prince charles wrote:
the ask jesus theology is so widespread here that ive never heard anyone except me chalenge it, after all it sounds reasonable enough like the JW's until you start taking a closer look
If this is a can of worms i think its one thats worthwhile opening given the universal use of 'the phrase' also we are dealing with a great mystery here so its not suprising that understanding is hard to come by

Alan H wrote:
"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:..." Eph 1:4

I may dig up a can of worms, but it seems clear that a person may be "elected" prior to creation, but is actually "saved" at a specific point in time. God has determined in eternity that which is yet to be fulfilled in time. Man, I can hear it now!

prince charles wrote:
i told him it was piece of baptist formula and that as one of the elect i was always saved

princecharles wrote:
i replied the question was false since through the providence of God my name was written in the lambs book of life before the foundation of the world was laid

I think it's pretty clear that you did not intend to suggest that God saves without the use of means.

The verse to which you referred says:

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:..." Eph 1:4

It doesn't say "saved"; it says "chosen." I may dig up a can of worms, but it seems clear that a person may be "elected" prior to creation, but is actually "saved" at a specific point in time. God has determined in eternity that which is yet to be fulfilled in time. Man, I can hear it now! Try to stay with what the Bible says and where it says it and you'll be OK.

Rick wrote:
God's method of outreach was perfect from the start. If you leave perfection, the only way to go is down.

Earlier this evening I had "a machine gun conversation" with a baptist preacher who visited our home. I call it "a machine gun conversation," not because it was violent, but because he was shooting verses faster than I could give answers. In fact, I had to ask him to wait for me several times. We had visited his church a few weeks ago and he wanted to make a house call. My wife had told him we were reformed in our theology when he first called, but he still wanted to visit. Anyway, my daughter and wife were present, as was his wife. His conclusions plainly come down to this, "Man has a free will and it is he that makes the final decision whether to be saved or not." "God can't interfere with man's free will." "Christ made it possible for all men to be saved, but didn't actually save "anyone," until that person makes the choice to receive the offer." BTW, he was not SB, but rather a Fundamental Independent Baptist. He said, "Jesus Christ has chosen not to interfere..."

He did say he was late for his midweek service!

I was thinking about the above verse earlier today. Note the parenthesis: "being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ." What the Apostle Paul said is extraordinary and very important for us to keep in mind.

John Calvin wrote the following concerning this verse:

Lurker wrote:
Alan,
What laws did God write on your heart?

Lurker wrote:
This is the Law of God. Luke 10:25-28

"Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law." Ro 13:8

"For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." Ro 13:9

"Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law." Ro 13:10

Note the phrase "it is briefly comprehended in this saying." That is, all the commands are gathered under that single summary statement.

The Apostle also said:

"Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." Ro 3:31

Lurker wrote:
Where does the bible refer to the Decalogue as "the moral law"? I have heard this term for so many years it turns my stomach! Paul referred to the Decalogue as the "law of faith" (1-4) and the "law of works" (5-10).

"Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin." Ro 3:20

And the verse you quoted earlier:

"...I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet." Ro 7:7

Is it not immoral to kill, steal, commit adultery, worship idols, etc.?

princecharles,

Do you really have a cat named "batman"?

That's classic! I love it! Matter of fact, we have a black and white kitten, mostly black (5 & 1/2 months). She kind of looks like... Nah! I don't think so! Did you ever think that maybe your cat, batman, might get raptured, leaving you behind? Just in case, I think your cat needs to find an infidel cat to be your pet when he's gone. Hey! You don't put a funny mask and cape on that poor little cat, do you? Your cat, doesn't, by chance, like to hang upside down, does it? Spooky!

BTW, for a small fee I can provide you with an infidel cat. And just for you, your highness; buy three, get one free.

Alan H wrote:
Lurker, I'll ask you again, do you think it proper for churches to have Superbowl Sunday parties within the church, including watching the Superbowl? Do you think that God is pleased with this sort of conduct?

Lurker wrote:
Jesus answered your question and I concur: "It is written, My house is the house of prayer, but ye have made it a den of thieves."

Alan H wrote:
My position is that Sunday is the day that Christians ought to assemble and worship the Lord together. I am reasonably sure that both you and John UK used to believe the same thing.

Lurker wrote:
Sounds reasonable in light of the following:

And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some [is]; but exhorting [one another]: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. (Heb 10:24-25)

Now about my question.

Alan H wrote:
So, is what you guys are saying is that we now have "the Nine Commandments"?

Lurker wrote:
Alan,
Would you agree that the writings of the new testament assist us in defining the writings of the old testament? Consider...

Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?...

As a matter of fact, this is the promise of the New Covenant:

"This [is] the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these [is], [there is] no more offering for sin." Heb 10:16-18

So, when God writes His law upon the minds and hearts of His people is this also bondage?

A lawyer, who was a Pharisee, tempting Christ, asked Him the following question:

"Master, which [is] the great commandment in the law?"

Jesus summarized the law by answering him thusly:

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. Mt 22:37-40

This summarization includes both our obligation toward God and also to our fellow men. Does Christ exclude any of the ten Commandments in His summary? Of course not! However, He does express the real spirit and intent of the law, which the Pharisees never considered. I believe the Sabbath is included, but if the proper affection and understanding is not present then the obedience is only legal servitude; in that case, the specific day is irrelevant. But isn't our love wanting if we leave something out?

"Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law." Ro 13:8

"2. It is sufficiently clear, that under the gospel-dispensation, this day is [URL=http://www.the-highway.com/Edwards_sabbath2.html]]]the first day of the week[/URL] .

[URL=http://www.the-highway.com/Edwards_sabbath3.html]]]APPLICATION[/URL]

"...this day ought to be religiously observed and distinguished from other days of the week. However, some deny it. Some refuse to take notice of the day, as different from other days. Others own, that it is a laudable custom of the christian church, into which she fell by agreement, and by appointment of her ordinary rulers, to set apart this day for public worship. But they deny any other original to such an observation of the day, than prudential human appointment.—Others religiously observe the Jewish sabbath, as of perpetual obligation, and that we want a foundation for determining that that is abrogated, and another day of the week is appointed in the room of the seventh."

John UK wrote:
I have no position yet.

"He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad." Mt 12:30

Wayne wrote:
Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein. Jeremiah 6: 16

An appeal to all who love and still adhere to “the old paths� [URL=http://affirmation2010.wordpress.com/about-2/]]]Affirmation 2010[/URL]

A number of Sermonaudio Broadcasters involved in the above affirmation e.g. Rev Malcom Watts and Rev John Thackway. Please have a prayerful examination of what is contained. We need to consider these things in an age where every man does what is right in his own eyes...even re: the plurality of Bible Versions rather than ONE AUTHORITY

Now it is very obvious that it was the translator’s choice in making the decision to use "charity" 27 times rather than the general word "love":

1Co 8:1, 13:1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 13, 14:1, 16:14
Col 3:14
1Th 3:6
2Th 1:3
1Ti 1:5, 2:15, 4:12
2Ti 2:22, 3:10
Tit 2:2
1Pe 4:8, 5:14
2Pe 1:7
3Jo 1:6
Jude 1:12
Re 2:19

Firstly, it was their own prerogative as translators to use whatever word they determined best to convey the mind of the Spirit.

Secondly, they intended to make a distinction in using this particular word and it behooves us to try to figure out what they wanted to communicate rather than arguing that it is a mistranslation.

Thirdly, because the meanings of words change in our English language that doesn't mean that same need be true with Biblical terminology.

The very reason we have so many translations is because we have allowed the Bible to be equated with secular books. Instead of being preserved by God’s people and His church, for the most part, it is left up to greedy and uncaring secular publishing houses unaffiliated with any church whatsoever.

Mike wrote:
The oath to support and defend the Constitution "against all enemies, foreign and domestic" does present a possible problem, though. What would happen if a domestic enemy turned out to be, oh, let's say a president, or an officer? What of the same oath's requirement to obey his orders?

Lurker wrote:
Good morning, Mike,
Take a closer look at the current armed forces oath. It appears to me that "the same" refers solely to the constitution excepting the National Guard's oath which includes the individual's state. Is the defense of the United States set forth in the constitution? (Govornment has never been one of my strong suits. )

IMHO, what this oath is suggesting is that the preservation of the United States depends upon the defense of the Constitution of the United States. Obviously, our national security depends upon defending those founding principles, but this is being overlooked by many. If that Constitution is not preserved then you no longer have a United States, because that document was originally written to reconcile the differences between the states.

"Behold, how good and how pleasant [it is] for brethren to dwell together in unity!" Psalms 133:1

"Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." Ephesians 4:3

princecharles wrote:
...lots of folk seem happy with NIV but for me i see myself seperating in my thinking from them...

Real unity, which is not the result of compromising the truth in hypocrisy, is not only a very precious thing, but also a very fragile thing. Because of our corrupt natures and indwelling sin, it takes very little to disturb it. Anyone who complains about any inaccuracies within our Authorized Version, so there is a need for modern versions, is deceiving themselves. The damage which has been done by the disunity over the Bible versions far outweighs any alleged inaccuracies in our Version, which supposedly may have been corrected by modern scholars. How can there any be unity where there can be no agreement? And most people do not agree, they simply "agree to disagree," as the saying goes, which was obviously coined by some agnostic philosopher.

What's changed?

It is shameful that so many of those whom we used to trust to lead us have so often betrayed us by moral compromise. Real leaders can't be bought off! The greatest fight in the world today is the fight for right principle. Where are the leaders these days who will lead in that battle?

Retired U.S. Army General Colin Powell has apparently decided to resign his commission in this particular conflict.

Friends, it is always very disheartening when we see heros turn into cowards. Not that we have much courage ourselves, but we often have to depend upon those who are braver and more skilled than we are for our protection. And this nations moral defense is much more important than its national defense, for this nation cannot long stand when it is morally corrupt within, which it very evidently is.

How I long to see those who are willing to stand for right, but I see little that gives me hope.