This forum / group is still up and running.

Anyone wanting to contribute will be most welcomed.

Thanks

Alan

It's hard to believe ... but it's true!

The Scottish Bible Society is giving away free books this Christmas.

Check out:  http://www.carolpraise.org

Why do so many christians use Satanist inspired new age bible
versions? Are theyblind? Are their hearts hardened?

WWW.AVPUBLICATIONS.COM

Harry,

It is good that you are so passionate to see righteous laws in our
society. All of us are called to be salt and light in the vocations
that God has given us, and we need more Christians who are willing
to go into local politics and make a stand for what is right. I also
think that you are probably right in thinking that God is judging
our nation for turning our back on him in many areas throughout
society - politics, family life, education, the media and even in
the church.

However, I do not believe it is possible to "vote in" the kingdom of
God. Or to defeat sin by passing laws against it. The only effective
way to bring in the government of God and see righteous living is
for individuals to encounter the living God and begin to fight their
own sin with the help of the Holy Spirit. What will it profit a
homosexual if he lives a life of celibacy but does not find Christ?

You may not realise this, but the way you talk will lead many non-
Christians to conclude that you simply have an attitude of hatred
for them. This is a gross misrepresentation of the God who loved
sinners so much that he sent his only Son to die for them. And lets
remember that God is far more disgusted by sin than we are. We ought
to be responding to those on the "outside" with gentleness and
respect (1 Pet 3:15), and living such good lives that they can't
slander us (1 Pet 3:16). Jesus willingly associated with some of the
most sinful members of his society to bring them the good news of
the kingdom and actually found them to be some of the most receptive
to his message.

As Christians we commanded not to judge others, but to judge
ourselves. Am I living a holy life? Am I loving, gentle, patient and
kind? Secondly, there is a need to judge sin within the church. This
must be done according to the guidelines set out in Scripture. But
actually we are not given a mandate to judge outside. Paul
explicitly declares this in 1 Cor 5:12. To be sure, governments do
have a mandate to judge (Rom 13:4), and Christians can do so within
that context, but this is not a ministry of the church. Jesus'
second coming will be to judge, his first was to save. (John 12:47)

It is only by the grace of God that we have been saved (as your
excellent email address alludes to) and so we have a wonderful
message of hope to bring to these lost people. We need to feel God's
heart of compassion for them - many are confused, many are broken,
many have even been badly hurt by the church, and all have been
deceived by Satan. Let us pray for them, let us repent of our *own*
sin and let us bring them the *good* news that they can become new
creations. What they "were"  will not matter any more - only what
they have become. (1 Cor 11:6)

your brother in Christ,
Mark

--- In
reformeddoctrineforum@..., "not_works_but_faith"
<notworksbutfaith@a...> wrote:
> Calvin's teaching include those of the duties of the Christian to
> govern. We are to be active in political action and to put into
> practice the practical aspects of Faith: laws to protect the weak
and
> powerless from the strong and brutal being a good example.Further
> examples can be seen in Calvin's own activities in Geneva.
>
> Our country today is ruled by a collection of Papists, Pagans,
> Athiests, Moral Relativists , Liberals, Abortionists, Devil
> Worshipers, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Humanists, Feminists and
> Sodomites.
>
> This is purely and simply a PUNISHMENT FROM GOD. We have been
> biblically and morally gutless.We have voted for political parties
> because they are nice too the poor but who empower and encourage
the
> medical profession to butcher 150,000 babies a year; who introduce
> Section 28 yet made the love of money and getting rich by any
means a
> virtue.
>
> If we are unhappy with the way the country is then we have been
> given, by God, a democracy with which to change it.There is a
letter
> I recently read in the British Church Newspaper which asks "Who am
I
> to vote for" after it was revealed that a quarter of UKIP
candidates
> are sodomites and the General Secretary is a lesbian.Of course
there
> is no political party for Bible believing Christians to vote for.
>
> This today requires Christians to get off their backsides and do
> something more than waffle about doctrine i.e. put doctrine into
> practice. Rev. Ian Paisley stands as the greatest living example
of
> getting up and doing more than talking. He has proven that a clear
> and stern message is mightier than the most ardent Ecumenist. The
DUP
> in Northern Ireland has broken the back of its rival. It is time
that
> we here England and Scotland did the same.
>
> I want to get either an English/ Scottish / Mainland  section of
the
> Democratic Unionist Party going or if that isn't possible then
start
> something similar. I would appreciate you e mailing me
> (notworksbutfaith@a...) and see what we can, with God's grace, we
> can do.
>
>
> Harry

Calvin's teaching include those of the duties of the Christian to
govern. We are to be active in political action and to put into
practice the practical aspects of Faith: laws to protect the weak and
powerless from the strong and brutal being a good example.Further
examples can be seen in Calvin's own activities in Geneva.

Our country today is ruled by a collection of Papists, Pagans,
Athiests, Moral Relativists , Liberals, Abortionists, Devil
Worshipers, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Humanists, Feminists and
Sodomites.

This is purely and simply a PUNISHMENT FROM GOD. We have been
biblically and morally gutless.We have voted for political parties
because they are nice too the poor but who empower and encourage the
medical profession to butcher 150,000 babies a year; who introduce
Section 28 yet made the love of money and getting rich by any means a
virtue.

If we are unhappy with the way the country is then we have been
given, by God, a democracy with which to change it.There is a letter
I recently read in the British Church Newspaper which asks "Who am I
to vote for" after it was revealed that a quarter of UKIP candidates
are sodomites and the General Secretary is a lesbian.Of course there
is no political party for Bible believing Christians to vote for.

This today requires Christians to get off their backsides and do
something more than waffle about doctrine i.e. put doctrine into
practice. Rev. Ian Paisley stands as the greatest living example of
getting up and doing more than talking. He has proven that a clear
and stern message is mightier than the most ardent Ecumenist. The DUP
in Northern Ireland has broken the back of its rival. It is time that
we here England and Scotland did the same.

I want to get either an English/ Scottish / Mainland  section of the
Democratic Unionist Party going or if that isn't possible then start
something similar. I would appreciate you e mailing me
(notworksbutfaith@...) and see what we can, with God's grace, we
can do.


Harry

Hi cam,
Absolutely, if we define true divinity in those terms.  Arius saw Christ as
divine but not with God's nature as such.  So he defined divinity
differently.  The Nicene creed repudiated Arianism explicitly with phrases
such 'very (true) God of very God'.  Arius denied that Christ was very God
but he still maintained that he was God in some sense i.e. a demiGod.
Brian


>From: camp602001 <no_reply@...>
>Reply-To: reformeddoctrineforum@...
>To: reformeddoctrineforum@...
>Subject: [Reformed  Doctrine Forum] [Reformed Doctrine Forum] [Reformed
>Doctrine Forum] Re: Trinity
>Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 21:38:09 -0000
>
>Hi Brian,
>
>True divinity can only be attained if your nature is the same as
>God's. Only the Son can claim to this. Angels can't make that claim
>because God spoke and they were formed. They do not possess the same
>nature as the Father or the Son.
>
>
>Brian: Trinity was devised to avoid
> > the error of tritheism (three Gods).  If the Father, Jesus and the
>Spirit are all God dont we have three Gods therefore.
>
>Cam: No it doesn't as I mentioned in my earlier. There is still only
>the one nature, hence one God. Problem with the Trinity is that it
>reduces the importance of the Father, elevates the Son so that he is
>equal with the Father (when only his nature is equal)and denies the
>proper Father and Son relationship. This is because Jesus existed
>the same time as the Father therefore he is only Son in name!!!! If
>this is the case why on earth should there even be a Father and a
>Son? Who decided who should play the role of the Father and the Son?
>Why not just give names? None of it backed by scripture. The bible
>clearly says Jesus is God's only begotten Son! The Trinity in trying
>to solve the oneness of God had opened up a whole lot of problems.
>
>Brian:This is wrong since the Bible speaks of them as separate
>entities relating to one another e.g. ' the Father loves the Son'.
>
>Cam: Which is what I am saying all along. They are seperate
>period!!! The Trinity teaches some sort of inward split withine the
>Godhead.
>
>Thanks for your thoughts Brian.
>
>God bless,
>
>Cam
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--- In reformeddoctrineforum@..., "Brian Midmore"
><brmidmore@h...> wrote:
> > Hi cam,
> > i suppose it all depends on what is meant by 'true divinity'.
>Angels are
> > truly divine in that they represent God's nature and are his
>servants.
> > Arius saw Jesus as truly divine in this way. Trinity was devised
>to avoid
> > the error of tritheism (three Gods).  If the Father, Jesus and the
>Spirit
> > are all God dont we have three Gods therefore.  The other error at
>the time
> > was Modalism which saw Father , Son and Spirit as modes of a
>single God.
> > This is wrong since the Bible speaks of them as separate entities
>relating
> > to one another e.g. ' the Father loves the Son'.  The idea of
>three persons
> > in a single Godhead accomodates both the biblical ideas of
>relationship in
> > God and the fact that God is one.  I suppose your idea of leaving
>the issue
> > open might work on an individual basis but it also leaves the
>field open for
> > heretical and false teaching.  The point of the doctrine of the
>Trinity is
> > that though it is deficient (how can we describe God!) it heads
>off heresy.
> > Brian
> >
> >
> > >From: camp602001 <no_reply@...>
> > >Reply-To: reformeddoctrineforum@...
> > >To: reformeddoctrineforum@...
> > >Subject: [Reformed  Doctrine Forum] [Reformed Doctrine Forum] Re:
>Trinity
> > >Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 21:03:03 -0000
> > >
> > >Hi Brian,
> > >
> > >Thanks for your thoughts on this. In a way he did for he said our
> > >Lord was 'created out of nothing'. He did not believe Jesus had
>the
> > >same nature as the Father. If he did believed in the true divinity
> > >of Christ, I would have backed him but I can't because that is not
> > >the case.
> > >
> > >Scripture teaches that the Father is God and Jesus is God but is
> > >vague in the 'how' or the 'manner' in which they both are God.
> > >Trinity is one alternative. I prefer to follow another simple
> > >approach.
> > >
> > >God bless,
> > >
> > >Cam
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >--- In reformeddoctrineforum@..., "Brian Midmore"
> > ><brmidmore@h...> wrote:
> > > > Hi Cam,
> > > > As a point of fact, Arius did not deny the divinity of Christ.
> > >Christ for
> > > > Arius was a 'divine being' and as such God in some sense.
>Arius
> > >believed
> > > > that Christ was created at some point: 'There was a time when
>he
> > >was not'
> > > > was the axiom of the Arians.  Orthodox Christians beleive that
> > >Christ is
> > > > uncreated and has existed as part of the Godhead for all
>etrnity.
> > >Christ is
> > > > therefore Very God and not only God.   As the nicene creed
>states:
> > >Very God
> > > > of Very God, begotten (i.e eternally existing) NOT made.
> > > > Brian
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >From: ernbaxter <no_reply@...>
> > > > >Reply-To: reformeddoctrineforum@...
> > > > >To: reformeddoctrineforum@...
> > > > >Subject: [Reformed  Doctrine Forum] Re: Trinity
> > > > >Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 08:33:09 -0000
> > > > >
> > > > >Hi Cam,
> > > > >
> > > > >Its been a bit quiet on this group recently, but welcome
>anyway!
> > >You
> > > > >are right in saying that the Trinity is difficult to
>comprehend -
> > > > >but do we really expect to fully understand the nature of
>God? In
> > > > >fact, I read an interesting section of Luther's commentary on
> > > > >Galatians recently where he argues that "It is a principle of
>the
> > > > >Bible that we are not to inquire curiously into the nature of
> > > > >God ... True Christian theology does not inquire into the
>nature
> > >of
> > > > >God, but into God's purpose and will in Christ, whom God
> > > > >incorporated in our flesh to live and to die for our sins."
>You
> > >can
> > > > >read more at
> > > >
> > >
> >http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/gal/web/g
> > >a
> > > > >l1-01.html if you're interested.
> > > > >
> > > > >What we know of God is by his own self revelation, not our own
> > > > >philosophical speculations. So the Bible is the place to go
>if we
> > > > >are to find out what may be known for certain about the
>nature of
> > > > >God. You say you don't want to be "considered a heretic". Well
> > > > >there's nothing wrong with coming to Scripture with an open
>mind,
> > > > >ready to hear what it says rather than coming to it simply to
>find
> > > > >confirmation of the things we already thought. After all,
>that's
> > > > >what the reformers did - they let God speak through his word,
>and
> > > > >found out that many of the orthodox teachings of their day
>were
> > > > >actually heresies. But you must bear in mind that when we
>consider
> > > > >the person of Jesus Christ, wrong views of him are especially
> > > > >dangerous. Any teaching that detracts any glory from Jesus
>will
> > >have
> > > > >to be assigned to the "heresy" category. As you seem to be
>aware,
> > > > >the early church took very seriously any deviation from the
> > >orthodox
> > > > >belief in Jesus as the second person of the Trinity.
> > > > >
> > > > >Now I have a few immediate problems with your argument. First,
> > >what
> > > > >happened to the Holy Spirit? You start off with just the
>Father,
> > >and
> > > > >then add the Son, but never mention the Spirit. Secondly, we
>must
> > > > >affirm that Jesus was not created and existed outside of
>time - in
> > > > >the beginning (see John 1). Therefore there was never a time
>when
> > > > >Jesus the person did not exist - he has always existed. You
>can't
> > > > >have a "before" and "after" outside of time as you seem to be
> > > > >requiring. Thirdly, you seem to be trying to solve a problem
>that
> > > > >isn't really a problem - Jesus being called the
>only "begotten"
> > >son.
> > > > >I think if you read some commentaries on the meaning of the
> > > > >Greek "monogenes", you will see that this phrase is better
> > > > >translated "one and only" son - the idea of coming into
>existance
> > >is
> > > > >not there.
> > > > >
> > > > >I could try to summarise the Scripture arguments for
>believing in
> > >the
> > > > >Trinity, but that would take a long time. Perhaps you could
>post
> > > > >again with your thoughts on what I have said. If you can get
>hold
> > >of
> > > > >Wayne Grudem's "Biblical Doctrine" book, you will find a very
> > >clear
> > > > >and readable explanation of both the doctrine of the Trinity
>and
> > >the
> > > > >numerous Scripture references that back it up.
> > > > >
> > > > >Finally, as you are thinking deeply about the person of
>Jesus, you
> > > > >might find this article interesting:
> > > > >http://home.hiwaay.net/~kbush/Wright_JIG.pdf  It has some very
> > > > >useful insights into Jewish monotheism.
> > > > >
> > > > >anyway, I pray that through your study of God's word and
>thoughts
> > > > >about Jesus, you will be moved to worship
> > > > >
> > > > >Mark
> > > > >
> > > > >--- In reformeddoctrineforum@..., camp602001
> > > > ><no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > > > > > Hi All,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just joined this group! I am having problems understanding
>the
> > > > > > Trinity as it is difficult to comprehend and decided to
>have a
> > > > > > slightly alternative view.
> > > > > >  I would still like to think myself as a Christian rather
>than
> > >be
> > > > > > considered a heretic!!!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My thoughts are pretty basic in that I believe that only
>the
> > > > >Father
> > > > > > existed in the beginning.  As God he existed outside of
>time.
> > > > > > At some point before anything else was created he decided
>to
> > >have
> > > > >a
> > > > > > son so he created Jesus and thus we have time as the Father
> > >knows
> > > > > > when he formed his Son. Question then is how was Jesus
>formed?
> > >If
> > > > > > our Lord was formed by utterance i.e. Father said "Let
>there
> > >be a
> > > > > > son" and Jesus was formed he cannot be considered God. He
>would
> > > > > > simply be the first created spirit ahead of the angels.
> > >However,
> > > > >if
> > > > > > the Father created Jesus from his own NATURE,
> > > > > >  is this what John meant when he referred to Jesus as
>the "only
> > > > > > begotten Son?"  If this was the case then Jesus too is God
> > >because
> > > > > > of his nature and he too has no beginning in terms of his
> > >nature
> > > > >but
> > > > > > only his personality has a beginning. " God from God, Light
> > >from
> > > > > > Light, True God from True God, begotten not made" (creed).
> > >Father
> > > > > > taught his Son everything and through his Son created
> > >everything.
> > > > > > This is why I truly believe that Jesus is literally God's
>son
> > >and
> > > > > > that the Father being Father is greater than his son who
>sits
> > >at
> > > > >his
> > > > > > right hand. The next obvious question is are there two
>Gods or
> > > > >one?
> > > > > > Rather than try to solve this mathematical formula and get
> > >myself
> > > > >in
> > > > > > a muddle, I prefer to look at it in another way. What
>makes God
> > > > >God?
> > > > > > For me it has to be his nature. For another God to exist,
>it
> > >has
> > > > >to
> > > > > > have its own nature and must either proceed or existed
> > > > >independently
> > > > > > from the Father's nature. We know from the bible that
> > >EVERYTHING
> > > > >was
> > > > > > created by God therefore there is no other God or nature
>that
> > > > > > existed independently. Since Jesus' nature is from the
>Father's
> > > > > > nature, there is still the one nature hence one God.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When we look back at the original controversy between
>Arius and
> > > > > > Bishop Alexander, Arius views were rightly rejected for he
> > >denied
> > > > > > the divinity of Christ. Is the above just as bad?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > God bless,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cam
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
>_________________________________________________________________
> > > > Express yourself with cool new emoticons
> > >http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/myemo
> > >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Express yourself with cool emoticons - download MSN Messenger
>today!
> > http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger
>

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself with cool emoticons - download MSN Messenger today!
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger

Hi Brian,

True divinity can only be attained if your nature is the same as
God's. Only the Son can claim to this. Angels can't make that claim
because God spoke and they were formed. They do not possess the same
nature as the Father or the Son.


Brian: Trinity was devised to avoid
> the error of tritheism (three Gods).  If the Father, Jesus and the
Spirit are all God dont we have three Gods therefore.

Cam: No it doesn't as I mentioned in my earlier. There is still only
the one nature, hence one God. Problem with the Trinity is that it
reduces the importance of the Father, elevates the Son so that he is
equal with the Father (when only his nature is equal)and denies the
proper Father and Son relationship. This is because Jesus existed
the same time as the Father therefore he is only Son in name!!!! If
this is the case why on earth should there even be a Father and a
Son? Who decided who should play the role of the Father and the Son?
Why not just give names? None of it backed by scripture. The bible
clearly says Jesus is God's only begotten Son! The Trinity in trying
to solve the oneness of God had opened up a whole lot of problems.

Brian:This is wrong since the Bible speaks of them as separate
entities relating to one another e.g. ' the Father loves the Son'.

Cam: Which is what I am saying all along. They are seperate
period!!! The Trinity teaches some sort of inward split withine the
Godhead.

Thanks for your thoughts Brian.

God bless,

Cam







--- In reformeddoctrineforum@..., "Brian Midmore"
<brmidmore@h...> wrote:
> Hi cam,
> i suppose it all depends on what is meant by 'true divinity'.
Angels are
> truly divine in that they represent God's nature and are his
servants.
> Arius saw Jesus as truly divine in this way. Trinity was devised
to avoid
> the error of tritheism (three Gods).  If the Father, Jesus and the
Spirit
> are all God dont we have three Gods therefore.  The other error at
the time
> was Modalism which saw Father , Son and Spirit as modes of a
single God.
> This is wrong since the Bible speaks of them as separate entities
relating
> to one another e.g. ' the Father loves the Son'.  The idea of
three persons
> in a single Godhead accomodates both the biblical ideas of
relationship in
> God and the fact that God is one.  I suppose your idea of leaving
the issue
> open might work on an individual basis but it also leaves the
field open for
> heretical and false teaching.  The point of the doctrine of the
Trinity is
> that though it is deficient (how can we describe God!) it heads
off heresy.
> Brian
>
>
> >From: camp602001 <no_reply@...>
> >Reply-To: reformeddoctrineforum@...
> >To: reformeddoctrineforum@...
> >Subject: [Reformed  Doctrine Forum] [Reformed Doctrine Forum] Re:
Trinity
> >Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 21:03:03 -0000
> >
> >Hi Brian,
> >
> >Thanks for your thoughts on this. In a way he did for he said our
> >Lord was 'created out of nothing'. He did not believe Jesus had
the
> >same nature as the Father. If he did believed in the true divinity
> >of Christ, I would have backed him but I can't because that is not
> >the case.
> >
> >Scripture teaches that the Father is God and Jesus is God but is
> >vague in the 'how' or the 'manner' in which they both are God.
> >Trinity is one alternative. I prefer to follow another simple
> >approach.
> >
> >God bless,
> >
> >Cam
> >
> >
> >
> >--- In reformeddoctrineforum@..., "Brian Midmore"
> ><brmidmore@h...> wrote:
> > > Hi Cam,
> > > As a point of fact, Arius did not deny the divinity of Christ.
> >Christ for
> > > Arius was a 'divine being' and as such God in some sense.
Arius
> >believed
> > > that Christ was created at some point: 'There was a time when
he
> >was not'
> > > was the axiom of the Arians.  Orthodox Christians beleive that
> >Christ is
> > > uncreated and has existed as part of the Godhead for all
etrnity.
> >Christ is
> > > therefore Very God and not only God.   As the nicene creed
states:
> >Very God
> > > of Very God, begotten (i.e eternally existing) NOT made.
> > > Brian
> > >
> > >
> > > >From: ernbaxter <no_reply@...>
> > > >Reply-To: reformeddoctrineforum@...
> > > >To: reformeddoctrineforum@...
> > > >Subject: [Reformed  Doctrine Forum] Re: Trinity
> > > >Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 08:33:09 -0000
> > > >
> > > >Hi Cam,
> > > >
> > > >Its been a bit quiet on this group recently, but welcome
anyway!
> >You
> > > >are right in saying that the Trinity is difficult to
comprehend -
> > > >but do we really expect to fully understand the nature of
God? In
> > > >fact, I read an interesting section of Luther's commentary on
> > > >Galatians recently where he argues that "It is a principle of
the
> > > >Bible that we are not to inquire curiously into the nature of
> > > >God ... True Christian theology does not inquire into the
nature
> >of
> > > >God, but into God's purpose and will in Christ, whom God
> > > >incorporated in our flesh to live and to die for our sins."
You
> >can
> > > >read more at
> > >
> >
>http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/gal/web/g
> >a
> > > >l1-01.html if you're interested.
> > > >
> > > >What we know of God is by his own self revelation, not our own
> > > >philosophical speculations. So the Bible is the place to go
if we
> > > >are to find out what may be known for certain about the
nature of
> > > >God. You say you don't want to be "considered a heretic". Well
> > > >there's nothing wrong with coming to Scripture with an open
mind,
> > > >ready to hear what it says rather than coming to it simply to
find
> > > >confirmation of the things we already thought. After all,
that's
> > > >what the reformers did - they let God speak through his word,
and
> > > >found out that many of the orthodox teachings of their day
were
> > > >actually heresies. But you must bear in mind that when we
consider
> > > >the person of Jesus Christ, wrong views of him are especially
> > > >dangerous. Any teaching that detracts any glory from Jesus
will
> >have
> > > >to be assigned to the "heresy" category. As you seem to be
aware,
> > > >the early church took very seriously any deviation from the
> >orthodox
> > > >belief in Jesus as the second person of the Trinity.
> > > >
> > > >Now I have a few immediate problems with your argument. First,
> >what
> > > >happened to the Holy Spirit? You start off with just the
Father,
> >and
> > > >then add the Son, but never mention the Spirit. Secondly, we
must
> > > >affirm that Jesus was not created and existed outside of
time - in
> > > >the beginning (see John 1). Therefore there was never a time
when
> > > >Jesus the person did not exist - he has always existed. You
can't
> > > >have a "before" and "after" outside of time as you seem to be
> > > >requiring. Thirdly, you seem to be trying to solve a problem
that
> > > >isn't really a problem - Jesus being called the
only "begotten"
> >son.
> > > >I think if you read some commentaries on the meaning of the
> > > >Greek "monogenes", you will see that this phrase is better
> > > >translated "one and only" son - the idea of coming into
existance
> >is
> > > >not there.
> > > >
> > > >I could try to summarise the Scripture arguments for
believing in
> >the
> > > >Trinity, but that would take a long time. Perhaps you could
post
> > > >again with your thoughts on what I have said. If you can get
hold
> >of
> > > >Wayne Grudem's "Biblical Doctrine" book, you will find a very
> >clear
> > > >and readable explanation of both the doctrine of the Trinity
and
> >the
> > > >numerous Scripture references that back it up.
> > > >
> > > >Finally, as you are thinking deeply about the person of
Jesus, you
> > > >might find this article interesting:
> > > >http://home.hiwaay.net/~kbush/Wright_JIG.pdf  It has some very
> > > >useful insights into Jewish monotheism.
> > > >
> > > >anyway, I pray that through your study of God's word and
thoughts
> > > >about Jesus, you will be moved to worship
> > > >
> > > >Mark
> > > >
> > > >--- In reformeddoctrineforum@..., camp602001
> > > ><no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > > > > Hi All,
> > > > >
> > > > > Just joined this group! I am having problems understanding
the
> > > > > Trinity as it is difficult to comprehend and decided to
have a
> > > > > slightly alternative view.
> > > > >  I would still like to think myself as a Christian rather
than
> >be
> > > > > considered a heretic!!!
> > > > >
> > > > > My thoughts are pretty basic in that I believe that only
the
> > > >Father
> > > > > existed in the beginning.  As God he existed outside of
time.
> > > > > At some point before anything else was created he decided
to
> >have
> > > >a
> > > > > son so he created Jesus and thus we have time as the Father
> >knows
> > > > > when he formed his Son. Question then is how was Jesus
formed?
> >If
> > > > > our Lord was formed by utterance i.e. Father said "Let
there
> >be a
> > > > > son" and Jesus was formed he cannot be considered God. He
would
> > > > > simply be the first created spirit ahead of the angels.
> >However,
> > > >if
> > > > > the Father created Jesus from his own NATURE,
> > > > >  is this what John meant when he referred to Jesus as
the "only
> > > > > begotten Son?"  If this was the case then Jesus too is God
> >because
> > > > > of his nature and he too has no beginning in terms of his
> >nature
> > > >but
> > > > > only his personality has a beginning. " God from God, Light
> >from
> > > > > Light, True God from True God, begotten not made" (creed).
> >Father
> > > > > taught his Son everything and through his Son created
> >everything.
> > > > > This is why I truly believe that Jesus is literally God's
son
> >and
> > > > > that the Father being Father is greater than his son who
sits
> >at
> > > >his
> > > > > right hand. The next obvious question is are there two
Gods or
> > > >one?
> > > > > Rather than try to solve this mathematical formula and get
> >myself
> > > >in
> > > > > a muddle, I prefer to look at it in another way. What
makes God
> > > >God?
> > > > > For me it has to be his nature. For another God to exist,
it
> >has
> > > >to
> > > > > have its own nature and must either proceed or existed
> > > >independently
> > > > > from the Father's nature. We know from the bible that
> >EVERYTHING
> > > >was
> > > > > created by God therefore there is no other God or nature
that
> > > > > existed independently. Since Jesus' nature is from the
Father's
> > > > > nature, there is still the one nature hence one God.
> > > > >
> > > > > When we look back at the original controversy between
Arius and
> > > > > Bishop Alexander, Arius views were rightly rejected for he
> >denied
> > > > > the divinity of Christ. Is the above just as bad?
> > > > >
> > > > > God bless,
> > > > >
> > > > > Cam
> > > >
> > >
> > >
_________________________________________________________________
> > > Express yourself with cool new emoticons
> >http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/myemo
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Express yourself with cool emoticons - download MSN Messenger
today!
> http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger

A quotation from my favourite (I think!) Puritan Thomas Watson

When God calls a man, He does not repent of it. God does not, as many
friends do, love one day, and hate another; or as princes, who make
their subjects favourites, and afterwards throw them into prison.
This is the blessedness of a saint; his condition admits of no
alteration. God's call is founded upon His decree, and His decree is
immutable. Acts of grace cannot be reversed.God blots out His
people's sins, but not their names.

God be with you all.

Scott Kendall

Hi cam,
i suppose it all depends on what is meant by 'true divinity'.  Angels are
truly divine in that they represent God's nature and are his servants.
Arius saw Jesus as truly divine in this way. Trinity was devised to avoid
the error of tritheism (three Gods).  If the Father, Jesus and the Spirit
are all God dont we have three Gods therefore.  The other error at the time
was Modalism which saw Father , Son and Spirit as modes of a single God.
This is wrong since the Bible speaks of them as separate entities relating
to one another e.g. ' the Father loves the Son'.  The idea of three persons
in a single Godhead accomodates both the biblical ideas of relationship in
God and the fact that God is one.  I suppose your idea of leaving the issue
open might work on an individual basis but it also leaves the field open for
heretical and false teaching.  The point of the doctrine of the Trinity is
that though it is deficient (how can we describe God!) it heads off heresy.
Brian


>From: camp602001 <no_reply@...>
>Reply-To: reformeddoctrineforum@...
>To: reformeddoctrineforum@...
>Subject: [Reformed  Doctrine Forum] [Reformed Doctrine Forum] Re: Trinity
>Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 21:03:03 -0000
>
>Hi Brian,
>
>Thanks for your thoughts on this. In a way he did for he said our
>Lord was 'created out of nothing'. He did not believe Jesus had the
>same nature as the Father. If he did believed in the true divinity
>of Christ, I would have backed him but I can't because that is not
>the case.
>
>Scripture teaches that the Father is God and Jesus is God but is
>vague in the 'how' or the 'manner' in which they both are God.
>Trinity is one alternative. I prefer to follow another simple
>approach.
>
>God bless,
>
>Cam
>
>
>
>--- In reformeddoctrineforum@..., "Brian Midmore"
><brmidmore@h...> wrote:
> > Hi Cam,
> > As a point of fact, Arius did not deny the divinity of Christ.
>Christ for
> > Arius was a 'divine being' and as such God in some sense.  Arius
>believed
> > that Christ was created at some point: 'There was a time when he
>was not'
> > was the axiom of the Arians.  Orthodox Christians beleive that
>Christ is
> > uncreated and has existed as part of the Godhead for all etrnity.
>Christ is
> > therefore Very God and not only God.   As the nicene creed states:
>Very God
> > of Very God, begotten (i.e eternally existing) NOT made.
> > Brian
> >
> >
> > >From: ernbaxter <no_reply@...>
> > >Reply-To: reformeddoctrineforum@...
> > >To: reformeddoctrineforum@...
> > >Subject: [Reformed  Doctrine Forum] Re: Trinity
> > >Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 08:33:09 -0000
> > >
> > >Hi Cam,
> > >
> > >Its been a bit quiet on this group recently, but welcome anyway!
>You
> > >are right in saying that the Trinity is difficult to comprehend -
> > >but do we really expect to fully understand the nature of God? In
> > >fact, I read an interesting section of Luther's commentary on
> > >Galatians recently where he argues that "It is a principle of the
> > >Bible that we are not to inquire curiously into the nature of
> > >God ... True Christian theology does not inquire into the nature
>of
> > >God, but into God's purpose and will in Christ, whom God
> > >incorporated in our flesh to live and to die for our sins." You
>can
> > >read more at
> >
> >http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/gal/web/g
>a
> > >l1-01.html if you're interested.
> > >
> > >What we know of God is by his own self revelation, not our own
> > >philosophical speculations. So the Bible is the place to go if we
> > >are to find out what may be known for certain about the nature of
> > >God. You say you don't want to be "considered a heretic". Well
> > >there's nothing wrong with coming to Scripture with an open mind,
> > >ready to hear what it says rather than coming to it simply to find
> > >confirmation of the things we already thought. After all, that's
> > >what the reformers did - they let God speak through his word, and
> > >found out that many of the orthodox teachings of their day were
> > >actually heresies. But you must bear in mind that when we consider
> > >the person of Jesus Christ, wrong views of him are especially
> > >dangerous. Any teaching that detracts any glory from Jesus will
>have
> > >to be assigned to the "heresy" category. As you seem to be aware,
> > >the early church took very seriously any deviation from the
>orthodox
> > >belief in Jesus as the second person of the Trinity.
> > >
> > >Now I have a few immediate problems with your argument. First,
>what
> > >happened to the Holy Spirit? You start off with just the Father,
>and
> > >then add the Son, but never mention the Spirit. Secondly, we must
> > >affirm that Jesus was not created and existed outside of time - in
> > >the beginning (see John 1). Therefore there was never a time when
> > >Jesus the person did not exist - he has always existed. You can't
> > >have a "before" and "after" outside of time as you seem to be
> > >requiring. Thirdly, you seem to be trying to solve a problem that
> > >isn't really a problem - Jesus being called the only "begotten"
>son.
> > >I think if you read some commentaries on the meaning of the
> > >Greek "monogenes", you will see that this phrase is better
> > >translated "one and only" son - the idea of coming into existance
>is
> > >not there.
> > >
> > >I could try to summarise the Scripture arguments for believing in
>the
> > >Trinity, but that would take a long time. Perhaps you could post
> > >again with your thoughts on what I have said. If you can get hold
>of
> > >Wayne Grudem's "Biblical Doctrine" book, you will find a very
>clear
> > >and readable explanation of both the doctrine of the Trinity and
>the
> > >numerous Scripture references that back it up.
> > >
> > >Finally, as you are thinking deeply about the person of Jesus, you
> > >might find this article interesting:
> > >http://home.hiwaay.net/~kbush/Wright_JIG.pdf  It has some very
> > >useful insights into Jewish monotheism.
> > >
> > >anyway, I pray that through your study of God's word and thoughts
> > >about Jesus, you will be moved to worship
> > >
> > >Mark
> > >
> > >--- In reformeddoctrineforum@..., camp602001
> > ><no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > > > Hi All,
> > > >
> > > > Just joined this group! I am having problems understanding the
> > > > Trinity as it is difficult to comprehend and decided to have a
> > > > slightly alternative view.
> > > >  I would still like to think myself as a Christian rather than
>be
> > > > considered a heretic!!!
> > > >
> > > > My thoughts are pretty basic in that I believe that only the
> > >Father
> > > > existed in the beginning.  As God he existed outside of time.
> > > > At some point before anything else was created he decided to
>have
> > >a
> > > > son so he created Jesus and thus we have time as the Father
>knows
> > > > when he formed his Son. Question then is how was Jesus formed?
>If
> > > > our Lord was formed by utterance i.e. Father said "Let there
>be a
> > > > son" and Jesus was formed he cannot be considered God. He would
> > > > simply be the first created spirit ahead of the angels.
>However,
> > >if
> > > > the Father created Jesus from his own NATURE,
> > > >  is this what John meant when he referred to Jesus as the "only
> > > > begotten Son?"  If this was the case then Jesus too is God
>because
> > > > of his nature and he too has no beginning in terms of his
>nature
> > >but
> > > > only his personality has a beginning. " God from God, Light
>from
> > > > Light, True God from True God, begotten not made" (creed).
>Father
> > > > taught his Son everything and through his Son created
>everything.
> > > > This is why I truly believe that Jesus is literally God's son
>and
> > > > that the Father being Father is greater than his son who sits
>at
> > >his
> > > > right hand. The next obvious question is are there two Gods or
> > >one?
> > > > Rather than try to solve this mathematical formula and get
>myself
> > >in
> > > > a muddle, I prefer to look at it in another way. What makes God
> > >God?
> > > > For me it has to be his nature. For another God to exist, it
>has
> > >to
> > > > have its own nature and must either proceed or existed
> > >independently
> > > > from the Father's nature. We know from the bible that
>EVERYTHING
> > >was
> > > > created by God therefore there is no other God or nature that
> > > > existed independently. Since Jesus' nature is from the Father's
> > > > nature, there is still the one nature hence one God.
> > > >
> > > > When we look back at the original controversy between Arius and
> > > > Bishop Alexander, Arius views were rightly rejected for he
>denied
> > > > the divinity of Christ. Is the above just as bad?
> > > >
> > > > God bless,
> > > >
> > > > Cam
> > >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Express yourself with cool new emoticons
>http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/myemo
>

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself with cool emoticons - download MSN Messenger today!
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger

Hi Brian,

Thanks for your thoughts on this. In a way he did for he said our
Lord was 'created out of nothing'. He did not believe Jesus had the
same nature as the Father. If he did believed in the true divinity
of Christ, I would have backed him but I can't because that is not
the case.

Scripture teaches that the Father is God and Jesus is God but is
vague in the 'how' or the 'manner' in which they both are God.
Trinity is one alternative. I prefer to follow another simple
approach.

God bless,

Cam



--- In reformeddoctrineforum@..., "Brian Midmore"
<brmidmore@h...> wrote:
> Hi Cam,
> As a point of fact, Arius did not deny the divinity of Christ.
Christ for
> Arius was a 'divine being' and as such God in some sense.  Arius
believed
> that Christ was created at some point: 'There was a time when he
was not'
> was the axiom of the Arians.  Orthodox Christians beleive that
Christ is
> uncreated and has existed as part of the Godhead for all etrnity.
Christ is
> therefore Very God and not only God.   As the nicene creed states:
Very God
> of Very God, begotten (i.e eternally existing) NOT made.
> Brian
>
>
> >From: ernbaxter <no_reply@...>
> >Reply-To: reformeddoctrineforum@...
> >To: reformeddoctrineforum@...
> >Subject: [Reformed  Doctrine Forum] Re: Trinity
> >Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 08:33:09 -0000
> >
> >Hi Cam,
> >
> >Its been a bit quiet on this group recently, but welcome anyway!
You
> >are right in saying that the Trinity is difficult to comprehend -
> >but do we really expect to fully understand the nature of God? In
> >fact, I read an interesting section of Luther's commentary on
> >Galatians recently where he argues that "It is a principle of the
> >Bible that we are not to inquire curiously into the nature of
> >God ... True Christian theology does not inquire into the nature
of
> >God, but into God's purpose and will in Christ, whom God
> >incorporated in our flesh to live and to die for our sins." You
can
> >read more at
>
>http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/gal/web/g
a
> >l1-01.html if you're interested.
> >
> >What we know of God is by his own self revelation, not our own
> >philosophical speculations. So the Bible is the place to go if we
> >are to find out what may be known for certain about the nature of
> >God. You say you don't want to be "considered a heretic". Well
> >there's nothing wrong with coming to Scripture with an open mind,
> >ready to hear what it says rather than coming to it simply to find
> >confirmation of the things we already thought. After all, that's
> >what the reformers did - they let God speak through his word, and
> >found out that many of the orthodox teachings of their day were
> >actually heresies. But you must bear in mind that when we consider
> >the person of Jesus Christ, wrong views of him are especially
> >dangerous. Any teaching that detracts any glory from Jesus will
have
> >to be assigned to the "heresy" category. As you seem to be aware,
> >the early church took very seriously any deviation from the
orthodox
> >belief in Jesus as the second person of the Trinity.
> >
> >Now I have a few immediate problems with your argument. First,
what
> >happened to the Holy Spirit? You start off with just the Father,
and
> >then add the Son, but never mention the Spirit. Secondly, we must
> >affirm that Jesus was not created and existed outside of time - in
> >the beginning (see John 1). Therefore there was never a time when
> >Jesus the person did not exist - he has always existed. You can't
> >have a "before" and "after" outside of time as you seem to be
> >requiring. Thirdly, you seem to be trying to solve a problem that
> >isn't really a problem - Jesus being called the only "begotten"
son.
> >I think if you read some commentaries on the meaning of the
> >Greek "monogenes", you will see that this phrase is better
> >translated "one and only" son - the idea of coming into existance
is
> >not there.
> >
> >I could try to summarise the Scripture arguments for believing in
the
> >Trinity, but that would take a long time. Perhaps you could post
> >again with your thoughts on what I have said. If you can get hold
of
> >Wayne Grudem's "Biblical Doctrine" book, you will find a very
clear
> >and readable explanation of both the doctrine of the Trinity and
the
> >numerous Scripture references that back it up.
> >
> >Finally, as you are thinking deeply about the person of Jesus, you
> >might find this article interesting:
> >http://home.hiwaay.net/~kbush/Wright_JIG.pdf  It has some very
> >useful insights into Jewish monotheism.
> >
> >anyway, I pray that through your study of God's word and thoughts
> >about Jesus, you will be moved to worship
> >
> >Mark
> >
> >--- In reformeddoctrineforum@..., camp602001
> ><no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > Just joined this group! I am having problems understanding the
> > > Trinity as it is difficult to comprehend and decided to have a
> > > slightly alternative view.
> > >  I would still like to think myself as a Christian rather than
be
> > > considered a heretic!!!
> > >
> > > My thoughts are pretty basic in that I believe that only the
> >Father
> > > existed in the beginning.  As God he existed outside of time.
> > > At some point before anything else was created he decided to
have
> >a
> > > son so he created Jesus and thus we have time as the Father
knows
> > > when he formed his Son. Question then is how was Jesus formed?
If
> > > our Lord was formed by utterance i.e. Father said "Let there
be a
> > > son" and Jesus was formed he cannot be considered God. He would
> > > simply be the first created spirit ahead of the angels.
However,
> >if
> > > the Father created Jesus from his own NATURE,
> > >  is this what John meant when he referred to Jesus as the "only
> > > begotten Son?"  If this was the case then Jesus too is God
because
> > > of his nature and he too has no beginning in terms of his
nature
> >but
> > > only his personality has a beginning. " God from God, Light
from
> > > Light, True God from True God, begotten not made" (creed).
Father
> > > taught his Son everything and through his Son created
everything.
> > > This is why I truly believe that Jesus is literally God's son
and
> > > that the Father being Father is greater than his son who sits
at
> >his
> > > right hand. The next obvious question is are there two Gods or
> >one?
> > > Rather than try to solve this mathematical formula and get
myself
> >in
> > > a muddle, I prefer to look at it in another way. What makes God
> >God?
> > > For me it has to be his nature. For another God to exist, it
has
> >to
> > > have its own nature and must either proceed or existed
> >independently
> > > from the Father's nature. We know from the bible that
EVERYTHING
> >was
> > > created by God therefore there is no other God or nature that
> > > existed independently. Since Jesus' nature is from the Father's
> > > nature, there is still the one nature hence one God.
> > >
> > > When we look back at the original controversy between Arius and
> > > Bishop Alexander, Arius views were rightly rejected for he
denied
> > > the divinity of Christ. Is the above just as bad?
> > >
> > > God bless,
> > >
> > > Cam
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Express yourself with cool new emoticons
http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/myemo

Hi Cam,
As a point of fact, Arius did not deny the divinity of Christ.  Christ for
Arius was a 'divine being' and as such God in some sense.  Arius believed
that Christ was created at some point: 'There was a time when he was not'
was the axiom of the Arians.  Orthodox Christians beleive that Christ is
uncreated and has existed as part of the Godhead for all etrnity.  Christ is
therefore Very God and not only God.   As the nicene creed states: Very God
of Very God, begotten (i.e eternally existing) NOT made.
Brian


>From: ernbaxter <no_reply@...>
>Reply-To: reformeddoctrineforum@...
>To: reformeddoctrineforum@...
>Subject: [Reformed  Doctrine Forum] Re: Trinity
>Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 08:33:09 -0000
>
>Hi Cam,
>
>Its been a bit quiet on this group recently, but welcome anyway! You
>are right in saying that the Trinity is difficult to comprehend -
>but do we really expect to fully understand the nature of God? In
>fact, I read an interesting section of Luther's commentary on
>Galatians recently where he argues that "It is a principle of the
>Bible that we are not to inquire curiously into the nature of
>God ... True Christian theology does not inquire into the nature of
>God, but into God's purpose and will in Christ, whom God
>incorporated in our flesh to live and to die for our sins." You can
>read more at
>http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/gal/web/ga
>l1-01.html if you're interested.
>
>What we know of God is by his own self revelation, not our own
>philosophical speculations. So the Bible is the place to go if we
>are to find out what may be known for certain about the nature of
>God. You say you don't want to be "considered a heretic". Well
>there's nothing wrong with coming to Scripture with an open mind,
>ready to hear what it says rather than coming to it simply to find
>confirmation of the things we already thought. After all, that's
>what the reformers did - they let God speak through his word, and
>found out that many of the orthodox teachings of their day were
>actually heresies. But you must bear in mind that when we consider
>the person of Jesus Christ, wrong views of him are especially
>dangerous. Any teaching that detracts any glory from Jesus will have
>to be assigned to the "heresy" category. As you seem to be aware,
>the early church took very seriously any deviation from the orthodox
>belief in Jesus as the second person of the Trinity.
>
>Now I have a few immediate problems with your argument. First, what
>happened to the Holy Spirit? You start off with just the Father, and
>then add the Son, but never mention the Spirit. Secondly, we must
>affirm that Jesus was not created and existed outside of time - in
>the beginning (see John 1). Therefore there was never a time when
>Jesus the person did not exist - he has always existed. You can't
>have a "before" and "after" outside of time as you seem to be
>requiring. Thirdly, you seem to be trying to solve a problem that
>isn't really a problem - Jesus being called the only "begotten" son.
>I think if you read some commentaries on the meaning of the
>Greek "monogenes", you will see that this phrase is better
>translated "one and only" son - the idea of coming into existance is
>not there.
>
>I could try to summarise the Scripture arguments for believing in the
>Trinity, but that would take a long time. Perhaps you could post
>again with your thoughts on what I have said. If you can get hold of
>Wayne Grudem's "Biblical Doctrine" book, you will find a very clear
>and readable explanation of both the doctrine of the Trinity and the
>numerous Scripture references that back it up.
>
>Finally, as you are thinking deeply about the person of Jesus, you
>might find this article interesting:
>http://home.hiwaay.net/~kbush/Wright_JIG.pdf  It has some very
>useful insights into Jewish monotheism.
>
>anyway, I pray that through your study of God's word and thoughts
>about Jesus, you will be moved to worship
>
>Mark
>
>--- In reformeddoctrineforum@..., camp602001
><no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Just joined this group! I am having problems understanding the
> > Trinity as it is difficult to comprehend and decided to have a
> > slightly alternative view.
> >  I would still like to think myself as a Christian rather than be
> > considered a heretic!!!
> >
> > My thoughts are pretty basic in that I believe that only the
>Father
> > existed in the beginning.  As God he existed outside of time.
> > At some point before anything else was created he decided to have
>a
> > son so he created Jesus and thus we have time as the Father knows
> > when he formed his Son. Question then is how was Jesus formed? If
> > our Lord was formed by utterance i.e. Father said "Let there be a
> > son" and Jesus was formed he cannot be considered God. He would
> > simply be the first created spirit ahead of the angels. However,
>if
> > the Father created Jesus from his own NATURE,
> >  is this what John meant when he referred to Jesus as the "only
> > begotten Son?"  If this was the case then Jesus too is God because
> > of his nature and he too has no beginning in terms of his nature
>but
> > only his personality has a beginning. " God from God, Light from
> > Light, True God from True God, begotten not made" (creed). Father
> > taught his Son everything and through his Son created everything.
> > This is why I truly believe that Jesus is literally God's son and
> > that the Father being Father is greater than his son who sits at
>his
> > right hand. The next obvious question is are there two Gods or
>one?
> > Rather than try to solve this mathematical formula and get myself
>in
> > a muddle, I prefer to look at it in another way. What makes God
>God?
> > For me it has to be his nature. For another God to exist, it has
>to
> > have its own nature and must either proceed or existed
>independently
> > from the Father's nature. We know from the bible that EVERYTHING
>was
> > created by God therefore there is no other God or nature that
> > existed independently. Since Jesus' nature is from the Father's
> > nature, there is still the one nature hence one God.
> >
> > When we look back at the original controversy between Arius and
> > Bishop Alexander, Arius views were rightly rejected for he denied
> > the divinity of Christ. Is the above just as bad?
> >
> > God bless,
> >
> > Cam
>

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself with cool new emoticons http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/myemo

Only if one were to claim that writing emails is a form of worship.

Are you familiar with the Regulative Principal of Worship? I posted
this message assuming that the forum understood the Exclusive
Psalmody position.



--- In reformeddoctrineforum@..., "Brian Midmore"
<brmidmore@h...> wrote:
> is writing uninspired e-mails idolatry too?
> Brian
>
>
> >From: "Peter" <GrayPJ@c...>
> >Reply-To: reformeddoctrineforum@...
> >To: reformeddoctrineforum@...
> >Subject: [Reformed  Doctrine Forum] Re: the Steelite controversy
> >Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 02:08:11 -0000
> >
> >Hello all,
> >
> >Tom, as an advocate of EP (non-Steelite) I would have to say that
> >those who sing uninspired hymns in worship are idolaters because
> >they do so without the warrant of Scripture. BUT only in a sense
> >similar to the way those who anger are murderers. Jesus Christ
> >revealed this hermeneutic to us:
> >
> >"Mat 5:21  Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time,
Thou
> >shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the
> >judgment:
> >Mat 5:22  but I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his
> >brother shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall
say
> >to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and
> >whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of the hell of
> >fire."
> >
> >WLC Q99: 6.  That under one sin or duty, all of the same kind are
> >forbidden or commanded; together with all the causes, means,
> >occasions, and appearances thereof, and provocations thereunto.
[11]
> >11. Matt. 5:21-22, 27-28; 15:4-6; Heb. 10:24-25; I Thess. 5:22-23;
> >Gal. 5:26; Col. 3:21
> >
> >Singing uninspired hymns is idolatry, but to a far lesser degree
> >than making a Golden Calf.
> >
> >Q150:  Are all transgressions of the law of God equally heinous in
> >themselves, and in the sight of God?
> >  A150:  All transgressions of the law of God are not equally
> >heinous; but some sins in themselves, and by reason of several
> >aggravations, are more heinous in the sight of God than others.[1]
> >1.  John 19:11; Ezek. 8:6, 13, 15; I John 5:16; Psa. 78:17, 32, 56
> >
> >To some extent I am an idolater, as even thinking about God in any
> >other way than He is most magnificently revealed in the Scriptures
> >is sin. Every time I think of Jesus' face I am committing
idolatry.
> >
> >WLC Q99: 2.  That it is spiritual, and so reaches the
understanding,
> >will, affections, and all other powers of the soul; as well as
> >words, works, and gestures.[2]
> >2.  Rom. 7:14; Deut. 6:5; Matt. 5:21-22, 27-28, 33-34, 37-39, 43-
44;
> >22:37-39
> >
> >Idolatry is making an image of God. That is, conceiving God in
> >ANYWAY not prescribed by Himself. Hymn singing is idolatry but it
> >does not mean you are not a Christian or are not saved.
> >
> >The 2nd Commandment, prohibits idolatry:
> >Q109:  What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment?
> >A109:  The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all
> >devising,[1] counseling,[2] commanding,[3] using,[4] and anywise
> >approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself;[5]
> >tolerating a false religion;[6] the making any representation of
> >God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our
> >mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any
creature
> >whatsoever;[7] all worshiping of it,[8] or God in it or by it;[9]
> >the making of any representation of feigned deities,[10] and all
> >worship of them, or service belonging to them;[11] all
superstitious
> >devices,[12] corrupting the worship of God,[13] adding to it, or
> >taking from it,[14] whether invented and taken up of ourselves,
[15]
> >or received by tradition from others,[16] though under the title
of
> >antiquity,[17] custom,[18] devotion,[19] good intent, or any other
> >pretense whatsoever;[20] simony;[21] sacrilege;[22] all neglect,
[23]
> >contempt,[24] hindering,[25] and opposing the worship and
ordinances
> >which God hath appointed.[26]
> >
> >1.  Num. 15:39
> >2.  Deut. 13:6-8
> >3.  Hosea 5:11; Micah 6:16
> >4.  I Kings 11:33; 12:33
> >5.  Deut. 12:30-32
> >6.  Deut. 13:6-12; Zech. 13:2-3; Rev. 2:2, 14-15, 20, Rev. 17:12,
16-
> >17
> >7.  Deut. 4:15-19; Acts 17:29; Rom. 1:21-23, 25
> >8.  Dan. 3:18; Gal. 4:8
> >9.  Exod. 32:5
> >10. Exod. 32:8
> >11. I Kings 18:26, 28; Isa. 65:11
> >12. Acts 17:22; Col. 2:21-23
> >13. Mal. 1:7-8, 14
> >14. Deut. 4:2
> >15. Psa. 106:39
> >16. Matt. 15:9
> >17. I Peter 1:18
> >18. Jer. 44:17
> >19. Isa. 65:3-5; Gal. 1:13-14
> >20. I Sam. 13:11-12; 15:21
> >21. Acts 8:18
> >22. Rom. 2:22; Mal. 3:8
> >23. Exod. 4:24-26
> >24. Matt. 22:5; Mal. 1:7, 13
> >25. Matt. 23:13
> >26. Acts 13:44-45; I Thess. 2:15-16
> >
> >Peter
> >
> >--- In reformeddoctrineforum@..., tom mitchell
> ><repentant_reformer@y...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I was just wondering what you all thought of the 'Steelite'
> >Covenanters and whether they are or should be considered a cult or
> >not.
> > >
> > > Had a few friends that are in that group, but to be honest, I
am
> >not sure what to think. I know that they believe that they have
the
> >only true forum of worship and have even gone so far as to say
that
> >those who do not practice E.P (Exclusive Psalmody) are idolaters
and
> >not true Christians. Does any one in here know any thing about
that?
> >Just trying to sort through it all.
> > >
> > > Thanks & God bless.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > tom
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > HotJobs, a Yahoo! service - Search Thousands of New Jobs
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today!
> http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger

Another one to share!

At an airport one night
With several long hours
  Before her flight.
She hunted for a book
In an airport shop,
Bought a bag of cookies
And found a place to drop.

She was engrossed in her book
But happened to see,
That the man sitting beside her,
As bold as could be,
Grabbed a cookie or two

From the bag in between,
Which she tried to ignore
To avoid a scene.

So she munched the cookies
And watched the clock,
As the gutsy cookie thief
Diminished her stock.
She was getting more irritated
As the minutes ticked by,
Thinking, "If I wasn't so nice,
I would blacken his eye."

With each cookie she took,
He took one too,
Then only one was left,
She wondered what he would do.
With a smile on his face,
And a nervous laugh,
He took the last cookie
And broke it in half.

He offered her half,
As he ate the other,
She snatched it from him
And thought....ooh, brother!
This guy had some nerve
And he's also rude,
Why he didn't even show
Any gratitude!

She had never known
When she been so galled,
And sighed with relief
When her flight was called.

She gathered her belongings
And headed to the gate,
Refusing to look back
At the thieving ingrate.

She boarded the plane,
And sank in her seat,
Then she sought her book,
Which was almost complete.
As she reached in her baggage,
She gasped with surprise,
There was her bag of cookies, I
n front of her eyes.

If mine are h e,
She moaned in despair,
The others were his,
And he tried to share.
Too late to apologize,
She realized with grief,
That she was the rude one,
The ingrate, the thief!

How many times have we absolutely known that something was a certain
way, only to discover later that what we believed to be true....was
not?

"Always Keep An Open Mind And An Open Heart,
Because.......
You Just Never Know....
"You might be eating someone else's cookies."

Just something I like to share.

Cam
----- Original Message -----
From: RBC Ministries
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 09:58
Subject: [rbc-news] RBC Ministries E-mail Newsletter March 2004


Been Thinking About: Two Thieves
(an article by RBC Ministries President Mart De Haan)


Crucifixion was torture. Leather straps or spikes were used to hang
a condemned man on a pole. Like a helpless animal tangled in a
barbed wire fence, the victim could survive for days with
excruciating pain. Death usually came by suffocation when, hanging
by his hands, the victim lost the strength to draw another breath.

Three men on three trees
In the Spring of 33 AD, the crucifixion of three men, outside the
city walls of Jerusalem, changed the course of world history. Roman
executioners hammered nails through the wrists and ankles of three
men and left them to die. The event itself was common in the ancient
Mid East. And yet, 2,000 years later, the world still talks about
those three deaths.

I found an explanation of the significance of those deaths written
on the flyleaf of an old Bible. In words I have found memorable,
someone had written, "One man died with guilt in him and on him. A
second man died with guilt in him but not on him. The third died
with guilt on him but not in him." Since finding that quote, I've
held on to it as a profoundly simple description of some differences
we all need to understand.

One died with sin in him and on him
He was the first of two thieves executed that day. By the law of the
land he was given the punishment he deserved. By a judge wearing the
authority of the Roman Caesar, he was sentenced and condemned, like
a house that is no longer fit to live in.

The first thief seems to have died an angry man. He was probably
angry with himself for getting caught. He was probably angry with
the judge who sentenced him. He was probably angry with all those
who had let him down along the way. He seems to have been especially
angry with the man named Jesus who hung innocently at his side.

The first thief wasn't alone in his contempt for Jesus. Others
shared his feelings. It was easy to be furious with someone who
claimed to be the light and hope of the world--then hung like a
common criminal, not even saving Himself from death.

Angry with Jesus for being unable to help Himself or anyone else
(Luke 23:39), the first thief died with his own sin in him and on
him.

One died with sin in him but not on him
There was a second thief executed that day. At first he joined the
others who ridiculed and insulted Jesus. For a while he too mocked
Jesus with the challenge to save Himself and them if He really was
the promised Messiah (Matthew 27:37-44).

As the darkness closed in, however, the second thief had a change of
heart. Turning to the first thief, he said, "Don't you fear God
since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for
we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing
wrong." Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when You come into Your
kingdom." Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will
be with Me in paradise" (Luke 23:39-43).

That may be one of the most important conversations ever recorded.
These few words show what the rest of the New Testament declares.
Forgiveness of sins and eternal life is given to anyone who trusts
Jesus for the forgiveness of their sins. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Faith alone in Christ alone determines our eternal destiny (John
3:16-18; Acts 16:31; Romans 4:5; Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5).

The second thief had no time to clean up his life. He had no time to
do anything but to believe in Jesus. In the process, he gave all of
us a picture of what it takes to come into the eternal family of God.

In response to the simplest expression of faith, Jesus assured him
of forgiveness. The second thief died with sin in him but not on
him. The Judge of the heavens lifted the guilt from the second
thief's shoulders, placing it instead on Jesus, our sin-bearer.

One died with sin on him but not in him
Jesus shouldered the guilt of the world that day. He died with the
weight of the world's sin on Him but not the slightest wrong in Him.

Three days later He rose from the dead to show that His death,
tragic as it was, was not a mistake. With a nail-scarred,
resurrected body Jesus gave hundreds of His disciples all the
evidence they needed to believe that He had taken their place in
death. The judgment of God had fallen on Him instead of on us.

What I also find amazing is that this is our story. We were there.
We were there because God was there in our place, bearing our sins.
We were also there because all of us will respond either as the
first thief or as the second.

The words don't make the difference; the faith does. If you don't
have that faith, but want it, ask God to give it to you. You won't
be the first to cry out, "Lord, I believe; help my unbelief" (Mark
9:24).

Father in heaven, thank You for helping us to see that this is Your
story. In the suffering of Your Son, we see Your suffering and Your
love for us. In His death, we see Your payment for our wrongs, and
Your offer of forgiveness. In His resurrection, we see Your
assurance that You are completely pleased with the price He paid for
us.

And Father, thank You also for helping us to see that this is our
story. In the first thief we see our first inclination to hate You,
to reject Your love, and to let our anger keep us from You and
others. Thank You for softening our hearts so that we can also see
ourselves in the second thief, who came to his senses before it was
too late.

Hi Mark,

Thanks for the welcome. Yes it is pretty quite here!!!

Mark: What we know of God is by his own self revelation, not our own
> philosophical speculations. So the Bible is the place to go if we
> are to find out what may be known for certain about the nature of
> God.

Cam: This is true. The Bibel is the utmost authority.

Mark:Now I have a few immediate problems with your argument. First,
what happened to the Holy Spirit? You start off with just the
Father, and then add the Son, but never mention the Spirit.


Cam: True. I left the HS out as I want to concentrate on the Father
and Son relationship first.


Mark: Secondly, we must
> affirm that Jesus was not created and existed outside of time - in
> the beginning (see John 1). Therefore there was never a time when
> Jesus the person did not exist - he has always existed. You can't
> have a "before" and "after" outside of time as you seem to be
> requiring.


Cam: I did not say that. What I meant was God the Father existed
outside time. When he formed his Son, we had time and we had a
beginning hence John 1.1. You can't have a beginning outside of
time. If beginning was used on account of language limitation, then
which beginning John was refering to? The very very beginning which
was outside time or the beginning before creation? I say the latter
and you would say the former but we can't insist on saying one of us
is correct because we dont't what was going through John's mind when
he wrote it.

Mark: Thirdly, you seem to be trying to solve a problem that
> isn't really a problem - Jesus being called the only "begotten"
son. I think if you read some commentaries on the meaning of the
> Greek "monogenes", you will see that this phrase is better
> translated "one and only" son - the idea of coming into existance
is not there.

Cam: Even if we were to use the phrase "one and only" son, that does
not imply or proof Jesus did not have a beginning of some sort. All
that means is Jesus is truly God's only Son.

If the Father and the Son existed at the same time, why is there a
Father and a Son. Why should Jesus play the role of the Son, why not
the other way round?

Thanks for the link and pray.

God bless

Cam






--- In reformeddoctrineforum@..., ernbaxter
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> Hi Cam,
>
> Its been a bit quiet on this group recently, but welcome anyway!
You
> are right in saying that the Trinity is difficult to comprehend -
> but do we really expect to fully understand the nature of God? In
> fact, I read an interesting section of Luther's commentary on
> Galatians recently where he argues that "It is a principle of the
> Bible that we are not to inquire curiously into the nature of
> God ... True Christian theology does not inquire into the nature
of
> God, but into God's purpose and will in Christ, whom God
> incorporated in our flesh to live and to die for our sins." You can
> read more at
>
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/gal/web/ga
> l1-01.html if you're interested.
>
> What we know of God is by his own self revelation, not our own
> philosophical speculations. So the Bible is the place to go if we
> are to find out what may be known for certain about the nature of
> God. You say you don't want to be "considered a heretic". Well
> there's nothing wrong with coming to Scripture with an open mind,
> ready to hear what it says rather than coming to it simply to find
> confirmation of the things we already thought. After all, that's
> what the reformers did - they let God speak through his word, and
> found out that many of the orthodox teachings of their day were
> actually heresies. But you must bear in mind that when we consider
> the person of Jesus Christ, wrong views of him are especially
> dangerous. Any teaching that detracts any glory from Jesus will
have
> to be assigned to the "heresy" category. As you seem to be aware,
> the early church took very seriously any deviation from the
orthodox
> belief in Jesus as the second person of the Trinity.
>
> Now I have a few immediate problems with your argument. First,
what
> happened to the Holy Spirit? You start off with just the Father,
and
> then add the Son, but never mention the Spirit. Secondly, we must
> affirm that Jesus was not created and existed outside of time - in
> the beginning (see John 1). Therefore there was never a time when
> Jesus the person did not exist - he has always existed. You can't
> have a "before" and "after" outside of time as you seem to be
> requiring. Thirdly, you seem to be trying to solve a problem that
> isn't really a problem - Jesus being called the only "begotten"
son.
> I think if you read some commentaries on the meaning of the
> Greek "monogenes", you will see that this phrase is better
> translated "one and only" son - the idea of coming into existance
is
> not there.
>
> I could try to summarise the Scripture arguments for believing in
the
> Trinity, but that would take a long time. Perhaps you could post
> again with your thoughts on what I have said. If you can get hold
of
> Wayne Grudem's "Biblical Doctrine" book, you will find a very
clear
> and readable explanation of both the doctrine of the Trinity and
the
> numerous Scripture references that back it up.
>
> Finally, as you are thinking deeply about the person of Jesus, you
> might find this article interesting:
> http://home.hiwaay.net/~kbush/Wright_JIG.pdf  It has some very
> useful insights into Jewish monotheism.
>
> anyway, I pray that through your study of God's word and thoughts
> about Jesus, you will be moved to worship
>
> Mark
>
> --- In reformeddoctrineforum@..., camp602001
> <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Just joined this group! I am having problems understanding the
> > Trinity as it is difficult to comprehend and decided to have a
> > slightly alternative view.
> >  I would still like to think myself as a Christian rather than
be
> > considered a heretic!!!
> >
> > My thoughts are pretty basic in that I believe that only the
> Father
> > existed in the beginning.  As God he existed outside of time.
> > At some point before anything else was created he decided to
have
> a
> > son so he created Jesus and thus we have time as the Father
knows
> > when he formed his Son. Question then is how was Jesus formed?
If
> > our Lord was formed by utterance i.e. Father said "Let there be
a
> > son" and Jesus was formed he cannot be considered God. He would
> > simply be the first created spirit ahead of the angels. However,
> if
> > the Father created Jesus from his own NATURE,
> >  is this what John meant when he referred to Jesus as the "only
> > begotten Son?"  If this was the case then Jesus too is God
because
> > of his nature and he too has no beginning in terms of his nature
> but
> > only his personality has a beginning. " God from God, Light from
> > Light, True God from True God, begotten not made" (creed).
Father
> > taught his Son everything and through his Son created
everything.
> > This is why I truly believe that Jesus is literally God's son
and
> > that the Father being Father is greater than his son who sits at
> his
> > right hand. The next obvious question is are there two Gods or
> one?
> > Rather than try to solve this mathematical formula and get
myself
> in
> > a muddle, I prefer to look at it in another way. What makes God
> God?
> > For me it has to be his nature. For another God to exist, it has
> to
> > have its own nature and must either proceed or existed
> independently
> > from the Father's nature. We know from the bible that EVERYTHING
> was
> > created by God therefore there is no other God or nature that
> > existed independently. Since Jesus' nature is from the Father's
> > nature, there is still the one nature hence one God.
> >
> > When we look back at the original controversy between Arius and
> > Bishop Alexander, Arius views were rightly rejected for he
denied
> > the divinity of Christ. Is the above just as bad?
> >
> > God bless,
> >
> > Cam

Hi Cam,

Its been a bit quiet on this group recently, but welcome anyway! You
are right in saying that the Trinity is difficult to comprehend -
but do we really expect to fully understand the nature of God? In
fact, I read an interesting section of Luther's commentary on
Galatians recently where he argues that "It is a principle of the
Bible that we are not to inquire curiously into the nature of
God ... True Christian theology does not inquire into the nature of
God, but into God's purpose and will in Christ, whom God
incorporated in our flesh to live and to die for our sins." You can
read more at
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/gal/web/ga
l1-01.html if you're interested.

What we know of God is by his own self revelation, not our own
philosophical speculations. So the Bible is the place to go if we
are to find out what may be known for certain about the nature of
God. You say you don't want to be "considered a heretic". Well
there's nothing wrong with coming to Scripture with an open mind,
ready to hear what it says rather than coming to it simply to find
confirmation of the things we already thought. After all, that's
what the reformers did - they let God speak through his word, and
found out that many of the orthodox teachings of their day were
actually heresies. But you must bear in mind that when we consider
the person of Jesus Christ, wrong views of him are especially
dangerous. Any teaching that detracts any glory from Jesus will have
to be assigned to the "heresy" category. As you seem to be aware,
the early church took very seriously any deviation from the orthodox
belief in Jesus as the second person of the Trinity.

Now I have a few immediate problems with your argument. First, what
happened to the Holy Spirit? You start off with just the Father, and
then add the Son, but never mention the Spirit. Secondly, we must
affirm that Jesus was not created and existed outside of time - in
the beginning (see John 1). Therefore there was never a time when
Jesus the person did not exist - he has always existed. You can't
have a "before" and "after" outside of time as you seem to be
requiring. Thirdly, you seem to be trying to solve a problem that
isn't really a problem - Jesus being called the only "begotten" son.
I think if you read some commentaries on the meaning of the
Greek "monogenes", you will see that this phrase is better
translated "one and only" son - the idea of coming into existance is
not there.

I could try to summarise the Scripture arguments for believing in the
Trinity, but that would take a long time. Perhaps you could post
again with your thoughts on what I have said. If you can get hold of
Wayne Grudem's "Biblical Doctrine" book, you will find a very clear
and readable explanation of both the doctrine of the Trinity and the
numerous Scripture references that back it up.

Finally, as you are thinking deeply about the person of Jesus, you
might find this article interesting:
http://home.hiwaay.net/~kbush/Wright_JIG.pdf  It has some very
useful insights into Jewish monotheism.

anyway, I pray that through your study of God's word and thoughts
about Jesus, you will be moved to worship

Mark

--- In reformeddoctrineforum@..., camp602001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Just joined this group! I am having problems understanding the
> Trinity as it is difficult to comprehend and decided to have a
> slightly alternative view.
>  I would still like to think myself as a Christian rather than be
> considered a heretic!!!
>
> My thoughts are pretty basic in that I believe that only the
Father
> existed in the beginning.  As God he existed outside of time.
> At some point before anything else was created he decided to have
a
> son so he created Jesus and thus we have time as the Father knows
> when he formed his Son. Question then is how was Jesus formed? If
> our Lord was formed by utterance i.e. Father said "Let there be a
> son" and Jesus was formed he cannot be considered God. He would
> simply be the first created spirit ahead of the angels. However,
if
> the Father created Jesus from his own NATURE,
>  is this what John meant when he referred to Jesus as the "only
> begotten Son?"  If this was the case then Jesus too is God because
> of his nature and he too has no beginning in terms of his nature
but
> only his personality has a beginning. " God from God, Light from
> Light, True God from True God, begotten not made" (creed). Father
> taught his Son everything and through his Son created everything.
> This is why I truly believe that Jesus is literally God's son and
> that the Father being Father is greater than his son who sits at
his
> right hand. The next obvious question is are there two Gods or
one?
> Rather than try to solve this mathematical formula and get myself
in
> a muddle, I prefer to look at it in another way. What makes God
God?
> For me it has to be his nature. For another God to exist, it has
to
> have its own nature and must either proceed or existed
independently
> from the Father's nature. We know from the bible that EVERYTHING
was
> created by God therefore there is no other God or nature that
> existed independently. Since Jesus' nature is from the Father's
> nature, there is still the one nature hence one God.
>
> When we look back at the original controversy between Arius and
> Bishop Alexander, Arius views were rightly rejected for he denied
> the divinity of Christ. Is the above just as bad?
>
> God bless,
>
> Cam

Hi All,

Just joined this group! I am having problems understanding the
Trinity as it is difficult to comprehend and decided to have a
slightly alternative view.
  I would still like to think myself as a Christian rather than be
considered a heretic!!!

My thoughts are pretty basic in that I believe that only the Father
existed in the beginning.  As God he existed outside of time.
At some point before anything else was created he decided to have a
son so he created Jesus and thus we have time as the Father knows
when he formed his Son. Question then is how was Jesus formed? If
our Lord was formed by utterance i.e. Father said "Let there be a
son" and Jesus was formed he cannot be considered God. He would
simply be the first created spirit ahead of the angels. However, if
the Father created Jesus from his own NATURE,
  is this what John meant when he referred to Jesus as the "only
begotten Son?"  If this was the case then Jesus too is God because
of his nature and he too has no beginning in terms of his nature but
only his personality has a beginning. " God from God, Light from
Light, True God from True God, begotten not made" (creed). Father
taught his Son everything and through his Son created everything.
This is why I truly believe that Jesus is literally God's son and
that the Father being Father is greater than his son who sits at his
right hand. The next obvious question is are there two Gods or one?
Rather than try to solve this mathematical formula and get myself in
a muddle, I prefer to look at it in another way. What makes God God?
For me it has to be his nature. For another God to exist, it has to
have its own nature and must either proceed or existed independently
from the Father's nature. We know from the bible that EVERYTHING was
created by God therefore there is no other God or nature that
existed independently. Since Jesus' nature is from the Father's
nature, there is still the one nature hence one God.

When we look back at the original controversy between Arius and
Bishop Alexander, Arius views were rightly rejected for he denied
the divinity of Christ. Is the above just as bad?

God bless,

Cam

is writing uninspired e-mails idolatry too?
Brian


>From: "Peter" <GrayPJ@...>
>Reply-To: reformeddoctrineforum@...
>To: reformeddoctrineforum@...
>Subject: [Reformed  Doctrine Forum] Re: the Steelite controversy
>Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 02:08:11 -0000
>
>Hello all,
>
>Tom, as an advocate of EP (non-Steelite) I would have to say that
>those who sing uninspired hymns in worship are idolaters because
>they do so without the warrant of Scripture. BUT only in a sense
>similar to the way those who anger are murderers. Jesus Christ
>revealed this hermeneutic to us:
>
>"Mat 5:21  Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou
>shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the
>judgment:
>Mat 5:22  but I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his
>brother shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say
>to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and
>whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of the hell of
>fire."
>
>WLC Q99: 6.  That under one sin or duty, all of the same kind are
>forbidden or commanded; together with all the causes, means,
>occasions, and appearances thereof, and provocations thereunto.[11]
>11. Matt. 5:21-22, 27-28; 15:4-6; Heb. 10:24-25; I Thess. 5:22-23;
>Gal. 5:26; Col. 3:21
>
>Singing uninspired hymns is idolatry, but to a far lesser degree
>than making a Golden Calf.
>
>Q150:  Are all transgressions of the law of God equally heinous in
>themselves, and in the sight of God?
>  A150:  All transgressions of the law of God are not equally
>heinous; but some sins in themselves, and by reason of several
>aggravations, are more heinous in the sight of God than others.[1]
>1.  John 19:11; Ezek. 8:6, 13, 15; I John 5:16; Psa. 78:17, 32, 56
>
>To some extent I am an idolater, as even thinking about God in any
>other way than He is most magnificently revealed in the Scriptures
>is sin. Every time I think of Jesus' face I am committing idolatry.
>
>WLC Q99: 2.  That it is spiritual, and so reaches the understanding,
>will, affections, and all other powers of the soul; as well as
>words, works, and gestures.[2]
>2.  Rom. 7:14; Deut. 6:5; Matt. 5:21-22, 27-28, 33-34, 37-39, 43-44;
>22:37-39
>
>Idolatry is making an image of God. That is, conceiving God in
>ANYWAY not prescribed by Himself. Hymn singing is idolatry but it
>does not mean you are not a Christian or are not saved.
>
>The 2nd Commandment, prohibits idolatry:
>Q109:  What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment?
>A109:  The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all
>devising,[1] counseling,[2] commanding,[3] using,[4] and anywise
>approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself;[5]
>tolerating a false religion;[6] the making any representation of
>God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our
>mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature
>whatsoever;[7] all worshiping of it,[8] or God in it or by it;[9]
>the making of any representation of feigned deities,[10] and all
>worship of them, or service belonging to them;[11] all superstitious
>devices,[12] corrupting the worship of God,[13] adding to it, or
>taking from it,[14] whether invented and taken up of ourselves,[15]
>or received by tradition from others,[16] though under the title of
>antiquity,[17] custom,[18] devotion,[19] good intent, or any other
>pretense whatsoever;[20] simony;[21] sacrilege;[22] all neglect,[23]
>contempt,[24] hindering,[25] and opposing the worship and ordinances
>which God hath appointed.[26]
>
>1.  Num. 15:39
>2.  Deut. 13:6-8
>3.  Hosea 5:11; Micah 6:16
>4.  I Kings 11:33; 12:33
>5.  Deut. 12:30-32
>6.  Deut. 13:6-12; Zech. 13:2-3; Rev. 2:2, 14-15, 20, Rev. 17:12, 16-
>17
>7.  Deut. 4:15-19; Acts 17:29; Rom. 1:21-23, 25
>8.  Dan. 3:18; Gal. 4:8
>9.  Exod. 32:5
>10. Exod. 32:8
>11. I Kings 18:26, 28; Isa. 65:11
>12. Acts 17:22; Col. 2:21-23
>13. Mal. 1:7-8, 14
>14. Deut. 4:2
>15. Psa. 106:39
>16. Matt. 15:9
>17. I Peter 1:18
>18. Jer. 44:17
>19. Isa. 65:3-5; Gal. 1:13-14
>20. I Sam. 13:11-12; 15:21
>21. Acts 8:18
>22. Rom. 2:22; Mal. 3:8
>23. Exod. 4:24-26
>24. Matt. 22:5; Mal. 1:7, 13
>25. Matt. 23:13
>26. Acts 13:44-45; I Thess. 2:15-16
>
>Peter
>
>--- In reformeddoctrineforum@..., tom mitchell
><repentant_reformer@y...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I was just wondering what you all thought of the 'Steelite'
>Covenanters and whether they are or should be considered a cult or
>not.
> >
> > Had a few friends that are in that group, but to be honest, I am
>not sure what to think. I know that they believe that they have the
>only true forum of worship and have even gone so far as to say that
>those who do not practice E.P (Exclusive Psalmody) are idolaters and
>not true Christians. Does any one in here know any thing about that?
>Just trying to sort through it all.
> >
> > Thanks & God bless.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > tom
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > HotJobs, a Yahoo! service - Search Thousands of New Jobs
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

_________________________________________________________________
It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today!
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger

Hello all,

Tom, as an advocate of EP (non-Steelite) I would have to say that
those who sing uninspired hymns in worship are idolaters because
they do so without the warrant of Scripture. BUT only in a sense
similar to the way those who anger are murderers. Jesus Christ
revealed this hermeneutic to us:

"Mat 5:21  Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou
shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the
judgment:
Mat 5:22  but I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his
brother shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say
to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and
whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of the hell of
fire."

WLC Q99: 6.  That under one sin or duty, all of the same kind are
forbidden or commanded; together with all the causes, means,
occasions, and appearances thereof, and provocations thereunto.[11]
11. Matt. 5:21-22, 27-28; 15:4-6; Heb. 10:24-25; I Thess. 5:22-23;
Gal. 5:26; Col. 3:21

Singing uninspired hymns is idolatry, but to a far lesser degree
than making a Golden Calf.

Q150:  Are all transgressions of the law of God equally heinous in
themselves, and in the sight of God?
  A150:  All transgressions of the law of God are not equally
heinous; but some sins in themselves, and by reason of several
aggravations, are more heinous in the sight of God than others.[1]
1.  John 19:11; Ezek. 8:6, 13, 15; I John 5:16; Psa. 78:17, 32, 56

To some extent I am an idolater, as even thinking about God in any
other way than He is most magnificently revealed in the Scriptures
is sin. Every time I think of Jesus' face I am committing idolatry.

WLC Q99: 2.  That it is spiritual, and so reaches the understanding,
will, affections, and all other powers of the soul; as well as
words, works, and gestures.[2]
2.  Rom. 7:14; Deut. 6:5; Matt. 5:21-22, 27-28, 33-34, 37-39, 43-44;
22:37-39

Idolatry is making an image of God. That is, conceiving God in
ANYWAY not prescribed by Himself. Hymn singing is idolatry but it
does not mean you are not a Christian or are not saved.

The 2nd Commandment, prohibits idolatry:
Q109:  What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment?
A109:  The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all
devising,[1] counseling,[2] commanding,[3] using,[4] and anywise
approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself;[5]
tolerating a false religion;[6] the making any representation of
God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our
mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature
whatsoever;[7] all worshiping of it,[8] or God in it or by it;[9]
the making of any representation of feigned deities,[10] and all
worship of them, or service belonging to them;[11] all superstitious
devices,[12] corrupting the worship of God,[13] adding to it, or
taking from it,[14] whether invented and taken up of ourselves,[15]
or received by tradition from others,[16] though under the title of
antiquity,[17] custom,[18] devotion,[19] good intent, or any other
pretense whatsoever;[20] simony;[21] sacrilege;[22] all neglect,[23]
contempt,[24] hindering,[25] and opposing the worship and ordinances
which God hath appointed.[26]

1.  Num. 15:39
2.  Deut. 13:6-8
3.  Hosea 5:11; Micah 6:16
4.  I Kings 11:33; 12:33
5.  Deut. 12:30-32
6.  Deut. 13:6-12; Zech. 13:2-3; Rev. 2:2, 14-15, 20, Rev. 17:12, 16-
17
7.  Deut. 4:15-19; Acts 17:29; Rom. 1:21-23, 25
8.  Dan. 3:18; Gal. 4:8
9.  Exod. 32:5
10. Exod. 32:8
11. I Kings 18:26, 28; Isa. 65:11
12. Acts 17:22; Col. 2:21-23
13. Mal. 1:7-8, 14
14. Deut. 4:2
15. Psa. 106:39
16. Matt. 15:9
17. I Peter 1:18
18. Jer. 44:17
19. Isa. 65:3-5; Gal. 1:13-14
20. I Sam. 13:11-12; 15:21
21. Acts 8:18
22. Rom. 2:22; Mal. 3:8
23. Exod. 4:24-26
24. Matt. 22:5; Mal. 1:7, 13
25. Matt. 23:13
26. Acts 13:44-45; I Thess. 2:15-16

Peter

--- In reformeddoctrineforum@..., tom mitchell
<repentant_reformer@y...> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I was just wondering what you all thought of the 'Steelite'
Covenanters and whether they are or should be considered a cult or
not.
>
> Had a few friends that are in that group, but to be honest, I am
not sure what to think. I know that they believe that they have the
only true forum of worship and have even gone so far as to say that
those who do not practice E.P (Exclusive Psalmody) are idolaters and
not true Christians. Does any one in here know any thing about that?
Just trying to sort through it all.
>
> Thanks & God bless.
>
>
>
>
>
> tom
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do You Yahoo!?
> HotJobs, a Yahoo! service - Search Thousands of New Jobs
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi

I was wondering if anyone had some thoughts on the context of Mark 13
v 24-30. The interesting thing is that these things will happen
in 'This Generation'. What does that mean?


Mk 13.24-30. "But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will
be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; 25 the stars of
heaven will fall, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. 26
Then they will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with great
power and glory. 27 And then He will send His angels, and gather
together His elect from the four winds, from the farthest part of
earth to the farthest part of heaven. 28 Now learn this parable from
the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender, and puts
forth leaves, you know that summer is near. 29 So you also, when you
see these things happening, know that it is near——at the doors! 30
Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away
till all these things take place."


I have always viewed mark 13 as a passage as a whole. To me the
important phrase is "This Generation". Which can have a variety of
meanings:

1. It is the actual 'physical' generation of those who were living
then. If this is the case there is good case for the Pretetist view.

2. It could mean "This Generation that SEES these things happen."
This would mean that the signs would be fulfilled within a
generational span, so to speak. They would be a actual generation,
but, it may mean a 'future' generation, as against the actual
generation who heard the words. This puts it either within the
Pretetsit or futurist timeframe.

3. It could be a figure of speach. In the Gospels we read of
a 'adulterous' / 'evil' / 'evil and perverse' / 'evil and adulterous/
generations. It could mean the rebelious, apoaste, unbelieving jewish
people, as they have revealed themselves in the past, are revealing
themselves in the present and will continue to reveal themselves in
the future. This too would give rise to a pretetist view or a
futurist view.

It has to be said that although i am Amil this passage literally read
does give rise to good reason to start to look objectively at
pretetism (sorry i can't spell).

At present i side with the second meaning, but, this passage is not
as clear cut as all would want it to be.

Cheers

Back from Africa, where I was a secular missionary  in the Kayon
Ghozi's leprosary (Burundi) because of health reasons, I wrote these
lucky Flashes of mine, which got a resounding success ,on Turin's
HOLY SHROUD.
Prof. Harry Gove,which made the Holy Shroud date back to the middle-
ages in 1988 by the method  14C, already in 1995, in the light on
the latest scientific knowledge, realised that the dating was wrong .
The Mistery of the Holy Shroud print,which couldn't be made by men
at all, must be correlated to the Mistery of the Resurrection of
Jesus,Who was wrapped in the Holy Shroud after being buried  and
rose from the death in the Holy Shroud.
The Faith we feel in our heart needn't any confirmation, but Turin's
Holy Shroud  becomes  an unequivocal  one, beyond our will.
The end of my Flashes  contains a twelve/thirteen lined brief
synthesis of my life.
Web site
http://digilander.libero.it/crescinidue
personal e-mail for communications
flashesgospels@...

My name is Lorenzo Crescini  and I'm Italian. These "Flashes on Good
and evil" reflect the same mood characterizing the Flashes on the
Holy Gospels and Turin's Holy Shroud I wrote in Africa: making
myself useful to our Lord Jesus Christ.
Of course there will be those who will accuse me of "spamming". Such
an accusation does not surprise me as it comes from the spiritual
force of evil. As a matter of fact, how can one  accuse
of "spamming" one who makes Apology to the name of Christ and not to
his, leaving the reader free to read or not to read what's written
in them?
I will start by quoting the best Prayer to Jesus I've ever read.
At the very beginning some reflections concern the devil one.
I thank all those who will read me, write to me, will ask for an
explanation and those who will be able and willing to advertise what
they read by Web, the press or however they like.
I am confident that the last of my Reflections containing a few
lined short account of my life,  will be devoted to all of us who
are proud of the Lord.
Web site
http://digilander.libero.it/crescinitre
personal e-mail for communications
flashesgospels@...

Best regards

Here are  three Reflections as an example

24) One cannot or mustn't say to those who are ill and
suffering: " That's God who puts you to the test". In this way we
would offend The God of Endless Love who cannot wish our suffering.
One needs say to those who suffer: " God's Son himself suffered
because of evil, but you will also resurrect with Him, as He did".
That is the truth and only the truth can give one who suffers the
Hope which won't let him fall into that despair the devil one wants
to seize his soul and conscience! Saying: "it's God who puts you to
the test" gives a suffering man the same relief a learned lecture on
food chemistry gives a starving  one.

29) We can give or take from God, Creator of all things,
nothing, except for two things: we can take from Him Honour by
offending Him with our refusal, we can give Him our love, by
accepting Him in our heart! With what insolence might we wish or
boast His Light one day, we, if we had denied Him all life long,
being able to believe Him and not doing that?

38) There are many Evangelic miracles showing the spontaneity of
a memory, neither built nor adapted, which nevertheless is engraved
in the memory of those who were present to the event.  It is from
conveyed small details that the truth of the memory of a lived and
handed down episode transpires.

Hi

Jusr received this sermon from 'John Piper@

Enjoy !!

December 15, 2002

Unconditional Election And the Invincible Purpose of God

Romans 9:6-13


But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not
all Israel who are descended from Israel; 7 nor are they all children
because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "THROUGH ISAAC YOUR
DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED." 8 That is, it is not the children of the
flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are
regarded as descendants. 9 For this is the word of promise: "AT THIS
TIME I WILL COME, AND SARAH SHALL HAVE A SON." 10 And not only this,
but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man,
our father Isaac; 11 for though the twins were not yet born and had
not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His
choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who
calls, 12 it was said to her, "THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER." 13
Just as it is written, "JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED."




Our purpose today is limited and huge. We focus merely on verses 11
and 12: "Though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything
good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would
stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, 12 it was
said to her, `The older will serve the younger.'" Our aim is simply
to understand and apply to our lives the reason Paul gives for saying
to Rebekah, before Jacob and Esau were born or had done anything good
or bad, "The older will serve the younger."


Why did God do this? The answer is given part way into verse
11: ". . . so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand,
not because of works but because of Him who calls." That's the reason
for announcing Jacob's election before his birth. "So that God's
purpose according to election would stand, not because of works but
because of Him who calls." That's what we want to understand.


I exhort you to feel the weight of this sentence. When God tells us
why he does something as eternally fundamental as unconditional
election, he is giving us information about the nature of ultimate
Reality – namely his Reality – that is more foundational and more
important than all other human knowledge. Nothing is greater to know
under God than why he does his most fundamental acts. And here is one
of these massively important sentences. Why, God, do you do this
great work of unconditional election? Answer: "So that My purpose
according to election would stand, not because of works but because
of Me who calls."


My outline would look like this: First we will look a the
phrase "God's purpose according to election" and see what that phrase
means. Second, we will look at the phrase "not because of works" and
see what that adds to God's purpose. Third, we will look at the
phrase, "But because of him who calls."




I. "God's Purpose According to Election"


First, then, what does the phrase "God's purpose according to
election" mean? Literally the construction in the original is "the
according to election purpose." "According to election" is defining
the purpose. What purpose? "The according to election purpose." In
Romans 11:21 the same grammatical construction occurs in the
phrase, "the according to nature branches." All English versions
translate it "the natural branches." They turn "according to nature"
into an adjective. That's good English and gets the meaning right. So
here in Romans 9:11 we could do it like this: "The according to
election purpose" would be "the electing purpose."


In other words, the purpose of God is at least partly defined by
election. The purpose of God that would not be what it is, if there
were no election. The purpose that consists largely in election. But
what is it? How can we state God's purpose according to election –
God's electing purpose?


Let's look at the three closest parallels in Paul's writing where he
used this word "purpose," and work our way back to verse 11.




Romans 8:28


Look first at Romans 8:28, "And we know that God causes all things to
work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called
according to His purpose." Here he says that God calls people to
himself but there is something behind that call, namely, God's
purpose, guiding whom and how he calls. We are called "according to
His purpose." So God's purpose has to do with guiding his saving
work, in this case his calling.




2 Timothy 1:9


Next, let's look at 2 Timothy 1:9. Here again he connects God's
calling his people to his purpose. "He saved us and called us with a
holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own
purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all
eternity." Here we see four things:



First, God's purpose is eternal – "from all eternity," he says. It
doesn't originate or respond to anything. It is eternal.



Second, God's purpose is related to Christ from all eternity. Christ
is not an afterthought. God's purpose was in him and through him from
all eternity.



Third, God's purpose is linked with grace. "According to his own
purpose and grace." It is a gracious purpose. It's a purpose to
exercise grace.



Fourth, the purpose of God rules out works as the basis of his saving
call: "He saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according
to our works, but according to is own purpose." His own purpose is
the basis of his call, not our works.




Ephesians 1:4-6, 11


The third parallel is in Ephesians 1, first in verse 11 and then
verses 4-6. Ephesians 1:11 says, "We have obtained an inheritance,
having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things
after the counsel of His will." Notice two things.



First, not just our calling but also our predestination is "according
to His purpose." So God's purpose governs his predestination.



Second, Paul says that it is a free and sovereign purpose, not
governed by anything outside of God. He says, "According to His
purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will." What's
the point of saying that this Purposer "works all things after the
counsel of his will"? The point is that he governs all things, and
that he does not base his governance ultimately on anything in man or
in nature, but only on himself. "He works all things after the
counsel of his will." We are not finally decisive in turning the will
of God; God alone is decisive.


The next verse (12) comes very close to defining God's purpose. It's
a continuation of verse 11 and tell us what the purpose is of him who
works all things after the counsel of his will, namely, "to the end
that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise
of His glory." In other words he does all his works to this end: that
we would "be to the praise of his glory." His purpose here is the
praise of his glory.


It is even more pointed in verses 4-6. Follow the purpose statements
up to their highest point in verse 6: "Just as He chose us in Him
before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and
blameless before Him. In love 5 He predestined us to adoption as sons
through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of
His will [probably another way of referring to his purpose], 6 to the
praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in
the Beloved." There it is again. God's purpose is to bring about the
praise of the glory of his grace. All election, all predestination,
all calling, and all redemption is according to this purpose – for
the praise of the glory of his grace.




What Is God's "Purpose"?


Now back to Romans 9:11. God performs the unconditional election of
Jacob over Esau "so that his purpose according to election would
stand." From all we have seen so far, as well as the context of this
paragraph, I would state the purpose like this: God's purpose is to
be known and enjoyed and praised (or if you like alliteration: to be
seen and savored and sung) as infinitely glorious in his free and
sovereign grace. This is the purpose that governs all the works of
God. He elects, predestines, calls, redeems, justifies, sanctifies,
and glorifies to this end – for this purpose: to be seen and savored
and sung as infinitely glorious in his free and sovereign grace.



But "infinitely glorious" I mean perfectly beautiful and immeasurably
great.



By "free" I mean the final reason for all events in the universe is
in himself and not another. The decisive influence of all that
happens in the world is God's. He works all things, not just some
things, after the counsel of his own will. He alone in all the
universe has the freedom of ultimate self-determination.



By "sovereign" I mean that nothing can thwart what he wants most to
do.


God's purpose is to be known and enjoyed and praised as infinitely
glorious in his free and sovereign grace. And this purpose
is "according to election" – it is an electing purpose – because if
God did not elect unconditionally he would not be free, he would not
be sovereign, and he would not be glorious.



Not free, because then men would determine their own election, not
God. He would be bound (not free) to conform to their own self-
determination.



Not sovereign, because instead of doing successfully what he wants
most, he would be thwarted again and again by self-determining man.



Not glorious, because God's absolute freedom and sovereignty are the
essence of the glory of his grace.




II. "Not Because of Works"


To show that last point, Paul makes a negation and an affirmation at
the end of verse 11: ". . . so that God's purpose according to
election would stand, not because of works but because of Him who
calls."


Let's take the negation first. God chose Jacob over Esau "not because
of works." This adds something important to the first part of verse
11 where Paul says, "though the twins were not yet born and had not
done anything good or bad." Those words stress that God chose Jacob
before birth and before virtue or vice. But now Paul goes farther and
says that this choice was not "on the basis of works." Here the time
is not the point. The foundation is the point. God did not choose
Jacob because of works he had already done. Nor did he choose him
because of works that he would do later.


In other words, here Paul is ruling out foreseen good deeds that
Jacob will do, and foreseen evil deeds that Esau will do. And he is
saying: my election is not based on deeds in any way: not deeds
already done, not deeds undone and foreknown, and not deeds undone
and not foreknown. My election is free. That is my glory. Therefore,
my purpose accords with that kind of election, because my purpose is
to be known and enjoyed and praised as infinitely glorious in my free
and sovereign grace.


Finally, consider the affirmation at the end of verse 11. Why does
Paul say, ". . . so that God's purpose according to election would
stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls"? This is
striking. Paul's ordinary contrast with works is faith. In 9:32 he
says, "Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were
based on works." In 3:28 he says, "A man is justified by faith apart
from works." In Galatians 2:16 he says, "A man is not justified by
the works of the Law but through faith." When we hear Paul say, "Not
by works" we naturally expect him to also say, "but by faith."




III. "But Because of Him Who Calls"


But that is not what he says here. He says, "not because of works but
because of Him who calls." Why? Because faith is a condition of
justification, but it is not a condition of election. Election is
unconditional. But justification is conditional. Before we can be
justified we must believe on Jesus Christ. But before we can believe
on Jesus Christ we must be chosen and called. God does not choose us
because we will believe. He chooses us so that we will believe.


Notice carefully how Paul says it. "God's purpose according to
election will stand . . . because of Him who calls." Notice it does
not say: his purpose stands because of his calling. It says because
of HIM who calls. God will one day call his elect. But his election
is not based on that calling. It is based on himself and his free and
sovereign will to call.


So to paraphrase the verse: "God's electing purpose will stand not
because of any foreseen deeds, and not because of any foreseen faith;
but simply because of him – because of God." The ultimate ground of
God's election is God. This is simply another way of saying: for God
to be God he must be free and sovereign. This is his glory. This is
what it means to be God.




The Application to Our Lives


There is more to see. So much more to see. But for now the
application to our lives is clear. If the purpose of God – flowing
from the very essence of what it means to be God – is that he be
known and enjoyed and praised as infinitely glorious in his free and
sovereign grace, then the meaning of our existence is clear. We exist
to know and enjoy and praise and display the glory of God's free and
sovereign grace. We exist to see and savor and sing – and spread a
passion for – the glory of God's grace.


And underneath this meaning for our lives is the massive assurance:
This purpose will stand. And all who are in Christ by faith will
stand in it. So spend yourself for this great purpose while you live.
All the elect in Christ prevail, God's purpose stands, it cannot fail

Feeding Sheep or Amusing Goats
Spurgeon, C.H.

An evil is in the professed camp of the Lord, so gross in its
impudence, that the most shortsighted can hardly fail to notice it.
During the past few years it has developed at an abnormal rate, even
for evil. It has worked like leaven until the whole lump ferments.
The devil has seldom done a cleverer thing, than hinting to the
Church that part of their mission is to provide entertainment for the
people, with a view to winning them. From speaking out as the
Puritans did, the Church has gradually toned down her testimony, then
winked at and excused the frivolities of the day. Then she tolerated
them in her borders. Now she has adopted them under the plea of
reaching the masses.

My first contention is that providing amusement for the people is
nowhere spoken of in the Scriptures as a function of the Church - if
it is a Christian work why did not Christ speak of it? 'Go ye into
all the world and preach the gospel to every creature'. That is clear
enough, so it would have been if He had added, 'and provide amusement
for those who do not relish the gospel'. No such words, however, are
to he found. It did not seem to occur to Him. Then again, 'He gave
some apostles, some prophets, some pastors and teachers, for the work
of the ministry'. Where do entertainers come in? The Holy Spirit is
silent concerning them. Were the prophets persecuted because they
amused the people or because they refused? The concert has no martyr
roll.

Again, providing amusement is in direct antagonism to the teaching
and life of Christ and all His apostles. What was the attitude of the
Church to the world? 'Ye are the salt', not the sugar candy -
something the world will spit out, not swallow. Short and sharp was
the utterance 'Let the dead bury their dead'. He was in awful
earnestness!

Had he introduced more of the bright and pleasant elements into His
mission, He would have been more popular when they went back, because
of the searching nature of His teaching. I do not hear Him say, 'Run
after these people, Peter, and tell them we will have a different
style of service tomorrow - something short and attractive with
little preaching - we will have a pleasant evening for the people.
Tell them they will be sure to enjoy it. Be quick, Peter, we must get
the people somehow!' Jesus pitied sinners, sighed and wept over them,
but never sought to amuse them. In vain will the epistles be searched
to find any trace of the gospel of amusement. Their message is. 'Come
out, keep out, keep clean out' - anything approaching fooling is
conspicuous by its absence. They had boundless confidence in the
gospel and employed no other weapon.

After Peter and John were locked up for preaching, the Church had a
prayer meeting, but they did not pray, 'Lord, grant unto thy servants
that by a wise and discriminating use of innocent recreation we may
show these people how happy we are'. If they ceased not for preaching
Christ, they had not time for arranging entertainments - scattered by
persecution they went everywhere preaching the gospel. They turned
the world upside down, that is the only difference! Lord, clear the
Church of all the rot and rubbish the devil has imposed on her and
bring us back to apostolic methods.

Lastly, the mission of amusement fails to effect the end desired. It
works among young converts. Let the careless and scoffers, who thank
God because the Church met them half way, speak and testify. Let the
heavy laden who found peace through the concert not keep silent! Let
the drunkard to whom the dramatic entertainment had been God's link
in the chain of their conversion, stand up! There are none to answer!
The mission of amusement produces no converts.

The need of the hour for today's ministry is believing scholarship,
joined with earnest spirituality, the one springing from the other as
fruit from the root. The need is Biblical doctrine, so understood and
felt, that it sets men on fire.

When I was a secular missionary  by a leprosary  of  Central Africa
(mission of Kayon Ghozi-Burundi), I wrote these lucky Flashes of
mine about the Holy Gospels, which were read by thousands of people
and gave new hope to lots of them.
I take this opportunity to thank once more all those who wrote to
me, whom I answered one by one. Their words encouraged me and gave
me a bonus .I could see through them how they can play upon
somebody's heart-strings on this subject by logic and the faculty of
reason too.
I wish to tell precisely all those who accused me of "spamming", or
of "traying from the point", that making an Apology in the name of
Jesus Christ isn't "spamming", and that at any time, even in the
most unexpected place, you can find a person needing a word of hope.
Honouring the name of Christ, supporting Faith and giving arguments
to It, helping doubtful people, were and still are my first and only
intention , as well as the aim of my life, nearly  at  its end.
The end of my Flashes contains a twelve /thirteen-lined synthesis of
my past.
Internet site http://digilander.libero.it/crescini
E mail          flashesgospels@...
      Lorenzo Crescini

thanks

This is probably the type of robust Reformed theology which I tend disagree
with (or at least I am not yet convinced by). Firtsly I think when he says
'sinner' he means those who are not the elect.  The bible tells us that God
loves sinners (Rom 5.8) bur these from a Reforemed point of view are the
elect. I am troubled with his view that all 'sinners' would want to kill God
if they could.  Let us consider Cornelius, before he was converted.  In one
sense he was a sinner (not yet a Christian) but at the same time he is
described as someone who feared God.  Are not many non-Chrsitians in this
category. What does Dr Gerstner mean when he uses the term sinner? Somebody
please tell me.
Brian

>From: tom mitchell <repentant_reformer@...>
>Reply-To: reformeddoctrineforum@...
>To: reformeddoctrineforum@...
>Subject: [Reformed  Doctrine Forum] Rich in Mercy? yes He is.
>Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 21:50:16 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
>
>
>Dr. John H. Gerstner
>
>
>
>“Repent or Perish” forces people to ponder seriously the popular slogan,
>“God hates the sin and loves the sinner.” Is a necessary repentance
>consistent with “God loves the sinner?” If God loves the sinner while he is
>alive, it is strange that God sends him to hell as soon as he dies. God
>loves the sinner to death? Loves him to everlasting torment?
>
>There is something wrong here. Either God loves the sinner and will not
>send him into the furnace of His eternal wrath; or He sends him into His
>eternal wrath and does not love him. Either “you are going to hell unless”
>because God hates you, as you are. Or, God loves you and “you are going to
>hell unless” is false.
>
>What leads almost everyone to believe that God loves the sinner is that God
>does the sinner so much good. He bestows so many favors including letting
>him continue to live. How can God let the sinner live and give him so many
>blessings, unless He loves him? There is a kind of love between God and
>sinners. We call it the “love of benevolence.” That means the love of good
>will. Benevolens — willing well. Doing well. God can do well to the sinner
>without loving him with the other kind of love. “Complacent love,” a
>pleasure in, affection for, admiration of. It exists in perfection between
>the Father and the Son, “in whom I am well pleased” (Matt.3:17; Mk.1:11).
>
>God is perfectly displeased with the sinner. The sinner hates God, disobeys
>God, is ungrateful to God for all His favors, would kill God if he could.
>He is dead in trespasses and sins. (Eph.2:1) “The thoughts and intents of
>his heart are only evil continually.” (Gen.6:5) He is the slave of sin
>(John 8:34), the servant of the devil, (Eph.2:2).
>
>God has no complacent love for the sinner at all. He has a perfect hatred
>of him, “1 hate them with a perfect hatred.” (Ps. 139:22)
>
>Why does God do so much good for those He perfectly hates and as soon as
>they die impenitent send them immediately to hell and never in all eternity
>does them one solitary favor more? It is to show His willingness to forgive
>the sinner if only he will repent. It shows the sincerity of God’s
>willingness to pardon the greatest sinner that, even while He hates him
>with a perfect hatred, He showers him with constant daily blessings.
>
>As I mentioned in Chapter 1, there is no “problem of pain.” The only
>problem is the “problem of pleasure.” Dreadful as it is, it is not
>surprising that God sends sinners to hell. The problem is why He does not
>do it sooner. Why does God let a hell-deserving sinner live a minute and
>then let him prosper like the green bay tree (Ps.37:35), as well? It is
>obvious that God can destroy the ungrateful. Why doesn’t He? That is the
>problem.
>
>Yes, the sinner suffers, too. But so little. It is a gentle reminder:
>though the sinner receives many divine favors, that does not mean that God
>is pleased with him. It is in spite of the fact that God hates him with a
>perfect hatred.
>
>Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness
>and forbearance and patience, not knowing that the
>kindness of God leads you to repentance? (Rom.2:4)
>
>Our text also shows that the one reason a sinner is permitted to be born
>into and enjoy this world rather than wake up as an infant in hell is that
>God, with His love of benevolence, is determined to give the sinner a
>“chance,” an opportunity to repent. Alas, most sinners use it as a chance
>to sin! They make God’s blessed love of benevolence into a curse.
>
>In this world the sinner enjoys nothing but the benevolent love of God.
>Every experience of pain as well as pleasure is from God’s love — of
>benevolence. Even pain is from love because it tends to wake the sinner to
>his danger. God indeed loves the sinner, whom He hates with a perfect
>hatred, with a perfect love of benevolence.
>
>The sinner, as I said, makes every divine blessing into a curse including
>God’s love of benevolence. This he does by construing a love of benevolence
>as a love of complacency.
>
>Construing God’s love of benevolence as a love of complacency is fatal.
>Instead of the divine forbearance leading to repentance, it is used as an
>excuse for non-repentance. Thus the sinner is not saved but damned by God’s
>love of benevolence.
>
>God “loves” the sinner benevolently and hates the sinner displacently. If
>the sinner dies impenitent, God removes His love of benevolence and pours
>out the full wrath of his displacent love.
>
>As far as “hatred of sins” is concerned, sins do not exist apart from the
>sinner. God does hate sinning, killing, stealing, lying, lusting, etc., but
>this alludes to the perpetrator of these crimes.
>
>God never hates the redeemed even when they sin. Is He an unfair respecter
>of persons? No! (Act. 10:34) God hates the unredeemed sinner but loves the
>redeemed even when they sin for a good and just reason. God loves the
>redeemed even when they sin because His Son, in whom God is always
>well-pleased, ever lives to make intercession for them. (Rom.8:27, 34)
>Christ died to atone for the guilt of His people’s sins. When they sin,
>these are atoned-for sins. They are sins with their guilt removed. In one
>sense, they are not sins at all. God does not hate His people when they sin
>because they are in His Son, Christ Jesus. And they are made acceptable in
>His Son. He “has made us accepted in the Beloved.” (Eph. 1:6)
>
>Divine nepotism? No, His Son died for these people and paid the price for
>their sins past, present, and future. They are cancelled before they are
>committed. That is truth, not fiction. Righteousness, not nepotistic
>favoritism. In fact, it is not their original relationship to Christ which
>makes their sins guiltless, but Christ’s making satisfaction for their sins
>that created the relationship as children adopted into the family of God.
>
>God, in hot displeasure, chastens His people when they sin (Ps.6: 1; 38:1).
>It is not hatred but complacent love in Christ Jesus. “Whom the Lord loves
>He chastens.” (Heb. 12:6,7) God loves His people even when He afflicts them
>and hates the impenitent even when He befriends them.
>
>Why the chastening when there is love? God blessed the wicked when there
>was holy hatred. Now He chastens His people when there is holy love. This
>is because true moral behavior must be perfected. No sin can be tolerated
>in those for whom Christ died. He died to purchase a “peculiar people
>zealous of good works.” (Titus 2:14) Being redeemed, so far from tolerating
>their sinning, precludes it. Anyone who persists in sinning proves thereby
>that he is not a child of God. God punishes His own especially because they
>are His children. “You only have I chosen among all the families of the
>earth: Therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.” (Amos 3:2)
>
>“Upright” man was promised and warned. A holy, just, and perfect God would
>promise and warn. Eternal life — if obedient. Instant death — the moment of
>disobedience. (Gen.3:5; Ecc.7:29)
>
>When man sinned, he died spiritually and was rejected from communion with
>God his maker and friend. (Gen.3; Rom. 5:12ff) The wrath of God was upon
>him; labor was his lot; suffering in childbirth; alienation and death, as
>threatened. God is holy; of purer eyes than to behold iniquity. (Hab. 1:13)
>
>Yet mortal man “lived” on (though to live in pleasure is death, 1 Tim.
>5:6), and so did promise. When the angels sinned they perished without
>delay, without promise, without hope.
>
>Man’s fate was better and worse than the fallen angels’ lot. It was a day
>of possible salvation but also of possible greater damnation, greater
>damnation for sinning away the day of possible salvation. God in His wrath;
>God in His mercy; at the same time.
>
>This was a terrible but holy wrath. God was using His omnipotent power but
>according to His perfect justice. Man was affected but he deserved it. It
>was no more, no less, than he deserved. God is no more powerful than holy;
>no more holy than powerful.
>
>As man continued to sin, God continued to increase His fury. His wrath is
>in no hurry. The record is kept, all accounts receivable. Every idle word
>will be brought into judgment (Matt. 12:36). The cup of iniquity must be
>filled. Then wrath to the uttermost. (1 Thess. 2:16) God’s glory shines in
>the perfection of His work.
>
>But — God decreed the sin, (Prov. 16:4). Yes, for good and for glory. Man
>did it for evil and for shame.
>
>A little sin and infinite wrath? A little sin against an infinite God is
>infinite. Wrath is in perfect proportion to the guilt. But even if the
>punishment were finite it would go in “infinitely,” unendingly, because the
>sinner continues to sin in resenting it.
>
>All glory to God for His holy anger. (John 17:3; Rom.9: 17f)
>
>---------------------------------
>
>Author
>
>Dr. John H. Gerstner was born in Tampa, Florida, and raised in
>Pennsylvania. He earned his Ph.D. from Harvard University. Dr. Gerstner
>pastored several churches before accepting a professorship at
>Pittsburgh-Xenia Theological Seminary, where he taught church history for
>over 30 years. He served as a visiting professor at Trinity Evangelical
>Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois, and adjunct professor at Knox
>Theological Seminary in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Dr. Gerstner was also
>professor-at-large for Ligonier Ministries for many years, and recorded
>numerous lectures on audio and video for that organization.
>
>Dr. Gerstner was a stalwart champion of the cause of reformed theology and,
>in particular, the teachings of Jonathan Edwards.
>
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! News - Today's headlines
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>reformeddoctrineforum-unsubscribe@...
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms.html




_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

The "Danger" of the Gospel of Grace

by D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones

      There is a sense in which the doctrine of "justification by faith

ONLY" is a very dangerous doctrine; dangerous, I mean, in the

sense that it can be misunderstood.   It exposes a man to this

particular charge:  People listening to it may say, "Ah, there is

a man who does not encourage us to live a good life, he seems to

say that there is no value in our works, he says that 'all our

righteousness are as filthy rags.'  Therefore what he is saying

is that it does not matter what you do, sin as much as you

like." ...   There is thus clearly a sense in which the message

of "justification by faith only" can be dangerous, and likewise

it is with the message that salvation is entirely of grace.

      . . . I say therefore that if our preaching does not expose us to that

charge and to that misunderstanding, it is because we are not

really preaching the gospel.

      Nobody has ever brought this charge against the Church of Rome,

but it was brought frequently against Martin Luther; indeed that was

precisely what the Church of Rome said about the preaching of

Martin Luther.  They said, "This man who was a priest has changed

the doctrine in order to justify his own marriage and his own lust",

. . . and so on.  "This man", they said, "is an antinomian; and that is

heresy."

      That is the very charge they brought against him.  It was also

brought against George Whitefield two hundred years ago.  It is

the charge that formal dead Christianity -- if there is such a

thing -- has always brought against this startling, staggering

message, that God "justifies the ungodly", and that we are

saved, not by anything we do, but in spite of it, entirely and

only by the grace of God through our Lord and Saviour Jesus

Christ.

      That is my comment; and it is a very important comment for

preachers.  I would say to all preachers: If your preaching of

salvation has not been misunderstood in that way, then you had

better examine your sermons again, and you had better make sure

that you really are preaching the salvation that is offered in

the New Testament to the ungodly, to the sinner, to those who

are dead in trespasses and sins, to those who are enemies of

God.

      There is this kind of dangerous element about the true

presentation of the doctrine of salvation.



[D. Martin Lloyd-Jones, "Romans, An Exposition of Chapter 6,

The New Man," (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973), pp. 9-10. Quoted

by Steve Brown, "When Being Good Isn't Good Enough," (Nashville:

Thomas Nelson, 1990), pp. 102-103.]



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! News - Today's headlines

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Here is a good web site for any one interested in hearing sermons and
teachings on biblical grace. www.keylife.org
The teacher, Steve Brown is a bible teacher in the PCA church and has
a ministry to help Christians understand grace better. I like him my
self and wanted to pass his url onto you.
One of my favorite quotes from him is this, "Cheer up, your not as
bad as you think you are, Your a lot worse. But Cheer up, God's Grace
is a lot greater then you think it is"
He is not Antinomian (Hope that I spelled that right) but has been
acused by his critics of being one. He knows and understands the
human condition and he also knows what the bible says about it. He
does not lay guilt trips on people, but he does tell them the truth
in love. Some thing that is needed in our day and age.
Well any way just wanted to pass that on. God bless.

Grace & peace



tom

Sorry for the long post, but I thought that that was a good article and I wanted
to share it after reading Alans post.

I have read  "What's so Amazing  about Grace?" By Yancey. Great book. He makes a
lot of good points. Some times as Christians we act more like self-righteous
pharisees then those who were pharisees in Jesus day.  When we forget that it is
all of Grace,  we begin to think more of our selves then we should, and look
down upon those who are on the out side forgetting that we to were once lost and
undone, with out hope and with out Christ.

May God always help us to remember where we were when he found us.



Grace & peace.





tom





---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! News - Today's headlines

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]