Michael Hranek wrote:
DJC49
Oh! I am so sorry I forgot that certain Calvinists teach God
totally abitarily predestinates some to the eternal hell is all for His glory.

Two, God does everything for His glory! EVERYTHING!

Three, God does nothing willy-nilly or arbitrarily. Because God's choices are HIS choices, they are purposeful, totally righteous, and perfect.

Mr. Piffle wrote:
Who does God describe as being "in Him" in the OT?

Jim Lincoln wrote:
[URL=http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=10120711555910]]]How the Church Relates to the Kingdom[/URL]

The Church doesn't merely RELATE to the Kingdom, The Church IS the Kingdom! Better put: Jesus Christ, and all those who are "in Him" (The Church), IS the Kingdom.
_____

Michael Hranek wrote:
... some post or teach God has created some ONLY SO He might hate them and that they might perish

What you forever discount is that God stands "outside of Time," and all events occurring in Time are, for Him, present. IOW, He not only sees the End from the Beginning, but He sees ALL things at once. God resides within the eternal PRESENT; the eternal NOW. Along with this, He knows ALL things -- nothing surprises Him.

From our human, temporal vantage point, God works WITHIN Time and has expressed Himself in Scripture in ways to us that are understandable.

God knew that the inevitable outcome of creating volitional, contingent, temporal beings possessing limited knowledge would necessarily involve their eventual "falling from and short of His glory." He KNEW that should He withhold His upholding graces for one moment from any of these creatures, whether angels or men, they would fall. He KNEW this from before the creation! And He allowed it ALL to happen for His glory and NOT SO HE MIGHT HATE!

Mike wrote:
You're a strange one, Tony.

Q: What ever happened to the tribe of Dan as it isn't included in Rev 7:4-8. I see Ephraim isn't either, but the other ½ Tribe (Manasseh) is. And yet, Rev 7:4 reads:
"And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty thousand OF ALL THE TRIBES of the children of Israel."

Kevin Damon wrote:
You should know that there are several reports that purport to have found homosexual behaviour in the animal kingdom and these are now being used to counter the views you espouse.

Excerpt from the article:
"Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that **appears** to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction."
_____

Mr. Dispy wrote:
... how do we reconcile the idea of imprecatory prayer ... with other NT commands [for prayer]

Imprecatory prayer does not present an "either/or" dilemma, but rather, provides for a "both/and" solution.

The commands in the NT for the various kinds of prayer, i.e., supplications, intercessions, petitions, confessions, praises, thanksgivings, prayers of agreement, prayers of faith, groanings, et al, do not exhaust the full arsenal of prayer. Imprecatory prayer is a "secret weapon" -- one to be RARELY and cautiously used, and only against specific "targets."

If I may make an analogy:
IPs are the spiritual ICBMs specifically targeted against the steel & concrete reinforced, case-hardened bunker/silos which house the destructive missiles of God's enemies: FALSE GOSPELS; spiritually wicked ideologies and philosophies (along with the commanders who vigorously promote them); and dangerous heretics within the Church itself. [2Cor 10:3-6]

John UK wrote:
Honour thy father and thy mother, etc., & etc.

Furthermore, the son or daughter should thereby pray ONLY that the parents would be blessed even if those parents be totally antagonistic toward God, His Christ, His people, and His Gospel and are nothing short of blood-thirsty and treacherous people?

The situation is much more complex than some make it out to be and a spurious sense of "love" aught not to mute the Church's imprecation when there is warrant!

Indeed, the Church must be **extremely** careful in its use and application of imprecatory prayer (as testified by in Luke 9:51-55).

Mr. Dispy wrote:
1. Because Paul CURSES those who preach another gospel ... does that mean we are to do the same?
2. Is this curse reserved for false teachers, or is it for all the enemies of God?
3. If the answers to 1 & 2 are 'yes,' does that mean we can then appropriate curses from the OT that, in context, were national Israel cursing their Gentile enemies, for curses today by Gentile and Jewish believers against Gentile and Jewish unbelievers?

John UK wrote:
Well hang on just a mo bro

You really DO have a fertile imagination!
Since when has Pharisaical Judaism ever even PRETENDED to be a "gospel?" -- the Good News?
And where in Scripture is it stated that Saul preached ANYTHING before he was converted? HUH?
____

I consider our "debate" ended.
Anyone who can possibly interpret what Paul was saying in Gal 1:8,9 as: "LET THEM ALONE, they be blind guides leading blind people and they all fall in the ditch together" has a strong prejudice against the obvious meaning of the text. Your spin on Gal 1:8,9 is nothing short of the emasculation of powerful Scripture ... probably the STRONGEST verses of all that Paul wrote in the New Testament.

And I'll have you to remember that this same Paul, in this same epistle, wrote the following about these same false gospellers -- these Judaizers:

"I would they were even CUT OFF which trouble you!" [Gal 5:12 KJV]

Do you know what it means for a JEW to say about another JEW that he wanted them to be CUT OFF? IOW, Paul would have them D-E-A-D!

Look.
No definition is going to suit us both.
I will opt for the absolute STRONGEST definition because I maintain that the context calls for such a definition. Observe: in 2 successive verses, Paul cries out: "LET HIM BE ACCURSED!" ... "LET HIM BE ACCURSED!"
If you can't see the force of this, you're just numb or obstinate. Why so? Perhaps because going into this "debate" you REFUSE to see any possibility for imprecatory prayer in the NT church and therefore you will NOT allow Gal 1:8,9 to strike you with all its force. For if it did, these verses might militate FOR imprecatory prayer ... and you just won't have that.
_

John UK wrote:
Sorry, clean forgot

Collins Dictionary of the English Language, 1979.

And you dare give yourself the "thumbsup"???

Puh!

And how do I know whether or not Collins (and company) aren't outright atheists, nevermind non-Trinitarians?
Should I now disqualify YOUR sources and deem unacceptable YOUR definitions forthwith?

At this point, all I can hope for is that you might see that Paul was ready to anathematize even an angel from heaven should he preach a phony gospel. THAT ALONE should speak volumes as to how serious Paul was about his "anathema esto" and should rule out any notion of a mere excommunication. Why? Because an angel from heaven wouldn't be included in the church to begin with!