Reformed Baptist

Paul doesn't say that, he says that creation offers enough evidence to mean that no one has an excuse for not believing, however in 1:18 he makes it very clear human beings suppress that knowledge and he continues to explain how people pervert that knowledge. Consider what Paul says later in the same letter, Romans 10:14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? (NKJ) - unless a persons hears the gospel they cannot call on the name of the Lord and be saved. The antichristian argument is just that - an antichristian argument - and it stems from a misuderstanding about the holiness of God and the sinfulness of men. the argument only has any weight if we believe something other then the biblical truths that (i) every single human being is a hell deserving sinner and but for his Grace God could justly condemn us to that eternity right now. (ii) God is holy and just and cannot abide sin in his presence. To concede ground on either point is to try and argue someone into the kingdom using their own worldview. The truth is God is not unjust, none of us stand before him with an excuse that can be made, only those who are looking to Jesus will be saved, now the unbeliever can dismiss that truth and excuse his dismissal by saying that it is 'unfair' but one day he is going to be judged and one day he will acknowledge that the potter has the right to what he wants with the clay on his wheel - rather then worry about his false concept of fairness he needs to repent and believe and before he can worry about the salvation of others he needs to think about his own salvation.

Matthew 28:20 "I am with you always, even to the end of the age." (NKJ) Hebrews 13:5 "For He Himself has said, "I will never leave you nor forsake you." (NKJ) It seems to me that his presence isn't something we need to attain to (as if we could do such a thing in our own strength) but rather it is a blessing that we have as Christians, after all let's not forget the Spirit dwells within all who believe (John 16:13; Rom 8:9; 11; 15; 1 Cor 3:16; 6:19; Gal 4:6; 2 Tim 1:14 to name the most obvious) Instead of striving to attain something we already have why not actually live out the reality? Philippians 2:12-13 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure. (NKJ) let's be working out the salvation we have by grace by trusting and obeying - after all those imperatives are in our bible for a reason are they not?

Think about like this, if we were always all in agreement there would be very little need for us to exercise grace. One of the most powerful witnesses we have is the ability to still love another whilst disagreeing about truths that are very precious to us. Now, i think it very sad that we often fail in this and resort to ad-hom and various logical fallacies as we try to defend those precious truths - but that just shows how much more grace we all need. Every disagreement is an opportunity to grow in grace and demonstrate the love of the Lord Jesus. A second point to consider is that disagreements should take us back to the word of God. Every time I come across an opinion that I disagree with is an opportunity to have my understanding challenged, I should go to the word of God and allow it to show me the truth, either I will be confirmed in my understanding or I will altar it - again we not very good at this, sadly we tend to jump to our set of 'proof texts' and if we are not careful all we have achieved is setting scripture against scripture - is it any wonder those in the world don't think the bible makes sense or that it is full of contradictions - we present it like that every time we simply proof text against 'an opponent'. We do much better when we actually interact with the texts others have posted to show how they are compatible with our own position. As for the possibility of two people disagreeing, clearly it does happen, when we are talking theology there are several reasons for it, we all approach scripture in a context and with certain presuppositions and understandings - these things all frame our understanding of God's word and influence our interpretations of the text. We are all under different ministries - listening to people with different presuppositions and understandings - this enforces the understandings we have added to this are those who do not study the bible but like what a certain teacher has to say it means, then there are those who have various agendas that might influence their teaching/understanding - in short we all start from different places, and we are all under didn't influences as we seek to grow in understanding - the reality is we will arrive in heaven and be surprised by just how little we knew, and probably by how little we got right (salvation is by grace, not understanding after all) As for how disagreement should look, well as I have implied that is very different from how it often does look - Christians should be able to have frank discussions on points of disagreement where we respect each other enough to interact with their arguments (rather the strawmanning them) and where we demonstrate our love and unity in the essentials of the gospel - to be honest if we can't do that we are better off keeping our mouths shut and not disagreeing (or at least keeping that disagreement to ourselves).

Of course you realize more literal translations do not insert a full stop to reflect that the author is still continuing his train of thought as he goes on to say in with his very next words, "in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth," (2 Ti 2:25 NKJ), the suggestion of 25a in the counterpart to the rejection of 24a and therefore is directly pertinent, this is not a proof text to be used to hide behind when others interact with your statements, if anything it is a text that justifies that interaction. I don't know, may be people do things differently in your neck of the woods but where I am from you need to be able to defend what you say if you expect to be taken seriously

That is not all that Paul says in 1 Cor 14:34-35, what he actually says is: Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church. It is interesting to consider what 'law' he is referring to as well, I would suggest that it is Gen 2:18-24 which addresses the roles of husbands and wives, wives are to look to their husbands for leadership - that is the thrust of these verses. However we cannot take 14:3-4 or 23-25 to be supportive of women taking on teaching roles within the church without inserting our own assumptions within into the text. However the 1 Tim 2:8-15 passage is also important: 8 I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting; 9 in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, 10 but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. 11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 15 Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control. (NKJ) Notice first of all that Paul is not addressing Husbands and wives in this passage, he is addressing men and women, unless of course we wish to suggest that Paul only desired married men to pray and married women to dress modestly? Secondly, it is interesting here to note that Paul doesn't saying anything in regards to women praying, instead he talks about how they dress - why is that? Thirdly he says clearly I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence and his reasoning is not that Woman was married to man, but that woman took on a leadership role she should not have had and led man astray (a sin for which that man retained responsibility) Now, unless Paul had changed his mind between the writing of these two letters we must find some way of reconciling of these two passages. One way is to try and claim that Paul is speaking only about husbands and wives in 1 Tim as well, however I am not comfortable with that on an exegetical basis, however if one turns to 1 Cor 11:5 we may ask where is the prophesying taking place? Notice that 11:1-16 form a separate subject to that which Paul begins to discuss in v17. Now in giving these instructions I do not praise you, since you come together not for the better but for the worse. Why does he speak of 'when they come together' in v17 and v20 if they are already together for the subject he has just been addressing. My point being there is absolutely no reason (except a presupposition one) to take 11:5 as referring to a church meeting.

It might be helpful to read that verse in context: 23 But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife. 24 And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, 25 in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, 26 and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will. It seems clear to me that Paul means something very different to you, he wants Timothy to correct people who are in error so they might repent of that error

He is certainly ecumenical I quite agree

A proof text without a context is a pretext

Do we? Or is there one promised land for the people of God? It's all very motivational and feel good, but is it biblical?

What is the 'extreme charismatic movement' that Warren is part of? I thought Saddleback was affiliated with the SBC?

It was your question, I am interested in what you meant not what I think you mean. In regards to my personal experience being all that matters, are we not dealing objective truth and not merely experience when it comes to the christian life? It seesm to me that you are saying is there some higher plateau of Christian experience that can be attained in this life, is that right? Hebrews 11:1 says Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. That defines what faith is, but it does not define what 'the life of faith is.' The implication from your question appears to me to be is that you mean something more then ordinary christian experience Well it could being used in more then one way, integrity might refer to internal coherence or it might refer to honesty or it might refer to necessity - all would fit within the context of your question - know I assume you have in mind the the sense of honesty and trustworthiness because that makes the most sense - Now, assuming I have got my definitions correct the answer to your question is 'no'. let me give my reason for that answer. There are no further plateaus of spirituality to experienced as a believer in this life one is either a believer or one is not. However, every Christian can only persevere in their faith through a reliance on God, and the means he provides, which include scripture, but also include the body of believers that we are not to forsake (Heb 10:25), participation at the Lord's table, prayer etc - the Christian that forsakes these things will not be growing and maturing. We are to work out our salvation in fear and trembling after all.

I don't understand the question. (i) When you say 'source' to what exactly are you referring? (ii) How would you define 'living the life of faith'? (iii) how are you using the word 'integrity'?

Eph 6:18 has nothing to do with with speaking in tongues - as the context clearly demonstrates.

One needs to bear in mind a few things. Firstly the Ark and the Mercy Seat were shut away. No one saw it except the high priest and he could only see it once a year. How could they be idols if they are out of sight? Secondly we need to consider the function of the Cherubim as they are presented in scripture. It seems to me that their task is primarily concerned with guarding the honour and glory of God. For a people who lived in a time when symbolism was the main means of communication this was a powerful picture of just holy the mercy seat was. Thirdly we should also bear in mind that the Ark went missing (perhaps in the Babylonian conquest) maybe this was prevent it becoming an idol as the worship of God devolved in Judah - after all the bronze serpent had become an idol before and needed to be destroyed. Is it possible ... there any literal relationship between the "bronze serpent" & "the cherubim" models ? Why I ask this is .. in Bible every element has a unique mean ... like, ... gold, silver, bronze ... Cherubim is made up of gold, while the serpent is of bronze ... So I think, God wanted to tell something through these elementary selections ... I don't believe so - two inanimate objects cannot have a relationship - they are after all inanimate, so how can they relate to one another? The pedant in would point out bronze is an alloy and not an element. I would also suggest you have be very careful ascribing specific meanings to inanimate things in scripture. Take gold for example, sometimes it seems to point towards kingship (Matt 2:11), other times to purity (Zech 13:9) but also simply to point to wealth (Gen 13:2) sometimes it use is utterly negative, see for example Rev 17:4. I would suggest that this sort of speculation regarding a link is a blind alley that will lead to a dead end. However in reference back to OP the point is that the Cherubim were not created as idols and where hidden away and then taken away before they could become idols.

One needs to bear in mind a few things. Firstly the Ark and the Mercy Seat were shut away. No one saw it except the high priest and he could only see it once a year. How could they be idols if they are out of sight? Secondly we need to consider the function of the Cherubim as they are presented in scripture. It seems to me that their task is primarily concerned with guarding the honour and glory of God. For a people who lived in a time when symbolism was the main means of communication this was a powerful picture of just holy the mercy seat was. Thirdly we should also bear in mind that the Ark went missing (perhaps in the Babylonian conquest) maybe this was prevent it becoming an idol as the worship of God devolved in Judah - after all the bronze serpent had become an idol before and needed to be destroyed.

If you want to find out who Jezebel is in the book of Revelation why not just use your bible - it seems obvious that this is an allusion back to the Jezebel of the OT. In the OT Jezebel is the one who introduced the worship of Baal into the religious system of the Northern Kingdom. She is the mother of synchronism amongst the people of God. I would suggest that Jezebel (whoever she was in the Church of Thyatira) was doing exactly the same thing she was trying to synchronise Christianity and some worldly religion.

No one has been a Christian their entire life

Textual variants of the NT amount to 400 000 today, however only about 1500 of those are meaningful, which means they are something other then an obvious word order or typo etc. It is those 1500 that amount to about 1% of the text of the NT and in every case those variants can be resolved - and as you said they do not involve any major points of doctrine.

Hell is a temporary holding ground until judgement day for the lost. Lake of fire is eternal for the lost with no being brought out of after judgement of the lost. Even hell and death is cast into the lake of fire and scripture says that their torments ascendeth up forever. Revelation 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name. By Hell, it seems you mean Hades. Hades is the grave and it is where everyone goes when they die. The Lake of Fire, Gehenna will not burn forever, it will be made holy to the Lord in the future. If you look at the passage Rev, 14:11, you'll find that those in torment are alive, they are not dead and in the Lake of Fire. The word translated worship is in the present tense, they are being tormented while they are worshiping the Beast. Also, if you look at the next verse you'll find that the saints are there also. 11 "And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name." 12 Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. (Rev 14:11-12 NKJ) The Greek word translated "here" means in the same place. This obviously isn't the Lake of Fire if the saints are there. Another point is that "forever and ever" is not the proper translation. The Greek phrase actually means, ages of ages, it's not the modern idea of eternity. I am sorry the Greek is αἰῶνας αἰώνων (Rev 14:11) now, as far as I can tell most lexicons recognise that the noun αἰών can refer to an age or eternity - however in this construction it would very problematic to read it as 'ages of ages' though I can how how the genitive αἰώνων might lead one to that conclusion however we we consider the next phrase and the sense of continual restlessness that it speaks of καὶ οὐκ ἔχουσιν ἀνάπαυσιν ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς it becomes clear that not only is forever and ever a possible translation, but also the most appropriate one.

For me Hell is anywhere Jesus isn't. I agree, hell is anywhere Jesus is not. I don't think the Bible agrees with you. Rev 14:10-11 "he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name."

My friend, I would suggest you are wrong on several counts. I don't find that in my Bible, rather i find that Christ died for a certain groups of people. Joseph was told to call Mary's child Jesus because he would save his people from their sins. Matt 1:21 - Joseph was been told that the work of the cross would actually be effective, not just potentially effective, for a specific group. Turning to John 10 is becomes clear that Jesus Christ also understood this to be his mission, look at what he says in v11 "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep. (NKJ) Should we desire something that God does not? It is not up to us to reason out how God would be best glorified, especially not when his word tells us how he will be glorified Romans 9:21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? 22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, (NKJ)

Covenant Theology and 'replacement theology' are not the same thing - indeed the concept of 'replacement theology' is largely a straw man construct the results from an inability to distinguish between terms that the covenant theologians use, but dispensational theologians conflate, like 'Israel' and 'the Israel of God'

That is exactly what he is trying to do - he is trying to defend his actions and excuse them

Maybe the importance is to be seen in how Elisha crossed the river on his way back! The theme of the text is the passing on of the mantle from Elijah to Elisha. In using the mantle to cross the river Elisha is shown that he has indeed been given the Spirit to continue his mentor's work.

Just because something is good doesn't always mean it is good for everyone - for example, marriage is good however there are some that God has given the gift of singleness, for them marriage is not the good thing that God wants for them! More seriously though, to even suggest that God is part of the problem is a serious error. God is never part of the problem he is always all of the solution.