Neopatriarch

I think I have a better question. How can God in his perfect righteousness and goodness not send us, wretched sinners that we are, to the eternal torment of hell we so justly deserve?

There is no need to bring in the Edomites here. In Romans 9:13 Paul is using Esau, the individual man, as an example how God predestines people to hell. In context, part of Paul's point is that the Jews as a nation are not all elect. You must be a true Jew to be one of God's elect.

We take the verse over the saying.

Hello all, Has anyone here ever decided to change churches? Maybe because your doctrine changed or because the church you were in was dead or some other reason? How did you go about it? Did you have to convince unwilling family members? -Neopatriarch

I agree with Butero as well. The tax system needs to be revamped. I seriously doubt it falls within the proper function of government to subsidize (or penalize) marriage through taxes. Marriage is good and I want to promote it, but the purpose of taxes is to raise revenue for the government. If the chief purpose of civil unions is to gain the marriage subsidy, then I would have to disagree with civil unions just on the grounds that the marriage subsidy is wrong. -Neopatriarch

Good point. Perhaps I've just been unclear on how to define a 'civil union'. Vermont Act 91, 2000 Session says,

I didn't know it was limited to only gay couples. It seems you could have a civil union apart from any considerations of sex. At least, I could see that being argued for by some. -Neopatriarch

Hello list, The thread on homosexual friends has sparked me to ask what everyone thinks about civil unions. I think most Christians will recognize that same-sex marriage and homosexuality are morally wrong. This much is a no-brainer. But what about civil unions? Some friends of mine have said they would be willing to get civil unions just for economic reasons, forget about homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Are civil unions okay? Also, although we recognize that homosexuality is immoral, should there be a law against it since some people here say we are no longer under the law? Are far as I can tell, there is no civil legislation against homosexuality in the NT. In the OT we have Lev 18:22, but, if we are no longer under the law, the state would have no obligation to enforce it. So why not civil unions? -Neopatriarch

I had a friend that was gay when I was in high school (more of an acquaintance really). He would come to school wearing skirts until the principal made him change. When he asked me for a hug I was very reluctant but I finally conceded and made sure that my end of it was as sterile as I could make it. I think he was trying to recruit me. I was not comfortable with that. After that I didn't know any gay people until after I left the military and a short time in college out in CA. Then I met a lesbian at a job I worked at. Actually, she was an FtM transsexual. She started taking androgel (male hormones) and got a mastectomy. It was really weird. Like male puberty her voice started changing and her fat reserves moved from her but to her stomach. Then she started getting some peach fuzz on her face. I don't think anyone at her new job knows that she is female. At my current job, a guy I work with has committed homosexual acts but does not consider himself a homosexual. He told me he is about to become a confirmed Christian at his church, which is very liberal and open to homosexuality. His church performs same sex marriages. I'm wondering, should I shun him after he is confirmed? Also, what does the bible say about civil unions? -Neopatriarch

True. But my point is that, since marriage is the norm, I would expect those who decide to remain unmarried to have reasons for not getting married. If the issue is whether or not some individual should get married or not, the fact that marriage is the norm suggests to me that the burden of proof lies with the one who is deciding not to. That's all. One reason this issue concerns me is that much of our culture glorifies singleness. Look at Seinfeld for example. It seems that marriage is too much of an infringement on personal autonomy to be worth it. This is sad. ladygirl21 broached the topic. So I assumed she was interested in discussing it. In a spiritual sense Neo. That is the sense in which I was speaking. I was unmarried until I was 37. The idea that I as an individual was married to Christ seemed a little gay to me. I love Christ, but not that way. I guess I'm not clear on how this resolves my question. Of course, I'll accept scripture whatever it says, but I would also like to understand it. Could you interpret this for me? -Neopatriarch

Marriage is the norm in God's design (Gen 2:24). Why wouldn't you want it? Individuals are not married to Christ. Christ isn't a polygamist. It is the collective body of the church that is married to Christ. Unless you're burning with passion. (1 Cor. 7:9) What of married Christians? Do they not care as much for God as unmarried Christians? Perhaps we married folks are just not as spiritual unmarried. -Neopatriarch

Ah yes . . . Deborah . . . the poster child of the egalitarian movement. Sometimes it seems like the entire case for women pastors rests upon this woman. It's sad really. This link contains a pretty good discussion of Deborah: http://www.visionforumministries.org/issue...pport_a_wo.aspx Also notice that Judges 4:4 does not actually call Deborah a 'judge'. It says 'she judged Israel'. Further, it does not appear that people were compelled to come before her as you would expect in the judicial system, but rather 'the sons of Israel came up to her for judgment.' It was voluntary. No doubt she had some expertise and she was a prophetess, but it seems unlikely that she had any governing authority. She was probably someone to whom people went for conflict resolution or guidance counseling. Her judgments were not legally binding. -Neopatriarch

Amen. It might be of interest that inhistime (a.k.a Cheryl Shatz from strivetoenter.com) has debated Matt Slick (from CARM) over this matter since we took up the issue of women pastors with her here on Worthy Boards. You can link to it here: http://strivetoenter.com/mmoutreach/matt_s...hatz_2_full.mp3 I'm actually kind of surprised she put this up on her site. I sympathize with Matt in his exasperation. -Neopatriarch

Why not the civil laws? -Neopatriarch

Also, if 'fulfill' means 'to bring to termination', then Matthew 5:17 would be saying something like "Do not think that I have come to abolish (i.e. bring to termination) the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to bring them to termination", which is contradictory. Regarding the word 'fulfill' Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996, c1989). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament says: 33.144 πληρόωf: to give the true or complete meaning to something

I've personally read David K. Bernard's book The Oneness of God, and I think this is one of the better books Oneness believers have on their version of the doctrine of God. But let me recommend Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity by Gregory A. Boyd. Boyd does a pretty good job of dismantling Oneness doctrine. Neopatriarch,what is your opinion on this?I wrote it myself. THE DOCTRINE OF ONENESS: God is one and has always been one. While God is one in essence and three in person, this unity of essence is not an impersonal unity so I'm willing to accept the claim that God is a person. The OT does seem to speak of God as being one person. Nevertheless, God is also three persons. Was Jesus personally distinct from the Father? That is, is the human Jesus a distinct person from the Jesus who is God? In other words, you deny eternal Sonship. Orthodox trinitarians do not believe the second person of the Trinity is separate from the Father or Holy Spirit. To maintain the essential unity of the Godhead, a better way of saying it is that the second person is personally distinct (not separate) from the Father and the Holy Spirit.

I've personally read David K. Bernard's book The Oneness of God, and I think this is one of the better books Oneness believers have on their version of the doctrine of God. But let me recommend Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity by Gregory A. Boyd. Boyd does a pretty good job of dismantling Oneness doctrine. One of the more difficult verses for Oneness believers IMO is: John 17:20

Let me see if I understand you. You are saying that God's wrath against all sinful men, believers and nonbelievers alike, has been appeased by the suffering and death of Christ. But what about those in hell already? The price has been paid for their sins, but they are in hell paying for those sins a second time, right? Or, is there no punishment for sins in hell? I suppose you could say that people are in hell because they rejected Christ, but rejecting Christ is a sin. If Christ paid for that sin, then it shouldn't be paid for a second time. Either that, or they are getting punished just for the heck of it. Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ephesians 5:5 For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Colossians 3:5 Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. 6 On account of these the wrath of God is coming. How can God's wrath be poured out on men for their sins if Christ's has appeased God's wrath for everyone? -Neopatriarch

Arguments for libertarian free will seem to me to be more philosophical than biblical. Since the bible teaches predestination and the sovereignty of God I see no room for it. Nevertheless, it's a good idea to address the philosophical arguments. In that connection I personally think that Harry Frankfurt's counterexamples are pretty convincing in favor of a predestinarian view. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_counterexamples -Neopatriarch

I've noticed that egalitarians here like to use the phrase "teach correct biblical doctrine" a lot. What exactly is the point of this? It seems a little redundant since if a doctrine is biblical, it is correct. Is there such a thing as incorrect biblical doctrine? Suppose a nonbeliever is teaching some correct biblical doctrine. I'm curious, would you give him ten minutes in your church's pulpit? Would you let him teach from there every other Sunday? Maybe he could teach a Sunday school class, right? -Neopatriarch

I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but most of the arguments in this link have been answered here at Worthy. At first, I thought to necro some old posts to show where many of the issues raised in this link have been discussed already, but instead I think I will post a good treatment of 1 Timothy 2:8-15: Women in the Church: 1 Timothy 2:8-15 Part 2 Part 3 One little caveat: I'm not sure I agree with him on 2:15 referring to the birth of Christ (maybe I'm wrong though). Nevertheless, his treatment is excellent overall. -Neopatriarch

Spurgeon expresses the trouble I have with universal atonement fairly well in A Defense of Calvinism: I believe the verse you quoted is: 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. Peter is talking to believers. This qualifies the scope of the 'all'. But if God is not wishing that anyone at all should perish, is he eternally miserable because so many are going to hell and he was impotent to stop it (being limited by man's free will)? Or, is he going to wait for everyone to repent no matter how long it takes? Or, maybe he failed since we know that not everyone will be saved. My understanding of 2 Peter 3:9 is similar to Matthew 18:12-14. Christ died for his sheep, and God is not willing that these should perish. Matthew 18:12 What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go in search of the one that went astray? 13 And if he finds it, truly, I say to you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine that never went astray. 14 So it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish. -Neopatriarch