Reformed-cross

I have about 12 guns in various styles..none of them have ever walked out and started shooting. The idea behind gun control is that the common citizen cannot be trusted to own a gun and not inflict harm or commit a crime or use it dangerously. So, a false and foolish reliance upon government to suppress crime, and deny guns to people arises. What happens of course is guns are now the only tool that a criminal will use, if you dis-arm the citizenry the criminal can have the power to do and take what he wants. As to children with guns. I didnt allow my kids access to the guns unless I was present. When they were in their teens they could use them if they wanted, If my son or daughter would have been irresponsible and stupid, they would have never gained access to my guns. Loaded weapons were not a part of our family, Loaded weapons were forbidden in the house. It safeguarded the handling of a firearm so that there would be no fear of picking up a firearm or working the action. Firearms were treated like a car in the sense that any mishandling of it would result in loosing the privilege of ownership. Weak parenting, undisciplined children, irresponsible use of a firearm all combine to create hazards for children and parents in the use of firearms. Always checking your action, always pointing downrange, always knowing where your muzzle is pointing, keeping the safety on until ready to shoot, are some of the necessities of gun safety, if these are too stringent or too difficult for a child or teen, that child or teen cannot handle a firearm, they might as well never ask. If adults cannot follow proper gun safety, I will not hunt with them, nor will I encourage anyone else to shoot with them. I do not need law-enforcement to live in my home to keep my family safe in the presence of a firearm, I do that very well myself. R.E.

It matters what God has spoken to you. I realize he can speak through people and does. Yet, I wonder if he has spoken to you directly? Have you a passion in your heart to serve the body of Christ? Have you a gifting that connects you to the body of Christ to teach, lead, correct, feed, confront, guide and help them? Do you also have a willingness to be hurt, maligned, slandered, spoken against, misunderstood, misrepresented, denied and even rejected by the people you seek to serve? A drama and a few sermons does not a pastoral calling make. A few folks that like your preaching is no indicator of a calling. Jim Jones, Rev Moon, Joseph Smith had folks that liked their sermons yet they were enemies to the faith. Has it been your custom to find ways to teach? Has it been your custom to seek ways to serve and mature other believers? Has it been your custom to connect with other believers to seek them out, know them, grow them, bless them, give to them? Being a pastor is a people-position it means that God is sending you to oversee and care for his chosen flock. Has God sent you to the flock? Or do you feel like going to the flock because some of the flock are appreciative of you? There is a huge difference between going because you're liked and going because God sent you. You'll have to know the difference and decide whether or not God has called you. Whatever your decision, God has a chosen calling for you, be pleased to find out what that is and honor God in it. R.E.

If only that were always true. I find that most christians don't know the difference between theological commentary and the scriptures. I know how it upsets you when I disparage that approach, but I still prefer just quoting the scriptures instead of debating theological perspectives. So many of the great Christian theologians advocated or committed murder, for example. Theology just seems so "religious". Yuck. Yod: If you view Shiloh's post charitably it is true, if you split hairs....such as saying Paul Tillich or Rudolph Bultmann's theology is man-made (errant as to orthodoxy) then I would agree with you. But, by definition theology such as systematic-theology, that is a codification topically of scripture revelation. Biblical theology is the progression of revelation bringing to light the person and plan of God through Jesus Christ. I dont think anyone is going to argue against the fact that there are aberrant theologies out there. The truth is though...its closer to home than we want to admit.. No one just quotes scripture, well some do but its pretty useless to know what they mean, most folks connect verses with other verses to come to conclusions and because we all do this, we all have our own 'theology'. Because we must interpret the scriptures to ourselves first, no-one simply reads the sacred texts, they seek to understand the texts. Understanding is personal and subjective so therefore it is also subject to misunderstanding and error. Systematics and Biblical Theologies represent the compilation of topics brought to the reader in a way that creates a context in which the subject is to be viewed. When the sum of scripture knowledge is applied to "man" or "God" what appears is an incredibly valuable compressed knowledge of the subject that is helpful when interpreting texts of scripture that are hard to understand. But even more, the systematic approach allows the author to demonstrate the wisdom and mind of God that flows from any subject. When a good theologian speaks from a systematized knowledge of scripture his chances for error are far less than those who pretend that 'they have the bible only'. Why? Because the "bible only" folks who tout "no man-made theology" will ever cross their lips have already violated their claims. They have an un-tested, un-evaluated theology that has not been scrutinized by anyone but themselves and as such (in my experience) are just as dangerous to listen to as what some call theologians-with-an-agenda. Lastly, could you name one murdering "great" theologian? Of course you must know that even if you named a thousand, that is no proof that theology is by necessity Man-made. Even if you named 10,000 great theologians that did not murder that does not prove their theology is not man-made. There is another criteria. R.E.

Hello Grandma dolittle: It sounds like you have a problem with the divinity of Jesus Christ. If you believe that scripture reveals who God is and that what is revealed about God is truth and is not contradictory, then these texts will help you see what you do not see. First off, I hope that you decide against "deciding it doesnt matter", because it matters greatly. The doctrine of the Trinity is a uniquely Christian and perfectly biblical truth where the various aspects of Jesus Christ, the Father and the Holy Spirit are understood as the right and true biblical presentation of the One True God in whom we have trusted. Eph 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit--just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call-- Eph 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, Eph 4:6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. In numerous places the scripture places all 3 persons of the godhead next to each other as does the Ephesians texts. So also, 1Pe_1:2, 1Co_12:3-6; The scriptures make this division because the Father is not the Son, nor is the Son the Father, Yet the Spirit is also neither the Son or the Father. You also might have noticed that our Salvation is credited to the working of all three persons...Tit 3:4 But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, Tit 3:5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, Tit 3:6 whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, Now let us look at each person more specificially. Jesus Christ is fully human "1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 1Ti 2:6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. Jesus is fully human and it was his manhood=humanity that was crucified and given as a ransom for all. Jesus being human, fully man, suffered, was beaten, hungered, was weary, slept, was thirsty, wept and was circumcised. I didnt post all these texts, but a concordance will take you to all of these. Jesus being fully divine, meaning that he is God, not a demi-god, or an angel or a modal-god. Texts for his divinity. Isa 6:1 In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple. Isa 6:2 Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. Isa 6:3 And one called to another and said: "Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!" compare this to.....Joh 12:41 Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him. Of course it would be good to quote the most straight forward text as to Christ's Divinity and Humanity. Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God. Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. It is right that we honor Jesus Christ as we do God. It is right that we honor Jesus Christ because he is God. Joh 5:23 that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. These and many other scriptures that reveal to us that Jesus Christ judges people. That Jesus Christ forgives sins, That Jesus Christ is creator of all things, That Jesus Christ is King of Kings and Lord of Lords, a title that no one but the Divine Son of God could ever take upon himself. Jesus Christ bestows grace and imparts the Holy Spirit. As far as the Spirit of God, you didnt make mention so I wont delve into that now. But for brevity, this short post should point you to the two truths about Jesus Christ, that he is fully divine and fully human and we who believe the truth, worship him as the One True God -in whom dwells the fullness of the godhead bodily. R.E.

Thanks for the concern, RE, but this thread was a three year old thread resurrected by a new member. I considered the thread dead before this, but if you would like, I can split it. It is not what the OP intended, but where Barry has taken it. The OP has not been here in a very long time. Onelight: I think it should be split, thanks. R.E.

Barry: What The Historian Kelly gives in one quote he takes away with another quote. The patristics are not near so favorable to your cardinal doctrines as you presume upon us. The bible destroys them amply for us and we need not go back to Rome. The whole of Catholic apologetics takes us from the 'inch to the mile' at every assertion. We (the protestants assert) The Church does have successors.....the early fathers and believers that preached the message of the gospel. The "Mile" the Catholic apologist insists is that because there is a continuation of godly gifted men called to lead the Church....that these are Papal, infallible, and able to launch at us the Mass, Mary and works salvation. This we deny and assert that the RCC continually seeks to exert authority in matters that belong to the Spirit and the Scripture alone. You should start another thread, this is a hijacking of this thread and Im surprised we haven been censored. R.E.

Barry: So, youre taking this thread as a platform to assert the authority of the Pope? It must be true, why bring in pretended apostolic successors and pretended books unless what the Protestant Church has must be deficient in your view? The Protestants understand the 5 fold ministry of the apostles and prophets, pastors, evangelists and teachers. I do appreciate the fact that youve shifted to allow a priesthood of all believers whereas in times past the RCC burned them for seeking to obtain a bible let alone quote from one. You must have seen the light of (RCC error). But its all plain that the Pope has no authority over the Church. Maybe his own little flock, but over the Church universal. No. There is no apostolic succession. There is no authority granted to apostolic successors because they would be pretended sucessors, fakes that cannot say to own what is not available to them. If the bible were as explicit as you make it sound, there wouldnt be an argument about the Pope, but, those who read thier bibles have found that your interpretations, not the bible, that binds them to men and to traditions and authorities that are usurpers and not true pastors. Your Mass, your veneration of Mary, your angel worship, your additional books, your papal authority, your saints, your works-based salvation are all anathema. They are accursed for they are twisting of scripture, a perversion of what may be known of God. The true Church is free from your bondage, its free from the tyranny of popes and their cardinals and bishops. In the countries I go to, I preach the gospel to them that they might be delivered from the religious bondage that entraps them in RCC traditions. These ignorant religionists are no more converted to Christ than the Devil, yet because of the blindness and ignorance of the priests their flocks live in spiritual death. Praying to Mary, Praying to saints, reciting their rosary they walk straight forward into hell. It is sad to me that you chose an ex-baptist to serve as a testimony to Papal authority. You must know that the baptists by the grace and mercy of God have had the privilege of leading many tens of thousands of catholics to a living faith in Jesus Christ, renouncing the dead and fruitless living associated with the RCC. You cannot bury the error of interpretation underneath the technicalities of greek-english transliteration. Once the smoke clears the enemy of faith is once again seen. Ill end with my rebukes to the RCC with saying that this thread belonged to the origins of the New Testament, not with the origins of the RCC and the promulgation of its errant teachings. R.E.

The Church accepts homosexuality? The Church accepts gay priests? The Church is full of sins of pride, arrogance, adulteries? It is true that the true Church of Jesus Christ is imperfect and needs to be walking in all the light available from the word of God. But I do not believe for a second that the true Church is adulterous, homosexual, prideful, arrogant, wicked, loving pleasure more than loving God. These are marks of the babylonian church, the religious ones that have not washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb. The present world attacks the true believers, Satan seeks to destroy the heritage of the Lord. But simply because the true Church is tempted, attacked and some of them fail in various ways does not give us the right to equate the true bride of Christ with the nominal professors who are devoid of the Spirit. I think we all know that there is the visible professing church which is not necessarily the same as the invisible true and holy Church that God is perfecting. I refuse to connect the true wheat with the unusefulness of Tares, I will not equate a wolf and a sheep as the same animal because both are within a 'sheepfold'. Imperfect believers and moralistic unbelievers are difficult at times to distinquish but in time they are known. We cannot and do not sniff out all false professors and we do not always have a true knowledge of who are genuine believers but what I seek to refrain from doing is broad-brushing the Church which is the holy and being-perfected bride of Christ with the sins and lifestyle of the wicked. Its unrighteous judgment and its shows no depth of perception when a sheep will say to those within its own fold...."gather them together to be burned for they are all tares" Elisha said "and I, even I only, am left" God said "I have reserved 7000 who have not bowed the knee to Baal". God sees more than we do. He has more people than we think. R.E.

Fez: That is some really good teaching. Great post. I believe faith is given to us in measure as to quantity, but its power is not limited which is what I believe you expressed in the phrase R.E.

Job was faithful, so faithful that God bragged on him. Job 1:8 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? Listen if God said that about any of us, we would all be eternally thankful. The best that Satan could do is claim that Job served God for mercenary reasons....."you bless him". If I read my bible right, Id say God permitted Satan to attack Job because he knew what was in Job's heart and Satan was about to find out. Job was about to find out. God was going to prove Satan wrong, that Job's worship and service was not mercenary but true and righteous. I think what the real problem is...(rhetorically speaking) that we understand his pain and boils...those things are common to us all. But what is not common to us is the kind of covenant God and Job were in. There was no New Covenant, No mediator and Christ who has brought in a better covenant and better promises and a better hope. Job had theology that didnt contain all that we know now. His friends assumed Job had sinned because...."God blesses the righteous and curses the sinful"....so...since Job was afflicted Job must have done something to cause this horrible calamity. That is why Jobs friends were on a long fishing expedition to find out just what Job did to deserve such terrible disaster. They never caught anything because Job maintained his innocence. So, if youre wondering why Job seemed busy defending his innocence and righteousness its because he couldnt find the 'key' that opened the door to such disaster. Job's theology which was the same as his friends didnt provide an answer to the hidden workings behind-the-scenes that brought on this trial. Afterwards when Job understood the 'meeting God and Satan had' and that God had power to give blessing and to take blessing, he understood the secondary causes that effected his life, but moreso he saw God in a way that he didnt understand him before. A God that does not afflict needlessly or capriciously; God permitted this thing for the purpose of demonstrating that God can build a man to withstand terrible hardship. A mans life is in God's hands and he decides when and how it shall end. When Job received his final prosperity it was because God had covenanted to bless Job and all that he had irrespective of Job's ability to understand and assertain the reasons behind God's workings. To Jobs correction his seeming attitude of "Im righteous, I deserve God to give me an account" was met with 70 some questions that called Job into account and put him to the test. Job realized his demand was unwarranted and finished with a hand over his mouth saying nothing. Again, it seems to me that God was more interested in displaying God's own working in Job's heart by permitting this terrible loss and the horrific suffering in which his sons and daughters were killed and this livestock taken. Its just as easy to conclude...."Jobs blessing from God was due to his obedience and uprightness". God gave Job temporal blessings in order to display the covenant God and Job had. We do not see overt displays of New Testament grace at this stage of Jobs book. We find Job's life condition matching the covenant blessings Job received. We later find that his life conditions didnt match the covenant promises God gave to Job. This caused Job great heartache as well, Job wasnt able to match up his life of obedience and his calamity in life. This of course led Jobs friends to argue with Job about his innocency. Remember too Job appealed directly to God for his situation and didnt get caught up with secondary causes. Satans attacks=secondary causes. Did Job have faith? Yes, plenty for the revelation and truth that was given to him at the time. R.E.

ashwise: It kind of depends what perspective you are coming from. If its mans perspective then folks will jump to the commands of Jesus. Believe, repent, come, deny, follow and such like terms. These denote the response that is expected of us from God upon hearing the gospel. To some this is all there is. To some their theology and knowledge of what the bible says is all summed up in a few imperatives and they are happy with that. If its God's perspective then folks will jump to the declarations of God. Those who are saved are Elect, those who are sanctified are chosen, those who are called have been predestinated. From this point of view human responsibility seems un-necessary or that human involvement slights the sovereignty of God. To others they hold that divine sovereignty and mans responsibility are held in a 'tension' where the two are seemingly at odds with each other, but necessary because both are biblical. To me, there is no tension. God has not created a 'strained' message or a gospel that apparently contradicts itself. No one is going to be saved unless the Father brings them to Christ. No one is going to get saved unless the Spirit does a work of regeneration in them. No one is going to be saved unless God opens their minds and hearts to the truth of Gods word whereby they are enlightened and given spiritual ears to hear the message of the Kingdom of God and spiritual eyes to see the Kingdom of God and desire that they may enter it. No one is going to be saved unless they believe the truth. No one is going to be saved unless they have repented and called upon Jesus Christ and have denied themselves this world in order to partake of the one to come. No one is a disciple that has not counted the cost, denied himself, believed and trusted in Christ to forgive their sins and indwell them with the Holy Spirit. Im saying that the bible teaches that God's sovereignty walks hand in hand with mans required responsibility to obey the command of God. Most reasonable and knowledgeable Christians admit this and have no questions at all with both of these necessary biblical perspectives. Each perspective contains abundant truth which connects it to the gospel message as a whole. The extremes of either position destroy the message of the gospel. If you lean to heavily upon God's sovereignty in which you nullify the commands to repent and believe you effectively gut the gospel of human responsibility and effectively gut the truth that men are guilty. If man is not responsible or culpable for either truth or error, righteousness or sin then it makes a mockery of the crucificiion and degrades the work of God to redeem mankind by such a cruel and terrible death of the Son of God. If you lean to heavily upon human responsibility the hidden and secret work of the Spirit is nullified. You have effectively neutered the gospel of divine origin. All becomes a work of the will and power of men to overcome self and sin which they do not have power to overcome. It destroys the foundation of the gospel, which is not predicated upon mans willing and working but upon God's love and mercies. The power of the gospel is founded upon Divine decree not human agency. To avoid those extremes we allow the scripture to speak to us simply. There are many texts that marry sovereignty and human agency. Do not divorce them. Do not set them at odds with each other. Do not favor one text of sovereignty....because...the Sovereign God has declared a man is to act and to obey. Do not favor human agency....because.... the inspired writers have declared "a man can receive nothing except it be given him from heaven". It is the interweaving of human workings and Divine workings that good scripture students can get confused or have their whole little theological world overturned. Just remember that the details on how God has brought the two together will not overthrow the main points. Human responsibility will never overturn the Divine agency and Divine agency will never overturn human responsibility. Within the human mind these two clash again and again, in God's mind they do not clash and so far from clashing, they are revealed to us within the sacred pages as the "whole" truth. R.E.

saved34: Again, there are many things we agree on and some are simply emphasis in one area or another. I know we dont see eye to eye. But allow me to say a few things. 1. I agree that Rom 11 and what happened to the Jews even while Jesus was "coming to the lost sheep of Israel" has applicability to Johns Gospel. 2. I agree that I could have mistaken your definition about corporate Election. 3. I also agree that I form a deductive argument in terms of the lost state of multitudes who have died without hearing the gospel. That conclusion does not necessarily equate to "the mind of God". Lastly. Even though there are difference of opinion I would take a thousand more just like you to fill the world with the gospel of Jesus Christ and to declare the grace and blessing within the covenant of God. Your brother and co-laborer in the harvest R.E.

As a young Christian I used to think about how strong my faith was. I had read alot of stories of Christians that in times past endured tremendous persecution and were beaten and starved to death. I thought many a time on just what I would do in the same situation. I thought I would pass in flying colors. Today after alot of years living for Christ I have come to the realization that my faith is mine only because God keeps that faith alive in me. Through all the hardships, losses, family trials and sins of my own making I dont think I have strong faith. I think I have a strong God. In my dark days a scripture came to mind again and again. With alot of tears and agonizing heart-break I would go to prayer and seek the Lord. When I prayed, (my own evaluation of my faith which I thought was really important) I found out to be insignificant. Gauging my future with my own estimation of my faith was less than useless it was vain. As I looked up to heaven I had only the feeling of distance in my heart from God. I felt beaten to a pulp and so discouraged I couldnt ever put it into words. Here's the thing, trying to explain that to someone is also less than useless. Trite answers came and they only compounded my pain. I didnt feel disappointed in my well-wishers because they didnt have what I needed. I needed God himself. Unless God poured his love into me, I wasnt going to be satisfied. What I wanted was not going to come from men in the form of advice or counsels I had to have a meeting with God, one that brought me to a decision. The scripture that I received Job 13:15 Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him: but I will maintain mine own ways before him. I resigned myself that if I was going to be ruined by the situation I was in, and that if I were to lose everything I had received of him I was going to permit him to do so. Its not as though I was actually giving God permission to do anything, but I was permitting God to do so with a heart that said "I will trust in him". I wanted my Father to know I would be willing, not just to suffer but to have a heart that will suffer out of love for him. The hardest thing that I confronted in seeking to place myself upon that altar was that as a sacrifice I was unclean. If my heart was to sacrifice itself out of love for Jesus Christ at least it could be clean and pure. Well, I didnt have any of that. Part of the reason for this terrible condition I was in was due to my own sinfulness and selfish quests. But inwardly I had a driving need to submit to God even if it meant I was to be slain. I didnt expect to be killed I expected to have my life ruined and my family turn from me and my Church get rid of me and all the future I could imagine turn very dark. I went to prayer again and again and again I poured out my heart and I seemed to double over in pain I wept as hard as I could. I wish I could say it was just a short while and all was cleared up. No, I spent about 5 years going through this. Then after a reprieve for around 5 years It seemed necessary again to spend a great deal of time with my Father in prayer. After a few more years of weeping and heart ache I emerged from it. It all came to a point where I was in prayer walking in the woods, I knelt down and told my Father "I cannot live without you, I cannot put anything before you" If you want my life, I offer it to you to do with as you please however you please, I am yours." I had said this many times before and meant it every time, but this time I received a vision. I saw a well of blood, that blood was for me to drink of. I knew that what I had seen was the unending cleansing and purifying I could receive of God through Christ. My Father had provided for me purity and cleanness and with it reconciliation. When I looked up, I looked over the top of some large Firs. Immediately I froze, I knew that I was in the presence of an Angel I could sense the Spirit of God all around me I didnt move for about 20 minutes. I wept again for joy that I was accepted by my Father, that I was loved and I belong to him. My person is not great or important or even needed, but lacking all those things I was wanted and loved and that broke my heart more than I can describe. Here's the blessing, as I prayed I knew that my Father in heaven was going to give me what I should pray about, he would show me what I needed to do, He was going to give to me what I asked and that instead of empty vain self-evaluations of myself I knew something vastly superior that I was accepted in the beloved Christ and that I was God's son. R.E.

Again, I am having a hard time following your direction of your words. Scripture clearly states in Romans 8:28-30 "And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified." Where do you stand on the Predestination idea? I thought I knew until this post. Now I am uncertain. Hi Onelight: I appreciate the clarification on your views. You remind me of old-school Arminianism which carries alot of Calvinism in it but yet holds free-will as you do. Ya know I can be confusing to myself at times its no wonder others get confused. My take on predestination is that God by his sovereign choice before the world begain determined who he will 'put in Christ'. He destined them to salvation which is only through Jesus Christ. God not only Chose but predestined the means which is Christ and He predestined what the elect would look like and that is the image of Jesus Christ. Simply put my friend I say "A man choses Christ because God foreknew that man in love and therefore determined to adopt that man by bringing him to a place where he would believe and obey the call to repent and put faith in Jesus Christ." God ordained the means..Jesus Christ God ordained the man.....chosen, called, elect God ordained the mans preservation....justified, sanctified, preserved, protected God ordained the mans happy ending....glorified. God ordained the man everlasting happiness... Eph 2:7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. Hope this helps. R.E.

Saved: I offered a simply reason why you cannot equate John 6:37 with a strict "this only happend to the Jews" meaning. Its because You must take Vs 40 and do the same. You say you can have it both ways, but you cant. Exegeting the scripture as youve done is not done by any competent students of scripture. Tagging that text with the Romans text in order to narrow its scope could be valid if the context would allow it. But it doesnt. All of your rebuttals were summed up in the Romans text I gave which "show the hardening you asked for" in scripture. It was summarily dismissed. There is no such thing as corporate election for the gentiles and if you actually read the Romans text you find theres no corporate election for the Jew either. God takes his elect ones to himself out of the midst of what appears to be the visible elect tribes and makes them his own. This has been the manner all through history. Romans 11 if any text validates the Election of God for the gentile, that one does it. How, in the negative. "Israel was hardened" so God brought the Gentiles in. The Gentiles receiving the Holy Spirit was not a 'natural' occurance. It was the divine plan. How do I know? Well, read about many Gentiles being in covenant with God in the Old Testament? Yea...just about as many as Ive read...not very many. So, what happened to all those gentiles? Id say......sadly lost. If you read the text of Romans 9 you see that it was the gentile Pharaoh that was hardened...Id call him a gentile? Just sayin. So, I have scriptural precedent way up front that God hardens Gentiles and now in Romans 9 God speaking through Paul to the gentiles....."there has always been an Israel within Israel" they are the ones that God has chosen. This is the very reason Paul gives to bring understanding to the Romans "Why did the Jews who had all these promises and all the blessings, the covenant and the prophets fail here so miserably when the Messiah they were looking for finaly came? Rom 9:3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Rom 9:4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Rom 9:5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. Rom 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Paul answers himself with individual election through the remainder of the whole chapter. He never answers it with corporate election (which is a fabrication by those who dismiss the context of individual election). I realize that you would have to turn lose of corporate election...and thats ok because Saved...when you came to Christ were you 'corporately called'? I mean did just a generic call come to you or was it individual? Did you respond to a divine call that was really given to someone else but you took it cause you heard it 3rd person? Is your salvation really in-direct and 3rd hand? Allow me to speak rhetorically: maybe, just maybe you heard the word of God and responded to it because it was very directly applied to you? Maybe it was your own personal sins keeping you from a God that will not judge you corporately but will judge you individually and call you into account individually. I think probably the later. If your conversion is individual how is it that the salvation obtained is called "corporate". Did God saved me and then throw you in just for fun? Is that corporate? yea it is. I believe..and its just me...that no one believes they are corporately saved...especially those who hold to free will. That doctrine is more sacred to most than Jesus himself. So, its always a paradox to listen to those who demand free-will say "the gentiles are corporately elected". They dont believe it themselves for a second but try to put that corporate doctrine thing out as if its bible. Pardon me while I summarily dismiss corporate election. The whole New Testament is focusing on the individual believer and his responsibilities+relations to God. No one ever denies that in all the hundreds of thread on this website. But, when God is chosing one individual and hardening another....But yet some here will say "well, that cant be true cause election is corporate". I say bunk and hooey. I wont digress any farther. My conclusion is based upon the simple straight-forward interpretation of the texts in John and Romans. The narrowing of the text you do in John is eisogesis and unfortunately you think that because its connected "election-wise" to Romans 11 that God only blinds one kind of people and not the other. Yet, the text of scripture clearly states...Rom 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. Rom 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. What do you think this text means? Well, basically its God's decision on whom he will have mercy, its not because a man that wills or works that mercy is given. If you narrow the "whom" to Jews...well that would be consistent, but it would be consistently wrong. I have a whole bible containing the message that God elects some and does not elect others. Im still waiting for some biblical proof that God sent out evangelists to 'reconcile' back to himself all those multitudes who died by reason of the flood. It would be no stretch of the imagination to say that multitudes died without even the opportunity to jump on that Arc. Maybe thats too far back, how about the exterminated races that Israel took out? Did they get a chance to be in covenant with God before their demise? I dont read anywhere God gave them a chance. How about today? What has been the evangelistic push for the last 100 years? To bring the gospel and the bible to people who have never heard of Jesus Christ. Why? Because they will die in their sins without the opportunity to be saved. They are effectively lost. Yet, Im told to believe that God doesnt chose? God doesnt really leave one in their sins and bring another into glory? Using my bible as an interpreter of current events Id have to say that God really elects. Lastly, I dont disagree that Satan blinds the minds of those who do not believe. Thats scripture, but all Ive been saying is God has control over what Satan does, and if God wants to save someone Satan is not going to stop him. Thats over simplified but consistent with the biblical account of who God is. R.E.

Hi Saved: Well, in short, a great majority of folks Ive talked to, and Im talking hundreds have finally come to the conclusions I stated. I didnt rhetorically speak for them and build a straw-man, these folks believe God is unfair if he doesnt chose all. He's a tyrant if he doesnt give equal opportunity to all to receive Christ and I have heard it directly from Calvary chapel Pastors in one of their conferences that "they elect themselves by their free-will" and many other such ideas. If you or others bow out of such statements I can see why, but when the motivations behind why folks believe what they believe is revealed its not based upon the revelation of scripture but upon the immature thinking of their Christian days that they still hold, which is in short..."I saved myself by chosing Christ". While I dont have an axe to grind with the axiom its not doctrinally accurate. Ill address a couple of things. Well, Im going to say two things. One, you cant have it both ways...Why was not Jesus just addressing Jews when the Jewish Jesus was talking to the Jewish Nicodemus? That "all men" would have been confined to the Jews narrowing the scope of promise. Secondly the text I quoted contains the remainder of his statement If you hold to your Hebrew idom narrowing of the text in vs 37, you will need to in vs 40 as well seeing that Jesus was still finishing his same thought. This puts you into muddy and dark thinking that no Christian will hold to. In short you are confining the people to whom God will give Jesus, to a 'select people'. That is my argument and I appreciate your agreement. But if youre trying to confine the manner in which the Father gave to Jesus, then you will have to add those confines to the remainder of the the gospels which relegates the majority of Christ's teachings to the Jews and therefore catagorically undermines any promises Jesus makes as really unavailable to the gentiles. No orthodox new testament scholar holds that position. Though I agree with you that God by his providence hardened Israel, it only proves my point even further that God did not intend to save those he hardened (as you have mentioned) and because of the source of that hardening which is God it hardly disproves my assertions that God has not chosen all. Your own admission "Chosen of God to have ears to hear" allows only God's working upon men in order for them to be saved. If that is true, which we seem to both agree then God looking into the future (foreknowledge) for the proper choice upon which he Elects is disallowed by your own argument. According to scripture having ears to hear is a work of the Spirit and therefore a part of what is called "what the Father gives me" vs 37 How do we know what God did as to foreknowledge? Well, I believe in the uniformity of life. Meaning that what is now is the same as was in the past. I dont use it as a hermeneutical method, but I see it as a viable way of thinking about things. We see that God uses the Spirit of God to convice of sin, righteousness and judgment, that God must open their ears hear and eyes to see, He must heal them in order to save them, God must work upon them by the word, and go so far as to plant it in them so that what faith comes, comes by the word of God. Because of all these biblical witnesses on how the Spirit of God works and what the Church must do to witness their message for Christ, we can know that the future to come (speaking from the time before the foundation of the world) has now come upon us and we are now in those days where the foreknowledge of God is now working. But how? By the instruments of people, the bible, the Spirit of God, the Church, the gospel message. In other words, God is busy every day bringing people to himself that ....as the scripture says..Rom 10:20 But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me. So, I have no reason to think that the Father's giving to Jesus was a dispensation methodology, it is rather the same method that God has always used to bring to himself a people whom he will call his own. I have no reason to think that God's selection of a people for himself is anything less than 100% biblical and furthermore I dont have any reason to think that God waits for "anyone to chose him" because the super-abundant scriptures tells me that men come to God by way of the working of God upon them when they dont even seek him. Lastly I gave an exegesis on Roman 8:29 in an early post yesterday, I also gave my understanding as to the intertwining of Election and sancification. God owes no man salvation, or grace or the opportunity for salvation. If he owes then what he gives us is not grace but debt and obligation. But we dont find a covenant of obligation upon God, we find that God has expressed his love and mercies toward sinful humanity in the form of grace, a covenant of grace whereby God by his own choice and by his own power secured salvation for people who have not claim whatsoever upon God; and to those sinners he grants them eternal life. What I do comprehend is a God that has told me "Rom 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Rom 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Rom 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? I agree with Paul, God has the right. I am saying that the doctrinal position that some hold nullifies this text, therefore I have chosen to believe this text instead of their reasonings. Now....Saved....Im typing this with a smile....even though its serious words....we are one in Christ. R.E.

Onelight: God didnt look into the future to find out who's going to believe. Why? Because its completely unnecessary. 1. God's chosing causes the person to chose....Joh 6:37 Whatever the Father gives to me will come to me; This means that God is the one who creates the 'chosing' or better, causes the belief. So, to look into the future to find out if someone will believe...well they wont...Why? Rom 3:10 as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; Rom 3:11 no one understands; no one seeks for God. Rom 3:12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." 2. God is not 'waiting perse' to see if someone will chose him. Election is not "Christians are elect because they "really really" elect themselves and then God elects them. That is pure eisogesis and though its taught in many a church is as unbiblical as the mass. 3. The foreknowing of God is not a 'search for those who beleive'. God's foreknowing is the basis for the persons belief. Jesus is the author of faith, if thats true which it is, then its not necessary for God to 'search for belief' in the future. Unless God himself did what was necessary to bring about conversion, no one would be saved, they would all die in their sins. 4. The idea that God needs foreknowledge to call some one Elect is to say God is waiting for the sinners approval before God can then make his decisions. Is that really the picture that the scripture presents of God? I say its not even close. 5. What the real rub is about is that those who believe in free-will+fairness+universal opportunity needed to concoct a line of reasoning that can be smuggled into 'foreknowledge'. What makes that text and others like it an easy pick is because it sound plausible to a newbie Christian asking hard questions of leaders they cannot answer. So, what may be simple to you is not even biblical is just a stop-gap reasoning to inject free-will where its too scary to believe God has not 'foreknown' everyone. A God that makes choices that has eternal ramifications is a God that some folks just cannot stomach. No matter how much they mouth their submission to him, they are telling another story when confronted with the truth that God has not chosen everyone. When thats on the table, all of a sudden a "chosing God" is unfair, a tyrant, mean, unloving and really to their carnal minds unworthy of love and devotion. Ive had many many a conversation with people that express these very things and I am amazed that they cannot see the box they must keep God in so that they can feel safe with God. R.E.

Loud and clear. Calvinists are dogmatic and frequently misunderstand and misrepresent Open Theism (I am reading 'Beyond the Bounds'). I would also reject the straw man caricature you have of the view. Calvinists also misrepresent Arminians. You underestimate the strengths of opposing views and the problems with your own view. You overestimate that your view is biblical, logical. It is highly problematic. Perhaps you could start with Roger Olson's 'Against Calvinism' (he is Arminian). Ive been to Rodger Olsons website many a time, Ive read what he has to say. Though he doesnt want to own open theism, he is pandering to it. Olson is just as dogmatic, Arminian anti-Calvinists are dogmatic so what does that make me? Well, if Im dogmatic it means I have a viewpoint thats not swayed by theirs. Exactly as my dogmatic dissenters prescribe their remedy, I prescribe mine. Olson is a sharp-edge anti-Calvinist and he doesnt mince words about his dislike for its tenents. I dont mince words about my dislike for his compromise with Open Theism. His Arminian views notwithstanding put his errors concerning Election and Predestination in the 'small fish' catagory. He has swallowed the whale of Open Theistic error and now thinks his two-headed spear will get him more victories against his reformed dissenters. I dont reject Boyd and the late Pinnock because I dont understand them, its because I do understand them and find them in fatal error. Of course Finney will dogmatically ascribe his Pelagian views to scripture as did the mocking late Mr. Pinnock ascribe non-sense theories to scripture as well. But, thats another thread, and I wanted to introduce myself to you from this perspective rather than thinking that your heresy was going to be un-noticed by me. I dont consider my view a caricature, I consider it an accurate summation of the whole attempt at redefining God. It is just my opinion, but its an informed one. Yes, I know that you figure I overestimate my views, I wouldnt expect you just to roll-over and denounce Open Theism. But, this is not the thread for it. R.E.

Godrulz: theology (B. Th.= was a pastor; now studying about Openness of God <Pinnock, Boyd, Sanders> and Moral Government Theology <Charles G. Finney, Gord Olson, Otis>); Just so we understand each other. I regard Open Theism as a heresy. I utterly despise it and reject it on all counts. Those who posit the tenents of open theism are redefining God and are offering a god that is not biblical. R.E.

Rom 8:27 And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. Rom 8:28 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. Rom 8:29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. Rom 8:30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. Rom 8:31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? Rom 8:32 He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Rom 8:33 Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Rom 8:34 Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died--more than that, who was raised--who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Paul writing to the Romans spelled out wonderful and powerful truths in these words. Paul is here speaking of God's election. What do we see? That the Spirit makes intercession for the believer, not just believer but "saints". The God whom we serve is able to make all things work together for good to those who are "called according to his purpose". See, not just called but called according to a purpose that God himself has for that person. Now Paul breaks open that statement by explaining this Those whom he foreknew he predestined to be conformed, meaning God determined just how he would conform and to what image the saint, the called, the believer would be conformed into. Its the image of his Son Jesus Christ. Those who are 'in Christ' are to be conformed into his likeness, his image. In order that....he might be the firstborn among many slaves..no..sinners, no brother yes. Paul further explains what this conforming means. To be predestined for conformity to Christ God calls them, to be confromed to Christ God justifies them, to be conformed to Christ God will eventually glorify them. So after hearing that the salvation I have received is not simply the 'responsiibility of human will' it is the divine plan of God to call individuals for his own purposes. Here we find something so powerful so far-reaching that Paul exclaims "If God be for us who can be against us"? I draw from this text that conformity to Christ has its root in the Gods choice of the individual. God choice results in God's calling the individual, Gods sanctifying that individual, Gods justifying that individual and Gods eventual glorifying that individual. Taken with this text..Eph 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, Eph 1:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love Eph 1:5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, Eph 1:6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. The choice of God results in placing us into Christ and as Paul said in Romans 8 God's choice results in conformity (holy and blameless vs 4). Paul said in Romans 8:29 "those whom he foreknew"..is equal to " In love he predestined us for adoption" vs 5. Peter jumps into this with his own way of saying it. 2Pe 1:10 Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall. 2Pe 1:11 For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Election is 'made sure' by what? conformity. Conformity is not justification, its not saving you, its proving that the seed within you is God's, the calling you have is God's, the justification you have is God's. and the Final glorification will be "a bride that has made herself ready". The scripture has no qualms about laying diligence and divine election side by side. It doesnt isolate the necessity for holiness from the divine plan to glorify His people. What we all must understand is that Divine Election walks hand in hand with Divine sanctification. God purposes to save, God purposes to make holy and blameless. Both of these are the work of God. What also must be understood is that sancfication is the mark of salvation not the means of salvation. Predestination is the beautiful plan of God, that when I put faith in Gods predestination for me, I am free to live without fear that I wont fail to be conformed. I am free to love, endure hardship and trials, even death.. We are more than conquerors, because of him who loved us. This is where I shout AMEN. He loved us, therefore I rejoice. I rejoice that the plan of God has been to bring me into Christ so that I might receive every spiritual blessing from 'heavenly places'. I rejoice that all things, even my failures will work together for my good. I rejoice that I am the elect, not because I was so wise, so noble, so powerful, but because God foreknew me, and because he foreknew me I will not hear the words "I never knew you" Matt 7:23. Predestination aids my faith because it reveals the plan of my salvation is not my own, therefore cannot be successful unless God is the finisher of my faith as well as its author. Predestination aids my faith because it reveals that God plans to get sins out of my life, my weaknesses and terrible short-comings are no hinderance to him. Predesintation aids my faith because it reveals that God will eventually glorify me and glorify himself through me by saving and perfecting me. Predestination aids my faith because through whatever trials and hardships occur, nothing will separate me from the love of God, that love didnt originate from my heart, it originated in Gods before the foundation of the world and is now abiding and maintaining my faith. Predestination is the foundation for the doctrine of perseverance. Its the foundation for courage and endurance in hardships and trial. Its the divine counsel of God that is not up for scrutiny. Predestination also mean that others are not predestinated. Some are going to die in their sins. I realize that to some, God cannot have a choice. In the minds of some, to give God the 'choice' means that their standard of fairness would be broken by God. But, the biblical truth teaches us that God is the one that choses first, then when we are called we respond. Christ is the author of our faith, we do not author our faith, nor our repentance. This is also where it gets muddy because the world teaches that sinners have free-will, but they dont, they are in bondage to sin and will not chose God. The post is long enough. This will suffice for now. R.E.

Hello all: Well if any of you need a business card that describes what 'kind' of Christian I am so that I can be grouped..... I am a......5 point card carrying Calvinist. I suppose 7 point if you need exacting definitions. Predestination in the scriptures has to do with the Election of God. It is the choice of God to 'destine' a person to be 'in Christ' thereby giving that believer the name "Elect", "Chosen", "Called", "beloved" and much more. Predestination is not only 'being conformed to his image' which is sanctification. Predestination has to do with Gods whole plan for the individual. The Church does not have corporate election in the same sense that Israel did. Please allow me to present bits of this text as my foundation to why I believe in Predestination and why its biblical, normative and should be believed and taught. Rom 8:27 And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. Rom 8:28 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. Rom 8:29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. Rom 8:30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. Rom 8:31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? Rom 8:32 He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Rom 8:33 Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Rom 8:34 Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died--more than that, who was raised--who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Now, before I get into this, 1. You dont need to quote the whole post as ONelight mentioned in another thread 2. I dont have any rocks or mud to throw at non-calvinists, I dont have anathemas and judgments for those who disagree with me. 3. Because I dont have rocks doesnt meant Im not thoroughly convinced of what I say and I expect my dissenters to think about what Im saying 4. I believe my dissenters want me to think about what theyre saying as well and I am saying right now. I will listen to you. 5. There are outstanding resources online that can explain what I say probably much better and much more scholarly. I refer to John Piper, Mark Driscol, Michael Horton and many others. 6. If you want really thorough treatment of any reformed topic look into REFORMED DOGMATICS by Herman Bavinck, The CHRISTIAN FAITH by Michael Horton 7. If you need a website to look over reformed teaching.... http://www.monergism.com/ Now that should help you, if I seem to misrepresent reformed theology, or if I dont make my self clear...or if you just want to read for your edification some great teaching. Lastly. my only pet peeve....Dont tell me that "I dont read other men-teachings" I only read the bible. Really, then if you do, refrain from posting so the rest of us wont have to read your-mans-teaching and you wont be a hypocrite. The end of this post. Ill take up the Romans text on the next post. R.E.

I say creation as revealed to us in Genesis 1-3 must necessarily be literal. The prophets dealt with it as literal, the geneologies deal with it as literal, Christ deals with hit as literal, the apostles deal with it as literal, therefore it should be interpreted by Christians in a literal way. It is completely reasonable, right and logical to treat the Genesis text in a literal fashion; due to its handling by the sacred writers the Christian builds upon those texts interpreted in that light. There is nothing grammatically within the sacred text that points us away from literal-ness. In fact, the texts dont work at all as myth, allegory, legend, ethical story or what have you. The layering of theisitic evolution is nothing more than pandering to the agnostic view of scripture. In short, its a way of soft-selling the bible to those who place more faith in the pseudo-science of evolution. I call it evolosophy. For some of you, this might seem out of the ordinary, but evolution is a philosophy, its driven by a world-view that is anti-theistic. The layering of paleontology, or anthropology upon the philosophy that undergirds an anti-theistic view only muddies the waters, but it doesnt actually hide the reality of a philosophically driven science. Allow me to toss out a few tidbits. There is nothing unbiased about any scientist, they are people as we all are and they function with a set of assumptions as all of us do. Their worldview will give them the appropriate interpretation of rocks, bones, dinorsaurs as well as anything of a theistic or Christian perspective. Its utterly ridiculous to tell anyone that scientists come to the their studies a clean slate. They do not, they cannot interpret anything outside of their own biases. They do not judge or weigh any evidence that is not in line with their own pre-conceived notions. Even when they do run afoul of things that demand a theistic answer these scientists will dodge that bullet and jump to Alien-invasions, Intelligent beings helped genetically engineer the human race and alot of other pseudo-science non-sense packaged in technical sounding extrapolations. The real joke is that our dear friends who do believe in the bible in some form, run to these folks as an authority as to earth age, interpretation of bone fragments, carbon dating etc. In short, these theistic evolutionists are adding more myth to their own mixture of ideas. Then of course a book is written, scientific journals are quoted, facts are recited, Dr. so and so is quoted, conclusions are delivered in a logical fashion...all irrefutably asserting evolution is the truth to hold on to. Well, excuse me for spitting out this worm-soup. I dont buy it. Why?, why cant I buy evolution? Because there is no real science to support the darwinian non-sense. There is no intermediates, there is no missing links, there is no real proof of natural selection. So, when the science gets really thin, the only thing that can propel the skeptic love-affair with all things agnostic is a little extrapolation, you know "hey I found a ray gun in the back yard". Wow, someone says....."That means there must be a Star-Trek Enterprise near by". Thats how its done, Im supposed to buy the "Enterprise" because the inconclusive evidence points the naturalist to the only thing that makes sense...."It cant be God cause he's not an answer to any scientific question". It must be some one or something else. Ok, so what are you proposing Mr. Science Guy? Well, for one, weve got a skeleton that looks like a really deformed man, but its probably not deformed, its probably not an ape, its probably not a human, its probably a 'human ancestor'. So, let me get this right.... The methodological naturalism demands that I must conclude "only what is empirically proven", but I dont have empirical proof, I only have probability that its not the contrary. Plus, I am supposedly not scientific if I derive an answer that points to God as a creator....because I am demanded by science? NO, I am demanded by the philosophy of naturalism to exclude God from any explanations. Oh I see, just because the science behind electronics expects me to conclude that my electrons are short circuiting, also demands that the existence of atomic structure cannot have a Divine creator? Isnt that a philosophy? Yea, Isnt that philosophy undergirding a methodology within scientific inquiry? Yes. Then how on earth can any scientist holding to this philosophy or method ever arrive at the truth behind real science? Well, they cant. All they can do is play in the sand-box of life and pretend to themselves that the sand-box always existed, it always had sand in it and its walls arose as a matter of time and chance and there's enough chaos in the world to vaguely say "well it just happened thats all"....But, God didnt do it. So, while my little ditty is tedious, its just the tip of the iceberg for a full blown rejection of evolution and the science behind the naturalistic origins. Ill help you out. The faith of some of the scientists is there is no God. The myth of evolution is asserted as a fact when the only fact that evolution does have is its reliance upon myth and extrapolation. The data declared to be the end all of scientific discovery never gets consensus from the scientific community. The conclusions reached by bone fragments and fossiles do not display balanced, clear observation but endless mythologizing the evolution of man. It might as well be said, the modern scientist is not much better than the pagan tribe worshipping airplanes flying over. They cannot understand what they see, and what the do see is extrapolated into something other than what it is. So, pardon me for containing a large amount of contempt towards evolutionists, darwinian naturalists, philosophical naturalism, and run of the mill loonies who admix TV, Natgeo, discovery channel, the New paper, Scientific American magazine, and a steady dose of atheist propoganda whereby they pour all this into their minds and expect me to bow down to "facts". These supposed facts which they do not have and which when brought out into the open is an embarassing mix of mythology and bad science. Before you say it...."he hates science". Nope, thats a knee-jerk response. I love science and I have every since I was little. What I dont like is the hijacking of science by myth-makers under the guise of darwinianism, so what could be learned by science is hidden and what we get is 'flat-earth' mentality. The very thing the Christian is accused of, is the very thing the evolutionist tries to pass off. Not only that but just as the inquisitors of the Middle Ages wanted silence its detractors, the Scientific community has its own persecutors... Oh...I can hear it now..."Yea and religions are like that too". Well, that only helps to prove my point and it forces me to lay down just why I believe Christianity to be a viable, truthful explanation for the reality of now and of the past. R.E.

Can women lead the flock? Yes, but not as an Elder of a congregation does. Can a woman preach? Yes, but not above the authority of the Male headship in a congregation. Can a woman speak to the lost and unsaved men? Yes, we are all called to evangeliize and give an answer for the hope that lies within us. Can a woman prophecy and minister according to her gifts? Yes, in order and subjection to the word of God and leadership of the congregation. The egalitarian=feminist says There is really no differentiating roles between men and women. They both can do the same role. I very much disagree with this. In a very simplified word, the woman can speak, preach, train, serve, prophecy, lay hands on for healing and prayer all as men would do. I believe the scriptures command orderliness, subjection, roles. But from those three I believe freedom, lilberty of spirit, free-flowing giftedness, joy, blessings, healings, ministries, givings, servings all follow. The scripture is very clear on headship roles. The man is the head of the woman. Christ is the head of the man (not the woman) therefore the leadership of a congregation cannot rightly demonstrate that headship with women in headship roles over men. Most of the time, (as has been my experience) Christian women dont seek headship positions over men. But they do want to exercise their giftings. Its important then that the men in leadership have the maturity, experience and wisdom to place women in positions where they can bless the body of Christ with the giftings God has given them. If a woman preaches, is she in a headship role over men? I say No. When a woman is publically speaking, that doesnt automatically make her a pastor, evangelist or an apostle for that matter. It makes her a spokes-woman of the gospel. How many young men have gotten behind the pulpit to give a 10 minute testimony or sermonette? Lots, just how many folks considered them the pastor because they were behind that pupit? I would venture to say no-one did. Now, some will say "shes teaching men". Yes she is, but not as the authority figure above men, but as a colaborer, as a fellow heir of eternal blessing, as a witness to the power and word of God. Some women call themselves pastor. Yes, they do, but that doesnt equate to a God-sanctioned position within the Church. On one side you have a pastors wife who labors just as much to "pastor" the flock. Meaning she prays, counsels, gives, serves, loves, teaches, helps, encourages, discerns, guards and lives as an example to the flock as her husband does. If she doesnt, its quickly recognized and even more quickly condemned by the women in the flock. The headship falls to her husband because of divine order, the work of serving and ministering falls to them equally. Do not fret ladies, you shall receive a prophets reward for the littlest serving, let alone great sacrifices for God's people. On the other side you have women who by reason of very poor teaching, feminism creeping in or by the women herself seeking to usurp authority from men (whom she considers inferior to herself spiritually) will seek to rule over men, take title and position over men, sit on boards, make decisions and teach men from the position of a head-over-men. I believe this is error and unbiblical. Those texts that Paul uses in 1 cor 11 and 14 about women seem to me to be guidelines for specific necessities. If the culture has shorn women, or women with cultural habits that require head coverings, or shorn-ness the Church as a whole needs to default to the headship roles given by the scripture and not judge unwise judgment due to cultural differences concerning women and their dress codes. The other where they are to keep silence is for order and beauty in the public meeting. Its not a legal standard that women cant speak. But paul makes it a federal-case in the event the cultural norms prohibit women from speaking or in the case of disorderly conduct or in the case of women overstepping their roles and usurping authority. Both Paul and Peter are after meekness in the woman, they therefore offer freedom with restraint. R.E.

Gary: Its a terrible world we make for ourselves that will not allow for course corrections along the way. Remember, if you will learn anything, much of it will not be your own ideas. By the way, if youre thinking things through, then reasoning is a part of the process. Otherwise you must be waiting for a kind of un-reasoned inspiration like the apostles. Since the canon is closed the Holy Spirit restricts his teaching to what is within the sacred text and that puts you in the same position as the rest the Christians. Plus its always safer to offer a dismisal than it is to put out on the table what you really believe, instead have a go at it. R.E. My opinion stands. Feel free to be as course as you like in your personal corrections of me. God judge between us. Gary God does judge and he recognizes it when his kids are taking themselves too seriously when they think that what they surmise is the same as biblical truth. R.E.

I loved the Trinity posts, especially those sound biblical explanation of the Trinity. But, the generational curses thing, I believe is non-sense. If we are Christ's we are under no curse. If we are Christ's we are free and forgiven. If we are Christ's we are walking in the light where there is no darkness at all. If we are Christ's old things are past and all things are new, we are new creations, our life is hidden with God in Christ. God didnt not put me 'into' Christ with a curse to follow. I have been born of God, put into God's kingdom to live out my life with precious promises, the Indwelling Deity called the Holy Spirit leads and guides me. If there is any curse that follows a Christian it will be what lingers in our minds from the lies and distortions that we as sinners have previously believed. This is the reason to renew our minds, be tranformed, be holy, be salt and light, put on the new man created in the image of Christ. For this reason, what is called "generational curses"...(which I dont believe are placed upon the Christian to begin with) is really strongholds remaining in the mind that lock us into disbelief, habits of sin and fears which take time and maturity to come away from. While some are quoting the Old Testament scriptures to validate generational curses, it might be wise to realize that a curse will never be removed until those sins are atoned for. I believe Christ atoned for my sin, and therefore 'breaking it' with pentacostal altar calls is a confusion and obfiscates the work of Christ on the cross. A curse does not come unless the law of God has been broken, in Christ I am no longer a law-breaker but I have been given the righteousness of Christ, I am justified by faith therefore no curse is admixed with my justification and no punishment for sins done by my pagan forefathers remains attached to me. If generational curses were true, the whole early church that received the Greeks, Romans and every other pagan that became a believer would have been 'generationally cursed' because they had no forefathers that were believers. Lastly, its very hard to prove that the sinner does not hate God simply because he is a likeable moral person. All the unregenerate have the enmity against God that will not subject itself to God and cannot be subject to God. It is very true the Christian can be attacked by unclean spirits to tempt, vex, create fears etc, but it is because he is NOT under any curse that the enemy wants to afflict us as though we are cursed. R.E.