Reuben Hick

Are we in the midst of a cold war with Kuwait? Otherwise the Russian comparison is somewhat lacking. But I understand your concern. Are you sure that there is no one present on the scene from the US State department overseeing the project? Then again, I don't trust our own State Department. Its like who do you trust the Muslims or the crowd that supports the Muslims? (Remember, its the same US State Department, that despite 9-11, has extended yet another 15,000 "student" visas to Saudi residents) Common sense doesn't appear to be all that common.

Are we open to Kook Theory? I made this prediction back in 1998, might as well drag it out here. The UN, or a reformulated set of responsibile "democratic" nations will be set up in Bagdad - or the future reconstituted Babylon. You can imagine how geeked up I have been over the events of the past few years, particuarly when I read about that utterly massive campus being built on a prime piece of real-estate in the heart of Bagdad. Just a few weeks ago, news from McCain's campaign suggested that the possibility of leaving the paralyzed UN and forming a new clique of "democratic" nations is in the works. These folks are going to need a new home. So how is the mechanism for making this move to Bagdad? Simple. It is a given that the execution and handling of this Iraq imbroglio has left many scratching their heads. Why didn't anyone raise the black flag and show them old-fashioned "shock and awe"

I do not mean to be rude, but I feel that we are not yet premitted to know who the antichrist is yet. There are many Christians today who get so focused on discovering who antichrist that they lose focus on Jesus Christ. I do not mean to be rude, but that statement is ridiculous. Those who genuinely love Jesus Christ will not be distracted from Him. We are also supposed to be awake and waiting, at least that is how some folks interpret the Parable of the Ten Virgins. And what will happen for those who do focus hard enough? Does Christ toss them into outerdarkness? Does He abandon them? Does He foresake them? Where does it say that God will care more for the sparrow than He does for you, and how that care is contigent on some token level of "focus" that we are expected to make (though that standard of "focus" is never articulated or described in Scripture). And which seventeen of the soveriegn states of the European Union are supposed to bail-out and quit, and by what mechanism is that supposed to take place? That used to be the prophecy back in Hal Lindsey's heyday, back when there were fewer than ten nations in the ersatz union and folks were still guessing who number nine and ten would be. But we have moved on! The newspapers aren't in sync with so-called Bible prophecy anymore! My map, and so does every other map on the planet puts Babylon in the Mesopotamian valley on the Euphrates River. Besides, you are now leaping to the Dispensational Baptist view that the Whore of Babylon is Rome. Since the ECT movement, that has been pass

Other than the fact the "temple" in the map is really the Roman Fort Antonia, whereas the real temple is at least 400 yards south (and not depicted); how do the cartographers justify putting Golgotha where they do. In other threads I have provided the abundant documented evidence, where is the same for this map? But in answer to the OP question, it had to be within a Sabbath's distance.

Well, are you going to follow the well promoted and shilled advice and rush out and buy the gender sensitive TNIV dynamic equivalence? I find it wildy ironic that in a book allegedly on hermeneutics, they radically redefine the word so that it no longer keeps its traditional meaning. The authors split the definition, divorcing their relationship so that they can promote two different lines of thought: exegesis and a new definition of hermeneutics to mean finding the answer to the question "so why should I care". Then there is the continual shameless plug for the TNIV which makes sense because Gordon Fee was a member of the NIV editorial board. Another tool from the deconstructionalist's tool kit is the promotion of steering the reader away from the original author's words. In another ironic twist, they recommend reading from a "dynamic equivalence" rather than a more faithful word-for-word translation. Believers know that the Bible was inspired by God, and if people don't find the original inspiration worthy of learning the original languages, then a translation seems in order. But those who can read the originals and compare it to the various english translations find that, the authors are correct in their statements that something is lost in translation. But using that as an argument to use a dynamic equivalence, or a thought-for-thought translation assumes that those prechewing our spiritual food are indeed inspired by God in the same manner as the original authors. Otherwise our knowledge of God is only as deep as those anonymous figures who find fault in God for saying "man" when our modern sages feel that God should have been more gender inclusive. For instance, Fee, in discussing 1 Co 7:36, criticizes the KJV's literal rendering of the Greek "parthenos" as "virgin". THe NAS says "daughter" which Fee correctly states "may not be right". Fee then recomends the version he was working on by saying that the NIV's "virgin that he is engaged to" is the proper and best. Interesting because "Vincent's NT Word Studies" specifically agrees with the ERV (which says "daughter" like the NAS) "RObertson's Word Pictures" thinks "daughter" also. Just to stir things up a bit, the UBS Committee gives us the option of translating "parthenos" as (A) "unmarried daughter", (B) "spiritual bride", © "dead brother's young widow", and (D) "fianc

Great, yet more proof that Dispensational Premillennialism is heresy. (it demands that our LORD is a liar) Read what our LORD had to say about what it would be like just as the Son of Man is revealed. Food and Drink were in abundance.

So where is it said that there will be hunger and famine as a sign of the Last Days? Matthew 24:37-38 "But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark." Luke 17:27-30 "They ate, they drank,...Likewise as it was also in the days of Lot: they ate, they drank, they bought and they sold, they planted, they built... even so will it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed." Ezekiel 16:49 regarding Sodom in the last of her days: "...She and her daughter had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness..." The nexus between Noah and Lot: Food was abundant. So what we do know is that "food riots spreading across the globe" are NOT a sign of the Last Day. You folks must stop listening to these false prophets who tell you what you want to hear!

You may be able to immerse yourself in nonsense, but the Bible is not "Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There". Both terms "Love" and "hate" have clear technical definitions that preclude them from being possible at the same time and instance. How do you know that the "us" in this passage means absolutely everyone, head for head? Especially when the "us" is defined in the salutation of this letter: Ro 1:7 "To all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints:" and verses 5 through 6 that reads "Through Him we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith among all nations for His name, among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ." I fail to see "us" defined as everyone, without exception, head-for-head. Rather, I see the "us" as those who God has indeed saved, not some hypothetical class, but those who are of the Elect of God. Actually the Bible says that no one seeks after God. No one cares to please God and the natural man hates God. So unless God has regenerated that soul, the natural soul will always be in enmity with God. The natural man will never call upon the name of the LORD. You have the cart before the horse. The regeneration [logically] precedes the sinner becoming a saint. This is the deconstructionalist's claim that since both the Elect and the Reprobate begin life as sinners, that by removing the fact that God saved only the Elect by just saying "sinner" that the reader will be fooled into thinking that God also died for the Reprobate. The scriptures teach that Jesus Christ died for the Elect sinner, not all sinners. Nice try.

If the female sex offender looks good in a skimpy two-piece, her punishment, especially if she is a school teacher, is a contract with Playboy magazine. Its hard for a woman to be an "offender" when she is a "nympho" starring in every teenage school boy's dreams.

If you have the guts for the silver bullet question - ask your father how he would react if one of his work buddies forwarded to him a link of explicit photos of you... The implied question is "is it OK for your buddies and coworkers to see me nude and if it is not, why are you looking at some other father's daughter?" No father wants to disappoint his daughter. But unless you like family strife, keep others in the family out of it.

My favorite part of the article was what they had in mind for "sex offender", which can be a kindergarden boy who playfull slaps a classmate on the buttocks during recess. Also realize that schools routinely hand out condoms, provide for gay student clubs, day care and set aside the school day to offer sexual advice and instruction for all minors in attendance. Essentially the State is advocating and facilitating felony statutory rape and buggery. Now when the youngsters, after many hours of amoral guidance and coaxing by the State do indeed fornicate and engage in sexual behavior, any parent can turn around and sucessfully bring the law down on the male participant and have him labeled as a "sexual offender". This "sexual offender", like the elementary school kid who hugged his teacher and was branded by the State as a "sexual offender", will now have their genitalia mutilated or forced at gun point to imbibe in some harmful chemical that will leave them unable to leave a normal life. At the least, they will spend time in the pen for wearing a mask or handing out candy. That's how I want to see my tax dollars spent - chasing down people who wear costumes during Mardi Gras then throwing them in prison for three years. It so refreshing to see that the same government that demands that all kids commit felony statutory rape with a condom in the right hand have the scapel ready in wait in the left.

I invite you to read Matthew 25. In the parable of the ten virgins, the Bridegroom judges. In the parable of the talents, the one who was the lord who travelled to a far country judges when He returns. But the real meat is found in vv 31-46 which deals specifically with the Son of Man judging the nations. You may note in the common theme of all these parables and summed up in v31 "When the Son of Man comes in His glory...then He will sit on the throne of His glory" So we have Jesus Christ returning in glory, taking the throne and performing the duties as King v 34 "...blessed of my Father..." meaning that the Father is over everything, but the role of King and Judge is that of Jesus Christ when He returns and assumes the throne. Personally I view it as a necessary role for Christ our LORD to be the sole Judge rather than having His Father keep stepping in and kibitzing on the Judging. How could the Trinity be at odds? In the passage that you presented, Jesus is saying that He is in perfect harmony with His Father in heaven, therefore there would be no necessity for anyone other than the omnipotent, omniscient risen LORD to be King and Judge.

yep. men should have short hair to demonstrate obedience. I don't know about obedience, and certainly that is not in the context of the passage. The whole paragraph is talking about hair as a woman's covering, and as an example Paul simply points out that it is natural for a man to want to look like a man and differentiate himself from women by having shorter hair. If some man wants to look like a woman, and have the hair of a woman, all the passage really says is that the long haired guy has an unnatural view of himself. It should be pointed out that traditionally long hair on a man has been countercultural, for Nazarites, their entire lives were culturally unnatural so the sign of one, being long hair, would help differentiate them from the rest of the crowd. Now I seriously doubt the OP intends to pass himself off as a Nazarite, and it is still unnatural for him to want to look like a woman, so I leave it up to the rest of y'all (as v 13 suggests "Judge among yourselves"). I'm concluding that well adjusted men would prefer to keep their hair short and appropriate. Leave the long hair to women, hippies, rebels and drug addicts.

Spartans had shoulder length hair (cf Lucian The Runaways 27) that they tied up for battle (Herodotus History 7.208-9). Anyone here think that was a liability or that they were effeminate?

Sin will abound? I don't see the cause and the effect here. The Church is the Church. The World is the World. The Church is told to be separated from the World and to be friends with the world is to be an enemy of God (Jas 4:4; 1Jn 2:15-17; 3:13). OTOH, The world is composed of sinners, and these sinners are performing their job descriptions, albeit some are overachievers, but there should be no surprise that the fruit of sin and rebellion is evil and more evil. What do you mean "allowed sin to run rampant"? Are Christians supposed to gun down sinners the instant they sin? Lev 18 says that society needs to use the death penalty on sodomites, adulterers and those who bed down critters. Heck, the modern PoMo "church" makes them pastors, elders and sunday school teachers. Read Romans 1. The sin and rebellion is being dealt with by God. Sodomy is a punishment for sin. If you see Sodomy, then you are seeing God's marking and judgment. What more do you want? Romans 13 says that God installs our government, so forget about crooked Diebold voting machines and the felons, the dead and illegal aliens voting to mess up the election. In the end, no one but the one that God wants installed will be installed, by God, into positions of leadership. Yes we are to pray for them, and I don't even pretend to understand the mechanism of why, just that we are supposed to respect these morons and demons that are guiding society over the abyss - the proverbial greased skids to hell now have a JATO pack. That is a design feature. For all you know, God is setting up the political/social landscape for His prophesized End Game. Is there a problem with that?

The God of Absolutes is not a Post Modernist. There is no such thing as a PoMo Christian, its a contradiction. Given that, it isn't a matter of personal interpretation, it is a matter of it is what it is. <tangent> Arminian bumper sticker: "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." Calvinist bumper sticker: "God said it, that settles it." </tangent> And the question you pose is loaded with the assumption that there is a direct interventionist "punishment" by God. Read Lev 18, unless you spot some sunset language in there, it still applies. It will be the land that vomits them out for those nations that tolerate sodomy, bestiality and adultery. How hard is that to read, and what other possible interpretations can one get from that? That it is OK? That the land won't vomit them out? That God is cool with it? That the people should and can get away with tolerating it? That America is exempt because we are Americans and God has to respect that? What have I missed here? I think that sentiment is better answered here: Gal 6:7-9 "Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life." I don't know why people are all geeked up and are begging to get judged indiscriminately by God. What if some of these folks repent? Do you feel that God is somewhat more just by punishing them before declaring the converts righteous? Whatever happened to the wheat and tares parable? Doesn't have the immediate gratification that we want?

The gay agenda is only one of many things that will bring the wrath of God or the lack of the protection of God to America. Cool. I'm compiling a list of those things. I have Lev 18 saying sexual sins will cause the land to vomit a nation out. Also have Ge 12:3 "I will bless this who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you". Then I guess we can look at what brought God's Wrath against Sodom and I see in Eze 16:49-50 Pride, abundance of idleness, abandonment of the poor, haughty and committed abominations. I guess we can then see what God considers abominations and expand that list. What other sins will bring God's Wrath on the US? (and the Scriptural support). And how many righteous men will avert or delay this wrath? (I though God loved everybody - what's up with this wrath business?) The word "wrath" always means "anger and punishment" in the bible when it comes to God. Over and over in the bible God has punished His people for their disobedience and when He did was it because they were all disobedient. No! It was because the nation as a whole was disobedient. They laws this country has passed like legal murder or abortion, gambling, putting a congressman in office who would,t take his oath using a bible but used a Karon instead. Or ending our support for Israel will bring the wrath of God upon us. The fact of the matter is that 911 was a clear warning from God. When God became angry at Israel He simply lifted the hedge of protection He had around them and let the enemy come in. Which is exactly what happened to New York. Where do you come up with that Bravo Sierra? First of all, it is really bad theology. Here you speak erroneously of God's use of the broad sword rather than a scapel. Later in your post you are specific about that error. (1) Did Noah drown with the antediluvians or was he saved out of it from God? (2) Did Lot get consumed by the fire from heaven or was he spared from it by God? (3) When the Angel of Death swept through Egypt killing the first born males, were God's chosen people also afflicted? (4) Was Jeremiah hauled off in captivity or was he set free when then wicked Israelites fell to Babylon? (5) Was Daniel and the others whipped into slavery or were they, like Joseph, moved to positions of power and authority? (6) Does your eschatology teach that God's people will be Judged along with the reprobate during the Tribulation? Since God's people (the righteous) were removed from God's judgment on the wicked, where do you get the idea that today God can't tell the difference and so He punishes the righteous and the wicked alike? IOW, there is a pattern of example in Scripture showing that God puts judgment on the guilty, not the righteous. Here you say that God indiscrimantly nukes the just and the unjust. You are mixing metaphors, and are twisting Mat 5:45 to mean the opposite of what Jesus taught. (Clue: rain is a good thing, if it wasn't a good thing then Elijah should have left the drought; and second, the context it was used was in the "love your enemies" teaching) If you want to use the "bad things happen to good people" philosophy, go to something a whole lot more relevant like Luke 13:4-5 which teaches more on the general problems of the curse. I think it is a gross misinterpretation and application of Scripture to say that the Covenants made with the Chosen nation of Israel are applicable to whoever you want them to apply to today. When God mentions "Chosen" and then makes a series of Covenants with that well defined group of people, it doesn't mean everybody no matter how much fun it would seem to be to reassign it. In Hebrews we read that God chastens whom He loves (Det 8:5; Heb 12:6). Chasten does not mean stomp to death. Sodom and the antediluvians were not chastened, they were stomped out of existence. The Western nations are not God's Chosen People. That chosen people was the nation of Israel. In today's spiritual economy, the Chosen people are individuals out of every nation, and the Covenants made to these people are those that apply. (FWIW, the human invention of the 1948 Israel is not God's invention and thus isn't some reconstitution of an animal sacrifice spiritual economy) Because the people of God are spread across the globe, God will not pick and choose nations to show wrath to. Rather He will remove His Elect on the Last Day and lay down the serious Smackdown on the remaining reprobate - just like he has done before. I'm sick and tired of folks profaning God's judgment and holiness by confusing the curse of Adam's sin (Ro 8:22), chastening of His loved ones and the actual judgement of the wicked. And one last thing, if God's people were exempt from evil, then no bullets from a murderer would hurt us, no rape would ever occur to a believer; during earthquakes, fires and floods Church going believers would find all of their property perfectly preserved. Under a Free Will soteriology, trusting Jesus wouldn't be just a faith thing on the afterlife, it would be a practical, observable and quantifiable comprehensive insurance policy that pays off right now. Cancer would never effect a Christian. No Christian would ever get into an collision, fall off a roof, get hit by lightning, get bit by a rattlesnake, never suffer any calamity self imposed, brought on by others, or from the hand of God. You really need to think this stuff you are trying to sell a bit more thoroughly.

Maybe its the topic that attracts eleven talent Calvinists and repels the four talent Arminians.

I think that the confirmed Christian has much better things to bring to the table. Php 2 talks about how our participation in Christ should bring winsome traits and surety. We are to works excellently, honoring masters and servants - all sorts of behavior in our business interaction with others. As a beliver, regenerated, with a new mind, we should also have a better world view. I submit that a Calvinistic worldview brought about the hard sciences and was the foundation in forming the united States. It was Christian principles that opened up charities, hospitals and universities. By looking at our past we can see that both on a micro and macro level, Christian identity and ethics bring about prosperity and peace. There is no shame in being a Christian, as if the OP tried to draw out, when you have Chrsitians of Opportunity, or those who are Expedient Christians, those who are Christians when it is "safe" and advantageous, we aren't talking believers in our LORD; believers in a vanity religion perhaps, but not the regenerated, filled-with-the-spirit sort of faith.

"and because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold". This ref. is directed toward those who call themselves christians. The "lawlessness" is the watering down of the Gospel. Taking away and adding to God's Word. The "love of many" is the true faith one has in Christ. The "will grow cold" refers to believers abandoning the Truth in search for easier ways into the Kingdom of God. So yes....christian hearts will grow cold and yes, it is happening today. It appears that you are making lots of things up here, and it is not clear why you are doing so. For instance, you open by saying that the reference "is directed towards those who call themselves Christians." No where in the context of the Olivette Discourse is this supported. In fact, Jesus Christ Himself stated that He came only for the "lost sheep of the house of Israel". John 1:11 says that "He came unto His own", Paul and Baranabas even declared that Christ preached only to the Jews Ac 13:46. When our LORD ever spoke about the Church, it was always prefaced by "The Kingdom of Heaven is like..." then He would launch into a Parable. So if it is anybody that our LORD is talking about, it is NOT those who call themselves Christians. Lawlessness is defined in 1 John 3:4 "Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness." John then compares lawlessness to rightousness. I have no idea how you justify constraining it to "watering down the gospel". The "Christian hearts will grow cold" is utter blasphemy since our LORD says many times that each one that His Father gives to Him, He will not lose any. The whole point and purpose of salvation is not for man's convenience, it is to bring Glody to God. Not a single one who is of the Elect will not grow cold, rather, each and every one will be sanctified and perfected into righteousness, as our LORD promised. (edited by moderator)

great believe what you want. but youre talking about rewards which is what the crown is all about (2 Timothy 4:6-8). you maybe dont believe in those so i wont go there with you. thanks So is your faith just a complex and unspecific system of quid pro quos with the Creator?

great believe what you want. but youre talking about rewards which is what the crown is all about (2 Timothy 4:6-8). you maybe dont believe in those so i wont go there with you. thanks So is your faith just a complex and unspecific system of quid pro quos with the Creator?

Did God "offer" salvation to all of humanity in the first four thousand or so years before Christ's death and resurrection? Did Jesus Himself teach outside of physical Israel? If not, why not? If so, how so? [the point being, is that motive has to be assigned at some point and we don't have an evangelical record prior to the Great Commission - so what kind of "offer" did everyone else get?]