methinkshe

Wow, thats merciful and loving. Not. Must be nice to be so perfect and right all the time that you can equate your brothers and sisters in the Lord with homosexuals. Some on these boards have truly fogotten what love means. Hmm. I didn't read minnow this way. He was talking specifically about egalitarian attacks on the clear and consistent teaching of Scripture, not the egalitarians themselves. Speaking of the egalitarians, and probably most other people on this board, do we really know whether they are brothers and sisters in the Lord? I don't know if we should just assume that because they are posting in a Christian forum here on Worthy Boards. Paul says in Acts 20: 28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. 29 I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. Indeed 2 John 2:9-11 says: 9 Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, 11 for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works. If someone is teaching a doctrine that is a wrong as egalitarianism is, I'm reluctant to pretend the debate is an intramural one. We are confronting a philosophy that comes not from the bible, but from the world. So, failing to confront egalitarians in the church is unloving and unmerciful. Now if you are concerned about how "nice" we are being, well, we haven't always been so "nice". Jesus himself wasn't always "nice" either (cf. John 2:15-17). Finally, none of us is perfect. Therefore, no one has a right to confront anyone else when they are wrong. -Neopatriarch I'm gonna try to be mindful of mercy here. When I read the above it takes me back to post #162, in Controversial Issues, 'Legalism, Where is this doctrine found in scripture?' Also you've misplaced Jesus' righteous anger. Uncool. Not only that but you are speaking out of condemnation... You seem to have equated all egalitarians with fierce wolves. (Must be a Grudem and co influence?) Also don't forget that Christ's Very teachings and principles directly out of his mouth are some of the Overarching Principles, teachings etc that egalitarians uphold but yet when they are mentioned or brought up they are discarded and treated as not determinative by the opposing side. How is a fierce wolf recognized? A wolf attacks. And sheep? It is a Grudemite and a Mouser teaching. At one point both of them actually put out that anyone with a belief in Biblical equality must not really be a Christian. This is a damnable tactic of falsely accusing the brethren. It's interesting that they don't accuse Catholics of the same who stray further from Scripture than any other Christian denomination. It is also interesting that though they are so brave to falsely accuse individual Christians in general this way, CBMW is very careful to not so label CBE, the Christians for Biblical Equality organization who produces tons of quality theological research books on Biblical equality. To apply such a label to the theologians like Gordon Fee, Bilzikian, Groothuis, Gundry, Pierce, Keener, Giles, Grenz, and many other writers and speakers would truly defame the ones who dared such a folly. It would be best to follow CBMW's and CBE's wisdom on this. While neither side agrees with the other's interpretation on Biblical equality between men and women in Christ, they do not doubt the sincere devotion of anyone toward Christ as their Lord and savior. I would never want to be one to falsely accuse another Christian of their Christianity. I don't think that this review of a debate should itself turn into another debate but it is difficult for me to allow this post to go unanswered. No-one has ever suggested that men and women are not equal in terms of intrinsic worth, only that they have different roles. You cannot deny that the inequality of men and women in the sporting realm is recognised by providing for male and female sports. Therefore you must admit that when we toss around the word "equal" we do not mean "identical". Men and women are equal in Christ. They are equal under the law. They are equal in worth. But they have different roles. Why is it so difficult for you to understand that men and women have complementary roles in the body of Christ and in the family, thus recognising a biological/physical difference in make-up, when you find it acceptable for men and women to have separate sporting events? Tell you what, the day that you begin to agitate for men and women to compete on the same playing field, in the same races, is the day that I will believe that the role of men and women in the church and family should be identical (equal, in your misguided parlance.) In Jesus, Ruth

Shalom Motivated, I am not splitting hairs, I am making a distinction that I find necessary to make. I hear this all the time...""We're under grace so we don't have to ____________ (fill in the blank with your favorite thing not to adhere to in the Bible). I am saying that the LAW is G-d's Word. We are not released from obeying His Word. We are however, released from the Law as our Master, now that Jesus is our Master. But, I'll say this again to clarify: We are not "released from the Law", as much as we are released from the penalty of breaking the physical Law with its ramifications. Jesus paid the price for our debt. Yet, He also said the Law was not abolished. Now it is MORE, not less. It is written on our hearts and we not only obey outwardly, but INWARDLY. Not only are our actions to be G-dly, but our thoughts as well. We are to be MORE righteous than the Pharisees, not less. We are also released from trying to obey under our own power (external obedience). We have now been given thre resources to obey from the heart. We can be truly spiritually transformed, so that we not only try and copy what Jesus did, we actually become like Jesus. This the doing now comes out of being. Many times I think we assume that we use the most grace when we are forgiven. But I think we actually use more when on a daily basis, we allow the Spirit of God to transform us into His likeness, so that obedience flows out of a changed nature. Yes, we are born again, are new creations IN CHRIST. In that new creation in Christ we are 100% righteous otherwise we could never "boldly approach the eternal throne". That we still have existence in the flesh means that temptation will continue to beset us, and that in the flesh we will continue to sin. But we are to count the flesh as dead. In our spirit, our new creation in Jesus, we are clothed in HIS righteousness. It's Jesus all the way. And if Jesus is acceptable to the Father and we are IN Jesus, then we, too are acceptable to the Father. That's what grace is all about. None of me, ALL of Jesus. In Jesus, Ruth

Shalom Ruth, Amen! It's all a matter of taste and personal preference. Nothing that glorifies Jesus is of the devil. I love Contemporary Christian music and too many Christians condemn it. Let's remember, it's a matter of taste, not doctrine. Peace, Dear Sister, Don't mind me, I'm just an old fogey! AV through and through as well! (Append smiley thing here - cannot bring myself to actually learn how to do it!)

A marriage that has not been established with some form of the intellect is a marriage that will end. People love their spouse, not because "they just know," but for other good reasons (when you probe them). Love requires that we use both our emotions and intellect - emotions and feelings are subject to change, the intellect will remain stable in times of trouble, to remind you that you have made a commitment to this person. If you abandon the intellect, you destroy the spirit of man. If you dichotomize the intellect, you destroy the spirit of man. Then they are worthless. If you can't prove them, or give evidence, then they mean nothing to the outside world, and ergo are worthless. And the danger with what you're saying is I can come back and say, when the Jews said, "Let His blood be on our head," this was a justification for the Holocaust. I can't prove it intellectually, but it resonates so deeply within my soul that I know it's true. People can come up with beautiful interpretations when they abandon the intellect, but it doesn't make them accurate. You can say that this is true to you, but if there is no intellectual basis behind your interpretation, you have to accept the extremist positions as well. This is why exegesis is handy - when done properly, it's nearly impossible to thrust bias into the text. Even if people do come to a disagreement, after legitimately looking at all sides of the issue, it usually occurs on a non-important doctrine (such as pre-trib vs post-trib, or predestination vs free-will). When it is done improperly, we can point out where it was done incorrectly and seek to correct that portion. If we accept your view and go with, "But when I turn of my intellect, I still have meaning from these scriptures that resonates within my soul!", then we also have to accept dangerous interpretations. There is no way to arbitrarily accept that which is beautiful but deny that which is ugly - there is no way to determine which is which if we remove the intellect. Once the intellect is removed, everything because experiential or existential, thus subjective and not absolute. Well said. I totally agree. "Leave your mind at the church door" is one of the most dangerous invitations that has ever confronted the church and I grieve that so many are falling for this temptation of Satan. Ruth Ruth

I suppose it all depends on what one considers to be good music. As far as I am concerned, the devil is more than welcome to keep what is his. In Jesus, Ruth

It's important to know exactly what sin is to properly understand this scripture. For the lost people (people that have not been born again), Jesus said in John 17 that sin was unbelief in Him. For the "born again" Christian? : "For while we were (A)in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were (B)aroused by the Law, were at work

Oh Yeah! Music doesn't get any more powerful than that verse, in my opinion. Talk about triumphant! The other hymn that always brings a choke to my throat is: To God be the glory, great things He hath done, So loved He the world that He gave us His Son, Who yielded His life an atonement for sin, And opened the life gate that all may go in. Refrain: Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, let the earth hear His voice! Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, let the people rejoice! Oh, come to the Father, through Jesus the Son, And give Him the glory, great things He hath done. Oh, perfect redemption, the purchase of blood, To every believer the promise of God; The vilest offender who truely believes, That moment from Jesus a pardon receives. Great things He hath taught us, great things He hath done, And great our rejoicing through Jesus the Son; But purer, and higher, and greater will be Our wonder, our transport, when Jesus we see. Simple, but never simplistic. But I think I am in danger of hijacking this thread and turning it into "my 100 favourite hymns" so with this I shall retreat and allow others a word in edgeways! Blessings in Jesus, Ruth

I could happily read and re-read Romans all day and every day and still get something more from it! As AK says, I too believe that he was probably the greatest philosopher who ever lived. And if you have ever read any philosophy books, you will know that they are not the most accessible of writings. What I found - looking back 30 or more years - is that as I read the Holy Spirit would illuminate just ONE thought spread across maybe three or four verses. I didn't try to understnd any more than that. Over many years the Holy Spirit has graciouly revealed to me more and more of God's thoughts penned by His servant Paul. Please, do not be discouraged, just take what little you can for the moment and believe that it is THAT particular little bit that the Lord wants you to understand for the present time. Gradually He will increase your understanding. It is sometimes difficult in today's society of instant gratification to accept that sanctification (and all that it entails, including understanding the deeper things of God's Word) is a lifelong process not an instant solution. "Little by little, line upon line, precept upon precept." I think that's found in Proverbs somewhere, and I hope I've quoted it right. But that's the Word that the Lord has given to me, for you, at this moment. May God richly bless you as you read His Word, In Jesus, Ruth

No, absolutely and 100% definitely the God of the Bible IS NOT the same as Allah. At the risk of appearing lazy, I am going to copy and paste the larger part of a response I offered in Apologetics because it addresses this question. Do you believe that Allah is one and the same as the God revealed in the Bible? I hope the answer is a resounding "no!" Why, because the words and actions attributed to Allah in the Koran reveal a character diametrically opposed to the Creator God of the Bible. Here's just one example - there are many - quoted from THIS link. "God, as revealed in the Bible, is a God of love who cares for and desires the best for His creations. He is merciful, full of grace and compassion, and seeks to restore a humanity alienated from him by sin. "For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16) We are told in the Bible that God does not desire the damnation of any soul, but wants all to come to Him through Christ for forgiveness of their sins and reception of eternal life. It is God "Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." (I Timothy 2:4). God, in his great mercy towards mankind, has provided to mankind an advocate before His heavenly throne, Jesus Christ, who intercedes on behalf of the Christian before the Father, and who shed His blood to free lost and sinful men and women from the wrath of God against sin. "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." (I John 2:1-2) These verses illustrate the position and activity of Christ as both Saviour and Advocate. He is the propitiation for our sins, meaning that the shedding of His sinless blood in sacrifice for us satisfied the demands of God's wrath against sin, and that this act of grace was performed for the whole world, for every man, woman, and child who has lived and ever will live. Likewise, He is the advocate, the one who stands before the throne of the Father and pleads His own righteousness on behalf of those who have trusted in Him as Saviour, if we sin. This contrasts with the Quranic Allah, who hates sinners and has made no provision for their reconciliation to him. "..and Allah loveth not those that do wrong." (Surah 3:140) - "Contend not on behalf of such as betray their own souls; for Allah loveth not one given to perfidy and sin." (Surah 4:107) - "Those who reject Faith and do wrong,- Allah will not forgive them nor guide them to any way- Except the way of Hell, to dwell therein for ever. And this to Allah is easy." (Surah 4:168-169) - "And if they turn away, be assured that for some of their crime it is Allah's purpose to punish them. And truly most men are rebellious." (Surah 5:49) - "The Unbelievers will be addressed: "Greater was the aversion of Allah to you than (is) your aversion to yourselves, seeing that ye were called to the Faith and ye used to refuse." (Surah 40:10) As presented in the Qur'an, Allah is a vindictive deity who desires to afflict sinners, not save them. This understanding of Allah seems to be the orthodox Islamic position. Note the passage below: "This is the covenant which you make with Allah as soon as you recite La ilaha illallah, and in doing so you make the whole world your witness. If you violate this covenant, your hand and feet, the minutest hair on your body and every particle of the earth and of the heaven before which you made that false declaration, will render evidence against you in the court of Allah where you will be in the dock in such a helpless condition that not a single defence witness will be available to you. No Advocate or Barrister will be there to plead your case...." 3 As demonstrated here, breaking the covenant made with Allah, which is the covenant to live and abide by Islamic law and practice, will result in being hauled before the court of Allah completely defenceless, with no hope of ever being either redeemed from your sin or of being saved from the wrath of Allah. Of course, the way in which this covenant is broken is by apostatising from Islam, not by committing some other gross or negligent personal sin. Indeed, the main thrust of the Quranic verses mentioned above seems to be the condemnation of those who "betray their own soul" and who were "called to the faith" and refused, essentially choosing to reject Islam." It is apparent, then, that we know God, or any Being claiming to be God, by His revealed words and actions. A statement of the obvious, really, because since God is Spirit He has no physical attributes by which He can be recognised. A Creator God who IS truth, cannot simultaneously hold diametrically opposing positions - it is impossible because He would be denying Himself. So, either God loves sinners and desires that all come to Him through Christ, or He hates sinners and desires to punish them and not to save them. There are many other fundamental character differences between the God revealed in the Bible and Allah as revealed in the Koran, such that it is impossible for them to be one and the same God. Since both cannot be the true Creator God we are left with a choice. If the Biblical God is the one true God, then Allah cannot be, and vice versa. And the one that is NOT the true God, is by default a lie, an imagination of the human heart seeded by Satan. In Jesus, Ruth

Ah, but I see you forgot that 1 John 3:6 says "Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whoseover sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him." It also appears you forgot 1 John 1:8,9 says, "He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." I believe that Minnow's post makes a lot of sense. I am brand new here, so please forgive me while I play "catch up" and chip away at threads such as this a little at a time... I have a passion in my heart for topics such as this... as they are at the very core of exactly who a Christian is. Concerning some scripture quoted above: It's important to know exactly what sin is to properly understand this scripture. For the lost people (people that have not been born again), Jesus said in John 17 that sin was unbelief in Him. For the "born again" Christian? : "For while we were (A)in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were (B)aroused by the Law, were at work

You have remembered well Thank you - that's so good to know! I don't think that I have sung that hymn for at least 40 years. Yet isn't it amazing how the Holy Spirit calls to mind not only the words of hymns sung so many years ago (I prayed an arrow prayer that the Lord would give me a good antidote hymn to "Trusting the Angels") but more importantly, God's Word. I am forever remembering Bible verses that I have no conscious recollection of, and certainly never set out to memorise. It's as though the Holy Spirit can reach parts of our memory and bring them to the fore in a way that we could never consciously command. It encourages me to read and read and read God's Word so that even if I am not consciously memorising it, God through His Spirit is miraculously able to call to my mind the right word for the right time. What a glorious truth Jesus spoke when He said of the Holy Spirit: "He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things I have said to you." (John 14:26 In Jesus, Ruth

No Kidding Sister! Who to trust? 1 Timothy 4:10 Indeed, Indeed! Actually, this song is entitled "Trusting the Angels" and is also used as the title for the CD which is what first attracted my attention and led me to look up the lyrics to see exactly what was being said and in what context. I was not by any means reassured. I then had to explain to my son, who was about to place an order for it, why "trusting the angels" is doctrinally unsound. Of course, once I'd pointed it out to him, he fully understood, but it would have got under his radar had I not been around to explain. That's what's so sad about some of these songs, they can so easily mislead those who are young in the Lord. In contrast I am reminded of the old hymn: I am trusting thee, Lord Jesus, trusting only thee. Trusting thee for full salvation, great and free. (I think I've remembered the words right but it's a long time since I sang THAT hymn in church.) But what a contrast! In Jesus, Ruth

I very much miss singing the old hymns. A lot (but NOT all) of modern choruses are at best banal, and at worst composed in such poor English as to render them doctrinally ambiguous. And so many seem to be centred on self instead of magnifying God. Although I have not yet heard the following song by Jason Upton sung in church, and it is probably an extreme example of the banality and doctrinal ambiguity that so bothers me, it is symptomatic of a trend. The CD on which this song is found was recommended to one of my children by the leader of our church worship group. I have to admit to being somewhat perturbed! I

Well actually you inserted yourself in it, I didn't ask. The only thing I ask is that he acknowledge or retract the false claim that I called him a liar (three times, no less). That's a serious accusation that would probably get most people a reprimand. Importantly, it's plain as day, not debateable. I've explained it to him, he ignores it. While being a personal difference, it does impact the greater debates since the guy clearly is disingenuous. I did not insert myself into the argument you had going with Horizoneast, rather I attempted to return the discussion to the OP. However, if you prefer against all pleas to the contrary, to continue your argument with Horizon, then I withdraw. Ruth

If he can't be truthful about something so obvious, how do we believe anything he says? I am not going to be drawn into your personal argument with horizoneast. Now, shall we or shall we not return to the OP?

good illustration. I'm so glad that you, too, find this a good illustration. What a wonderful man of God was John Bunyan! My children count among their favourite books "Little Pilgrim's Progress" which is a child accessible version of A Pilgrim's Progress that remains true to John Bunyan's original vision. There is so much one can learn from these men of God from times past. In Jesus, Ruth

Sadly, you are so right. I think that you are deliberately choosing to perpetuate a personal argument with horizoneast when both theatheistreview and I have offered a way back to debating the OP. It is neither edifying nor helpful to conduct a personal argument of this nature in public. May we please return to debating the topic at hand and desist from vain arguments about who said what and who lied or didn't lie - that's the stuff of playgrounds. In Jesus Ruth

i once said on this forum that salvation is not a tangible gift. it's not something you can grab and give back. when scripture says "you were sealed with that Holy Spirit (Eph 1:13)" that is not a ziplock back seal. that is a stamp on you that you are pronounced to be God's property. No one can break that. ... 3xR0c|<stAr Jesus made the issue quite simple. Jesus Said He would not let Satan pluck a sheep from His hand. Notice, He did not say that He would not let a sheep escape. He did not say He would not let a sheep leave. He did not say he would hold a sheep prisoner. He let sheep enter his sheep fold by choice. His sheep fold is a voluntary place to be, not a prison. His sheep can enter one time, His sheep can leave one time. Jesus promised He would protect these sheep from attacks. Jesus did not say He would hold the Sheep prisoner. Jesus gives us free choice. That choice is never taken away from Us. Yes, but Jesus DID say that if one of a hundred wandered away from the flock, the Good Shepherd would go and seek it and bring it home. Sheep, in Biblical symbolism, are always believers. Do we or do we not have a GOOD shepherd? In Jesus, Ruth We have The Good Shepherd. He will seek to to bring back the wandering sheep that belongs to Him. However, freely we gave ourselves to Him and freely we can reject Him. If one Rejects Him and no longer desired to be His sheep, then He can not guard it because it is no longer His. God gave us free will. At no point does He ever take this Free will away from us. There were ninety and nine that safely lay In the shelter of the fold. But one was out on the hills away, Far off from the gates of gold. Away on the mountains wild and bare. Away from the tender Shepherd

Squeak! Squeak! Should not the specific merits or otherwise of evolutionary theory be discussed in another thread other than one that is entitled "Can someone be a "saved" Christian and give merit to evolution? I think the OP is valid and worthy of discussion, yet we have ended up discussing the supposed evolutionary lineage of the horse. I truly believe that this, too, is an important discussion, but it is not the one that was being addressed in the OP. Is there any chance that this side-track could be hived off into a thread of its own so that we could continue the debate in terms of the OP? In Jesus, Ruth

Paul actually does give clear insturctions. he tell believers who are already married to an unbeliever to stay with them, because the believers presence in the home as a sanctifying effect Very true, which is why, after 35 years I am still married to my unbelieving husband. Was it a good thing that I married an unbelieving man? No it was not. It has made my marriage far more dificult than it might have been had I married a believer. I have not experienced the fullnesss in marriage that I believe is available to a man and a woman in Christ. But, can God work everything to the good to those who love Him and are called according to His purpose? You bet He can! And does. He has blessed my marriage with 9 wonderful children who walk with the Lord. But why choose the harder path other than, like me, from sheer youthful rebellion, when a better path is available if we follow God's advice - be not unequally yoked? It is a difficult and lonely path to tread, that of being a believer yoked to an unbeliever, and one that I could never recommend, even though by God's grace He has enabled me to keep my marriage vows: for better or for worse. In Jesus, Ruth

i once said on this forum that salvation is not a tangible gift. it's not something you can grab and give back. when scripture says "you were sealed with that Holy Spirit (Eph 1:13)" that is not a ziplock back seal. that is a stamp on you that you are pronounced to be God's property. No one can break that. ... 3xR0c|<stAr Jesus made the issue quite simple. Jesus Said He would not let Satan pluck a sheep from His hand. Notice, He did not say that He would not let a sheep escape. He did not say He would not let a sheep leave. He did not say he would hold a sheep prisoner. He let sheep enter his sheep fold by choice. His sheep fold is a voluntary place to be, not a prison. His sheep can enter one time, His sheep can leave one time. Jesus promised He would protect these sheep from attacks. Jesus did not say He would hold the Sheep prisoner. Jesus gives us free choice. That choice is never taken away from Us. Yes, but Jesus DID say that if one of a hundred wandered away from the flock, the Good Shepherd would go and seek it and bring it home. Sheep, in Biblical symbolism, are always believers. Do we or do we not have a GOOD shepherd? In Jesus, Ruth

Maybe it is that time in eternity is better understood in terms of events as opposed to a division of, and accumulation of, minutes and hours and days a la a clock or calendar, or the movement of celestial bodies in the sky. For everything there is a season, and a time for very purpose under heaven, as stated in Ecclesiastes 3. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance; -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 a time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6 a time to seek, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away; -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7 a time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8 a time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace. It is very difficult, I think, for humanity that is bound by time to have a concept of eternity. It's one of those things that I think of in terms of "now we see through a glass darkly, but then we shall know..." But I've always found it quite fun to think of how it might be. All I know is that it will be perfect, whatever it is. For me, it's a bit like being a child and seeing my Christmas present under the tree and wondering what it might contain. That may be a rather trivial analogy, but all the excitement, all the mystery, all the knowledge that it will be good (oops, hope none of you ever had a really disappointing Christmas present, because that would really spoil my analogy) is part of the joy of anticipation. One day we shall know...... In Jesus, Ruth

If his views, formed through observation, regarding the superiority of one race over another are patently untrue, why should one accept the truth of any other of his views, also formed through observation? As I remarked in a previous post, we do not believe what we see, we see what we believe. Darwin's observations were obviously coloured by his presuppositions (beliefs).