Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

THE SAVIOR LIFTED UP & FAITH
RnMomof7 | 9/7/01 | Charles Finney

Posted on 09/07/2001 3:24:04 PM PDT by RnMomof7

THE SAVIOR LIFTED UP & FAITH

"As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up: that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life."-John iii. 14, 15.

"And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. (This he said, signifying what death he should die.)"-John xii. 32, 33.

IN order to make this subject plain, I will read the passage referred to-Num. xxi. 6-9. "And the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died. Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD, and against thee; pray unto the LORD, that He take away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people. And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it shall live. And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived."

This is the transaction to which Christ alluded in the text. The object in both cases was to save men from the bite of the serpent, its influence being unchecked, is the death of the body: the effects of sin, unpardoned and uncleansed from the heart, are the ruin of the soul. Christ is lifted up, to the end that sinners, believing in Him, may not perish, but may have eternal life. In such a connection, to perish cannot mean annihilation, for it must be the antithesis of eternal life, and this is plainly much more than eternal existence. It must be eternal happiness -- real life in the sense of exquisite enjoyment. The counterpart of this, eternal misery, is presented under the term "perish." It is common in the Scriptures to find a state of endless misery contrasted with one of endless happiness.

We may observe two points of analogy between the brazen serpent and Christ.

1. Christ must be lifted UP as the serpent was in the wilderness. From the passage quoted above out of John xii. it is plain that this refers to His being raised up from the earth upon His cross at His crucifixion.

2. Christ must be held up as a remedy for sin, even as the brazen serpent was as a remedy for a poison. It is not uncommon in the Bible to see sin represented as a malady. For this malady, Christ had healing power. He professed to be able to forgive sin and to cleanse the soul from its moral pollution. Continually did He claim to have this power and encourage men to rely upon Him and to resort to Him for its application. In all His personal instructions He was careful to hold up Himself as having this power, and as capable of affording a remedy for sin.

In this respect the serpent of brass was a type of Christ. Whoever looked upon this serpent was healed. So Christ heals not from punishment only, for to this the analogy of healing is less pertinent -- but especially from sinning -- from the heart to sin. He heals the soul and restores it to health. So it was said by the announcing angel, "Thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins. His power avails to cleanse and purify the soul.

Both Christ and the serpent were held up each as a remedy. and let it be specially noted -- as a full and adequate remedy, The ancient Hebrews, bitten by fiery serpents, were not to mix up nostrums of their own devising to help out the cure: it was all- sufficient for them to look up to the remedy of God's own providing. God would have them understand that the healing was altogether His own work. The serpent on a pole was the only external object connected with their cure; to this they were to look, and in this most simple way -- only by an expecting look, indicative of simple faith, they received their cure.

Christ is to be lifted up as a present remedy. So was the serpent. The cure wrought then was present, immediate. It involved no delay.

This serpent was God's appointed remedy. So is Christ, a remedy appointed of God, sent down from heaven for this express purpose. It was indeed very wonderful that God should appoint a brazen serpent for such a purpose such a remedy for such a malady; and not less wonderful is it that Christ should be lifted up in agony and blood, as a remedy for both the punishment and the heart-power of sin.

The brazen serpent was a divinely-certified remedy; not a nostrum gotten up as thousands are, under high-sounding names and flaming testimonials; but a remedy prepared and brought forth by God Himself, under His own certificate of its ample healing virtues.

So was Christ. The Father testifies to the perfect adequacy of Jesus Christ as a remedy for sin.

Jesus Christ must now be held up from the pulpit as one crucified for the sins of men. His great power to save lay in His atoning, death.

He must not only be held up from the pulpit, but this exhibition of His person and work must be endorsed, and not contradicted by the experience of those who behold Him.

Suppose that in Moses' time many who looked were seen to be still dying; who could have believed the unqualified declaration of Moses, that "every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live?" So here in the Gospel and its subjects. Doubtless the Hebrews had before their eyes many living witnesses who had been bitten and yet bore the scars of those wounds; but who, by looking, had been healed. Every such case would go to confirm the faith of the people in God's word and in His own power to save. So Christ must be represented in His fullness, and this representation should be powerfully endorsed by the experience of His friends. Christ represents Himself as one ready and willing to save This, therefore, is the thing to be shown. This must be sustained by the testimony of His living witnesses, as the first point of analogy is the lifting up of the object to be looked upon, the second is this very looking itself.

Men looked upon the serpent, expecting divine power to heal them. Even those ancient men, in that comparatively dark age, understood that the serpent was only a type, not the very cause in itself of salvation.

So is there something very remarkable in the relation of faith to healing. Take, for illustration, the case of the woman who had an issue of blood. She had heard something about Jesus, and somehow had caught the idea that if she could but touch the hem of His garment, she should be made whole. See her pressing her way along through the crowd, faint with weakness, pale, and trembling; if you had seen her you would perhaps have cried out, What would this poor dying invalid do?

She knew what she was trying to do. At last unnoticed of all, she reached the spot where the Holy One stood and put forth her feeble hand and touched His garment. Suddenly He turns Himself and asks, Who was it that touched me? Somebody touched me: who was it? The disciples, astonished at such a question, put under such circumstances, reply -- The multitude throng Thee on every side, and scores are touching Thee every hour; why then ask -- Who touched me?

The fact was, somebody had touched Him with faith to be healed thereby, and He knew that the healing virtue had gone forth from Himself to some believing heart. How beautiful an illustration this of simple faith! And how wonderful the connection between the faith and the healing!

Just so the Hebrews received that wonderful healing power by simply looking toward the brazen serpent. No doubt this was a great mystery to them, yet it was none the less a fact. Let them look; the looking brings the cure, although not one of them can tell how the healing virtue comes. So we are really to look to Christ, and in looking, to receive the healing power. It matters not how little we understand the mode in which the looking operates to give us the remedy for sin.

This looking to Jesus implies that we look away from ourselves. There is to be no mixing up of quack medicines along with the great remedy. Such a course is always sure to fail. Thousands fail in just this way, forever trying to be healed partly by their own stupid, self-willed works, as well as partly by Jesus Christ. There must be no looking to man or to any of man's doings or man's help. All dependence must be on Christ alone. As this is true in reference to pardon, so is it also in reference to sanctification. This is done by faith in Christ. It is only through and by faith that you get that divine influence which sanctifies the soul -- the Spirit of God; and this in some of its forms of action was the power that healed the Hebrews in the wilderness.

Looking to Christ implies looking away from ourselves in the sense of not relying at all on our own works for the cure desired, not even on works of faith. The looking is toward Christ alone as our all-prevalent, all-sufficient and present remedy.

There is a constant tendency in Christians to depend on their own doings, and not on simple faith in Christ. The woman of the blood-issue seems to have toiled many years to find relief before she came to Christ; had no doubt tried everybody's prescriptions, and taxed her own ingenuity bee sides to its utmost capacity, but all was of no avail. At last she heard of Jesus. He was said to do many wonderful works. She said within herself -- This must be the promised Messiah -- who was to "bear our sicknesses" and heal all the maladies of men. O let me rush to Him, for if I may but touch the hem of His garment, I shall be whole. She did not stop to philosophize upon the mode of the cure; she leaned on no man's philosophy, and had none of her own; she simply said -- I have heard of One who is mighty to save, and I flee to Him.

So of being healed of our sins. Despairing of all help in ourselves or in any other name than Christ's, and assured there is virtue in Him to work out the cure, we expect it of Him and come to Him to obtain it.

Several times within the last few years, when persons have come to me with the question, Can I anyhow be saved from my sins -- actually saved, so as not to fall again into the same sins, and under the same temptations? I have said -- Have you ever tried looking to Jesus? O yes.

But have you expected that you should be actually saved from sin by looking to Jesus, and be filled with faith, love, and holiness? No; I did not expect that.

Now, suppose a man had looked at the brazen serpent for the purpose of speculation. He has no faith in what God says about being cured by looking, but he is inclined to try it. He will look a little and watch his feelings to see how it affects him. He does not believe God's word, yet since he does not absolutely know but it may be true, he will condescend to try it. This is no looking at all in the sense of our text. It would not have cured the bitten Israelite; it can. not heal the poor sinner. There is no faith in it.

Sinners must look to Christ with both desire and design to be saved. Salvation is the object for which they look.

Suppose one had looked towards the brazen serpent, but with no willingness or purpose to be cured. This could do him no good. Nor can it do sinners any good to think of Christ otherwise than as a Savior, and a Savior for their own sins.

Sinners must look to Christ as a remedy for all sin. To wish to make some exception, sparing some sins, but consenting to abandon others, indicates rank rebellion of heart, and can never impose on the All-seeing One. There cannot be honesty in the heart which proposes to itself to seek deliverance from sin only in part.

Sinners may look to Christ at once -- without the least delay. They need not wait till they are almost dead under their malady. For the bitten Israelite, it was of no use to wait and defer his looking to the serpent till he found himself in the jaws of death. He might have said -- I am wounded plainly enough, but I do not see as it swells much yet; I do not feel the poison spreading through my system; I cannot look yet, for my case is not yet desperate enough; I could not hope to excite the pity of the Lord in my present condition, and therefore I must wait. I say, there was no need of such delay then and no use of it. Nor is there any more need or use for it in the sinner's case now.


TOPICS: Miscellaneous; Philosophy
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-204 next last
To: George W. Bush
Sorry, I meant post number eight has been deleted, but how did you do that?
51 posted on 09/08/2001 9:37:31 AM PDT by Alas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Alas
I hit Abuse and requested deletion of the post which was a lot of intellectual rot on posttextual theory, although it did give me a chance to take a swat at the foolishness of the neo-evangelicals to consider anything by Foucault to worthy of debate.

When I hit Abuse, I informed our hosts that the offender had done this deliberately and this wasn't the first time. We've had other disruptors before. The Robinsons are very kind to us on this matter. As well as exceedingly generous with their bandwidth for these threads. Perhaps you'll read my following post which will give you an idea of why so many of us "Calvinists" consider religious debate to absolutely vital to our politics.
52 posted on 09/08/2001 9:52:09 AM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7, Uriel1975
Well I will have to see what the prof wants...but I dont believe in "accidents" and I do think that this continuing dialogue this summer will be a base for a study on Calvinism/Arminism in some way. Actually, something that might be awfully interesting is a study of the roots of conflict between Arminians and Calvinists. Beza was Calvin's successor and Arminius was his student. That's interesting. Calvin did not formulate the TULIP. Nor did Arminius issue the challenge against Calvin's theology: his followers did nine years after he died. And the TULIP as such, was unknown to Calvin and was created by the response of the Dutch Reformed Church to the followers of the deceased Arminius. Further, of the five doctrines of the classic TULIP, some modern Calvinists are only four-pointers and claim that Calvin didn't really affirm Limited Atonement (they're wrong!). We call the four-point Calvinists "Amyrauldians" after Amyruut (another Frenchman!) who held only four of the five points but did not do so on exactly the same grounds as do modern "Amyrauldians". Amyraut, something of an enemy to modern five-pointers, actually was trying to defend Calvinism but ended up weakening it and now has to carry the badge of shame attached to his name by five-pointers. This all has to do with differences in Reformed theology and the infralapsarian/supralapsarian debate. And Amyraut's views were modified by Pajon (yep, French) into "congruism". And, interestingly enough, there is are certain aspects of this very debate that delineate the theologies of redemption among Lutherans, Arminians, and (you guessed it) Wesleyans. By the way, this is still very much a hot theological topic in all these groups. And there is no perfect answer to the question. Interesting to know the roots of theological controversy in the Reformation that affects Wesleyans to this day, especially Nazarenes who are the most visible remnant of Wesley's real teachings (we'll just ignore any claim the Methodists make to Wesley's teachings). Oh, yeah, and don't think that all this French theological controversy left the church of Rome untouched. They're still trying to stamp out the fires that spread from France from this one. A really superb summary of this in the context of Subjective Soteriology is available from the Genevan Institute for Reformed Studies. This page, heavy reading, is really superb at delineating the technical differences between all these Reformed distinctives. I think it is not too harsh or unfair and makes the arguments of five-pointers from historical scholarship.

Calvin and Arminius did not actually lead either side in the battle to which their names have been given as adversaries. One wonders what their real reaction to all of this might have been. There is real truth in it when doc and some other Calvinists say that they follow the doctrines of grace which they trace to Augustine through Calvin and, more recently, Spurgeon.

So a historical paper on that subject might be pretty interesting. Does modern four-point or five-point Calvinism really fully represent the religious thought of Jean Chauvin of Geneva? I suspect not. Calvin saw scripture as an integrated whole and so much of what he did was to safeguard the Reformation. Unlike Luther, who really sought only to reform the Roman hierarchy and re-establish Augustine's predestinarian views, Calvin was the first real Protestant and saw that the full teaching of the scripture were not compatible with the doctrines of Rome and never would be. This is something that all non-Catholics should be able to recognize about Calvin. He was the real father of the Reformation, not Luther. To pluck out those five doctrines (the TULIP) and say that these were what Calvin really stood for misstates or rather understates the case. And, to some extent, the same might be true of Arminius. We "Calvinists" accuse him of a return to Rome's doctrine and an embrace of the Council of Trent's position. But exactly how did he envision that his theology should be practically applied? Was he really no more than a theological ecumenizer for Rome? Maybe. Maybe not.

I think that over the centuries, we've lost sight of the real Calvin and perhaps even the real Arminius.

Look at that table above again where Johnson differentiates Wesley from other "Arminians". He is noting that Wesley was not as fully Arminian as other Arminians because he upheld the Reformation's doctrine of justification by faith. Not all the Arminians were so inclined. So one must ask: what was the influence that held him to the Reformed position on justification? Was Whitefield an influence here? For that matter, how was it that Whitefield and Wesley, despite that bitter and unfortunate dispute, held each other in such regard?

Another sidenote to Geneva and to Calvin and Beza and their associates is the story of the Protestant bibles. Erasmus, a dissident Roman Catholic priest and the greatest scholar in Europe, used the Greek texts of the Eastern church (not Roman) to assemble the Textus Receptus, the majority text, discarding as corrupt the texts used by Rome. Luther used this text to create the Lutheran bible and, incidentally, virtually created the modern standardized German language. The same thing happened later when the English language was standardized by the influence of the King James. But Geneva played a special role. They produced the Geneva Bible which contained the anti-monarchical and pro-republican views of Calvin in the margins. Also produced in Geneva were some other Bibles including a famous French version (can't recall the name) and an Italian version (the Diodati). All using the Textus Receptus, a translation so opposed by Rome that the Jesuits were actually founded to combat its influence in Europe. In response to the Geneva bible, they produced the first modern Catholic bible in English, the Jesuit bible, which modeled as closely as possible the magnificent language of the King James. King James had the Authorized produced largely because he wanted a pure text without footnotes. Now, King James wasn't necessarily totally opposed to study helps or commentary and was himself a very devout man. But he was certainly opposed to Calvin's anti-monarchical and pro-republican views found in the margins of the Geneva bible, a version that became very popular in England. During this period, the Jesuits continued to make their Jesuit bible (the forerunner of the Douay) closer and closer to the Authorized because they wished to hold onto as many Roman Catholic Englishmen as they could and very strongly desired to be able to use the emerging English world empire as a missionary outlet, much as they had used the Spanish and the Portugese. In the meantime, the republican seeds planted in England by the Calvin's seditious Geneva bible were sprouting. The Puritans and others were leaving for America, carrying their Geneva bibles. And up until the time of the American revolution, there was still in the American colonies a very substantial presence of the pro-republic/anti-monarch Geneva bible. It particularly stirred the pro-republican sentiments among the early Presbyterians and other Calvinists. As Uriel would point out, all but one of the colonels in the Revolutionary army was a stout Presby. And it's been pretty well established that the entire Declaration of Independence was lifted almost verbatim from a stunning letter from a pro-republican Presby church. I am sure you can see by now why Uriel is so proud of his historic Presbyterians.

I could really go on here much further, noting how the decline in Calvinism and the rise of easy-believerism marked as well a decline in real liberty and the rise of the sort of federalism that most here at FR utterly oppose. But I'll stop short of calling Mr. Lincoln a dictator and an enemy of American liberty. However, one can readily see that Calvin had an influence that has gone far far beyond the TULIP. Probably beyond what even he could have imagined. And we forget that very often on these threads. And we forget that the story of the Bible really is the story of Western (i.e. Christian) civilization. The battle for the Bible is absolutely central to any real understanding of history, something well hidden by modern historians when they write the pap we call history textbooks for the consumption of the little sheeple in the public schools.

It's very interesting to think about. Quite often, these conventional labels we assign to historical figures does them an injustice and hides what their own priorities were. I just think the whole thing is fascinating.

Perhaps you understand now why doc doesn't lay a real strong claim to Calvin and why Jerry, while not rejecting the Calvinist label, sometimes prefers to call himself a "grace man", and why I often enclose the words "Calvinism" and "Calvinist" in quotes.

We should really flatter Uriel and beg him to post all of the material he has on this stuff in one single unified post and include his newer anabaptist information as well. It's really fascinating.
53 posted on 09/08/2001 9:53:12 AM PDT by George W. Bush (you had no idea what a bunch of troublemakers we Calvinists really are!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
In your response to HP,

"Well, when He was tempted by Satan, it was clear that He could call upon the angels to save Him. But did not. This was an indication of His vast and Godlike powers prior to the crucifixion even. So, the picture to me isn't entirely clear. But He certainly was granted the power to perform miracles. It seems to me from reading His prayers that these were performed through the power of the Father. But this is not, for me, a crucial matter. "

¶ And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days He did eat nothing: and when they were ended, He afterward hungered. And the devil said unto Him, If Thou be the Son of God, command this stone that it be made bread.

And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

And the devil, taking Him up into an high mountain, shewed unto Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said unto Him, All this power will I give Thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it. If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence: For it is written, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee: And in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

And when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from Him for a season.

And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee: and there went out a fame of him through all the region round about. Luke 2:1-14



In Matthews account of the same incident, it ends with:

Then the devil leaveth Him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto Him. Matthew 3:11

While yes, angels do come and serve the lord as reported in Matthew 3:11, I think this is not proof that the Lord could call down angels from heaven to do His bidding, but, here in Matthew 26:53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? When the Lord is talking to Peter, now here is proof that if the Lord wanted His angels, they would come in a heratbeat at His call.

Yeshua bless you.

54 posted on 09/08/2001 10:12:56 AM PDT by Alas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
I hit Abuse and requested deletion

How do you hit Abuse?

I too consider our Christian faith to be absolutley necessary to our politics.

55 posted on 09/08/2001 10:15:40 AM PDT by Alas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush and all
When I hit Abuse, I informed our hosts that the offender had done this deliberately and this wasn't the first time. We've had other disruptors before. The Robinsons are very kind to us on this matter. As well as exceedingly generous with their bandwidth for these threads.

And so may I suggest a generous contribution for the upkeep of FR..look for the nearest Freepathon thread PLEASE! LINK

Perhaps you'll read my following post which will give you an idea of why so many of us "Calvinists" consider religious debate to absolutely vital to our politics.

You as a Calvinist may see it as essential to the "political" debate, Non calvinists see it as an opportunity to bring the gospel :>))

56 posted on 09/08/2001 10:18:07 AM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Alas
While yes, angels do come and serve the lord as reported in Matthew 3:11, I think this is not proof that the Lord could call down angels from heaven to do His bidding, but, here in Matthew 26:53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? When the Lord is talking to Peter, now here is proof that if the Lord wanted His angels, they would come in a heratbeat at His call. Personally, I hope we return to the topic as some of this discussion has made me a little uncomfortable, though you couldn't probably tell from the length of what I wrote. Thank you for your industriousness with the scripture. I need to post it more often. And, yes, this confirms again how Jesus' power while He walked on earth was derived through the Father. Again, it seems consistent with the other things which I posted earlier. But now and then it worries me a little that I can't explain even to myself exactly why I believe these things. It makes me very suspicious of my thinking in these matters which are not fully revealed in scripture. The Word is our sure foundation and even one step away from it is a danger that we stray into peril.

BTTT
57 posted on 09/08/2001 10:23:00 AM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
And so may I suggest a generous contribution for the upkeep of FR..look for the nearest Freepathon thread PLEASE! You're a better FReeper than I for posting this reminder.

But I'll point out that FR Calvinists are, in fact, diligent in their financial support of the forum, a diligence which parallels amazingly our scriptural support for the TULIP.
58 posted on 09/08/2001 10:30:16 AM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
Calvin saw scripture as an integrated whole and so much of what he did was to safeguard the Reformation.

I was just talking to a Nazerene that is teaching a Sunday School class tomorrow..He mentioned that as part of his preparation he had read his Calvin Commentaries. How is it that we are less threatened by Calvin,than the Calvinists that post here are of us?

Calvins approach was less agressive than some of the posters here..

Thanks for the thoughts on research...I will let you know what the prof wants from us..

59 posted on 09/08/2001 10:33:15 AM PDT by RnMomof7 (I hate doing papers,but this could be fun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Alas
How do you hit Abuse?

check the menu at the bottom of the page..but PLEASE do not abuse it..Calvinists and Arminians and Weselyans all do share a love of freedom of speech :>))

60 posted on 09/08/2001 10:36:13 AM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush, the_doc, All.
#53: "...the Jesuit bible, which modeled as closely as possible the magnificent language of the King James."

Are you STILL a proponent/advocate/supporter of the kooky "King James Only Bible" movement?

61 posted on 09/08/2001 10:48:06 AM PDT by Matchett-PI (Finney wasn't merely a Semi-Pelagian (Arminian), he was a Pelagian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
To George W.Bush-Holy Cow! The Father's pre-eminence in the Trinity! Are you kidding! The concept of the co-equality of the Trinity is a foundation of the Christian faith!

You are the one bringing up the idea of 'maybe' this or 'maybe' that.

I tell you why you are so confused on the Trinity is because Calvin was confused also, accepting the critical text reading of John 1:18, 'only begotton God' instead of 'only begotten Son'(the correct reading). The corrupt reading is the reading of the NAS and JW's 'New World Translation'

As for Servitus, the nonsense that Calvin was not resposible is typical 'Catholic' doubletalk. The Catholic's also claim that the 'Church' was not responsible for any deaths, they just turned the victims over to the 'civil authorities'.

Calvin was the chief witness against Servitus

Upheld the death sentence (albit wanted it done with the sword instead of burning)

And defended his actions in print.

Cranky?!, how about disgusted! Disgusted with a thological system that purports to know something about God, will call other people 'heretics' and' unsaved' and yet, when pushed into the corner will raise up their hands as you are doing now and say,'who can comprehend the deep mysteries of God'

All you guys are good for is throwing out a bunch of fancy theological double-talk which makes it appear you actually know something!

Let us hear you definition of the Trinity, since you want to explain 1Tim.2:4 by attacking it!

The mystery in the Trinity comes with the Incarnation when Christ willingly sets aside His own use of His Deity to obey as a man the Father's will on earth (Heb.10:5,Psa.2:7, Phil.2:6-8)

Yet, He never stopped being God (Jn.3:13,ITim.3:16)

That aspect is a mystery but the eternal equality is not (Phil.2:6,Jn.10:30)

We just had a thread on the Trinity and all the Calvinists wanted to discuss was Rom.9 and Eph.2:8, not the Trinity.

As I said when Uriel was called on this, he cried that he was misunderstood!

Say it clear-was the Son co-equal and co-eternal with the Father and Holy Spirit or not!

Even so, come Lord Jesus

62 posted on 09/08/2001 11:12:52 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI,George W. Bush,fortheDeclaration
#53: "...the Jesuit bible, which modeled as closely as possible the magnificent language of the King James." Are you STILL a proponent/advocate/supporter of the kooky "King James Only Bible" movement?

I would be concerned if the KJV was patterned on the Jesuit Bible,rather than the other way around!. All this proves to me is the sovereignity of God in keeping HIS word..

I was listening to a sermon this morning by a Presbyterian Pastor on Romans (WHAT ELSE??) anyway at one point he said he was going to "skip" the next few verses,because they were "mis translated..."You do know", he went on," man unlike God is fallible,and the Bible was edited by men". It is men he said that decide where to put the commas and periods,and in this case they errored.

I sat down on my bed and LOL..Here is a man that professes the sovereignity of God..but does not believe that God could protect His word from the mistakes of man..

There is a reason that the KJV has been the standard for generations..

63 posted on 09/08/2001 11:13:09 AM PDT by RnMomof7 (Could it be the Holy Spirit?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
But I'll point out that FR Calvinists are, in fact, diligent in their financial support of the forum, a diligence which parallels amazingly our scriptural support for the TULIP

Well Wesleyans know you can loose what is most precious if you are not dilligent in your perserverence...so we would like all to preserve this forum *grin*

64 posted on 09/08/2001 11:34:50 AM PDT by RnMomof7 (a bit of pride there GW?:>))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7, 2sheep, Jeremiah Jr, Prodigal Daughter, Lent
John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

5312 hupsoo {hoop-so'-o}
from 5311; TDNT - 8:606,1241; v
AV - exalt 14, lift up 6; 20

1) to lift up on high, to exalt
2) metaph.
2a) to raise to the very summit of opulence and prosperity
2b) to exalt, to raise to dignity, honour and happiness

Compare...

08314 saraph {saw-rawf'}
from 08313; TWOT - 2292a,2292b; n m

AV - fiery serpent 3, fiery 2, seraphim 2; 7

1) serpent, fiery serpent
1a) poisonous serpent (fiery from burning effect of poison)
2) seraph, seraphim
2a) majestic beings with 6 wings, human hands or voices in attendance
upon God

TWOT - 2292a

saraph  I. Fiery serpent. This word is used five times: of the poisonous snakes in the wilderness (Numbers 21:6, 8; Deut. 8:15) and figuratively of threatened dangerous snakes (Isaiah 14:29; Isaiah 30:6). The snakes in the wilderness were a natural phenomenon used by God to punish Israel's murmuring. But the healing brought about by the brass serpent Moses made was as miraculous as that which it prefigured (John 3:14). It is of interest that when Jesus referred to his being lifted up in terms of this verse he was actually predicting his crucifixion. "Being lifted up" was a well-understood euphemism in Jesus' day for death by crucifixion (John 12:32).

***

KJV - 5 verses found containing the phrase "daily sacrifice":

Daniel 8:11 Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily [sacrifice] was taken away [7311], and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.
Daniel 8:12 And an host was given him against the daily [sacrifice] by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.
Daniel 8:13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily [sacrifice], and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?
Daniel 11:31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away [5493] the daily [sacrifice], and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.
Daniel 12:11 And from the time that the daily [sacrifice] shall be taken away [5493], and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

In every case, 'sacrifice' was added in by the translators. Not that it isn't appropriate, but it gives the impression that a physical temple will exist with animal sacrifices.

Hebrews 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

for ever...

1519 eis {ice}
a primary preposition; TDNT - 2:420,211; prep
AV - into 573, to 281, unto 207, for 140, in 138, on 58,
toward 29, against 26, misc 321; 1773

1) into, unto, to, towards, for, among

1336 dienekes {dee-ay-nek-es'}
neuter of a compound of 1223 and a derivative of an alternate of
5342;; adj

AV - continually + 1519 2, for ever + 1519 2; 4

1) continuously, continuous

Compare the word used in Daniel: ha-tamiyd [153 x 3], "the daily"...

08548 tamiyd {taw-meed'}
from an unused root meaning to stretch; TWOT - 1157a; n m

AV - continually 53, continual 26, daily 7, always 6, alway 4, ever 3,
perpetual 2, continual employment 1, evermore 1, never 1; 104

1) continuity, perpetuity, to stretch
1a) continually, continuously (as adverb)
1b) continuity (subst)

The 'ner tamiyd' in the synagogue is the 'eternal light'.

2.3.2 The Eternal Light

Suspended above and in front of the Aron HaKodesh is the ner tamid, the eternal light. The use of a perpetual light is based on passages in Exodus and Leviticus in which the Jewish people were commanded to kee a lamp burning in the Mishkan, as they carried it with them in the wilderness. Twice God instructed Moses:

And you [Moses] shall command the Children of Israel to bring you pure olive oil... to make a lamp burn continually. —Parshat Tetzaveh, Exodus 27:20

and

Command the children of Israel to bring you pure olive oil... to make a lamp burn continually. —Parshat Emor, Leviticus 24:2

From these passages, we can understand why the ner tamid is a prominent feature of the synagogue.

Originally, the ner tamid was an oil-burning lamp. Today, for the sake of convenience and safety, an electric light is used.

Exploring Jewish Tradition, pgs 30-31


John 8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

***

But back to those five verses in Daniel, note the Strong's numbers next to the verbs translated 'take away'.

8:11

07311 ruwm {room}
a primitive root; TWOT - 2133; v
AV - (lift, hold, etc...) up 63, exalt 47, high 25, offer 13, give 5,
heave 3, extol 3, lofty 3, take 3, tall 3, higher 2, misc 24; 194

1) to rise, rise up, be high, be lofty, be exalted
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to be high, be set on high
1a2) to be raised, be uplifted, be exalted
1a3) to be lifted, rise
1b) (Polel)
1b1) to raise or rear (children), cause to grow up
1b2) to lift up, raise, exalt
1b3) to exalt, extol
1c) (Polal) to be lifted up
1d) (Hiphil)
1d1) to raise, lift, lift up, take up, set up, erect, exalt,
set on high
1d2) to lift up (and take away), remove
1d3) to lift off and present, contribute, offer, contribute
1e) (Hophal) to be taken off, be abolished
1f) (Hithpolel) to exalt oneself, magnify oneself
2) (Qal) to be rotten, be wormy

Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily [sacrifice] was lifted up.


2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God*, shewing himself that he is God.

* 1 Corinthians 3:16-7 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.


Hebrews 6:4-6

4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

shewing himself that he is God...

Genesis 3:4-5 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Which brings me to the other Hebrew word translated 'take away'...

05493 cuwr {soor} or suwr (Hos 9:12) {soor}
a primitive root; TWOT - 1480; v
AV - (put, take,...) away 97, depart 76, remove 35, aside 29, take 14,
turn 12, turn in 9, take off 6, go 3, put 3, eschewed 3, misc 14; 301

1) to turn aside, depart
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to turn aside, turn in unto
1a2) to depart, depart from way, avoid
1a3) to be removed
1a4) to come to an end
1b) (Polel) to turn aside
1c) (Hiphil)
1c1) to cause to turn aside, cause to depart, remove, take
away, put away, depose
1c2) to put aside, leave undone, retract, reject, abolish
1d) (Hophal) to be taken away, be removed

Daniel was given a message by Gabriel, addressed to the Jew first, and then to the Gentile [Church]. There is still unfinished time of the '70 weeks' clock. What will cause it to start ticking again?

Hosea 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.


Romans 1:18-19 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

Look at the time on the clock!

Daniel 12:09 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.

65 posted on 09/08/2001 11:41:13 AM PDT by Thinkin' Gal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
To Matchett-PI-the Jesuit bible comes from a different text, no matter how they tried to make it sound like a King James.

Here is one example-Col.2:18-the King James reads,...intruding into those things which he hath NOT seen'

the Catholic readings (in ALL new versions (NKJV footnotes the N/UBS reading)is ...intruding into those things which he HATH seen' Two different readings, two different bibles.

The TR is the Bible of the Reformation and it overthrew the critical text Vulgate that had plunged Europe into the Dark Ages.

If you do not think Bibles matter, look at the countries still dominated by Rome and their bible.

Rome understood the importance of the differences and that is why they will never tolerate the King James, or the TR and the Erasmus text was placed in the Catholic index of forbidden books.

Now, the Catholic church, unable to kill those who read the Book, have taken a different approach, they simply put out enough counterfeits (using their text) to make the simple and naive think that all bibles are the same.

We can thank the Princton school of Hodge and B.B. Warfield with their 'originals only' being inspired nonsense for aiding this assault on the greatest Book ever written-the King James Bible 1611!

Even so, come Lord Jesus

66 posted on 09/08/2001 11:58:57 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Thinkin' Gal
Always can count on TG for a good word study. Thanks.
67 posted on 09/08/2001 12:03:20 PM PDT by Lent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration,the_doc
#66: "....the greatest Book ever written-the King James Bible 1611!"

So are you also a proponent of the kooky "King James Only Bible" movement?

68 posted on 09/08/2001 12:11:57 PM PDT by Matchett-PI
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush,the_doc, all
#17: "1 Timothy 2 KJV"

Quote I heard: "If the King James version of the Bible was good enough for Jesus, I guess it must be the best one to use." :)

http//www.aomin.org/Marrs.html

http//www.aomin.org/kjvo.html

69 posted on 09/08/2001 12:33:26 PM PDT by Matchett-PI (Ahhhhhhhh ... the simplicity of the simple. :))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
As I said when Uriel was called on this, he cried that he was misunderstood!

Say it clear-was the Son co-equal and co-eternal with the Father and Holy Spirit or not!
Oh, my goodness! We went to bed cranky and we got up cranky too!

Well if you can calm yourself a little and lay off the coffee, I'll examine your claims.

The mystery in the Trinity comes with the Incarnation when Christ willingly sets aside His own use of His Deity to obey as a man the Father's will on earth (Heb.10:5,Psa.2:7, Phil.2:6-8) Hebrews 10:5 - Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.


The broader context of the verse is that of the abolishment of the Old Covenant under Christ, it is only if you insist upon plucking the verse from its original context that you can twist to your purpose. You haven't demonstrated your statement that Christ "willingly set aside His own use of His Deity" in my reading.

Psalm 2:7 - I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

Is a statement like this which affirms a particular day upon which Christ was begotten really the testimony you think it is? This says Christ was begotten in an eartly body but does not tell us His power was set aside.

Philippians 2:5 - Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.


These verses testify that Christ, while in the form of God (a purely spiritual existence) "thought it not robbery to be equal with God". Well, there is your idea of equality with the Father. But let's examine another translation, the rather non-controversial NASB:

6 who, although He 11 existed in the 12 form of God, 13 did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

So, now it is no longer "not thought robbery to be equal with God" but has changed to "did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped". And what do I think this means? I can't explain it personally. But it isn't a problem for me. I suspect it might be for you.

Kind of demolishes any of the readings you try to place upon it, doesn't it?

As to your use of John 10:30 "I and my Father are one", I would note that the NASB further explains the Greek words being translated here indicate "a unity, or one essense". In fact, most of the verses dealing with the nature of the Trinity make some use of the concept of a single "essense" of God. I won't even claim to understand how "essense" might differ from "spirt" since we are told in the Old Testament that God is Spirit and that that is His essential being.

Let's turn to a conventional source of Reformed theology, the Westminster Confession, Chapter II, Of God, and of the Holy Trinity (1646) and examine its tellingly brief statements and scriptural references in the third subsection which deals with the three Persons of the Trinity:

3. In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost:[o] the Father is of none, neither begotten, not proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father;[p] the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.[q]

[o]. Matt. 3:16-17; Matt. 28:19; II Cor. 13:14; see Eph. 2:18
[p]. John 1:14, 18; see Heb. 1:2-3; Col. 1:15
[q]. John 15:26; Gal. 4:6
There we have it. The statement is that all three Persons of the Godhead eternally co-existent. I affirm this. Notice that God that Father is eternal and unbegotten. But God the Son is called "eternally begotten of the Father" and the Holy Spirit "eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son".

Let's leave aside how Jesus can be called "eternally begotten" since the word begotten refers to a specific beginning. It effectively robs the word begotten of any meaning which it has throughout the Bible. This "eternally begotten" notion is tracable to Origen, a most suspicious but utterly brilliant RC theologian (not a church father because he castrated himself for the glory of God, having overread a certain NT verse). Also, there is the question of how He was begotten prior to the His conception in the womb of Mary. Again, this is consistent with my prior statements. I'm not saying these things to cause you problems because they present no problem to my faith. I am confident in the Lord and all wilil be revealed to me someday. Until then, I am granted a faith from God that is sufficient to the challenges I meet.

Perhaps you'd like to explain the precise equality you find of all three Persons of the Godhead. In particular, can you explain them as they were revealed historically, as recorded in the Bible, to mankind?

I think that if you look closely, you're going to find that systematic theology always stumbles or papers over this matter of the Trinity. We are simply not, in my reading, granted a full understanding of the nature of the Trinity and how the three Persons of the Trinity interract with each other nor how they interact with mankind under the Old Covenant and under the New Covenant. And, for me, that presents no problem. I don't find my favored Confession here (or the historic Baptist confessions) to be an absolute and full description of the Trinity which finally answer every question. I don't think God ever intended to fully reveal the nature of the Trinity to men in this life. I think He wants us to look to Him only through His Son. I do.

I do hope that your urgent belief over the possibility of a full understanding of the Trinity by any man doesn't make a stumbling block for you. It is enough for me to know the Trinity is. That is all any Christian actually needs, I think. And yet, if your ideas about the Trinity, as unconvincing and unprovable as they seem to me to be, are important to your faith, then I would urge to grasp them tightly. I don't claim to know your heart or how God may be dealing with you. I suggest that you might consider why it is that systematic theologians across the board stumble over this and why the more honest ones just come out and tell you that much of the real details surrounding the Godhead are not knowable.

We aren't going to go to heaven based on whether we understand the Godhead fully or not. It is completely determined by our personal relationship with Christ. These other explanations, to me, have real limits. And God doesn't seem to want to fully reveal all of it to us now. It's enough for me. How about you?
70 posted on 09/08/2001 12:45:38 PM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
Ignorant woman asking a question..TR??
71 posted on 09/08/2001 12:49:55 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Lent,Thinkin' Gal
Always can count on TG for a good word study. Thanks.

ditto Gal

72 posted on 09/08/2001 12:51:12 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
I sat down on my bed and LOL..Here is a man that professes the sovereignity of God..but does not believe that God could protect His word from the mistakes of man.. You're right. That was very weak. If he couldn't explain those verses properly or use one of the dozens of translations avaoiable, he better give up the clergy and get a job at 7-11.

There is a reason that the KJV has been the standard for generations. I do prefer it as a standard. I've begun to compare versions and have acquired a certain appreciation for the NASB which doc and Jerry say is more technically correct in some sections. I have a certain suspicion of the NASB's manuscripts and I do recall that Logsdon repudiated his own central role in the NASB's founding and recommended that everyone return to the KJV. And yet, there are times when I find it can be helpful. I'm not KJV-only. I'm KJV-first-and-foremost, I guess.

73 posted on 09/08/2001 12:51:31 PM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
Gw I have many bibles..I am wealthy in the word..truly wealthy.

But you know how you have ONE that is REALLY your bible?

As we had discussed before I have always had a Scofield KJV,that like a diary, held personal notes and sermon notes

That was the bible I wanted to take to my grave with me.

Acouple years ago I decided there was no more margin room and purchased what I believed was a duplicate of my current bible

When I got home I found I had an NIV..I decided to use it..and have now for a couple of years..

As I went about replacing it I was going back to the Scofield KJV..but on the advise of another poster I purchased the King James Study Bible..I had forgotten the richness of the KJ...It is like reading it again for the first time!

I consider all of them the word of God..but no question that today, as since it's writing, it is fully the word of God..every jot and tittle..and inspite of the claim of that Pastor it is without error!

74 posted on 09/08/2001 1:04:18 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
I consider all of them the word of God..but no question that today, as since it's writing, it is fully the word of God..every jot and tittle..and inspite of the claim of that Pastor it is without error!

Should read I consider all of them the word of God..but no question that today the KJV, as since it's writing, it is fully the word of God..every jot and tittle..and inspite of the claim of that Pastor it is without error!

75 posted on 09/08/2001 1:06:43 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: ReformedBeckite, Matchett-PI
Actually, most Arminians are semi-Pelagian, since they do have a doctrine of original sin. Finney just happens to be a bit more repulsive than most Arminians in his understanding of sin.
76 posted on 09/08/2001 1:12:16 PM PDT by the_doc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
"If the King James version of the Bible was good enough for Jesus, I guess it must be the best one to use." :) You're right. If it was good enough for Jesus...

Okay, now you've convinced me. No more peeking at that NASB translation ever.

You do, by the way, oversimplify the debate. I suggest you abandon any reading of the ridiculous modern "advocates" of the KJV (Riplinger!) and instead examine the work of some real scholars like Dean Burgon of Chicester. They will, if you are interested, lay out the real case against the Bibles based upon Rome's Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, pointing out their obvious corruption and many revisions as well as the real conflicts between them although the textual critics entirely ignore the glaring differences between them. These manuscripts are in such disagreement with one another that no real unity can exist between them, not a problem in the Byzantine family of the received text. The history of how these manuscripts were discovered should alone make you a little more wary of these claims. And the real background and beliefs of Westcott and Hort, the translators of the modernist Greek text, makes it very clear they were not Christians in any way that anyone on this thread would accept. And that is provable from their own writings and papers and the organizations they founded.

The King James does have some minor flaws, all outside key doctrinal teachings. These minor errors are well-known and easily learned. One cannot say that for the Tower of Babel that is the publishing industry of modernist Bibles. You're welcome to Rome's manuscripts if you're comfortable with such things. When it comes down to choosing the manuscript stream of the Greek Orthodox church versus the church of Rome, I'll take the manuscripts of Byzantium, ordinary and textually unexciting as they are to modern "higher" textual critics.
77 posted on 09/08/2001 1:20:47 PM PDT by George W. Bush (arrogance a mile high and an inch deep)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
The most exact literal translation of the Bible is still going to be misunderstood unless the reader has been granted understanding. If the reader's prayers for understanding have been answered, even the most confusing, convoluted translation of the Bible will enlighten him.

Christ was lifted up by Satan to look down on creation and tempt him to rule over it.
Christ was lifted up by man to suffer and die on the cross.
Christ was lifted up by God our Father to take his rightful place in Heaven and prepare the way for us to come home with Him.

78 posted on 09/08/2001 1:20:53 PM PDT by ValerieUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
The woman who touched the hem of Jesus and was healed of her unclean disease was not a Jew.... she wasn't yet a sister of Jesus in the family of God. It marked a turning point in His ministry. I think it may have also stirred the prejudices of Judas Iscariot who feared that Jesus may not destroy the Gentiles, but welcome all believers into the fold. Even Peter would balk at such inclusion. This did not fit their preconceived notions of the Messiah's purpose on earth.
79 posted on 09/08/2001 1:25:40 PM PDT by ValerieUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
When I got home I found I had an NIV..I decided to use it..and have now for a couple of years.. You almost gave me a heart attack there. To go from an Authorized to an NIV. I consider the NIV to be absolutely the worst of the modern translations. I would, literally, burn it on the spot if anyone ever gave me one. I mean it. It is truly awful. I'm sure you're heard me rant about it before so I'll stop before my blood pressure hits 250.

To answer your question to Declaration, the TR is the Textus Receptus, the Greek translation produced by Erasmus from the traditional text a.k.a. the received text. These are the manuscripts of the Eastern church of which over 95% of all ancient manuscripts are members. These are also called Byzantine.

The Textus Receptus was the Greek translation of the New Testament which was the basis of the bibles of the Reformation: Lutheran, Geneva, KJV, Olivetti (Ogilvie? French anyway), Diodati, and many others. Of all of them, only the KJV survives and stands alone against the modernist bibles.

The other manuscript family is the Alexandrian. It is led by Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaticus as the exemplars of this text type. There are, as I pointed out earlier, real problems with this family.

From the Alexandrian family, we get the Westcott-Hort tranlation of the Greek New Testament. Although Jerry and perhaps some others will disagree, the Nestle-Aland is really no more than a variation of this family and shares its defects generally. This family includes every Bible translation you've ever seen, althouth the English Revised, less than 120 years old, is the first of these Bibles to be produced in the countries of the Reformation. The manuscripts for this family were discovered in 1) a dusty and unused back shelf of the Vatican library and 2) in the trash can (yes the trashcan) of the St. Catherine's Convent at the foot of Mt. Sinai. Kind of a glorious history, huh?

If you accept the claims of the modernists that they have the "true" Bible based on these strange manuscripts, you then accept that God's real and full Word was kept from his people for over 1500 years. I don't believe it. The Word was preserved, even when the Dark Ages all but extinguished literacy in Europe.
80 posted on 09/08/2001 1:39:04 PM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: ValerieUSA
Interesting posts. Bump.
81 posted on 09/08/2001 1:39:28 PM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7, jude24, peg the prophet, Matchett-PI, ShadowAce
On the previous thread, in your post #177, you said:

You have done so on many occassions doc..

You have missed the point again. You are still sitting tall and proud on your high horse. You are flatly refusing to accept the obvious meaning of very, very simple passages of Scripture.

1 Corinthians 2:14 declares that unless a person already HAS the Spirit of Christ in his soul, he/she CANNOT receive the Truth.

This necessarily means that a true supernatural regeneration has to precede saving faith. This, in turn, means that:

1) God is the one who determines who will receive saving faith when exposed to the message of the Scriptures, and

2) inasmuch as regeneration is what produces this spiritual will to receive the Truth, election cannot be based on God's precognition of that sinner's faith! (The effect of election cannot be the cause of election. The Wesleyan/Arminians have not understood what God's foreknowledge is. It is a planning faculty. It is not mere precognition!)

The above VERY SIMPLE two-point OBSERVATION from 1 Corinthian 2:14 also agrees exactly with what the Lord Jesus said to Nicodemus in John 3:3. You have read that verse umpteen times and you never even noticed what it is saying, RnMomof7.

And what I am showing you from 1 Corinthians 2:14 also agrees with everything I have shown you from John 6:37, 39, and 44 and Romans 9 and 1 Thessalonians 1:4-5 and Acts 13:48 and a zillion other verses which you always quickly dismiss.

And it agrees exactly with John 10:26.

So, do you see from 1 Corinthians 2:14 why I question whether you even HAVE the Spirit of Christ in your soul?

Please put yourself in my place. Read 1 Corinthians 2:14 honestly for a change. It is very serious, very profound. And yet you just gloss over what it is saying. It is so simple that you ignore it.

Now, if we read further in the Corinthian epistle, we discover the possibility, based on 1 Corinthians 3:1-3, that you are just a regenerate but weirdly carnal Christian, i.e., an unteachable spiritual brat for the time being.

And if you don't like that pejorative language, I would point out that it was Paul's way of speaking--and that he was being charitable. The alternative was to write you off completely as just plain unregenerate (1 Corinthians 2:14 again).

This is why Jerry_M and I have both said that there is something profoundly wrong with you. Either you are the most carnal Christian we have ever encountered or you're just plain lost.

My bottom-line point is that you are not walking in the Spirit Whom you profess to love. (So, we are forced to discount your profession in this Age of Antichrist.) By the same token, we are forced to tell you that your doctrine of entire sanctification (like GWB's, too, I'm afraid), is a monstrous error. You are being carnal and calling it spiritual. You are sinning incessantly on these threads. Your doctrinally refractory spirit is SHAMEFUL.

(If I were not a Calvinist--i.e., someone who by the sheer grace of God can receive what 1 Corinthians 2:14 is saying--I would be flabbergasted at how dense your demonic controller has made you in your Pharisaic fleshliness. You think you are so spiritual as to continually avoid sinning, whereas you are overflowing with Truth-suppressing wickedness. This is why you don't seem to grasp even the easiest stuff in Calvinistic doctrine. You have been on these threads for MONTHS, and yet you recently asked us if a non-elect sinner can repent! Good grief, RnMomof7, I see why Paul walked away from people like you. It's manifestly a waste of time to talk with you.)

My bottom-line point is that you need to throw out your entire theology. You have gotten it from carnal goofballs like Wesley and Finney. And they were heretics. They had a completely inadequate view of sin. This is why Wesley was such an obvious hypocrite.

Oh, but almost nothing is obvious in this mess for an unspiritual person who has been conditioned to believe that there is nothing wrong with her "lovely" spirit. For some strange reason--called the Truth-suppressing wickedness of the Fall!--you really can't tell the doctrinal snakes from the faithful teachers of God's Word, Eve.

Again, you are hereby warned.

82 posted on 09/08/2001 2:44:58 PM PDT by the_doc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
Ok I know what the Textus Receptus was (is?)...I have read about it..it went right over me..thanks

One of our elder candidates calls the NIV the "Nearly Inspired Version"..

I have used that for church (my church's pew bibles are Revised Standards I think),bible studies where different versions are read and so on.. I have a couple KJ that I have used when there has been discussion here..they are the word study ones..so I havent been completely in the dark *grin*

83 posted on 09/08/2001 2:55:34 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

Comment #84 Removed by Moderator

To: peg the prophet,fortheDeclaration,Jerry_M,George W. Bush,the_doc
In this respect the serpent of brass was a type of Christ. Whoever looked upon this serpent was healed.

No, absolutely not. This wrong understanding has led others, like Jewish believers, to be horrified with Christianity.

In no way, shape or form, should Our Lord EVER be identified with the serpent. The sins of mankind, yes, but not the Lord

Peg one of the guys should respond to this..I will just say it is accepted that the snake in the desert is a typology of Jesus..peg,to my understanding the serpent is the sign of sin..satan slithering...Jesus became sin FOR us on the cross..

But I will leave to the men that have more time in this to respond I am sure it is more complicated than that

85 posted on 09/08/2001 3:48:22 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

Comment #86 Removed by Moderator

To: peg the prophet
Thank you RnMomo but I need no explanation. You need to forget typology -- and read the whole Bible for complete understanding, or you can inadvertantly cause harm even when you meant nothing but good. Well, maybe RnMom went out or something. So I'll ask. How would her application of typology here be something that could cause a real harm to others? Be specific. Give an example, preferably one you know of personally.

I am not myself any great fan of typologies but recognize that some portions of scripture are hard to understand without them. And it does seem that these typologies have roots in the ancient chruches among sound teachers. So, why should we forget typologies completely?

Thanks.
87 posted on 09/08/2001 5:27:40 PM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: peg the prophet
The words of Jesus according to John and ye receive not our witness.
3:12If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you [of] heavenly things?
3:13And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, [even] the Son of man which is in heaven.

3:14And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

3:15That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

3:16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
3:17For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
3:18He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
3:19And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
3:20For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
3:21But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Peg, Jesus Christ is the one that likened Himself and the cross to the serpent.

Is Jesus a liar?

88 posted on 09/08/2001 6:23:47 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: jude24, RnMomof7, Matchett-PI, peg the prophet, Uriel1975
On the previous thread, you inquired about a couple of verses. In the post which follows, I will address the first of these, 1 Timothy 2:4.

****

If you really want to see how 1 Timothy 2:4 fits the Calvinistic position, the first thing which I recommend you do is go back and read Uriel195's post on a previous thread, found at The Outpouring of the Holy Spirit #124.

Uriel1975's argument does not depend on the exegesis of the Greek word usually translated as "all" in our English language versions. (If you haven't worked through his post, please do so before continuing further.)

****

Now, the point which I want to make about Uriel1975's argument is that it exactly fits the Calvinistic position. And it is the explanation offered for 1 Timothy 2:4 by a great many mainstream Calvinists, including Charles Spurgeon.

But why does it fit the Calvinistic position so well? It's because it fits the two distinctives of the Calvinistic position.

My point here is that Calvinism is not the doctrine of absolute predestination. Rather, Calvinism is the theological system which embraces both the doctrine of absolute predestination and the free offer of the gospel. These are two distinctives, not one.

At the risk of being tedious, let me point out that both the Arminian and the hyper-Calvinist maintain that these two distinctives are mutually exclusive. They maintain that true (absolute) predestination and a true (sincere) gospel offer can't both be true. This is presuppositional with them. (But it is a purely philosophical presupposition. They don't get it from the Bible. They just think they do. Their presupposition actually warps the way they read the Bible.)

What makes this mess so interesting is the fact that Arminians and hyper-Calvinists start with the same presupposition and wind up reaching different bottom-line conclusions! (The Arminian tries to use the free offer of the gospel to rule out true predestination, i.e., to argue that the Bible's "predestination" is just a matter of God's precognition with some kind of vague meddling by God thrown in. The hyper-Calvinist, on the other end of the spectrum, tries to use the fact of God's absolute predestination to rule out the free offer of the gospel, i.e., to argue that we have somehow misunderstood the verses which definitely do suggest that God makes a sincere offer of salvation.)

Well, I don't care if the Arminians and hyper-Calvinists can't believe that absolute predestination and the free offer are both true. They are both taught in the Bible--no doubt about it! And if they say this can't be correct, then I'll dare to point out that they sound like unbelieving Jews or Mormons. (The Jews say that the Oneness of God rules out the Threeness of God. But they're wrong; they don't even know the God of the Bible, and the fact that they call their God Jehovah means nothing. The Mormons, on the other hand, are polytheists who do not really believe in the One True God. They don't know the God of the Bible either; the fact that they worship a god whom they call "Jesus" means nothing.)

***

My bottom-line point is that Calvinism is a Biblically balanced theology. This is why we Calvinists are not at all ashamed to say that 1 Timothy 2:4 is presenting the free offer of the gospel in the freest possible way. But it also why we refuse to read it in the stupid way the Arminians try to read it (i.e., pretending that the Lord Jesus is somehow at odds with the God of election!).

Perhaps the best way to appreciate Uriel1975's argument concerning 1 Timothy 2:4 is to look at what the Lord Himself said in John 6:37: "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh unto me I will in no wise cast out."

Notice that the Lord is promising to save every single solitary person who comes to Him, i.e., everyone who exercises true faith in Him--necessarily including faith in the veracity of the Offer! Notice, furthermore, that the Lord Jesus is saying, in effect, that if God the Father were pleased to bring every single person in the world to His Son in saving faith, then the Lord would willingly receive and save every single one person in the world.

Ah, but the Lord also knew that this would not happen, because He knew that it was not the Father's purpose to see everyone supernaturally converted. ONLY THE ELECT WILL COME TO CHRIST IN SAVING FAITH.

In the final analysis, the mystery of the extent of the Atonement is actually beside the point of what Paul is saying in 1 Timothy 2:4. The mosrt important point of the verse is the free offer, not the mystery of predestination. Paul is keying on the fact that Christ is an All-Sufficient Savior, and he is keying on the the obvious sense in which He is willing to save everyone. But this is precisely the same sense which the Lord Jesus presented in John 6:37. In the final analysis, He definitely defers to the Father's will.

Please think about this for a while. After you have had a chance to absorb it, I will show you something else which you have overlooked about 1 Timothy 2:4. And this is largely because you don't read New Testament Greek.

And I think it will knock your socks off.

89 posted on 09/08/2001 7:26:41 PM PDT by the_doc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jude24, RnMomof7, Matchett-PI, peg the prophet, Uriel1975
[TRYING AGAIN WITH CORRECT FONT]

On the previous thread, you inquired about a couple of verses. In the post which follows, I will address the first of these, 1 Timothy 2:4.

****

If you really want to see how 1 Timothy 2:4 fits the Calvinistic position, the first thing which I recommend you do is go back and read Uriel195's post on a previous thread, found at The Outpouring of the Holy Spirit #124.

Uriel1975's argument does not depend on the exegesis of the Greek word usually translated as "all" in our English language versions. (If you haven't worked through his post, please do so before continuing further.)

****

Now, the point which I want to make about Uriel1975's argument is that it exactly fits the Calvinistic position. And it is the explanation offered for 1 Timothy 2:4 by a great many mainstream Calvinists, including Charles Spurgeon.

But why does it fit the Calvinistic position so well? It's because it fits the two distinctives of the Calvinistic position.

My point here is that Calvinism is not the doctrine of absolute predestination. Rather, Calvinism is the theological system which embraces both the doctrine of absolute predestination and the free offer of the gospel. These are two distinctives, not one.

At the risk of being tedious, let me point out that both the Arminian and the hyper-Calvinist maintain that these two distinctives are mutually exclusive. They maintain that true (absolute) predestination and a true (sincere) gospel offer can't both be true. This is presuppositional with them. (But it is a purely philosophical presupposition. They don't get it from the Bible. They just think they do. Their presupposition actually warps the way they read the Bible.)

What makes this mess so interesting is the fact that Arminians and hyper-Calvinists start with the same presupposition and wind up reaching different bottom-line conclusions! (The Arminian tries to use the free offer of the gospel to rule out true predestination, i.e., to argue that the Bible's "predestination" is just a matter of God's precognition with some kind of vague meddling by God thrown in. The hyper-Calvinist, on the other end of the spectrum, tries to use the fact of God's absolute predestination to rule out the free offer of the gospel, i.e., to argue that we have somehow misunderstood the verses which definitely do suggest that God makes a sincere offer of salvation.)

Well, I don't care if the Arminians and hyper-Calvinists can't believe that absolute predestination and the free offer are both true. They are both taught in the Bible--no doubt about it! And if they say this can't be correct, then I'll dare to point out that they sound like unbelieving Jews or Mormons. (The Jews say that the Oneness of God rules out the Threeness of God. But they're wrong; they don't even know the God of the Bible, and the fact that they call their God Jehovah means nothing. The Mormons, on the other hand, are polytheists who do not really believe in the One True God. They don't know the God of the Bible either; the fact that they worship a god whom they call "Jesus" means nothing.)

***

My bottom-line point is that Calvinism is a Biblically balanced theology. This is why we Calvinists are not at all ashamed to say that 1 Timothy 2:4 is presenting the free offer of the gospel in the freest possible way. But it also why we refuse to read it in the stupid way the Arminians try to read it (i.e., pretending that the Lord Jesus is somehow at odds with the God of election!).

Perhaps the best way to appreciate Uriel1975's argument concerning 1 Timothy 2:4 is to look at what the Lord Himself said in John 6:37: "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh unto me I will in no wise cast out."

Notice that the Lord is promising to save every single solitary person who comes to Him, i.e., everyone who exercises true faith in Him--necessarily including faith in the veracity of the Offer! Notice, furthermore, that the Lord Jesus is saying, in effect, that if God the Father were pleased to bring every single person in the world to His Son in saving faith, then the Lord would willingly receive and save every single one person in the world.

Ah, but the Lord also knew that this would not happen, because He knew that it was not the Father's purpose to see everyone supernaturally converted. ONLY THE ELECT WILL COME TO CHRIST IN SAVING FAITH.

In the final analysis, the mystery of the extent of the Atonement is actually beside the point of what Paul is saying in 1 Timothy 2:4. The mosrt important point of the verse is the free offer, not the mystery of predestination. Paul is keying on the fact that Christ is an All-Sufficient Savior, and he is keying on the the obvious sense in which He is willing to save everyone. But this is precisely the same sense which the Lord Jesus presented in John 6:37. In the final analysis, He definitely defers to the Father's will.

Please think about this for a while. After you have had a chance to absorb it, I will show you something else which you have overlooked about 1 Timothy 2:4. And this is largely because you don't read New Testament Greek.

And I think it will knock your socks off.

90 posted on 09/08/2001 7:30:59 PM PDT by the_doc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: the_doc
Ooops! I didn't get the fonts corrected after all. Anyway, I won't take up more bandwidth with another re-posting.

The fonts should be correct...now.

91 posted on 09/08/2001 7:36:36 PM PDT by the_doc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: the_doc
I know Uriel1975's analysis is a crock-- I just looked over Jn 5:19 in an unrelated context, and it just confirmed my gut instinct-- "Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise."

I accept predestination and election and so forth-- I have to, they're in there. I dont pretend to fully understand them, though. I'm leaning 4-point now, but being careful.

92 posted on 09/08/2001 8:03:28 PM PDT by jude24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: jude24, Uriel1975
Why do you think his analysis is a crock? I sure don't see any problem for him in John 5:19.
93 posted on 09/08/2001 8:16:30 PM PDT by the_doc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: the_doc
I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God

I had been meaning to talk to you recently about my possible differences with the Calvinist in this area. I want you to know that this verse has consummed me for 2 days now. Thank you brother.

My eyes have been opened up to see something which is very nearly the opposite of what everybody has told me this verse means. Stupid me for not checking before now.

Deuteronomy 30:6, Jeremiah 24:7, Ezekiel 11:19-20, 36:26-27

Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God,.... It pleased God to reveal His Son in me.

Thou hast turned for me my mourning into dancing; Thou hast put off my sackcloth and girded me with gladness, to the end that my glory may sing praise to Thee and not be silent. O LORD my God, I will give thanks unto Thee for ever.

94 posted on 09/08/2001 9:40:03 PM PDT by CCWoody (More verse in this area please!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration cc: the_doc
I still haven't gotten an answer about Cornelius. Was he saved at Acts.10:2 or not?

Apart from the fact that I did answer this, I'll say it this way; a way which I doubt you will understand.

John 3:3 LOUDLY proclaims the answer and LOUDLY shredds your view of Ephesians 2:8......

Hey, doc, this is getting funnier with each post.

The Bible ssays that me are blessed who seek God, 'with their whole heart'(Psa.119:2)

I'll answer 1 more: Yes, men who seek God are blessed. But you don't know how they are blessed to seek God. You don't have a clue; really, you don't.

95 posted on 09/08/2001 9:53:31 PM PDT by CCWoody (This is side splitting funny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
Woody there is a difference between total depravity and depravity.

Ok, if you say so. But fortheDeclaration has the right words. Really, he does. He just doesn't believe what he himself has posted:

Depravity means that a chasm has been created where man, born into sin and therefore spiritually dead cannot do anything to please God. --- fortheDeclaration
Don't you believe that God must create in man the capability to respond to the Free Gift? Even drot believes this.
96 posted on 09/08/2001 9:59:49 PM PDT by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

Comment #97 Removed by Moderator

To: peg the prophet
If you are truly a Christian, then you know about already being in God's presence and other than seeing the promises in the Bible fulfilled, there is nothing else to live for. - peg the prophet
98 posted on 09/08/2001 10:22:12 PM PDT by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: CCWoody
To CCWoody-Depravity means that man is helpless and needs to be saved. He cannot do anything to save himself.

Thus, God must initiate (Gen.3:15), offer the free gift (Rom.5:15) which man must take in order to be saved(Jn.16:9)

Now, what part of that process is it you do not understand?

Is it because you think that taking the gift is 'good' and thereby something that 'pleases God'?

It is the 'gift' that pleases God so that the taker of the gift becomes identified with the giver(2Cor.5:17)

Even so, come Lord Jesus

99 posted on 09/09/2001 2:14:46 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: CCWoody
To CCWoody-God has created in man the capability to respond to God,it is called the will! The will is not destroyed by the Fall, it still makes choices. After the Fall man was given a conscience (Gen.3:10,Rom.1:19-20)

That conscience is darkened (Jn.3:19) but can make a choice to believe when the light shines into the soul (2Cor.4:6)

By the way, was Cornelius who was a 'devout man' saved or not?

Even so, come Lord Jesus

100 posted on 09/09/2001 2:25:07 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-204 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson