems to have gone far enough. Out of Love and Respect I admonish you all to change the subject or stop insulting each other with what you are saying. This is not Christlike in any way shape or form. Please lets think of the interest of others in this matter and you all need to understand that we have no problem with Celebrating the Birth of Christ and you do. We shouldnt out of love do it around you nor talk about it in your presence if it is going to cause such contention. This is not a Fundemental of the faith and believe we are dealing with the Lack of Love, understanding and bordering Leagalism. Lets keep this in Prayer and remember each others feelings. Grace to you
Subject: Re: Re:JOwen, Puritan, Marrowman
From: Tom
To: chris
Date Posted: Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 18:15:26 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
Chris Thank you for that responce. I truly believe that if one is convinced scripturally that celebrating Christ's birth is sin. Then for them, it is definately a sin, for it would be done not of faith. Though I believe we should all seek to find out the truth of scripture and act on it. In the end, we are the one's responcible for our actions, not anyone else. It is very important for all of us to seek the objective truth of scripture. For scripture is not subjective, it is objective. However, each and everyone of us is at a different point in our Christian developement. For that reason, when disagreances like this come along. We should pray for each other. Doing otherwise, may be a sign of pride, for even the party who is correct biblically. God, is in control and knows how to teach and lead His children. I will end this by saying. Each and everyone of us, nomatter what our possition on this issue is. Should ask themselves, is our position truly one that we believe out of conviction from God? Or is it a possition that we take because it is the majority view, or the easiest to believe? Let us all seek to do the will of God out of love for the Lord. Not just out of a sence of duty. Tom
Subject: Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch
From: JOwen
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Thurs, Dec 28, 2000 at 15:51:03 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
“…your head's not screwed on quite right, your heart is two sizes too small…a Pharisee, a viper, hardened, arrogance..” Your words sting. Prestor John, you do not know me, or my station in life, my theological background, my conscience before my God, or my relationship with my saviour. Your words are disrespectful to say the least. I can investigate a theological position with a person who disagrees with me, but how do I defend against words such as these? You leave me at a loss for words Prestor John. To attack the person and not the argument is vicious and un-Christ like. I will not correspond with you any further until you apologize for these remarks. JOwen (Sinner ravaged by the converting power of the Holy Spirit) Father of Five (so far). Assc.D, B.Sc./Religion Masters Candidate in Theology/History Student Minister Associated Presbyterian Church of Scotland Vancouver, BC, Canada. (A little about myself).
Subject: On second thought...
From: Prestor John
To: JOwen
Date Posted: Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 09:34:20 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Mr. JOwens: On reflection my Seussian retort towards you was too intense for what you were saying. After all, it isn't like I haven't heard the same sentiment before, however wrong it may be. I ask for your forgiveness for my attacking of your character instead of your position, I can only say that my blood was hot at the time and it's passion ruled me. And I regret that, and so hope that you will find in your own heart the means of forgiveness. Prestor John Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxi culpa.
Subject: Re: On second thought...
From: JOwen
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 10:06:10 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Forgiveness free and sure brother. JOwen
Subject: Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch
From: Chris
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Thurs, Dec 28, 2000 at 08:17:28 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
You know JOwen I don't mind that you don't celebrate the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. Your loss, I've known a few of your ilk and they always appeared to be the happiest when cutting off their own nose to spite their face. See the point is this you could have look at my greeting and then said: 'Well another person going around with Merry Christmas on their lips bah humbug.' See you could have been like Scrooge keeping Christmas the way you do (or don't as the is case )and allowing us who have the pleasure of celebrating the holiday alone. However, you instead are of those that want to stop Christmas from coming at all. Now it maybe that your shoes are too tight or your head's not screwed on quite right, or that your heart is two sizes too small. Or perhaps, just perhaps its because you desperately want to out do your Puritan heroes. Prestor John, ''?????'' ''Love???'' Your post of explaining was great, but we could be dealing with a weaker brother. You instructing him is great, but name calling or whatever you were doing with what I copied above, well, is questionable? See the point is this you could have look at my greeting and then said: 'Well another person going around with Merry Christmas on their lips bah humbug.' See you could have been like Scrooge keeping Christmas the way you do (or don't as the is case )and allowing us who have the pleasure of celebrating the holiday alone. However, you instead are of those that want to stop Christmas from coming at all. Now it maybe that your shoes are too tight or your head's not screwed on quite right, or that your heart is two sizes too small. Or perhaps, just perhaps its because you desperately want to out do your Puritan heroes.
Subject: Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch
From: Prestor John
To: Chris
Date Posted: Thurs, Dec 28, 2000 at 10:25:30 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Chris: I know you mean well, and there is a time to speak soft words to persons who know no better, and there is a time to call a Pharisee a viper. I've called it as I have seen it. Believe me this isn't the first person who held to these concepts in regards to Christmas that I've talked to and I can distinguish between mere babes who have been confused and those hardened by their own arrogance. Prestor John Armchair theologian, curmudgeon and esperantist Servabo Fidem
Subject: Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch
From: Chris
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Thurs, Dec 28, 2000 at 19:20:25 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Prestor John, I appreciate your response to this matter but believe that you are wrong in your approach to JOwen. Its always encouraging to read I Corinthians chapter 13. We can have all the credentials that are offered and achieved in this life, but without Love its all in vain and for nothing. Please understand that as I write this, I am included with this comment. Grace to you as you deal with this situation. Also let me repeat myself that we All need to reflect on this and be persuaded in our own minds and look out for what is best of the weaker brethren in the faith. And if we dont agree, then we are not to Judge those who dont celebrate Christmas or those who do with a clear conscience. JOwen, I celebrate Christmas, but its the Savior that I celebrate and through it witness to the Lost about Christ. The Tree means nothing, the Lights mean nothing, the Presents mean nothing. Christ means everything. I will say this, I taught the Children in the Childrens Church about Christ being the Light of the World by using a Christmas tree, colored lights, white lights and a white lighted star. We can use what the world corrupts and make it a blessing to others. It seems that Satan can take all the blessings of our God and use them for the fleshly desires, so we can take what is implied as bad and use it for the Good. Right??? Anyway I hope this helps. By the way, Prestor John, i am just a common man, so please talk to me in comman language, it would be most appreciated:O) hehe!
Subject: Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch
From: Puritan
To: Chris
Date Posted: Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 04:42:43 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
<>< Pilgrim, PJ, It is quite sad to see the direction that this discussion is going. These are the words of Prestor john to Chris in response to the correction that was passed on by Chris; 'Chris, I know you mean well, and there is a time to speak soft words to persons who know no Better, and there is a time to call a Pharisee a viper.' 1. I don't think that Chris means well Prestor john, I think that he knows better. Christian maturity and Charity would tell us all that brothers should not conduct themselves in the manner that you have regarding this topic or any other for that matter. Considering passages like 1 Cor 13 before we speak is not 'well meaning' but rather wise. Not the thoughts of 'babes' but rather those that desire meat as it were. 2. When Christ addressed the Pharisees as being vipers he was in-fact calling them unbelievers. This is not complicated to prove either. Read the Gospel of John chapters 8-10. Christ called the Pharisees 'the children of the devil.' So why would I conclude that you have accused JOwen of being an unbeliever? Simply because you have used language that biblically speaking would indicate this. Sorry I am a simple man; I read what is before me and try to interpret it through the light of scripture. 3. Pilgrim, I am far less concerned about the celebration of the mass that has no bearing on salvation than I am in conducting myself in a Christ- like manner. If you would like to discuss the celebration of holy days I'm game. But lets move forward with the counsel that Chris has put fore us in the for-front of our minds. Christian charity first. Brotherly love before all. Lets do it in such a manner that when those visiting our discussion group witness what is happening they see Christ first. Finally, Pilgrim, JOwen has done a nice job in his brief post to give some historical/ theological background on the topic at hand. The responsibility lies with you to respond. I understand that you and many dear Christian folks like you try to separate the Christ from the pagan elements of the mass. My question to you is this; what liberty are we given in scripture to so? You say that this is not a holy day yet you openly admit that it is a day that you celebrate Christ in. Why? Please show me from scripture that we as Christians are given this kind of liberty with worship. I will in turn attempt to show you that we are in fact not given any such freedom in scripture. Chris, you write, 'It seems that Satan can take all the blessings of our God and use them for the fleshly desires, so we Can take what is implied as bad and use it for the Good. Right???' I am not so sure about this kind of reasoning. I am unclear as to what you are saying. What biblical principle would you be using for this type of approach to worshiping Christ? Curious…:^) Puritan
Subject: Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch
From: marrowman
To: Puritan
Date Posted: Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 19:20:30 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Wise words Puritan! What gets me is how they will not (or I should say cannot) defend thier practice from the Bible so the ad hominen starts to fly. They just don't seem to see that the onus is on them to prove that God has commanded ... or at they very least allowed this addition to worship. The actual birthday of Christ is hidden for the very same reason Moses' burial site was also hidden .... that it might not become an Idol. People turn vicious when you start to attack thier Idols. Romans 12:2 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 They respond in the same manner as the world does to the Gospel ... hmmmm. I have seen a few... to thier credit actually try to defend this and other such practices scripturally. They always ended up eventually in the antinomial camp trying to do so ... lol. 2 Timothy 3 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. Matthew 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. Marrowman Worship www.reformed.com/pub/
Subject: Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch
From: Pilgrim
To: marrowman
Date Posted: Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 20:38:49 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Marrowman,
Strange that you choose to defend a position that is forbidden in Scripture as has been shown by several here, including myself. I say 'strange' because it was this very type of Pharisaism and Legalism which sparked the Marrow Controversy; the adding of rules and regulations to the simple gospel truth by well-intentioned men of God. As the other two gentlemen have done, you too have erected a strawman ('worship') for easy destruction. But nowhere has anyone even hinted that the recognition of the Incarnation on a particular day; December 25th being that day, is a form of worship. Since I have asked the other two but have yet to receive a reply, I ask you also, 'Is the Regulative Principle (as you define it) to be applied to all of life or just to the corporate worship?' I would strongly suggest, that if are of the mindset to apply the principle; i.e., that nothing is to be done without a direct commandment of God, then life as we know it would cease!
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch
From: JOwen
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 22:16:53 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
To Pilgrim’s question on whether the RPW applies to all areas of life. This is a rather interesting question. The RPW does apply to all of life, because all of life is worship. There is no biblical evidence to support the idea that the Regulative Principle was only meant for public worship. In fact, the biblical evidence supports the opposite view. As you all know, Cain was condemned for a novelty in private worship (Gen. 4:2-8). Noah, in family worship, offered clean animals to God (Gen. 8:20-21). God was pleased and accepted Noah's offering on behalf of himself and his family. Abraham, Jacob and Job offered sacrifices to God in private or family worship, according to God's Word. God accepted these lawful offerings. The idea that innovations in worship are permitted in family and private worship is unbiblical; it is totally arbitrary because it does not have it’s root in Sola Scriptura. If an innovation in public worship displeases God, then how does it please Him in private worship? Would it not be permissible, under such premises, to have little shrines in our homes where we burn incense, wear surplices, miters and such, as long as we keep such things out of public meetings? There are some differences between public and private worship (e.g., private worship should occur two to three times a day, whereas public worship should occur at least once every Lord's day.) People in Reformed denominations who brought in unbiblical innovations such as Christmas, women teaching the Bible and theology to men in Bible studies and Sunday school, hymns and Christmas carols, etc., did not seek to justify these new innovations by appealing to Scripture. Instead, they arbitrarily set these activities outside of the Regulative Principle by pronouncing them all as under the sphere of private worship. How is a woman teaching several men on the Sabbath private? How are fifty people singing Christmas carols engaging in private worship? Do not presuppose that God permits innovation and human autonomy in private worship. Try to prove it from the Word of God. You cannot. Do not arbitrarily declare what is obviously public worship as private. The rabbis of old justified all sorts of nonsense with such reasoning. In my mind the question is not if the RPW applies to private worship, but rather brothers, how it is applied. I know that Pilgrim will now bring up many circumstances where he believes someone like myself will find it hard or maybe impossible to obey or find divine command for said actions. So be it. We will cross that bridge when we get there. But before we go down that long road I believe it is imperative that we establish the biblical warrant for such. In other words, do we all agree on the RPW? If so, practice will be a natural outflow of the principle. Having said this, I believe that even my good friend Pilgrim will find “another definition” for the Regulative Principle of Worship, than is stated in our Confession(s). This I’m afraid will be the all too deep breach in terminology, and, entering stage left…innovation. Apart from a cohesive definition of the RPW, a dialogue concerning it will prove to be utterly fruitless. The RPW is as much a divine injunction as the 10 commandments. Are the 10 commandments public only? Are they private only? Then I ask you, is the Regulative Principle of Worship not a natural subcommand flowing from the second commandment? If it is, it applies to all of life. I wont be able to respond to you until Monday as I am preaching tomorrow. Good night brothers, and may the Lord give you all a wonderful Sabbath rest. JOwen P.S Pilgrim, before you jump on Marrowman on the subject of legalism please remember that each and EVERY one of the Marrowmen would detest Christmas ans sing Exclusive Psalmody. Again your analogy is wanting. :-)
Subject: Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch
From: Marrowman
To: JOwen
Date Posted: Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 22:42:41 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
[Pilgrim, before you jump on Marrowman on the subject of legalism please remember that each and EVERY one of the Marrowmen would detest Christmas ans sing Exclusive Psalmody. Again your analogy is wanting. :-)] TY JOwen I'm not so sure that any further discussion with these men is even worth it.They will not prove thier practice by Scripture ... they instead resort to attempting some type of logical acrobatica ... and name calling. They are masters at dodging the questions posed. Answer a question with a question at all times especially when you can take the heat off and not answer a direct question seems to be the mentality. What is so hard about it? ... All I want to know is.. Can you prove that God approves of your Christmass worship? If it is not worship, then what is it? If it is just a civil holiday ... then it is vain and blasphemous. If a day of worship as in 'Christ being the reason 4 the season' then we must have proof that God approves. Marrowman
Subject: Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch
From: chris
To: Puritan
Date Posted: Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 16:27:05 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Puritan, My line of reasoning is that Satan takes what is Good and can be used as Good and turns it into things used to satisfy the Sinful Flesh. Like for example, Christmas, Easter, Music(instruments, Guitar, drums, etc.) TV, Computers, and on and on. Why cant we use these for Good and to Glorify God. If the Main purpose of Christmas and Easter to Christians is to Celebrate the Birth, Death, and Ressurection of Christ and to Preach the Gospel as we Celebrate, then arent we fulfilling the Great Commission, though I do stress the Importance that we do this everday, not just two set dates out of the year. My only point is that it can be used for the Good and that is what is important. Also thanks for your support on what I was saying and trying to do, this part of the reason I really dont like coming to these boards. But through it all they can be quite informative and encouraging:O)
Subject: Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch
From: Marrowman
To: chris
Date Posted: Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 19:30:42 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
But should we'do evil that good may come'? Romans 3:8 Marrowman
Subject: Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch
From: Tom
To: Marrowman
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 01, 2001 at 00:55:44 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
How is celebrating God's coming to earth as a human, evil? It was an act along with His death and reserection, that secured salvation for His elect. The way I see it, although we should be greatful every day, as long as our focus is on the Lord, there is nothing wrong with celebrating His coming to earth on a set day. However, like I said in another post, if it is not done out of faith, it is a sin. Tom
Subject: Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch
From: marrowman
To: Tom
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 01, 2001 at 01:28:54 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
How is celebrating God's coming to earth as a human, evil? It was an act along with His death and reserection, that secured salvation for His elect. The way I see it, although we should be greatful every day, as long as our focus is on the Lord, there is nothing wrong with celebrating His coming to earth on a set day. However, like I said in another post, if it is not done out of faith, it is a sin. Tom
---
Too bad you did not read all the posts ... lol ... you would see why. If your still think that after readin them maybe you could answer the questions no one else will
Subject: Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch
From: Marrowman
To: marrowman
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 01, 2001 at 03:47:35 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
The London Confession, article 7 (1644), says, “The Rule of this Knowledge, Faith, and Obedience, concerning the worship and service of God, and all other Christian duties, is not man’s inventions, opinions, devices, lawes, constitutions, or traditions unwritten whatsoever, but only the word of God contained in the Canonicall Scriptures.”
Subject: Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch
From: Marrowman
To: marrowman
Date Posted: Mon, Jan 01, 2001 at 03:19:00 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
BTW no one said that 'celebrating God's coming to earth' is evil we celebrate that everyday and especially every Lord's Day. You have missed the whole point ... Which is: God is to be worshiped in the manner in which He directs .... not in the way that we invent. Q50: What is required in the Second Commandment? A50: The Second Commandment requireth the receiving, observing, and keeping pure and entire, all such religious worship and ordinances as God hath appointed in His Word. Q51: What is forbidden in the Second Commandment? A51: The Second Commandment forbiddeth the worshipping of God by images, or any other way not appointed in His Word.
---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---
The Heidelberg Catechism Q96: What does God require in the second Commandment? A96: That we in no way make any image of God,[1] nor worship Him in any other way than He has commanded us in His Word.[2] 1. Deut. 4:15-19; Isa. 40:18, 25; Rom. 1:22-24; Acts 17:29 2. I Sam. 15:23; Deut. 4:23-24; 12:30-32; Matt. 15:9; John 4:24
---

---

---

---
-- The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXI Of Religious Worship, and the Sabbath Day But the acceptable way of worshiping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshiped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture.[2] 1. Rom. 1:20; Psa. 19:1-4a; 50:6; 86:8-10; 89:5-7; 95:1-6; 97:6; 104:1-35; 145:9-12; Acts 14:17; Deut. 6:4-5 2. Deut. 4:15-20; 12:32; Matt. 4:9-10; 15:9; Acts 17:23-25; Exod. 20:4-6, John 4:23-24; Col. 2:18-23
---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---
- The Belgic Confession of Faith, Article VII The Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures to Be the Only Rule of Faith ..... For since the *whole manner of worship which God requires* of us is written in them at large, it is unlawful for any one, though an apostle, to teach otherwise than we are now taught in the Holy Scriptures: nay, though it were an angel from heaven, as the apostle Paul says. For since it is forbidden to add unto or take away anything from the Word of God, it does thereby evidently appear that the doctrine thereof is most perfect and complete in all respects.
---

---

---

---

---

---

---
- The Second Helvetic Confession - Chapter V Of the Adoration, Worship and Invocation of God Through the Only Mediator Jesus Christ But we teach that God is to be adored and worshipped as he himself has taught us to worship, namely, in spirit and in truth (John 4:23 f.), not with any superstition, but with sincerity, according to his Word; lest at any time he should say to us: Who has required these things from your hands? (Isa. 1:12; Jer. 6:20). For Paul also says: God is not served by human hands, as though he needed anything, etc. (Acts 17:25).
Subject: Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch
From: Pilgrim
To: Marrowman
Date Posted: Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 20:50:58 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Marrowman,
But it seems that your presupposition is that recognizing the Incarnation of Christ is an 'evil' thing? Is decorating one's house with brightly colored lights and 'evil' thing? I giving gifts to the poor and 'evil' thing? etc. Using your own position, that we shouldn't rest in tradition or any other authority other than Scripture, where in Scripture is the idolatrous practices of Roman conjoined to a tree so that the tree becomes 'evil'? Where is this sovereign authority and power which you want to ascribe to Rome to demonize whatever they say and/or do so that it becomes 'inherently evil'? I find nothing in the Scriptures that even remotely speaks to this 'evil'!! By giving credence to what Rome has done and then saying that such things are binding is hypocritical and contradictory. Meat offered to idols is untainted and worthy of consumption. We care not about what Rome has declared or done, for they have no power to change the inherent goodness or purity of anything and magically transform it into something 'evil'! This sounds more like superstition than biblical wisdom!
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch
From: JOwen
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 22:28:50 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim said to Marrowman: 'But it seems that your presupposition is that recognizing the Incarnation of Christ is an 'evil' thing?' Pilgrim, not only is this statement inflamitory(because Marrowman never said that recognizing the incarnation was 'evil') but it is nonsensical for any believer to say such. God gave the church 52 Holy Days on which to celebrate his incarnation...it's called Sunday. Kind regards, JOwen
Subject: Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch
From: Chris
To: Marrowman
Date Posted: Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 20:31:58 (PST)
Email Address: CEvanglst4@aol.com

Message:
Marrowman, Good Verse of Scripture, but that is not what I am saying here. Is it evil to celebrate Christmas(Christian Celebration of the Messiah), Easter(Christian Celebration of the Ressurection, is it evil to listen to Christian Music with instruments including Electric Guitars and Drums, etc. Is it evil to watch TV, Roam the Internet, etc.? We know full well how the Devil and Man in his fallen nature distorts all of Gods blessings to Mankind and uses it for the sinful flesh. All I am saying is that it is not wrong to Celebrate Christmas, easter or anything that is done in Faith of the Lord Jesus and a Clean Conscience. The Lord will be my ultimate Judge and what I do and why:O) Grace to you
Subject: Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch
From: Pilgrim
To: Puritan
Date Posted: Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 08:32:23 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Puritan,
The reasoning given by you and JOwen is spurious as it attempts to join inseparably what some 'flesh' decided to invent hundreds of years ago and impose this unholy union upon the day itself and those who choose to recognize it. Secondly, the onus is upon you I am afraid, as the incarnation of Christ is clearly mentioned in Scripture. And I seriously doubt that no one ever spent time contemplating that great and marvellous day until some Roman pontiff decided to make it some 'holy day'! Again, the issue here is whether or not individual Christians have the biblical right to give recognition to certain events or days concerning the person of God and His redemptive work. A goodly portion of the Psalms are illustrative of this practice from early on. This has nothing to do with Corporate Worship and the church 'sanctifying' a particular day which is obligatory upon its members to keep according to a specific manner. This is clearly Christian Liberty and weak brothers trying to impose Pharisaical rules and regulations upon those who are strong. So be it. Again, if you truly hold that if God has not commanded the recognition/celebration of the Incarnation of Christ, and thus it is not to be done, then how far are you willing to carry this maxim; i.e., no Christian is to do anything which is not commanded in the Scriptures? Is it 'unlawful' [which is sin] to set aside a portion of a day during the year and contemplate and meditate on specific events in the life of Christ, e.g., the crucifixion and resurrection? the ascension? Pentecost? etc.? And in doing so giving thanks to God for His unspeakable grace and mercy shown to him? If I celebrate my own birthday, which is nothing more than a recognition of my insignificant birth compared to the Incarnation of the Son of God, then how is giving reverent recognition to His birth sinful? Perhaps I shouldn't celebrate my birthdays either, since God hasn't commanded me to do so? Of course, that would be fine as my age grows on... :-).
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch
From: Marrowman
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 19:24:46 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Perhaps I shouldn't celebrate my birthdays either, since God hasn't commanded me to do so? Of course, that would be fine as my age grows on... :-). Ya don't fall down and break a hip ... lol (or a rib) Marrowman
Subject: Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch
From: puritan
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Thurs, Dec 28, 2000 at 16:57:22 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Dear Brothers, I for one share in in JOwen's sentiments regard ing the celebration of the Mass. Prestor John, You have essentailly called this man an unbeliever. Do you realize the gravity of this charge? you have called one that Christ died for a child of the devil. I have known JOwen for sometime now and hav witnessed his love for Christ and his family. Praying for you, Pruitan.
Subject: Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch
From: Pilgrim
To: puritan
Date Posted: Thurs, Dec 28, 2000 at 21:22:49 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
puritan,
Unfortunately it appears that the responsibility rests upon me to inform you that Prestor John in no wise even implied that JOwen was an unbeliever. This I can personally testify to. :-) Secondly, there has been no mention of a 'celebration of the Mass'. From this statement it would seem that you want to attach the Roman state church's abominable practices to the recognition of this singular day called 'Christmas'. Whereupon, the onus is upon you to show the inherent evil of this particular day and more so of those who desire to contemplate the incarnation of the Lord Christ. I have heard myriad and similar polemical babble concerning all sorts of things. One of them stands out vividly in my aging mind.. LOL. I was told once that card playing of any kind is evil! The reasoning went something like: 'The faces on the cards were representative of the Pope, the Devil, etc.' and to use these evil devices for entertainment is to entertain the Devil himself. Doubtless, the church is full of people who hold to 'weak' views and some try to impose and or judge those who are 'strong' in the faith. I for one have no smiting of the conscience in 'eating meat offered to idols' knowing full well, that 'all things are pure', which God has created for my use. There has been absolute no mention in this brief thread of any CHURCH making December 25th a 'holy day' and imposed its observation upon its members. Thus there is no 'official' corporate worship which is based upon this day. Secondly, I don't recall reading anyone saying that they participated in anything 'worldly' on this day either? The pagans who perhaps introduced the idea of a tree don't have a 'market' on that idea. I have known several families who actually have a tree growing inside their homes. Decorating a tree with lights is not inherently evil either; one's imposed significance just might be however. The bottom line here it seems is that you would like to impose and apply the Regulative Principle of Worship upon all of life. If you really want to do that, then I think life itself would be verily impossible, for there is little to be found in God's Word concerning direct and specific commandments to do 99% of what I do from day to day. It's your turn.... :-)!! In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch
From: JOwen
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 10:04:08 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I think it is sad and unfortunate that men like Prestor John and now Pilgrim are tossing about viper, Pharisee, and pharisaical, especially my close friend Pilgrim (who has sadly called me that to my face on a few occasions). I do not understand why mature men can’t engage each other without mudslinging or calling names. If indeed I am the weaker brother, it behooves a rebuke to men such as these that abuse the weak with foul language that clearly was intended for hardened unbelievers. Puritan is quite right in his short exposition on the word “viper”, and to use the words Pharisee (Prestor John ), and Pharisaical (Pilgrim), are strong words reserved for unbelievers and should not be in the vocabulary of intramural debate. This discussion seems like it could be less reactive, more civil. I am inclined to defer any real debate on this subject because it is clear at the very outset, after one short post on the subject, it should warrant the very strongest language used by the Holy Spirit in scripture...and against brothers in Christ, this is unheard of in scripture. The reaction that I have drawn from a simple historical/theological post was pure emotionalism, and clearly is a subject better left alone. “A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger.” The weaker brother, JOwen
Subject: Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch
From: Pilgrim
To: JOwen
Date Posted: Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 13:45:08 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
JOwen,
I believe the phrase 'Pharisaical' is more than justified in this discussion. It has no inherent meaning of 'unbelieving', but rather it is used in contemporary discussions to refer to the act of adding to or subtracting from God's law and making such binding upon the consciences of men where God never did so. It's an adjectival expression and not a name! Indeed Pharisaism and its older brother Legalism are natural tendencies of the human heart which all men are subject to. As you know, the Marrow Controversy was generated from the Pharisaism and even Legalism of well-intentioned Presbyterian brethren. Like Sola Fide (Justification by Faith alone), which Martin Luther considered to be a 'razor blades edge' which men have a tendency to fall off from, so is Christian Liberty. One can fall into the error of accumulating rules of that speak of 'don't eat, touch, or celebrate days' and/or you must 'eat, touch or celebrate days'. The Westminster Confession of Faith says it all to well:
The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XX Of Christian Liberty, and Liberty of Conscience
I. The liberty which Christ hath purchased for believers under the gospel consists in their freedom from the guilt of sin, the condemning wrath of God, the curse of the moral law;[1] and, in their being delivered from this present evil world, bondage to Satan, and dominion of sin;[2] from the evil of afflictions, the sting of death, the victory of the grave, and everlasting damnation;[3] as also, in their free access to God,[4] and their yielding obedience unto him, not out of slavish fear, but a childlike love and willing mind.[5] All which were common also to believers under the law.[6] But, under the new testament, the liberty of Christians is further enlarged, in their freedom from the yoke of the ceremonial law, to which the Jewish church was subjected;[7] and in greater boldness of access to the throne of grace,[8] and in fuller communications of the free Spirit of God, than believers under the law did ordinarily partake of.[9] 1. Titus 2:14; I Thess. 1:10; Gal. 3:13 2. Gal. 1:4; Col. 1:13; Acts 26:18; Rom. 6:14 3. Rom. 8:28; Psa. 119:71; II Cor. 4:15-18; I Cor. 15:54-57; Rom. 5:9; 8:1; I Thess. 1:10 4. Rom. 5:1-2 5. Rom. 8:14-15; Gal. 4:6; I John 4:18 6. Gal. 3:8-9, 14; Rom. 4:6-8; I Cor. 10:3-4; Heb. 11:1-40 7. Gal. 4:1-7; 5:1; Acts 15:10-11 8. Heb. 4:14-16; 10:19-22 9. John 7:38-39; Acts 2:17-18; II Cor. 3:8, 13, 17-18; Jer. 31:31-34 II. God alone is Lord of the conscience,[10] and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to his Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship.[11] So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience:[12] and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.[13] 10. James 4:12; Rom. 14:4, 10; I Cor. 10:29 11. Acts 4:19, 5:29; I Cor. 7:22-23; Matt. 15:1-6, 9; 23:8-10; II Cor. 1:24 12. Col. 2:20-23; Gal. 1:10; 2:4-5; 4:9-10; 5:1 13. Rom. 10:17; Isa. 8:20; Acts 17:11; John 4:22; Rev. 13:12, 16-17; Jer. 8:9; I Peter 3:15 III. They who, upon pretense of Christian liberty, do practice any sin, or cherish any lust, do thereby destroy the end of Christian liberty, which is, that being delivered out of the hands of our enemies, we might serve the Lord without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.[14] 14. Gal. 5:13; I Peter 2:16; II Peter 2:19; Rom. 6:15; John 8:34; Luke 1:74-75 IV. And because the powers which God hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another, they who, upon pretense of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God.[15] And, for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity (whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation), or to the power of godliness; or, such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the church, they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against, by the censures of the church.[16] [and by the power of the civil magistrate.] 15. I Peter 2:13-14, 16; Rom. 13:1-8; Heb. 13:17; I Thess. 5:12-13 16. Rom. 1:32; 16:17; I Cor. 5:1, 5, 11-13; II John 1:10-11; II Thess. 3:6, 14; I Tim. 1:19-20; 6:3-4; Titus 1:10-11, 13-14; 3:10; Matt. 18:15-17; Rev. 2:2, 14-15, 20
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch
From: JOwen
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 16:04:28 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim,
I am getting tired of the “Liberty of Conscience” phrase being used in reference to this subject so let me comment on…
One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it' (Rom. 14:5-6).
1. Paul, in his epistle to the Romans, was addressing a situation unique to the early church. There were Jewish believers who 'regarded the holy days of the ceremonial economy as having abiding sanctity.' The 'days' spoken of in Romans were days commanded by God in the old economy. Paul is 'referring to the ceremonial holy days of the Levitical institution.' Virtually all commentators concur with this interpretation. Paul allows for diversity in the church over the issue of Jewish holy days because of the unique historical circumstances. When Jesus Christ died on the cross, the ceremonial aspects of the law (e.g., animal sacrifices, Jewish holy days, circumcision, etc.) were done away with. Yet prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in A.D. 70, the apostles allowed certain practices by Jewish Christians as long as no works-righteousness was attributed to these practices. In Acts 21:26, we even encounter the apostle Paul going to the Temple 'to announce the expiration of the days of purification.' Jewish believers who were already accustomed to keeping certain holy days of the Mosaic economy were allowed to continue doing so for a time. But once the Temple was destroyed, the canon of Scripture was completed, and the church had existed for a whole generation, these unique historical circumstances ceased. And even if this passage were still applicable to our present situation, it could not be used to justify Christmas, because these days were not 'Christianized' pagan holy days nor arbitrary holy days set up by man. Therefore, if this passage were still applicable to our situation, it could only be used to justify the private celebration of Jewish holy days by weak Jewish believers. It cannot be used as a justification for man-made days or pagan days which God has not commanded.
2. Not only does this passage not allow Christians to celebrate Christmas, it most certainly forbids holding Christmas services of any kind and having Christmas fellowships or parties. Paul allows for diversity in the church over this issue (i.e., Jewish holy days). Both parties are to accept each other for the sake of peace and unity in the church. Both parties believe that they are obeying the Word of God. 'Compelled conformity or pressure exerted to the end of securing conformity defeats the aims to which all the exhortations and reproofs are directed.' Therefore, it would be wrong for the weak Jewish believers to force the church to have a worship service in honor of a ceremonial holy day, because the strong Gentile believers would feel compelled to attend the public worship of God. Therefore, those who did celebrate Jewish holy days had to do it privately unto the Lord. Those who use this passage to justify celebrating Christmas would likewise be forced by Paul's injunction to keep the day a private affair. Thus, Christmas services and church Christmas parties would cease, for they violate the freedom of Christians not to celebrate such a day. Of course, Christmas, not being commanded by God and being a monument to idolatry, is forbidden, anyway.
3. We all know that the Westminster Confession of Faith on the Chapter concerning liberty of Conscience never intended this liberty to extend to Roman Catholic Holy Days.
“That all days that heretofore have been kept holy, besides the Sabbath days, such as Yule [Christ-mass] day, Saint's days, and such others, may be abolished, and a civil penalty against the keepers thereof by ceremonies, banqueting, fasting, and such other vanities. --General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, Articles to be Presented to my Lord Regent's Grace.”
“Festival days, vulgarly called holy-days, having no warrant in the Word of God, are not to be continued. --Westminster Assembly, Directory for Publick Worship” (1645).
“The General Assembly taking to their consideration the manifold abuses, profanity, and superstitions, committed on Yule-day [Christ-mass] and some other superstitious days following, have unanimously concluded and hereby ordains, that whatsoever person or persons hereafter shall be found guilty in keeping of the foresaid superstitious days, shall be proceeded against by Kirk censures, and shall make their public repentance therefore in the face of the congregation where the offence is committed. And that the presbyteries and provincial synods take particular notice how ministers try and censure delinquents of this kind, within the several parishes. --General Assembly, Church of Scotland, Act for Censuring Observers of Yule-day, and other Superstitious days (1645).”
I would suggest that in the future Pilgrim, if you would like to use subordinate standards to support your position, see if it really does support your position. The engagement of the 25th to the authors who drafted and accepted the chapter on Liberty of Conscience unanimously disagree with your stated use of the chapter.

Kind regards, JOwen P.S Your use of the word pharisaical may mean something different to you Pilgrim, but the scriptures are clear as to what the word really means.
Subject: Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch
From: Pilgrim
To: JOwen
Date Posted: Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 01:50:29 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
JOwen,
Your supporting material is irrelevant! I for one do not 'celebrate' that which was prevalent during the 1600's when the writers of the WCF sought to end the practice by Presbyterian laymen etc. What the Catholic church did or did not do is totally alien to my thoughts and practices. And, again, I am not subject to any human authority, no matter how good their intentions might be, when my conscience is free for there is clearly no violation of Scripture in my recognition of the Incarnation of Christ. This is sheer Pharisaism, clear and simple. The phrase is apropos in this situation to be sure, although it stings those who are guilty of it, which may be a good sign indeed. Without doubt, your rigorous application of the Regulative Principle, although you said it was to be set aside, is the primary basis for your objections. It runs like a scarlet thread through your replies. :-) I for one, along with countless others, believe that it is a misapplication of the Regulative Principle, no less than the Exclusive Psalmody issue is a misapplication as well. Accusing me and myriad others of 'idolatrous' practices hardly qualifies as a non-judgmental assessment of those who choose to set one day of the year aside to meditate on the Incarnation of Christ. Pagans invented Halloween, but on that same day I celebrate the Protestant Reformation. All the foolishness and wickedness that is associated with October 31st has no bearing upon what I do on that day whatsoever. And so on Christmas day, all the pagan practices and superstitions which have been devised by men throughout the years has no bearing whatsoever upon me or any other Christian who chooses to set their hearts of the Son of God's Incarnation as God's true gift to a perishing world. Your disdain for all those who 'celebrate' Christmas is more than similar to the excommunication of an innocent Christian man who attended the Roman Catholic funeral of his friend. :-) If giving recognition and thanksgiving to God for the coming of Christ on December 25th is idolatry (according to you and those who are 'more Reformed'), then I'm guilty! And if I'm truly guilty of idolatry, I will surely perish! Now THAT'S biblical! (1Cor 6:9)
Rom 14:4 'Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. 5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. 6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. 7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. 8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's. 9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.'
Free in Christ, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch
From: Marrowman
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 19:46:45 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi all, this is a repost it belong here instead ...lol The trouble with this kind of reasoning , is there nothing biblical in it. What ever happened to the doctrine of 'sola scriptura' where the Bible is the ultimate authority on all matters of faith and practice. I have seen it so many times. First someone uses a scriptural principle then any rebutals to it come in the form of 'I feel' or ... did u know that ' Martin Luther or whoever did this or that ?'. Historical testimony is fine in its place...but give me a break... lets begin 1st by refering 'To the law and to the testimony:' (Isaiah 8:20). I could care less what this person or that person did in worship throughout history... For we are not to'follow a multitude to do evil' (Exodus 23:2).When it comes to *God's worship* he will *tell us* what He wants. For He is the owner of such things. We'must worship Him in spirit and in truth'.(John 14:17) How could anyone think that God would be pleased with any worship that is based on lies. All across the world there are nativity scenes in the stable surrounded by animals with three wise men from the east bearing gifts. But Scripturally there: * is no inkeeper in the Bible, much less a kindly inkeeper who offered his stable for Joseph and Mary. * is never any indication the the Baby was in a stable * are no animals mentioned- anywhere. * are no wise men at the the birth of Christ ... they did not show up for almost 2 years after His birth ... and even then they visited them at a house. I'm sure we could find more lies ... but this should suffice to make my point. As far as celebrating the birth of Christ goes ... where does God ask for such a thing? If He actually desired such a thing ... would He not have given us warrant to do so? Leviticus 10:1 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he *commanded them not.* Jeremiah 10:2 'Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen' Do you not think that if God wanted us to worship Him in this manner ... He would have supplied us with ... LOL... at least the correct day. Not some Romish makeover of a pagan holyday! Jeremiah 10:3-4 For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not. Mark 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. Deuteronomy 12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. If any care what the Bible actually has to say on this matter. see : http://www.reformed.com/pub/xmas.htm
Subject: Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch
From: JOwen
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 13:14:56 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim, You said: “Your supporting material is irrelevant!” Well if that is the game we are playing, to simply pass off the other brother’s arguments as irrelevant, then your supporting material is irrelevant too! There, now we can all move on to the next topic. We would all agree, I’m sure, that this kind of language is not conducive to healthy debate. To say my supporting material is irrelevant says nothing at all to the argument at hand. Pilgrim YOU used a 17th century document (Westminster Confession of Faith) as support for your position…fair enough. I simply responded by using the underlying constructional and theological understanding of the same 17th century document you quoted, in the authors’ own words. And you call it irrelevant. That is just plain double talk. Pilgrim you said: “This is sheer Pharisaism, clear and simple.” There is that word again Pilgrim. As a friend I have asked you to refrain from such harsh language against a brother and you continue not to head the rebuke. I will ask you again not to refer to myself, or Puritan as such. We are blood bought children of God who are weak, frail, and perhaps even mistaken as to our position on the present topic. This however does not warrant such language by a senior brother in Christ. It is simply inflammatory. FYI according to the Webster’s Dictionary (the scriptures do not define this word) the name you keep calling me is defined as: “Ridged observance of external forms of religion without genuine piety; hypocrisy in religion”. I am genuinely not sure if you understand what you are calling me, or if you actually believe that this definition describes my character. Pilgrim you said: “I for one, along with countless others, believe that it is a misapplication of the Regulative Principle, no less than the Exclusive Psalmody issue is a misapplication as well.” Pilgrim, we have discussed the RPW multiple times, and if you actually believe that this issue is (in principle) as Exclusive Psalmody then I heartily welcome further debate for the following reason. I have observed your attack on Exclusive Psalmody and it is based on your personal redefining of words such as hymn and psalm to suit your own definition. As well you have already admitted to me that you have NO divine injunction for what you call a hymn in the New Testament. Your position, at the end of the day leaves you without a Regulative Principle position of your own (this at your own admission). You then asserted at the conclusion of our discussion that you were not a polemicists on the RPW, and therefore could not adequately defend your position. I wonder if I was to push you on this subject if we might not find the same result? Pilgrim you said: “Your disdain for all those who 'celebrate' Christmas is more than similar to the excommunication of an innocent Christian man who attended the Roman Catholic funeral of his friend. :-)” First of all I never used the word distain for anyone who celebrates the Christmas so please do not put words in my mouth. We all have abiding sin in our lives Pilgrim and elongated discussion with the scriptures set before us is a fine way for the Holy Spirit to show us our error. And I am very willing to see the error of my ways on this subject. Second, to use the Lord Mackay event in comparison with the celebration of Christmas is a misapplication of Christian Liberty dear friend. Lord Mackay “found” himself in attendance at mass by virtue of a friend and colleague dying. He detested the procedure and never believed for one moment in the idolatry that was set before him by circumstance was real or inward. If Lord Mackay had attended Mass for his own edification and enjoyment then he would be guilty. But certainly not for “finding” himself there under strange circumstances. Pilgrim this is an improper analogy. And finally lets put the scripture you quoted in context shall we? Rom 14:4 'Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. 5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. 6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. 7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. 8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's. 9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.' 1. Paul, in his epistle to the Romans, was addressing a situation unique to the early church. There were Jewish believers who 'regarded the holy days of the ceremonial economy as having abiding sanctity.' The 'days' spoken of in Romans were days commanded by God in the old economy. Paul is 'referring to the ceremonial holy days of the Levitical institution.' Virtually all commentators concur with this interpretation. Paul allows for diversity in the church over the issue of Jewish holy days because of the unique historical circumstances. When Jesus Christ died on the cross, the ceremonial aspects of the law (e.g., animal sacrifices, Jewish holy days, circumcision, etc.) were done away with. Yet prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in A.D. 70, the apostles allowed certain practices by Jewish Christians as long as no works-righteousness was attributed to these practices. In Acts 21:26, we even encounter the apostle Paul going to the Temple 'to announce the expiration of the days of purification.' Jewish believers who were already accustomed to keeping certain holy days of the Mosaic economy were allowed to continue doing so for a time. But once the Temple was destroyed, the canon of Scripture was completed, and the church had existed for a whole generation, these unique historical circumstances ceased. And even if this passage were still applicable to our present situation, it could not be used to justify Christmas, because these days were not 'Christianized' pagan holy days nor arbitrary holy days set up by man. Therefore, if this passage were still applicable to our situation, it could only be used to justify the private celebration of Jewish holy days by weak Jewish believers. It cannot be used as a justification for man-made days or pagan days which God has not commanded. 2. Not only does this passage not allow Christians to celebrate Christmas, it most certainly forbids holding Christmas services of any kind and having Christmas fellowships or parties. Paul allows for diversity in the church over this issue (i.e., Jewish holy days). Both parties are to accept each other for the sake of peace and unity in the church. Both parties believe that they are obeying the Word of God. 'Compelled conformity or pressure exerted to the end of securing conformity defeats the aims to which all the exhortations and reproofs are directed.' Therefore, it would be wrong for the weak Jewish believers to force the church to have a worship service in honor of a ceremonial holy day, because the strong Gentile believers would feel compelled to attend the public worship of God. Therefore, those who did celebrate Jewish holy days had to do it privately unto the Lord. Those who use this passage to justify celebrating Christmas would likewise be forced by Paul's injunction to keep the day a private affair. Thus, Christmas services and church Christmas parties would cease, for they violate the freedom of Christians not to celebrate such a day. Of course, Christmas, not being commanded by God and being a monument to idolatry, is forbidden, anyway. Pilgrim your conscience is not the final court of arbitration. That Supreme Court belongs to the scripture alone. III. They who, upon pretense of Christian liberty, do practice any sin, or cherish any lust, do thereby destroy the end of Christian liberty, which is, that being delivered out of the hands of our enemies, we might serve the Lord without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life (WCF Chapter 20:3). A bond servant to Christ, JOwen
Subject: One Last Attempt!
From: Pilgrim
To: JOwen
Date Posted: Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 21:24:07 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
JOwen,
Since it appears that all attempts to show you that your insistence that all those who choose to set aside a particular day (December 25th) to give a more focused attention to the Incarnation and birth of our LORD Jesus Christ is 'idolatrous worship' is erroneous (in fact nothing more than sophism), I will try another approach. Taking your own premise, 'it is impossible to separate the intent from the thing itself', one must wonder how you would deal with the inevitable dilemma when December 25th falls on Sunday, the Lord's Sabbath? Do you therefore abstain from any form of worship? since that particular day has been made 'evil' by an arbitrary declaration from an apostate individual in the Roman state church hundreds of years ago? Do you strive to keep all thoughts of Christ out of your mind and thus prevent yourself from 'pollution' in participating in that 'evil' day? Further, taking this 'principle' which is of your own choosing, and applying it consistently (which I find nowhere in God's Word); the intent is inseparable from the thing itself, What is your solution to this same dilemma when any of the 'world's polluted worship' falls on the Sabbath? e.g., Easter, Ascension Day, Pentecost, etc.? Again, all your argumentation from alleged 'biblical proof' and 'Puritan sources' is irrelevant because what I do on December 25th has absolutely no relation to what Rome or the world chooses to do on that day! You are trying to destroy a strawman to which you choose to put my name on thus make me an 'Idolater'! You can use all the sophistic arguments you wish to try and escape the inescapable; i.e., IF what you and others like you are contending against me and others is true, that we are guilty of vain worship which God finds abominable because it is 'Idolatry', then we are all destined to everlasting punishment lest we repent, for so it is written:
1Cor 6:9 'Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.'
The Lord Christ gave a stern warning to those who would pass judgment upon the brethren:
Matt 7:3 'And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.'
Doubtless my use of the term 'Pharisaical' is justified in this case, and perhaps it is an understatement of the truth of the matter. But to be sure, it is a far better thing to be accused of being 'Pharisaical' in the application of the Scriptures, than to be judged an 'Idolater' whose end is a fiery eternity! :-)
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch
From: Puritan
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 07:06:47 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Dear Brothers, As I am reading the dialogue and have been preparing some of my own info on the topic it has become clear to me that we have come to an impass. Obviously if all that JOwen has said to this point is 'irrelevant' in the minds of PJ and Pilgrim then what more could be said to convince you? Your minds are already made up. You are determined to believe that this topic of holy days should be relagated to some some unusual application of Christian Liberty. Well, so be it then. I leave you with these passages to ponder upon. Remembering of course the topic at hand is that of worship wether public or privarte. For the children of Judah have done evil in my sight, saith the LORD: they have set their abominations in the house which is called by my name, to pollute it. And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart. Jer 7:30,31 When the LORD thy God shall cut off the nations from before thee, whither thou goest to possess them, and thou succeedest them, and dwellest in their land; Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods. What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. Deut 12:29-32 Pruitan <><
Subject: Oh JOwen!!!!
From: Prestor John
To: Puritan
Date Posted: Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 16:25:24 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hey JOwen: I don't mean to complain, really I don't but I sense a double standard here. Here I have your compatriot Puritan, a man after your own views, calling myself and Pilgrim idolaters. Yet I see nothing calling him to task for the language he's using. Are you agreeing with him? Do you consider me an idolater? Prestor John Servabo Fidem
Subject: What about the Tree?
From: lurkerJr
To: Puritan
Date Posted: Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 09:40:06 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
As for the real celebration of Christmas with a Christmas tree, it all comes down to what is in the heart, not what is in the house. Whatsoever is not of faith, is sin. If you feel you cannot glorify God with a christmas tree in your house, then by all means don't have one. But if you can look upon that tree merely as a symbol of the Present, beauty and joy of the birth of a Saviour, then by all means you may freely display it. But under no circumstances are we to speak evil of another man's good. We should bring to remembrance that Good and evil are in men, not in symbols. Just as the Lord gave us the example of things sacrificed to idols being eaten. You see, there is no inherent evil in the meats, but in the man only. Would I worry that the person who invented the pew was an atheist, and so not ever use one? No, because it is immaterial who first used it. What is at issue is how I use it! Likewise, many false gospels use Mary in an abominable way, does that mean that I from now on will not call her blessed because of their idol worship. Again, what they do has no bearing on belief, or in the right way to serve God, it's what I do and how I believe which counts. It's how I believe that counts. It's not the cross, or the tree, or the gifts, or the meats offered to idols, it's the Heart. It's what is within a man that counts, not the tree outside. Has not God made that much clear to us yet? We get the same misapplied scriptures in many complaining we should not celebrate the birth of Christ at all. But it's all part of the same error. I feel I can serve God well and bring Glory to Him by having a Christmas tree illustrated by my witness to all who would see it that it is in honor and glory to the birth of Christ, and His sacrifice, and the gifts he gave to men. If Christ be the root of your tree, then the tree be in Glory of Him! But whosoever cannot understand this, or feels this improper, then do not use a tree in celebration of the nativity of the Lord. But it's not evil, it's just a piece of wood! So judge not another man's servant (Romans 14:1-6). To his own God he stands or falls. by T.Warren - Mountain Retreat
Subject: Re: What about the Tree?
From: marrowman
To: lurkerJr
Date Posted: Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 20:21:20 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
As for the real celebration of Christmas with a Christmas tree, it all comes down to what is in the heart, not what is in the house. Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. Proverbs 19:21 'There are many devices in a man's heart; nevertheless the counsel of the LORD, that shall stand'. Joshua 24:15 '... but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.' Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?' Whatsoever is not of faith, is sin. Yes this is true ... but how do you define your faith? By your heart? If you feel you cannot glorify God with a christmas tree in your house, then by all means don't have one. feel .... hmmmm ... am i the only one who has a problem with this' feel' thing? Why is the heart treated as if it is a viable sourse of truth apart from the word of God? Just some thoughts Marrowman But if you can look upon that tree merely as a symbol of the Present, beauty and joy of the birth of a Saviour, then by all means you may freely display it. But under no circumstances are we to speak evil of another man's good.
Subject: Re: What about the Tree?
From: Marrowman
To: marrowman
Date Posted: Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 20:32:36 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Sorry forgot about this one : ) So you are admitting that you use it as an addition to worship. Where is this to be found in Scripture? ... does this mean we cannot speak evil of what is evil ... if someone owns it? LOL Marrowman
Subject: Re: Your a mean one Mr. Grinch
From: laz
To: Puritan
Date Posted: Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 08:41:58 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Dear Brothers, As I am reading the dialogue and have been preparing some of my own info on the topic it has become clear to me that we have come to an impass. Obviously if all that JOwen has said to this point is 'irrelevant' in the minds of PJ and Pilgrim then what more could be said to convince you? Your minds are already made up. You are determined to believe that this topic of holy days should be relagated to some some unusual application of Christian Liberty. Well, so be it then. I leave you with these passages to ponder upon. Remembering of course the topic at hand is that of worship wether public or privarte. For the children of Judah have done evil in my sight, saith the LORD: they have set their abominations in the house which is called by my name, to pollute it. And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart. Jer 7:30,31 When the LORD thy God shall cut off the nations from before thee, whither thou goest to possess them, and thou succeedest them, and dwellest in their land; Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods. What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. Deut 12:29-32 Pruitan <><
---
************* Puritan - I was partially convinced that you and JOwen might have a point when you brought the matter up in apparent CONTEXT relative to celebrating (or NOT) Jewish holy days as we find in the NT during the early Church period. Recall the post? Basically, you (or JOwen) were saying that Pilgrim has the matter of Christian liberty all wrong and out of context. We like CONTEXT! ;-) CONTEXT works for me. CONTEXT is CRITICAL to understanding and applying scripture. Agreed? However, then you bring up these two passages in the OT about burning children, high places, abominations, idolatry, etc.... With respect to how I or others 'celebrate' the Incarnation, where did CONTEXT go when you quote those two passages? Show me the wicked inner man bent on idol worship, child sacrifice...show me the abominations that must SURELY be pricking the hearts of tens of millions of TRUE believers (in every sense of the word) across the world? Where is the inner guilt that MUST be present in many of us (if not MOST!) if the Holy Spirit is at work in each and every one of us? [Pilgrim has already given you the answer to this one with scripture. Rom14:4-9 In fact, I say that the issue is not limited to meat, holy days or ANYTHING....the context in Romans 14 is far broader since I think an all-encompassing PRINCIPLE is being taught. Rom 14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. 16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of: 17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. Also note in Verse 16 that in us keeping Christmas a private matter of conscience (and not necessarily a sanctioned corporate worship event) ... and thus rightly exercising our 'christian liberty' for something we believe is void of ANY evil ... you then ought not be insisting that we are practicing evil....just as we SHOULD try to keep you from speaking evil of our non-evil. In otherwords, shame on you for speaking evil of our good which we practice with clear consciences before our Lord. Actually, as I vaguely recall, you nor JOwen came out with guns ablazin' on this issue but were merely expressing your heartfelt disdain for this 'holiday'. Christian Liberty gives you the same right to feel as you do as well - to NOT practice Christmas observance! haha! However, as soon as WE start casting stones at one another for our respective convictions...that's when we practice sin. We can argue the merits of our cases...but we ought to do it within the context of Christian charity. In Him - especially during this blessed Christmas season, laz
Subject: Re: Christmas Message
From: Brother Bret
To: JOwen
Date Posted: Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 13:20:31 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
JOwen: To my response above of the following, you never responded: 'JOwen: I'll be the first one to admit, that I have struggled with aspects of the 'celebration' part of Christmas. But if I have my history correct, isn't this something that was started by Constantine in the 4th century before the Roman Catholic Church got rolling as an organzation and later became corrupt? Brother Bret'
Subject: Re: Christmas Message
From: chris
To: JOwen
Date Posted: Mon, Dec 25, 2000 at 13:36:23 (PST)
Email Address: CEvanglst4@aol.com

Message:
JOwen, What you say may be true, though just because the World celebrates that way, doesnt mean Christians do too. Also the Bible says that when it comes to things like food, observing days, etc, and I believe this applies too, we must be fully persuaded in our own minds what is right and wrong. I will say that it would be our responsibility as brothers, if you dont agree with Celebrating Christmas, we should not offend you or cause you to stumble and sin because we have no problem with it. I do believe that is what the Bibles definition of love means. Paul, I believe said that about food. If he knew it offended a weaker brother he would not eat it. JOwen, I understand what you are saying and I used to be the same way about certain things, but if one Celebrates sincerely and with a clean conscience, we shouldnt Judge. But if it bothers you and would cause you to sin, then we probably need to let this subject well alone. Also JOwen, please dont go against your conviction about this matter, because anything we do not of faith is sin to us. I admire your honesty and concern. Also I will say this, we as Christians have allowed within the Church and our homes to much of the Paganistic ordinances that come with this Christmas season. This is something we all need to reflect on and deal with personally and collectively as Christians.(Please be reminded that this comment is bipartisan, for the Lord alone knows our hearts. May the Lord bless you as we Celebrate the Birth, Death, and Ressurection of our Lord Jesus Christ everyday. Chris
Subject: Re: Christmas Message
From: laz
To: RJ
Date Posted: Sat, Dec 23, 2000 at 19:10:55 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
....what then do we make of Easter? ;-) laz
Subject: Re: Christmas Message
From: Brother Bret
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Fri, Dec 22, 2000 at 19:55:41 (PST)
Email Address: Lovitz5@juno.com

Message:
Amen brother. Looks like part of what I'll be sharing this Sunday, the Lord willing :^ ). Merry CHRISTmas to you and the others on the Board too! Brother Bret
Subject: Re: Christmas Message
From: chris
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Sun, Dec 24, 2000 at 14:14:44 (PST)
Email Address: CEvanglst4aol.com

Message:
Have a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to All. Also let each of us be fully persuaded in our own minds. Also remember love use this time to lift up the name of Jesus amongst our family and friends as we celebrate. Godbless and may we all come to know the depth of Gods love!!! Chris, Erica and Hannah
Subject: Proclamation of the Gospel
From: Tom
To: All
Date Posted: Thurs, Dec 21, 2000 at 13:52:06 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
I think most Calvinists would affirm that justification is through faith that has been given by God (Eph.2: 8-10), not election that we are saved. It is also true that only those who have been chosen in Christ, by God from the foundations from the earth (Eph.1: 4) are given faith. Many hyper-Calvinist place too much emphasis on election in justification, instead of on faith. Making it sound like election justifies, rather than faith. I am curious about how a few of the people on this forum, would present the gospel should they be faced with the following situation. You are seated next to a very talkative man on a two-hour flight. This man starts talking about religion after you told him that you are a Christian. But it is evident that he has never read the Bible, and his intelligence is below normal, but wants to know about it. Give a brief example of how you might proclaim the gospel, in this situation. Tom
Subject: Re: Proclamation of the Gospel
From: Pilgrim
To: Tom
Date Posted: Thurs, Dec 21, 2000 at 15:05:05 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom, Here it is in a nutshell:
  1. God loves you and may have a wonderful plan for your life; which is just fine as it is!
  2. Jesus Christ died for you and thus all your mistakes are forgiven.
  3. Take this little card and simply read the presumptuous prayer written on it.
  4. Now, don't you feel great? As soon as you leave this plane, call someone and tell them how wonderful you feel!
Gee! That was easy! And I bet you will make all kinds of friends and Christians to boot! [snicker] Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Proclamation of the Gospel
From: asheep
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sat, Dec 23, 2000 at 23:27:25 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim I was surprised by your reply to the Proclamation of gospel. It is good news and a little child can understand. I had a very unique experience the other night with my grandson. He was spending the night with me and we were saying prayers. Talking about God with him is somwhat dificult because he is mentally retarded. It was a challenge to walk thru the good news so he could grasp it. I think sometimes we should ,as Christ said ,come as little children , trusting and growing as we walk in our understanding. There is so much to know about our Great Savior-we miss so much by trying to define and redefine. I happen to be of the reformed faith and believe we have nothing good in ourselves and it is God who choses. But I didn't start there. I started with Jesus died for me and freed me from my sins, that He is God. I know you are talking about the little card that some groups use to share their faith. It lacks a lot but it is a starting place -a seed perhaps that someone else will water. Don't mean to sound like the study of the scripture is unnecessary-it certainly is and the Lord can carry you to the highter places through them. I guess I am trying to say I'm glad Jesus shows more love than we do sometimes when we talk to others.
Subject: Re: Proclamation of the Gospel
From: Pilgrim
To: asheep
Date Posted: Sun, Dec 24, 2000 at 08:05:14 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
asheep,
I can certainly agree with most you wrote. :-) We must come to individuals as individuals and try to convey the Truth in a manner they can comprehend. But we must bring the Truth TRULY and TRUTHFULLY and not distort it to try and accommodate anyone's depravity and natural hatred of Christ! Those '4 Spiritual Laws', first introduced by Bill Bright and Campus Crusade for Christ are simply unbiblical and a deceitful lie. No one can rightly tell sinners indiscriminately, 'God loves you!' Or, the even more odious, 'God loves you just the way you are!'. Such deceitful lies are not anywhere to be found in God's Word. Secondly, we have no warrant to tell sinners indiscriminately, 'Jesus died for you!'. Or the even more odious, 'Jesus paid for all your sins!'. All such proclamations of a universal atonement are blasphemous. If these and like statements were true, then everyone is blessed with salvation as they cannot be condemned, having had all their sins atoned for. I am confused by your last statement 'I guess I am trying to say I'm glad Jesus shows more love than we do sometimes when we talk to others.' And what is 'less loving in our talk to others'? Can you give us some specific examples of this? If you are somehow trying to imply that Jesus Christ proclaimed the 'Four Spiritual Laws' in His own way, and thus this is 'more loving', then I think you are gravely mistaken. IF this is the case, could you kindly point to any passage that shows the Lord Christ telling sinners indiscriminately, 'God loves you!'? Can you point to any passage where it is written to sinners 'God loves you!'? Can you point to any passage where it states that Christ died for all men indiscriminately, and thus atoned for all their sins? And if this is true, then on what basis will anyone suffer condemnation? :-)
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Proclamation of the Gospel
From: sheep
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sun, Dec 24, 2000 at 23:02:46 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
By the way Merry Christmas to you pilgrim. I really do appreciate your posts and respect your knowledge of the scriptures.
Subject: Re: Proclamation of the Gospel
From: Pilgrim
To: sheep
Date Posted: Mon, Dec 25, 2000 at 14:16:45 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
asheep,
And a Merry Christmas to you! What a glorious time to consider the incarnation of the Living God, Who gave of Himself, taking upon Himself the form of a servant in human flesh so that He might redeem unworthy sinners and make them heirs; heirs of God and the kingdom. Yes, it is often very difficult to surmise the actual demeanour of a person in a written format. :-) And too often, a negative conclusion is wrongly settled on. This is unfortunate! Discernment is a most necessary 'virtue' and wisdom must be exercised prudently. It is very true that Calvinists are more often than not labelled, 'unloving'. And in some cases, perhaps this is true. However, I have come to understand that the vast majority of those who want to portray Calvinists as 'unloving, harsh, proud, etc.' are those who embrace the contemporary 'lowest-common-denominator gospel', whose goal is to 'win souls' and avoid any mention of the 'harder truths'; e.g., God is a holy God, whose hatred of sin and those who practice it is not overridden by His 'love', that all men are born with a corrupt nature and are naturally haters of God and His righteousness and are under the wrath of God and face certain condemnation if they die without Christ, etc. The modern 'feel good gospel' so distorts that which a poor wretched sinner desperately needs to hear, that the resultant 'conversion' is unfortunately in most cases of the flesh and not born of the Spirit. I am continually awed by the relevancy of the Scriptures to our contemporary lives. Hear what Isaiah wrote some 2600 years ago:
Isa 30:9 'That this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the LORD: 10 Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits: 11 Get you out of the way, turn aside out of the path, cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us.'
And the prophet Jeremiah also wrote:
Jer 5:30 'A wonderful and horrible thing is committed in the land; 31 The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?'
And just one more, by the hand of the prophet Ezekiel:
Ezek 13:3 'Thus saith the Lord GOD; Woe unto the foolish prophets, that follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing! 4 O Israel, thy prophets are like the foxes in the deserts. 5 Ye have not gone up into the gaps, neither made up the hedge for the house of Israel to stand in the battle in the day of the LORD. 6 They have seen vanity and lying divination, saying, The LORD saith: and the LORD hath not sent them: and they have made others to hope that they would confirm the word. 7 Have ye not seen a vain vision, and have ye not spoken a lying divination, whereas ye say, The LORD saith it; albeit I have not spoken? 8 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Because ye have spoken vanity, and seen lies, therefore, behold, I am against you, saith the Lord GOD. 9 And mine hand shall be upon the prophets that see vanity, and that divine lies: they shall not be in the assembly of my people, neither shall they be written in the writing of the house of Israel, neither shall they enter into the land of Israel; and ye shall know that I am the Lord GOD.'
It would seem that the self-appointed 'prophets' of old were doing much what our modern 'self-appointed' prophets and eager 'soul winners' are doing today; i.e., preaching a 'feel good', soothing message that would tickle the ears of their hearers. Doesn't this sound familiar though?
2Tim 4:3 'For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.'
Personally, when I am given the opportunity to speak of a person's need of Christ, I am very much aware of my former state before the grace of God found me and brought me to faith in the Lord Christ. What is needed by all is a boldness couched in brokenness. We must not be ashamed to speak the Truth; the truth of God's hot anger upon sinners! God's justice which will come all too quickly upon all the inhabitants of this earth! God's love in sending His Son to die for needy sinners! The corrupt, desperate and hopeless condition into which we are all born with and God's condemnation upon us for it. The wonders of God's grace to save such poor and wretched sinners in Christ Jesus. The absolute necessity of the Holy Spirit's regeneration of our dead souls! Our absolute responsibility to seek after God; to repent and trust our whole beings upon the Lord Jesus Christ! The clear evidences of a true and saving faith, shown in an ever increasing exercise in doing good works! etc. These things will doubtless sound 'harsh' to those who avoid and/or reject such essential truths. Stephen was not stoned to death by his hearers because he proclaimed 'The Four Spiritual Laws' to the crowds. Thus, to summarize, we must be bold to speak the WHOLE GOSPEL in a spirit of brokenness never forgetting that it was, is and always will be God's incomprehensible grace that has made us what we are and Who has given us the privilege of speaking to others of these marvellous things. :-)
In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Proclamation of the Gospel
From: sheep
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sun, Dec 24, 2000 at 22:56:27 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim I do believe in limited atonement. I have never used the four spiritual laws and wasn't sure they were what you were referring to in your comments. I have such a negative reaction when I read some of the posts-I certainly want the truth to be related truthfully and with out compromising. When we are babies we take baby steps and maybe someone writing on this board is a babe in Christ-we should lead not hit them with what we have gained thru much study. Please don't think I mean to gloss over truths- but some come easier than others. It seems we as a reformed faith have gotten a reputation of being unloving-If someone is truely seeking they will come to the truth-God promised. I have known people who came to Christ thru Campus Crusade and have gone thru the scriptures and are solid in their faith now. I'm not asking 'can't we all just get along' but speak the truth but speak it in love. It is hard to sense an attitude in posts and maybe I'm asking the impossible. When I think of what Christ has done for me I am overwhelmed with thankfulness and wonder why me Lord? I know somewhere along the paths I have walked there were a lot of people who were kind and didn't make me feel stupid when I spoke of the Lord.
Subject: Re: Proclamation of the Gospel
From: laz
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Fri, Dec 22, 2000 at 07:21:47 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
That's basically the 'gospel' message I heard Billy Graham's crusading daughter give on national TV (FoxNews) last night to Brit Hume. She said Jesus loves the abortionist, the thief, the liar...everybody alike...sin being sin...therefore repent, accept Christ by faith, and know your sins are all forgiven and that eternal life awaits. Not necessarily false... but for crying out loud, a four-year old can spout that shallow/incomplete message. Shouldn't the daughter of the most prolific evangelist of all time (now trying to take his place) have a more articulate and BIBLICAL gospel soundbite? She should but since 'easy believism' is all she has to sell... I know, I know...I'm being too critical.... laz
Subject: Re: Proclamation of the Gospel
From: Tom
To: laz
Date Posted: Fri, Dec 22, 2000 at 12:29:55 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
Laz No you are not being too critical at all. I am wondering why nobody has made an attempt at answering my question though? I am not asking for an easy believism answer, just the truth. Tom
Subject: Re: Proclamation of the Gospel
From: Tom
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Thurs, Dec 21, 2000 at 23:41:24 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
You easy believen, Arminian. Just kidding. :-) Seriously though, I know there was a reason you answered that way, isn't there? Tom
Subject: Re: Proclamation of the Gospel
From: Pilgrim
To: Tom
Date Posted: Fri, Dec 22, 2000 at 11:26:33 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
You easy believen, Arminian. Just kidding. :-) Seriously though, I know there was a reason you answered that way, isn't there? Tom
---
Tom,
Yep, that be me! LOL . . . I suppose the main reason for being rather facetious in my response, is that as 'laz' pointed out, this type of 'gospel' which is actually 'another gospel' is what the vast majority of professing Christians are spouting today. Remember the old adage?: A half truth is no truth!. One of the major problems with this type of 'presentation', aside from the obvious doctrinal errors, is the belief that the Gospel can be compressed into 50 words or less. But doesn't it strike you as rather strange, that God Himself, gave us the Gospel in four 'books'; the three Synoptic Gospels and John's account? Fast cars, fast women, fast music, fast food, and a fast 'gospel' is the rigor of the day. :-) Thus, it would be rather difficult for me to give you a sufficient and complete answer to your legitimate question above. But. . . here is my serious reply: Read the following book and one article that we have online: Explosive Evangelism by George Jaffray Jr. [book] What is it to Preach the Gospel? by Henry Mahan And lastly, there is a wonderful book written on this topic which would be 'just what the doctor ordered', entitled: Tell the Truth! by Will Metzger. At one time IVP was the publisher. But that was several years ago and I'm not sure if they are still printing it. I would hope they are, or perhaps some other publisher is offering it. Lastly, to return to what I was saying above, the Gospel isn't and shouldn't be a short and pithy statement that can be uttered in one breath. Each person must be considered as an individual who is in need of God's grace in Christ Jesus. Rarely will we find two people alike. And thus where we start, the amount of detail, etc. will vary accordingly. It is NOT required that we present the entire Gospel at every encounter; it's simply impossible if nothing else. :-)
1Cor 3:6 'I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. 7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. 8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour. 9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building. 10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.'
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Proclamation of the Gospel
From: Tom
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Fri, Dec 22, 2000 at 12:45:35 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
Pilgrim I understand what you mean. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to do the best we have with the time we have. I am not saying that the gospel can be compressed into 50 words or less. But I would have a hard time not trying to present the gospel, even if time only presented me with ten minutes to do so. However that being said, when I look at the times that I have had oportunity to present the gospel. The words just flowed, I didn't have a set way to present it. So maybe my question isn't one that can be answered in the way I wanted it? Maybe my question would have been better stated, by asking to give examples of how the Lord had used you to present the gospel in situations similar to the example I gave. Tom
Subject: Re: Proclamation of the Gospel
From: laz
To: Tom
Date Posted: Fri, Dec 22, 2000 at 07:40:26 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom - I think I understand what you are looking for. How then DOES one give the gospel message to an unbeliever if election/predestination is true? First, one ought not be ashamed of election....you'd be surprised how easily pagans (and even Catholics) accept (at least intellectually and on the surface) the idea of a God who chooses sinners for Himself. I get the most grief from Arminians! However, I don't lead with election, but with the state of mankind as a result of the Fall. Who can argue against the fact that man is desperately wicked as a result of Adam? Of course, this presumes that the person even believes in the Bible and the historicity of Adam (as the federal head of all mankind). If not, you may need to use apologetics to reach atheists to at least try to agree on a common 'language' since they will disagree with EVERYTHING you say. Systematic theology might be more effective with cultists like JW's and Mormons. But for the mainstream folks in between who 'call' themselves Christians but have no earthly idea what that means... Actually, the idea behind TULIP, with the necessary, logically systematic 'flow of salvation' is a good pattern to follow. Start with the absolute holiness of God, the grossness and penalty of sin, and our hopelessness to overcome sin...and then the rest is easy in terms of articulating a faithful and cogent message. It's hard to argue away the true gospel if 'Total/radical Depravity' is settled for if you can't convince your friend that we are abject sinners...why would he/she need a Savior? blessings, laz
Subject: Re: Proclamation of the Gospel
From: Tom
To: laz
Date Posted: Fri, Dec 22, 2000 at 13:09:31 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
Laz I agree with what you said, and after thinking about my first question again. I am not certain that it was a fair question. I also agree that we should not be ashamed of election. For without it salvation doesn't occur at all. I do however see a tendancy for some Christians to use election as how we are justified before God. Instead of on 'faith' where it belongs. I think this is an important distinction. Like I said to Pilgrim in my last post, when I think of instances where I have had oportunity to proclaim the gospel. I didn't come into the conversation with a set presentation in mind, the words just flowed. I believe that this is one of the reasons why it is very important for each believer to study the word of God. Tom
Subject: Three Wise Men
From: laz
To: All
Date Posted: Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 13:32:10 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Are the names of the three wise men mentioned in the Bible? Got a bet going on.... blessings, laz
Subject: The three wise guys
From: Prestor John
To: laz
Date Posted: Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 21:19:50 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
whoops that would be the mafia version wouldn't it? Anyway here is an answer for you:
The names of the Magi are Balthasar, Melchior, and Gaspar or Casar. Each was a king and assigned a kingdom and a particular royal gift that they presented to the newborn Christ. Balthasar, a black King of Ethiopia, brought myrrh. Melchior, King of Arabia, brought a casket of gold in the form of a shrine. Gaspar was King of Tarsus and brought frankincense in a jar. SOURCE: Del Re, Patricia and Gerard Del Re. The Christmas Almanack. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co, Inc., 1979.
Hope this helps and I don't believe you'll find that in the Bible. Prestor John FAQ on Christmas cpl.lib.uic.edu/008subject/005genref/gischristmas.html
Subject: Re: The names are ....
From: stan
To: laz
Date Posted: Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 15:42:27 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim, Laz and Rod - or was it Balthasar, Malchoir and Casper (sometimes Gasper or Gondophernes). Understand their sculls and one bone of each are extant - that is if you believe these sorts of things ;-)
Subject: Re: Three Wise Men
From: stan
To: laz
Date Posted: Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 14:47:31 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Try catholic tradition. Might have the names somewhere if you need them. stan
Subject: Re: Three Wise Men
From: laz
To: stan
Date Posted: Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 20:50:11 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Thanks for the info Stan....much appreciated! blessings, laz
Subject: To re-baptize or not to re-baptize
From: Prestor John
To: All
Date Posted: Tues, Dec 19, 2000 at 19:42:26 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Okay All, I have a question for you that I have put to my elders. We were talking about baptism (and I am a credobaptist for those that don't know) and a candidate for a deacon who was raised in a paedobaptist church and hadn't been baptized as an adult, was put forward. The Church's position on this is that for him to be a deacon he must be re-baptized. My comment to that was where does the Bible teach that? Now while I do believe that adults are the ones baptized, I don't see where it tells me that those who are of the faith, but were under a different teaching regarding baptism need to be baptized again. Any thoughts? Prestor John
Subject: Re: To re-baptize or not to re-baptize
From: Tom
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 09:16:46 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
Prestor As a Baptist, I understand what you saying. I can not offer you anymore scripture than you probably have already read. What I will say though, is you must go with what you believe on the subject. I doubt that if you will be allowed to serve as a deacon, if in the end you don't get re-baptised. But you shouldn't compromise if your beliefs tell you not to get re-baptised. I am sorry I was not able to offer more help scripturally. BTW, I am no longer a deacon. Tom
Subject: Re: To re-baptize or not to re-baptize
From: Prestor John
To: Tom
Date Posted: Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 20:44:48 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hahhahahahah! Sorry Tom but I'm not the man being offered for candidacy here. I'm not deacon material I still have a lot of growing to do. (Still too inclined to the pugilistic response don't you know. Must be that martial arts training) And just so that you know, I was convinced when I was a very young Christian that my baptism as a child in the Lutheran Church was not valid and so went through it again as an adult in a Baptist church. Now when I think it through I would have to say that was wrong thing to do. Prestor John not a deacon, nor an elder, just a pewsitter
Subject: Re: To re-baptize or not to re-baptize
From: Tom
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Thurs, Dec 21, 2000 at 14:01:51 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
Prestor I was under the impression after you said: 'We were talking about baptism (and I am a credobaptist for those that don't know) and a candidate for a deacon who was raised in a paedobaptist church and hadn't been baptized as an adult, was put forward.' That you were the candidate for deacon. Now you say that you are not the candidate for deacon. Duh, I'm confused ;-). Tom
Subject: Re: To re-baptize or not to re-baptize
From: Pilgrim
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 05:44:06 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Prestor,
You remember of course, my stand on this: 'No need to rebaptize!' :-). But if I were faced with your elders and given the opportunity to ask questions on this matter, I would think that other very fundamental questions would be: 1) Is there some efficacious grace to be received in baptism that would warrant rebaptizing someone? 2) How should such a person (the candidate) be viewed in regard to his position before God, not having been baptized as an adult and by immersion (if this is the ONLY mode recognized by the church)? 3) As a perspective Deacon, is this person personally convinced that Credobaptism is the teaching of Scripture and he will therefore teach this doctrine as a true and biblical doctrine? (I think far more important to know than when and how he was baptised.) And finally, as I have also stated before: Baptists, by virtue of their own choice to identify themselves in this way, generally put far more weight on the 'sacrament/ordinance'; its mode, meaning, etc., than on Christ Jesus, to whom a person is joined by faith and thereby incorporated into the Body of Christ.. :-)
Sprinkled by His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: To re-baptize or not to re-baptize
From: Prestor John
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 21:08:20 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Of course I remember in fact it helped me solidify my view in regards to this issue. However, in defense of the elders (or at least the elder I spoke with) He told me that mode wasn't and issue here. So if the candidate in question (whose name I still don't know hahaha) had been sprinkled as an adult (or poured on or whatever mode other than immersion there is) then there would be no issue, at least in this elder's eyes. And they don't see an efficacious grace in baptism. I had to defend my view of baptism and communion as a means of grace to them. It helped that one of the teachers in the church also holds to that, although he doesn't teach it. Plus I don't know what this person hold to in regards to credo or paedo baptism. So it would be nice to know where he stands I suppose. Prestor John.
Subject: Re: Say what?
From: stan
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 14:51:12 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I trust there was a tongue in that smily cheek. generally put far more weight on the 'sacrament/ordinance'; its mode, meaning, etc., than on Christ Jesus, to whom a person is joined by faith and thereby incorporated into the Body of Christ.. :-)
Subject: Re: Say what?
From: Pilgrim
To: stan
Date Posted: Thurs, Dec 21, 2000 at 07:31:11 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Stan,
If it is soothing to you, then accept it as a statement made 'tongue in cheek'! :-) However, there is far more truth that spoof to those words unfortunately. The fact is that most Baptist churches will not receive you as a member (into the Body of Christ) unless you have been or allow yourself to be baptized by immersion. Those who haven't are barred from taking communion, membership, teaching positions, etc. Some will say that they aren't passing judgment on you as to your spiritual state, but only that you aren't welcome in their assembly as Christian members [whatever that means?]. But when pressed, they have to admit that if an adult refuses to be baptized by immersion, then this is an act of overt disobedience to the Lord. Now, if it is such an overt act of disobedience that one is refused membership in the Body of Christ, just What does this mean? Mostly all I have ever gotten back as a response, if one was forthcoming at all was a blank stare! hmmmmm The point that I was bringing out or at least attempting to bring out, is that there is far more importance put on Baptism and its mode than faith in Christ IN PRACTICE, although in conversation, this might not appear to be so. A valid profession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and a life commensurate with that profession is 'not enough' to be accepted into a church who advertises and confesses to be a 'part of the Body of Christ'! That's the point! :-) This criticism of mine and many others, to be sure, also extends to the practice of some 'Reformed' churches, which require one assent to one of more documents, Confessions, etc., etc.... A perfect and extreme real example is the church Mr. John Putz belongs to: 'The Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton'! According to their public information, one must give assent and adhere to more old formulations, confessions, oaths, etc., than is required of probably any other organization I have ever heard of. This is hardly what the Lord Christ had in mind when He called His sheep to Himself to become part of His 'Body'!
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Say what?
From: stan
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Thurs, Dec 21, 2000 at 17:08:03 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
'The fact is that most Baptist churches will not receive you as a member (into the Body of Christ) unless you have been or allow yourself to be baptized by immersion.' All believers are members of the body of Christ universal at the moment of salvation, but membership in a local assembly usually requires doctrinal agreement. By your comment do your churches allow anyone to be a member of your local churches on profession of faith only? Your statement 'generally put far more weight on the 'sacrament/ordinance'; its mode, meaning, etc., than on Christ Jesus, to whom a person is joined by faith and thereby incorporated into the Body of Christ.. ' paints millions with a far too wide a brush - IMO :-). Have been in baptist circles of several different types for many years and never could I say this of any of them. I don't think holding to a doctrinal position is putting that postion over Christ. After all, I think you yourselves put strong feeling into your doctrinal positions but never could I say you put that above Christ - even though at times I have wondered ;-) stan
Subject: Say again. . .!!
From: Pilgrim
To: stan
Date Posted: Thurs, Dec 21, 2000 at 19:41:58 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Well Stan,
You can wonder your little self all you like! hahaha... But the fact remains that biblically, all that is required to become a member of THE CHURCH is a valid profession of faith, as any mediocre student of the Bible will attest. I too have been 'around Baptist circles' for many years, even being a regular attendee of a few. And, it is true not all of them put the emphasis upon 'baptism by immersion' as do most. But what is true, and sadly so, is that MOST do. In one Reformed Church of which I was an active member, we took into membership several Baptists, who left their churches, due to a dictatorial 'pastor'. They were not required to recant their position on baptism at all. In fact, we put them into teaching positions solely due to their spirituality, maturity and gifts. A personal friend of mine, who is a Baptist, and an internationally known one at that, belongs to a church where they also do not require immersion as a requirement for membership, but only the biblical warrant of a credible confession of faith and a life that is consistent with it. And what about me? :-) In my own church I only required a valid profession of faith and a life consistent with it for membership. All members were encouraged to attend a class for new members where they were taught the doctrinal beliefs of the church; aka the Confession of Faith and Catechisms. All perspective members were clearly told what the doctrinal foundation of the church was before they were accepted into the congregation. Further, only those members who desired teaching positions and/or consideration for office were REQUIRED to give a subscription to those doctrines as contained in the Confession of Faith and the complimentary Catechisms. Search the Scriptures and you will see that becoming a Christian and joining with the 'household of faith' are inseparably joined together, though they are not identical by any means. Local assemblies ARE part of the Body of Christ. The 'Body' is not some invisible and ethereal concept. The contemporary view is woefully deficient in its understanding of the nature of the Church of Christ. The fear expressed by the Roman state church during the time of the Reformation was indeed in many respects justified; i.e., gross individualism. And this can be conspicuously seen in the literally hundreds of denominations today. So again, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, the requirement to be immersed in water as an adult is without biblical warrant before being accepted into the church of the Living God. The indictment is surely justified, for when a poor soul desires to be officially accepted into a congregation, and his/her profession of saving faith is insufficient as the grounds for that admission, but it is said that 'unless you submit to baptism by immersion', your faith and any other baptism is insufficient, one cannot but conclude that baptism is the 'rite of passage' that takes precedence.
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Say what?
From: Tom
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Thurs, Dec 21, 2000 at 14:18:01 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim Though I have come a little closer to your beliefs on the issue over the past year. In that I think it is a shame not to except an obvious faithful Christian into membership, simply because they haven't been baptised by emersion. I do understand where they are coming from. Though they don't believe salvation is achieved at baptism. They believe that it is an act of obedience to get baptised by emersion. In my opinion, if one doesn't believe this, but goes along with it anyway, simply to be excepted into membership. Then they are being obedient to man, rather than God. Oh boy, it is a mixed blessing not to be a deacon anymore. Tom Tom
Subject: Re: To re-baptize or not to re-baptize
From: stan
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Tues, Dec 19, 2000 at 20:19:37 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Since baptism is a sign of conversion, if baptized after conversion with understanding of its significance I would see no need for a redo. Some baptists require it - usually landmarkers that hold to succession back to John the. I would assume that they would want to know his understanding of baptism - and compare it to the church doctrinal statement for agreement ;-)
Subject: The very first commandment :o)
From: Jimmy
To: All
Date Posted: Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 15:45:38 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
The very first commandment: Gen.1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. Hey, do you think that we just might get some credit, just for having some babies? God loves life, doesn't He.! I have a new grand baby! I can't be with her and it rips at my soul. Have you any idea what it's all really about? Theology is such a waste, it's all a miracle! Can't you imagine the miracle of just exiting? Your image of God is way to small! You're just too bound up in your religion. Sincerely, Jimmy
Subject: Re: The very first commandment :o)
From: Puritan
To: Jimmy
Date Posted: Thurs, Dec 14, 2000 at 17:48:11 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hi jimmy, Tom and Pilgrim! Interesting little discussion starting here. Nice job Pilgrim couldn't agree more for the most part. I am, however, putting some info together for some friends of mine that are having their first baby. The question that I have been attempting to answer for them is this; What dos the Bible teach regarding children being a blessing and not a curse. I have spoke to them about procreation and the command that God gave to adam about being fruitful and multiplying. Pilgrim, you lost me there for a moment. If God was not speaking to Adam about natural generations through procreation then what could he have been speaking of? Sorry maybe I'm not reading you right. If any of you guys have any insights into the topic that I have mentioned I would greatly appreciate it. I too am happy to hear about your new grandchild Jimmy....We hope that she prospers :^) <>< Puritan
Subject: Re: The very first commandment :o)
From: Pilgrim
To: Puritan
Date Posted: Thurs, Dec 14, 2000 at 22:00:20 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Puritan,
Sorry if I lost you along the way! :-( I don't disagree that when God spoke to Adam and told him to 'be fruitful and multiply . . .' that this was said in regard to him producing progeny. My grievance was that this was the first commandment that God gave to Adam. And, if I may be technically picky, I don't believe that this is a commandment in the strict sense of the word. hehe But rather, I see it as an 'encouraging word'. If it was in fact, a commandment, then it would be sin to not have children.
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: The very first commandment :o)
From: Tom
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 11:09:21 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
Pilgrim Would I be correct to say also, that as a result it would also be a sin to prevent pregnancy to occur? Hence, any true Christian family would be very large. Tom
Subject: Re: The very first commandment :o)
From: Pilgrim
To: Tom
Date Posted: Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 12:42:32 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim Would I be correct to say also, that as a result it would also be a sin to prevent pregnancy to occur? Hence, any true Christian family would be very large. Tom
---
Tom,
As I see it, if the words of God to Adam to 'be fruitful and multiply. . .' was a direct command, then yes, it would doubtless be a sin to not have children. There are those who indeed would give adherence to this concept. But I am not one of them. :-) What are your thoughts on this matter?
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: The very first commandment :o)
From: Puritan
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 08:43:02 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Brothers, I have had to deal with a very serious family matter these past few days, I have been reading some of the comments on this topic and would like to share my thoughts with you on birth control. Could you please put your lives on hold and stay by your computers awaiting my ideas......;^) talk to you soon, Puritan <><
Subject: Re: The very first commandment :o)
From: Tom
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 14:44:08 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
Pilgrim When I look at that those particular scripture verses, I don't think they are conclusive as to whether or not they are a commandment or not. Or even if it is a commandment, that this commandment is meant for today. Though I would have to say that unless somewhere else in scripture, it tells us that that commandment is no longer applicable, then it should be obeyed today. But then, I would hate to be living in a place like China, for it is against the law for a couple to have more than one child. A Christian couple would have to obey God and suffer the consequences of whatever the law punished them with. As you can see, my thoughts are not definate. It is a matter that would need more study. However, this subject no longer applies to my wife and I, if you know what I mean. Can you give other scriptural reason why you come to your conclusion? Tom
Subject: Re: The very first commandment :o)
From: Pilgrim
To: Tom
Date Posted: Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 09:10:59 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom,
I think there is much wisdom in what Rod has written to you. I too think that this 'command' given to Adam in the very beginning was one directly applicable to him, and him alone. Yes, I realize that some will try and make the connection here to all mankind, reasoning that Adam was the Federal Head of the race and thus all 'commandments' given to him are carried over and binding upon all. However, one need not carry this 'reasoning' too far to realize that this would become rather ludicrous and indeed impossible if held consistently. For example, God commanded Adam to name all the animals! Is every individual therefore to do likewise? Are all men to provide for themselves and the unlimited number of children they would have by God's command, 'In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; . . .'? (Gen 3:19). As I have pointed out before on other topics, biblical hermeneutics is essential to understanding such things. And the fundamental principle here is, The Universal always interprets the Local. In other words, are these 'commands' universal in nature; applicable to every single individual or are they local; applicable to a limited individual(s) during a specific time period? I'll let you make that determination! :-) It has been my experience, fortunate or unfortunate as it was, to know of certain groups which take the 'command' given to Adam to 'be fruitful and multiply. . .' as a universal commandment and therefore have followed it fully. The result has been very large families which most have been unable to financially provide for; even the basic necessities of life. They of course, insist that their impoverished conditions are due to the 'sovereignty of God', in which they wholly rely upon. Included in God's providence is, of course, the many gifts of others which have been sometimes necessary to sustain these large families. Consistent with their view was their refusal to purchase any form of life and/or health insurance. However, they did purchase car insurance, as was prescribed by the civil law. And anyone who did not subscribe to their particular 'view' was deemed and judged to be less Reformed; inferior and weak in faith. I see nothing outside of the Genesis account to persuade me that these words were to be universal. For I am not familiar with anything that is even remotely associated with it in the Scriptures. As an example, is there any warning given in the N.T. by Paul or any other inspired writer, to those who refused to have children or to limit the size of their families? We all know of the clear warnings against adulterers, homosexuals, thieves, etc., that they shall not inherit the kingdom of God. But are there any such stern condemnations upon men who refuse to constantly increase the size of their family? Well, I think you get my point here?!! :-)
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: The very first commandment :o)
From: Rod
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 13:15:35 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Pilgrim, In regard to these folks you describe: 'It has been my experience, fortunate or unfortunate as it was, to know of certain groups which take the 'command' given to Adam to 'be fruitful and multiply. . .' as a universal commandment and therefore have followed it fully.' I wonder how such people rationalize around Matt. 19:12?
Subject: Re: The very first commandment :o)
From: Tom
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 11:23:01 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
Pilgrim I do indeed get your point, and a good point it is. :-) Tom
Subject: The nature of the statement
From: Rod
To: Tom
Date Posted: Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 16:11:44 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Consider this, please: It seems to me that it was a specific command to Adam and his mate, and to mankind in general through them, but not specifically to every individual ever born to fulfill the general command given when the earth was unspoiled by sin and was not 'filled.' Due to the effects of sin and man's misuse, greed, and simple numbers, the earth has been largely 'subdued' in a much different way than God must have meant since sin has entered in and it is certainly filled in many areas to present capacity. This command was given with the circumstance that Adam had 'dominion' over the earth and before he lost it. It was also given with the knowledge of God that Adam would sin and lose what he had, but the ideal of what God meant can not be met while the earth and mankind is under the curse. In this view, the statement was both a command and a 'blessing' of empowerment to do the will of God in populating the whole of the earthly creation. It was meant for good, as well as for carrying out and executing God's will, but it is not a license to abuse the earth or to overburden it or families/nations with many more people than can be properly cared for.
Subject: Re: The nature of the statement
From: Tom
To: Rod
Date Posted: Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 16:35:02 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
Rod What you said, makes sence for indeed the world would be way over populated today, if man took that command seriously today. What I would like though, is any biblical support for your view?(I think it is mine too, unless someone shows me scripture to prove otherwise) Some people (not me) say that is an excuse for not obeying God. Rather than just doing God's will they would rather do what is right in their own eyes, than what is Biblical. Tom
Subject: Re: The nature of the statement
From: Rod
To: Tom
Date Posted: Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 20:02:20 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Tom, I don't know that I can point to specific verses for some of my convictions; nevertheless, the Lord God has given us the ability to reason and the guidance of the Spirit of God in interpreting His Word as promised in His Word. We don't have to be told specifically that sin has marred every aspect of man's being to know it is true (though not every Christian knows or understands or accepts 'total depravity'). There is abundant evidence that children are to be cherished and treasured as a gift from the Lord (see especially Ps. 127:3-5, but remember that it applies most specifically to the man and woman of God). There is every reason to believe (though it is nowhere expressly stated that I know of) that every child born is in the plan of God and that it was His intent that that individual come into existence as part of His plan, though he be elect or not. That is why we have 'theology.' It exists as a system of belief based on our best interpretation of the Bible (as we are submitted to and guided by the Spirit of God) and its specifics, along with its intimations and inferences, in order to understand our mighty, majestic Lord. You are wise to seek Scriptural evidence in all things. It is also wise to apply the principles of wisdom as set forth in the Scriptures in dealing with the Word of God. Even when there are Scriptural references which speak directly to an issue, there is disagreement often about them, as evidenced by the many differing beliefs, confessions, statements of faith, etc., etc.. Where does that leave us? It becomes incumbent on us to seek with all our hearts the Word and its meaning, as the witness of the Spirit leads us and to have faith that God's Spirit will, indeed, 'guide [us] into all truth' (John 16:13).
Subject: Re: The nature of the statement
From: Tom
To: Rod
Date Posted: Tues, Dec 19, 2000 at 07:54:25 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
Yes I agree, I was just hoping for some other scripture referrences. Tom.H
Subject: Re: The very first commandment :o)
From: Tom
To: Jimmy
Date Posted: Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 23:58:27 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
Jimmy What Pilgrim said to you is right on. You said: Theology is such a waste, it's all a miracle! How can studying God be a waste? 'Theology' means the study of God. Even as I look at your statement as a whole, you have contradicted yourself. For by saying 'it's all a miracle' (which by the way I agree with) you have basicly said we shouldn't study the God of all miracles. Something else you don't seem to have realised, man is only capable of producing children because God has given them the capability to. There is no miracle of life without God in the picture. We fool ourselves when we think more highly of ourselves than we ought. Yes it is good to enjoy the miracle of life, but don't be fooled into believing the miracle of life happens without God. Of course the only true theology is the theology that is found with in the pages of scripture. Perhaps all the excitement over your new grandbaby has made you too excited to see your contadiction. By the way congratulations. Tom
Subject: Re: The very first commandment :o)
From: Jimmy
To: Tom
Date Posted: Tues, Dec 19, 2000 at 17:54:03 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom, The finite can never ever comprehend the infinite. Never! It's a waste of time to even try, that's why it's a matter of faith and not a matter of reason. God is Love, God is Life! Theology is dead reason, there's no life in it, GOD IS LIFE! Praise Him all creature here below, praise His Holy Name. We will never, ever, comprehend Him through theology, only through life can we get a glimpse of God Almighty. After all that's what it's all about :o) Sincerely
Subject: Re: The very first commandment :o)
From: Tom
To: Jimmy
Date Posted: Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 09:27:25 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
Jimmy Laz & Pilgrim asked some good questions for you to concider. I would like to add one more. If Christians can not comprehend God, then why was the Bible written in the first place? Tom
Subject: Re: The very first commandment :o)
From: laz
To: Jimmy
Date Posted: Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 08:29:35 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
jimmy - Did you not use REASON, and faulty at that, arriving at the notion that theology (study of God) is dead? Silly boy. laz p.s. How do we comprehend God 'through life'? Is this what Jesus did? Seems to me that He revealed the Father (and the whole of redemption) by fulfilling and turning our attention to what was 'written'. Mt 4:4 But he (Jesus) answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Lu 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he (Jesus) expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
Subject: Getting to KNOW you!! :-)
From: Pilgrim
To: Jimmy
Date Posted: Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 05:25:06 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Jimmy,
You wrote, 'God is Love, God is Life! Theology is dead reason, there's no life in it, GOD IS LIFE!'. Now pray tell, how is it you know that 'God is Love!'? or that 'God is Life!'? Since the 'finite can never ever comprehend the infinite. Never!' I find that you making such brash statements rather strange to say the least. Unless, of course, YOU are 'God' and thus the only being in existence able to comprehend yourself? hmmmmm
Pilgrim
Heb 10:30 'For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.' 1John 2:3 'And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.'
Subject: Re: The very first commandment :o)
From: Pilgrim
To: Jimmy
Date Posted: Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 20:46:06 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Jimmy,
You wrote: 'Your image of God is way to small! You're just too bound up in your religion' Now pray tell, what was the reason for this rude comment? To whom did you intend to apply this to? What is your point? And by the way, Genesis 1:28 is NOT the first commandment, hahaha. Rather consider:
Ex 20:2 'I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.'
If you really want to get technical, the first recorded commandment is Genesis 1:3 'And God said, Let there be light: . . .' Further, it is more than reasonable to conclude that the very first thing God commanded Adam was as follows:
Gen 2:15 'And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.'
This is indeed reasonable because according to the context, Eve wasn't created until AFTER the prohibition to not eat of the fruit was given, verse 21ff. I doubt that Adam would have comprehended the command to 'be fruitful and multiply' if he was yet alone. Unless of course he thought he was hermaphroditic! :-)
In His Grace, Pilgrim PS: Congratulations on the birth of your grandson! :-)
Subject: Why circumcision?
From: Anne
To: All
Date Posted: Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 14:31:22 (PST)
Email Address: anneivy@home.com

Message:
The last couple of days, I've been mulling over circumcision in the OT, and wondering if it is significant that this physical sign of God's covenant with His people is only available (applicable? possible? a verb! I need a verb!) to males. One thing puzzling me is God's instruction that all males be circumcised, even foreigners (presumably that's what those 'bought from foreigners' were). Perhaps the foreigners being included was a foreshadowing of the Gospel being offered to gentiles? But then baptism replaced circumcision, did it not? Yet we don't baptize nonbelievers, i.e. foreigners, and do baptize females. Any thoughts, ya'll? Anne
Subject: Re: Why circumcision?
From: Rod
To: Anne
Date Posted: Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 12:51:08 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Hi, Anne, It is significant and often overlooked that circumcision was was more than a physical sign of identity as God's people, but was also used as a symbol of what everyone in God's nation should have had: a heart relationship with the LORD. The words of Jeremiah, for example, illustrate the fact that God requires and demands a deep relationship from the core being with Himself: 'Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem, lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings...At that time shall it be said to this people and to Jerusalem, A dry wind of the high places in the wilderness toward the daughter of my people, not to fan, or to cleanse...O Jeruslaem, wash thine heart from wickedness, that thou mayest be saved. How long shall thy vain thoughts lodge within thee?' (4:4, 11, 14). It is evident that more than the males are involved here, but all the inhabitants of the land are to purify themselves from the heart toward the LORD. The symbolism of femninity for Judah as 'the daughter of my people' (common to Scripture) is an indication that God isn't focused on the male population alone, but on the whole of the nation. And the command to 'wash thine heart' in verse 14 is illustrative of God's instruction concerning the true meaning of the symbol of identification as a nation with circumcision God's people are pure and clean; the 'flesh' has been removed and they are to have a spiritual relationship with the LORD. Paul spoke expressly to that fact in Romans 4:11 when speaking of Abraham's circumcision as 'a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had being yet uncircumcised." The groundwork for that teaching was carefully laid in chapter 2, for instance, with such verses as 28-29: 'For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.' That, in greater detail and with more signifcance for us, is the teaching of Jeremiah, amounting to the fact that circumcision is a symbol of faithfulness in the national father of the Jews and the resultant faith to be possessed by his children. Faith is the focal point and the reason for which Paul called Abraham 'the father of us all' (4:16) who are of faith in the revelation of the promises of God.
Subject: Re: Why circumcision?
From: laz
To: Anne
Date Posted: Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 12:37:17 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Anne - My 2 cents. The New covenent is just THAT, new and improved, a BETTER one, yet similar to the Old. In the New, women receive the 'sign' of the covenant via baptism (whereas in the Old, only males were circumcised)and as for foreigners being circumcised...if I'm not mistaken, you just didn't circumcise ANY foreigner in your midst...but only those willing to be under the authority of the Theocracy (your immigrant citizenry)...thereby they TOO became 'citizens of the (earthly)kingdom'...partakers of the OT covenant with it's blessings/cursings. So, in this respect, there is no ultimate difference btwn the Old and the New covenants...both had the entire human race in mind...from every tribe, nation and tongue...with the Old 'pointing' to this future reality in having foreigners (like ME!) partake of His promises, which even included a 'court of the gentiles'...the New actually proclaiming unabashedly and receiving 'whosoever' believeth. blessings, laz
Subject: Re: Why circumcision?
From: stan
To: Anne
Date Posted: Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 15:00:42 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
The thought of foreigners or mixed multitude relates to those that came to believe in God. If you study the OT on the subject you will find that they were treated almost totally as a jew. I have always believed that this was one area where the Jewish people failed miserably - getting the message about God out to the world. All was in place to bring the world into the fold. Then again the church hasn't done all that well getting the message out either in many generations. stan
Subject: The Majesty of Christ
From: saved
To: All
Date Posted: Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 08:44:14 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Hear this good sermon from the Book of Hebrews by Dr. Phil Newton! GRace Sermons www.gracesermons.com/
Subject: Is time created?
From: Puritan
To: All
Date Posted: Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 05:17:17 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Greetings! I was asked this question the other day; 'was time created?' The question really got me thinking. Any takers? ;) Puritan
Subject: Re: Is time created?
From: Brother Bret
To: Puritan
Date Posted: Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 19:45:11 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Shouldn't we seperate time and age? Time was created in as much that God created the earth and sun and as it applies to the earth rotating on it's axis and revolving around the sun. Wasn't age also created in that out Sovereign Lord created the Garden of Eden from which our first parents were kicked out of ? BB
Subject: Re: Is time created?
From: stan
To: Puritan
Date Posted: Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 15:55:08 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
In my mind! God created. Time was quite possibly just a by-product of that creation. Matter changes with time thus matter created brings along with it time, that is if it really matters. ;-)
Subject: Re: Is time created?
From: Rod
To: Puritan
Date Posted: Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 14:44:13 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Of course one can't point to a specific verse so far as I know for verification which says, 'On the Xth day, God created time.' Yet there are verses from which it can be inferred that time is created. Those which speak of God in His three Persons being eternal are among them. The concept of 'eternal' can only be understood by us who are human in relation to time. If we weren't bound by time, there would be nothing to measure that which is divine and majestic beyond measure. When God is spoken of as 'ancient of days' it is a staggering concept. He is full of days, but untouched by aging. He is filled up with eternity because He is boundless. Humanity is ancient and decrepit at age 80 years (or before), but God is 'ancient of days' without any lessening or addition to His magnificence. Time cannot limit God, but is a device of the creator God to execute His purposes. We see examples of that when the Bible, God's Word, uses such phrases as, 'in the fullness of time....' Time itself is limited by the limitless God. He has set its borders and decreed its purposes. When He decides that a particular design has run its course, 'the fullness of time' is completed and judgment is executed. And, ultimately, when His timing is correct, His elect enter eternity with Him, freed by being conformed to the image of the Son of God from the constraints of judgment and time itself.
Subject: Re: Is time created?
From: Pilgrim
To: Puritan
Date Posted: Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 07:57:28 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Greetings! I was asked this question the other day; 'was time created?' The question really got me thinking. Any takers? ;) Puritan
---
Puritan, I'll bite! :-) Yes, time was created! Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Is time created?
From: laz
To: Puritan
Date Posted: Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 10:49:15 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Puritan - I'll not only bite but chew a bit. Not sure I'll swallow just yet... hehe Please follow this webpage's argumentation as best you can...it really does relate to time and the fact that it's illogical to have an infinite series of causes (an infinite regression?)...events, TIME. blessings, laz Kalam Cosmological Argument ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/kalam.htm
Subject: Re: Is time created?
From: sean
To: laz
Date Posted: Thurs, Dec 28, 2000 at 14:14:01 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Stan has this right, when God created mutable matter, time was given birth. Time marks change, if there is no change there is no time, thus God is eternal w/out shadow of turning. He is the Alpha & Omega for the very fact that He is without beginning or end. Thus the title of 'I AM'.
Subject: Speaking of Music :- )
From: Brother Bret
To: All
Date Posted: Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 13:01:14 (PST)
Email Address: Lovitz5@juno.com

Message:
can anyone tell me how I can get a hold of of CD's and/or tapes that have nothing but the Psalms but to music? What do the majority of Presbyterian and like churches that sing only or mostly psalms use? And if any of you have something that you would be willing to sell or give me, please let me know :^ ). Brother Bret
Subject: Re: Speaking of Music :- )
From: Puritan
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 18:24:12 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
can anyone tell me how I can get a hold of of CD's and/or tapes that have nothing but the Psalms but to music? What do the majority of Presbyterian and like churches that sing only or mostly psalms use? And if any of you have something that you would be willing to sell or give me, please let me know :^ ). Brother Bret
---
Brother Bret, You may want to try the site posted below for info on the psalms. I truly believe that the psalms are what we ought to be singing today in worship. Hope this helps. Blessings, Puritan http://www.fpcr.org/sing.htm
Subject: Re: Speaking of Music :- )
From: Brother Bret
To: Puritan
Date Posted: Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 19:32:22 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I agree that the Psalms are the best biblical way to worship the Lord in song. As I may have mentioned in an earlier post, I went to Calvary Chapel of Ft. Lauderdale, FL. for a Saturday night service to check them out. They we singing the Psalms, and were rockin' while they did. What do you think? BB
Subject: Re: Speaking of Music :- )
From: laz
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Thurs, Dec 07, 2000 at 11:35:08 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Can there be 'rockin' and 'churchin' at the SAME time? hehe laz
Subject: Re: Speaking of Music :- )
From: puritan
To: laz
Date Posted: Thurs, Dec 07, 2000 at 17:22:43 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Seems to me that all we do in the reformed church is rock.... the boat that is. ;^) Puritan
Subject: Re: Speaking of Music :- )
From: laz
To: puritan
Date Posted: Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 05:41:03 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
well....we stand in good company. Some would say that's what Jesus Christ did much of the time! ;-) laz
Subject: Re: Speaking of Music :- )
From: Pilgrim
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 20:49:10 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
can anyone tell me how I can get a hold of of CD's and/or tapes that have nothing but the Psalms but to music? What do the majority of Presbyterian and like churches that sing only or mostly psalms use? And if any of you have something that you would be willing to sell or give me, please let me know :^ ). Brother Bret
---
Bro Bret,
I have a couple of wonderful albums of a cappella sung Psalms from the RPCNA (covenanters) that I purchased around 1975. You can get these now on CD. Just click the link for more information: Crown and Covenant Publications. :~)
In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Re: Thanks for sharing the site! NT
From: stan
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Tues, Dec 05, 2000 at 20:28:16 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Subject: Re: Speaking of Music :- )
From: saved
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 17:47:27 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
can anyone tell me how I can get a hold of of CD's and/or tapes that have nothing but the Psalms but to music? What do the majority of Presbyterian and like churches that sing only or mostly psalms use? And if any of you have something that you would be willing to sell or give me, please let me know :^ ). Brother Bret
---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---
- Try this link. You can try to record the singing from your PC.. They are not very melodic, but they are the Psalms being sung...:-) After awhile, I think they get very monotous...(or, they get on your nerves).. That is because we are so use to the standard melodies and harmonies that are more well known. I prefer songs like ....Amazing GRace, or It is well with my soul...etc. or On Christ the solid Rock I stand. Or The churches One Foundation is Jesus Christ my Lord. I guess singing the Psalms was fine for when king David was king. Audio Psalms & sermons www.freechurch.org/audio.html
Subject: Re: Speaking of Music :- )
From: JOwen
To: saved
Date Posted: Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 23:47:41 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Shame on you saved. You should say, 'If the Psalms were good enough for Christ, they are good enough for me.' Cause that is all we have recorded is Christ singing psalm 113-117. No Trinity Hymnal in Christ's day. :) JOwen
Subject: Re: Speaking of Music :- )
From: Tom
To: JOwen
Date Posted: Tues, Dec 05, 2000 at 00:13:27 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
Then again someone could use that kind of reasoning, by saying,since Jesus never drove a car and walking or riding on a donkey were good enough for Him. Then I won't drive car, since Jesus didn't. I am not saying one way or another which view I take, but I think your arguement is flawed. Tom
Subject: Re: Speaking of Music :- )
From: Rod
To: Tom
Date Posted: Tues, Dec 05, 2000 at 10:39:04 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Tom, You wrote, 'Then again someone could use that kind of reasoning, by saying,since Jesus never drove a car and walking or riding on a donkey were good enough for Him. Then I won't drive car, since Jesus didn't.' Aren't there in fact people who have gone to that extreme? :>)
Subject: Re: Speaking of Music :- )
From: Tom
To: Rod
Date Posted: Tues, Dec 05, 2000 at 13:49:19 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
My point is that I don't like that kind of reasoning. It lends itself to that kind of extreme. Tom
Subject: I understood, Tom, just...
From: Rod
To: Tom
Date Posted: Tues, Dec 05, 2000 at 15:10:43 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
a little attempt at levity. :>)
Subject: Re: I understood, Tom, just...
From: Prestor John
To: Rod
Date Posted: Thurs, Dec 07, 2000 at 21:57:01 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
a little attempt at levity. :>)
---
Well you know what the word says Rod a little levity and the whole is leavened! No need to thank me its the yeast that I can do!! Prestor John Pewsitter the reverant cartoon
Subject: Re: I understood, Tom, just...
From: Rod
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Thurs, Dec 07, 2000 at 23:54:45 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
Prestor John, It is written (somewhere): 'Yea, even verily, those so leavened will rise up and call you blessed! For in that day none of the yeast of you will work any more; everyone so leavened will loaf instead."
Subject: Re: I understood, Tom, just...
From: Prestor John
To: Rod
Date Posted: Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 19:54:41 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I see your feeling your oats there Rod. But no matter how you slice it I think your trying to butter me up! Instead i think I'll stand pat. Prestor John
Subject: My brother loves to
From: Rod
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 22:35:28 (PST)
Email Address: na

Message:
do this with me. He'd probably eat both our lunches. But I guess I'll wrap it up before a monitor feels he kneads to step in and batter us for not doughing what we oughta and acting like a coupla heels :>)
Subject: Re: My what ....
From: stan
To: Rod
Date Posted: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 19:03:41 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
crusty pair!
Subject: Re: My what ....
From: Prestor John
To: stan
Date Posted: Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 20:56:25 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Well with the rest of you just loafing around what can we do? Anyway you slice it we seem to be in a bit of a jam here. I don't mean to sound like a heel here butter not say anything more. Prestor John
Subject: Re: yes ....
From: stan
To: Prestor John
Date Posted: Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 15:45:40 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
that is quite enough! ;-)
Subject: Re: yes ....
From: Pilgrim
To: stan
Date Posted: Tues, Dec 12, 2000 at 20:50:21 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
that is quite enough! ;-)
---
Indeed, this conversation is crumbling rather quickly. It was crumby to begin with, don't you think? :-) Pilgrim
Subject: Re: UUuuuugggghhhh! NT ;-)
From: stan
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 15:16:44 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Subject: Amillenialism vs Historicism
From: Eric
To: All
Date Posted: Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 15:01:56 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
What are the main differences between Amillenialism and Historic Pre-millenialism. Is it true that many of the Reformers held to Historic Pre-millenialism? Alos, since most on this board I believe are Amillenialists, in your opinion, what are the biggest errors in Historic premillenialism? God bless.
Subject: Re: Amillenialism vs Historicism
From: JOwen
To: Eric
Date Posted: Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 18:27:26 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Friend. The historic reformed faith has always been Historic Postmillennial. Amill, has historically occupied the fringe of the Reformed faith, always in the shadow of Postmillennialism; this, until the last 120 years where amill has become more popular in the reformed schools and churches. This is a sad day indeed. :) Calvin, Luther, the Westminster Assembly, John Cotton, John Owen, the Puritans, Edwards, Machen, Murray were all historic postmil. JOwen
Subject: Re: Amillenialism vs Historicism
From: Tom
To: JOwen
Date Posted: Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 07:20:43 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
JOwen You said: Calvin, Luther, the Westminster Assembly, John Cotton, John Owen, the Puritans, Edwards, Machen, Murray were all historic postmil. Can you prove that statement? Tom
Subject: Re: Amillenialism vs Historicism Tom
From: Jowen
To: Tom
Date Posted: Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 23:40:05 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Sure, but do I have to? I mean I had to discover it by reading all their writings, and it has taken me so long! J Savoy declaration 1656 says” “ IV. 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 exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God, whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.” “ V. As the Lord in his care and love towards his Church, hath in his infinite wise providence exercised it with great variety in all ages, for the good of them that love him, and his own glory; so according to his promise, we expect that in the latter days, antichrist being destroyed, the Jews called, and the adversaries of the kingdom of his dear Son broken, the churches of Christ being enlarged, and edified through a free and plentiful communication of light and grace, shall enjoy in this world a more quiet, peaceable and glorious condition than they have enjoyed.” Over 200 puritan commissioners subscribed to this confession on behalf of their congregations. Included in that number was: John Owen (Major Contributor) Thomas Goodwin (Major Contributor) John Cotton (American Theologian) Jonathan Edwards (Congregational Calvinist and Savoy subscriber. Also see his Postmill writings in his Works. Very replete! ) Westminster Confession of Faith says: “VI. 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.]” “To pray for the propagation (success) of the gospel and kingdom of Christ to all nations; for the conversion of the Jews, the fullness of the Gentiles, the fall of Antichrist, and the hastening of the second coming of our Lord.” Includes in this number were men such as: Samuel Rutherford George Gillespie David Dickson Thomas Watson Thomas Goodwin Jeremiah Burroughs And about 145 others who I’d rather not type out. J Dr. Francis Nigel Lee (a leading reformed scholar and postmillennial spokesman) writes in one of his articles: 1. Said Luther against the papal antichrist: 'We must slay him with words; the mouth of Christ must do it . . . See what effect this . . . preaching and writing this truth has had; how the papists’ cover has shrunk . . . Let us be wise, thank God for His Holy Word, and be bold with our mouths . . . Let us keep boldly on: earnestly inculcate the Word; and drive out the laws of men . . . This is the way Christ is, through us, slaying the papacy.' 'Christ is with His saints, and wins the victory!' 2. John Calvin took over and systematized Luther’s Biblical views. Calvin called Luther 'my much respected father' who had denounced 'the darkness of the papacy.' Calvin himself then further repeatedly exposed the Roman pontiff as antichrist. 3. Calvin indicated that though the AD 600 Gregory the Great was the first bishop at Rome to be called sole pope, Gregory himself had regarded that new title as a mark of antichrist! Yet Calvin saw especially the AD 1415 papal burning of Huss as a clear evidence of the antichristian nature of the papacy. On Daniel 12:4ff, Calvin commented in 1561: 'At the present time, in the papacy . . . impiety prevails.' 4. Calvin especially insisted that both II Thessalonians 2:3ff and I John 2:18 & 4:4ff clearly brand the pope as antichrist. Romanists, said Calvin, were wrong to regard antichrist as a yet-future tyrant who would harass the church for but three and a half years. Even a ten-year-old, stated Calvin, can see that the centuries-long papacy is itself indeed antichrist! Yet the papal 'antichrist will be annihilated by the Word of the Lord . . . Paul does not think the Christ will accomplish this in a moment . . . Christ will scatter the darkness . . . before His coming' by 'the preaching of this doctrine.' For 'we fight by Christ’s power, and are armed with God’s weapons . . . We are victorious . . . We can no more be conquered, than can God Himself . . . Victory is certain!' (Antichrist in Scripture by Francis Nigel Lee,1998) In Fact, better yet. Why not go to http://www.historicism.org and read the PhD dissertations of Dr. Lee and find out all the “facts” regarding the dominance of the historicist postmillennial position. All the fact are there. It’s a great site as well. JOwen
Subject: Re: Amillenialism vs Historicism Tom
From: Tom
To: Jowen
Date Posted: Tues, Dec 05, 2000 at 14:15:30 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
Jowen Apparently there are many Amillinians who believe that those quotes from the Westminister Confession of Faith, have nothing to do with the Post or Amillianian position. There are Amillinians who acknowledge the quotes from documents like the Westminster Confession of faith, and some that don't. Please go to the following site to see what I am talking about. http://mountainretreat.org/postit/ Under the Re: Amil/Historicism revisited thread. I have decided that for the next little while, I think it would be best that I studied Eschatology straight from the scriptures. Until I think I have a handle on the topic. There seems to be too many views among even Amillinians and Posts for me to sort through them. At least if I only go to the scriptures, I won't have to wade through others oppinion to decide, the truth. Tom
Subject: Re: Amillenialism vs Historicism Tom
From: Pilgrim
To: Tom
Date Posted: Tues, Dec 05, 2000 at 17:09:04 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Tom,
I went and had a look at the thread you referred to on the 'Mountain Retreat' theology forum. To be honest, I didn't read anything that I hadn't expected to see there, including rude insults addressed to you and your honest question. 'He' wrote: 'By the way, in your obvious obsession with tradition, do you ever have time to actually study God's Word itself? ..God is a Jealous God!' Why you insist on subjecting yourself to that place is beyond me??!! Secondly, what is wrong with holding to tradition; tradition which is firmly grounded in the Word of God? Certainly we should all engross ourselves in the Scriptures. But to think that we stand alone as 'Lone Rangers' with our 'silver bullets of truth' is nothing but sheer arrogance. May I recommend two very apropos articles which address this very subject for your edification? In Defense of Creedalism Tradition: Romish and Protestant
In His Grace, Pilgrim PS: For a concise and accurate representation of the Amillennial position, read Dr. William Hendriksen's More Than Conquerors
Subject: Re: Amillenialism vs Historicism Tom
From: Tom
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 01:37:19 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
Pilgrim Thanks for your concern. I ask myself that question every time I go to the Mountain Retreat Board. However, I have learned a few things over there. One being, I do have a tendancy when I get boged down, to listen more to other peoples interpretation, than what the word of God says. I have found that sometimes (not always) I know doctrine, more from what I have been told and read, than actually being able to go to the scriptures themselves. At present I don't have enough time to read the articles. But I will book mark them for reading later on. I was wondering if you would agree with the following: Basically, amillennialists believe in an earthly millennial reign of Christ, that Christ reigns now and the millennium is now. Premillennial is the belief in a future earthly millennial reign of Christ a literal 1000 years in the middle east. Postlillennial is the belief in a golden millennial age in the future where the world will become Christianized. Also would you agree that believing that the pope is the anti-Christ, is something that is held by some Amillinialists as well as some Postmillinialists, it is not just a Postmillinian position. Jowen has used the Westminster Confession of Faith, to prove that it agrees with the Postmillinian position and not the Amillinian position. I ask those questions to see if I have a grasp of the basics of the eschatology positions. As to the book you recommended. That might be a book that I would be interested in reading down the road. But at present, I have more than enough to read on my plate. Thanks again Tom
Subject: Re: Amillenialism vs Historicism Tom
From: Tom
To: Tom
Date Posted: Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 01:04:35 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
I have errored in my post. I said:Basically, amillennialists believe in an earthly millennial reign of Christ. It should have read: Basically, amillennialists do not believe in an earthly millennial reign of Christ. Please excuse my not checking my posts enough before submitting them. A red faced Tom
Subject: Re: Amillenialism vs Historicism Tom
From: laz
To: Tom
Date Posted: Thurs, Dec 07, 2000 at 11:33:12 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
I'd add that belief that the Pope is the anti-Christ is all the rave within PreMil circles too! blessings, laz
Subject: Re: Amillenialism vs Historicism
From: Brother Bret
To: JOwen
Date Posted: Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 21:50:43 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Is it safe to say that the modern pre-trib/pre-mil position is a early to mid twentieth century belief as far as popularity goes? BB
Subject: Re: Amillenialism vs Historicism
From: JOwen
To: Brother Bret
Date Posted: Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 22:36:52 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
BB, I'd say a post Civil War, pre WWI concoction. JOwen
Subject: Let me clarify the question
From: Eric
To: JOwen
Date Posted: Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 07:36:11 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Thanks for your responses, but I did not ask the right question. Does Amillenialism hold to a progressive outworking of the prophecies contained in Revelation as commencing shortly after the book was written, and continuing progressively until Christ returns? In other words, are a number of events symbolized in Revelation already past? Thanks for your help.
Subject: Re: Let me clarify the question
From: Pilgrim
To: Eric
Date Posted: Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 20:24:40 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Thanks for your responses, but I did not ask the right question. Does Amillenialism hold to a progressive outworking of the prophecies contained in Revelation as commencing shortly after the book was written, and continuing progressively until Christ returns? In other words, are a number of events symbolized in Revelation already past? Thanks for your help.
---
Eric, One of the major principles of Amillennialism is the 'already but not yet'! Some of the O.T. prophecies have occurred and some are yet future. And there are some which have been partially fulfilled and await completion. In His Grace, Pilgrim
Subject: Thanks! nt
From: Eric
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 08:53:44 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
nt
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: Tues, Dec 19, 2000 at 13:06:16 (PST)
Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca

Message:
Rod Sorry I didn't see your post before. I no longer have a problem with the issue of fasting. I think it is quite clear that fasting is self-denial of food for spiritual devotion to God. Sometimes I wonder how I get myself into problems like this. Tom
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: saved
To: Bdavid
Date Posted: Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 17:54:01 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Melody ( as well as the words)is very important, and the 'new music' is far from being spiritual, I think. There are no good melodies to hum or take home with you... after the song is over, you can remember none of it.. in most cases. This is poor. So I vote NO to all these comtemporary music stuff that is being written these days... Seek ye the old paths...
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: Re: Contemporary music (melody)
From: Bdavid
To: Pilgrim
Date Posted: Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 22:10:18 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Pilgrim, I AGREE with you that music does evoke a response in the soul. Movies implement this device all the time, and hence a battle scene has ‘battle’ music, a love scene has another type of music, a suspense scene another, and so on. The response of the soul to music is most clearly evident with small children, for soothing music is employed to put them to sleep, while playing ‘rowdy’ music (such as rock or rap) will result in them getting ‘all wound up’ or ‘excited.’ We have no disagreement here. Our disagreement is your insistence that the tempos and rhythm of certain music is in itself of a morally corrupting nature; that the excitement is always of a negative character. It is here that I take issue with you. :-) I would contend that the response of the soul to music is only negative when it is a servant of an evil heart, but I need to explain my meaning. If a group of gang members embarked on a killing spree, I have no doubt whatsoever that playing ‘rowdy’ music during such a spree would move them to kill more people in even more violent manners, for such music ‘winds people up.’ But excitement can be a good thing in the right context. When a swat team is about to storm a building and rescue a hostage, when an athlete is about ready to run a race; listening to music which will ‘pump a person up’ before such an endeavor can be a justifiable thing. As a second example, if an immoral woman embarked on exiting sexual passions within another man, I have no doubt that playing certain ‘sensual’ music would move her to conduct herself all the more lewdly. But if a wife was minded to arouse her husband (and most certainly this is not necessarily sinful), playing certain music which moves her to conduct herself more sensually is not immoral for ‘marriage is honorable in all things, and the bed undefiled.’ My point in the two previous examples is this: music in and of itself does not cause a person to act in evil righteous ways. Adultery, theft, murder and the like; these things originate in the heart, not from rhythms and tempos in music. The music merely intensifies or suppresses already existing desires. Music may cause a person who is in a quiet mood to be active (as my example of children getting ‘all wound up’ by listening to rock or rap illustrated), and we have no dispute here. But it is one thing to say it excites a person to be active, and quite another to say that it it incites a person to be sinfully active. This is where I take issue with you. You have mentioned before in previous posts that music is to be judged by the word of God, but you have not yet cited scripture to support your view. Brother Bret gave a plethora of scriptures, but since he said it was his last post I did not take him to task on his quotations. But it is certainly unsound exegesis to suggest the original intent of the authors he quoted had in view rhythms and tempos in music, the context giving no indication of such things. I certainly believe that as Christians we are to do all things to ‘the glory of God,’ but I see nothing which says that battle music or even a sensual dance is improper, provided it is in the proper context. I hesitated in putting forth this next question, for I do not prefer to give such explicit content, but I feel I have no choice in light of your examples. To affirm that certain music influences a person to gyrate I can agree. But you take it beyond this and suggest that it not only moves a person to gyrate; it moves a person to gyrate in a lewd, indecent manner, thereby suggesting that all such gyrations are lewd irrespective of the context. I take it therefore, that the lewd gyrations you observe in rock and roll concerts would be improper for a married woman to do behind closed doors with her husband? Bdavid
Subject: Re: Contemporary music (melody)
From: Pilgrim
To: Bdavid
Date Posted: Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 21:39:51 (PST)
Email Address: Not Provided

Message:
Bdavid,
Again, I will have to apologize for not being able to respond in detail to a very pressing schedule which is demanding most of my time. Therefore, I will have to defer once again to Dr. Leonard Payton and his very indepth apologetic against contemporary music, including an excellent polemic against the neutrality of 'style' and contemporary 'style' in particular. You can read the article here: Congregational Singing and the Ministry of the Word. I think Dr. Payton offers a sufficient amount of biblical evidence to support the rejection, by Christians, of contemporary 'styles' as well as other types of musical format. Enjoy!
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.

Copyright 1997 Paradise Web Enahancements
All Rights Reserved