 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > WHAT is before the foundation of the world? | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 12/31/2001 3:35 PM (GMT -6) |   | From Chance (rats, the bold didn't copy!),
1 Corinthians 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden [wisdom] which God ordained before the ages for our glory,
Starkman: God had a plan.
Ephesians 1:4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love,
Starkman: God had a plan.
2 Timothy 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called [us] with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
Starkman: God had a plan.
Titus 1:2-3 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began; 3 But hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour;
Starkman: God had a plan.
1 Peter 1:20 He [Christ] indeed was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you
Starkman: God had a plan!
From 1Way,
1 Corinthians 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden [wisdom] which God ordained before the ages for our glory,
Starkman: Plan of God was accomplished in wisdom.
Ephesians 1:4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love,
Starkman: God's plan involved saving people before the foundation of the world.
2 Timothy 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called [us] with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
Starkman: The plan of God was according to His own purpose and grace.
Titus 1:2-3 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began; 3 But hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour;
Starkman: God's plan involved giving eternal life.
1 Peter 1:20 He [=Christ] indeed was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you
Starkman: The plan of God involved a sacrifice (as if God didn't know that sooner or later someone was going to choke, big time, on the free choice given to us).
God had a plan...before the foundation of the world!
Starkman
p.s. No derogatory remarks here towards Chance or 1Way - I just thought I'd work with what they had done in those first two posts. 
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 1/1/2002 3:56 PM (GMT -6) | | 
Starkman – I didn’t find your post to be very enlightening concerning the discussion’s line of inquiry. quote:
WHAT is before the foundation of the world?
... we should identify what exactly God did ordain before the foundation of the world.
Is there a common bond between these passages? Do they all refer to the same thing?
As to quote:
Starkman: The plan of God involved a sacrifice (as if God didn't know that sooner or later someone was going to choke, big time, on the free choice given to us).
God had a plan...before the foundation of the world!
Starkman
p.s. No derogatory remarks here towards Chance or 1Way - I just thought I'd work with what they had done in those first two posts.
Sometimes folks use “as if” to show doubt instead belief. Are you suggesting that God did not have any knowledge, not even theoretical knowledge, that sooner or later someone was going to sin? That doesn’t make sense since He planned to save people from their sins before the foundation of the world. Please explain what you meant.
The following conclusion is remarkably, ,,, true. Did it take much effort?
Quoting Starkman.
“God had a plan... before the foundation of the world!”
End quote.
Thanks for the lack of derogatory remarks. How, generous.
This is chance’s thread and I’m still looking forward to his follow-up suggestions.
1way
Edited by - 1way on 01/01/2002 8:59:50 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/1/2002 5:07 PM (GMT -6) | | 1way, when I said in a post above, that "There ARE many positive things in your posts, 1way. (The negativisms make answering you hard.)", the "negativisms" I spoke of are like those you just posted:
1way: I didn’t find your post to be very enlightening concerning the discussion’s line of inquiry
1way: Did it take much effort?
1way: How, generous.
Remember, I've done this too! But when you (1) don't like being cast in a negative light--as you've expressed, and (2) engage in expressing such hot-button topics as captical punishment...such "negativisms" become the soundtrack to what you are saying--as in a movie.
You asked about why people take you that way. Here is why!
For consideration: Proverbs 12:25.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 1/1/2002 11:03 PM (GMT -6) | | POW – It wasn’t enlightening concerning the discussion’s line of inquiry. And there’s nothing negative about a constructive observation, not even constructive criticism. The other two remarks from my extremely light chastisement was humor and mild sarcasm, very mild. There is nothing wrong with a little levity especially when the reason for the occasion need no negative remarks to see it’s negativity. Calling the kettle black does not make the kettle black. The problem is not me with observing something that is less than desirable, the problem is faulting me for hoping for better. Despite your judgment against me and my words, I remain in the hope for better. There is nothing wrong in hoping for better, hope is a good thing, it’s not a negative.
As to quote:
(1) don't like being cast in a negative light--as you've expressed.
Wrong, I don’t like being lied about and abused, as to some light hearted humor and mild sarcasm, bring it on. As to quote:
and (2) engage in expressing such hot-button topics as capital punishment...such "negativisms" become the soundtrack to what you are saying--as in a movie.
Hot button topics as capital punishment. ? ! ? The death penalty is a huge Christian tenant, it’s at the heart of Christian evangelism and the gospel message itself. You might want to paint God’s most righteous and loving teachings as negativisms, but I simply allow them to mean what they really mean. As to quote:
You asked about why people take you that way. Here is why!
I don’t think I did. But I do wonder why folks like you weed out a gnat and swallow a camel. You seek to find badness from things that are fine. Christian morality and offense is not subject to personal re-interpretation. We are all objectively bound to the same rules of conduct. Folks tried to rail against Jesus for being bad, but He wasn’t bad just because of their errant subjective perspective. But thanks for the heads up, I do appreciate understanding things better, even though I don’t appreciate misunderstandings that are constantly based in subjective grudges.
Get biblical and like I have already suggested, examine how the death penalty is a very righteous and loving message, it's patently not a “negative” message. And I don't think I could have been any more mild in my light chastisement for spending so much effort to present almost nothing productive concerning the discussion's line of inquiry. So unless you are ready to rule out all chastisement that is alleviated with a little humor, I suggest that you become a bit more gracious and start judging from a different vantage point. If all you hoped for was better from me, then I’ll take that for what it’s worth and ask you to follow up on my repeated suggestions to understand/discuss the bible teachings that teach that the death penalty is at the heart of two of the most loving and righteous teachings ever, and then respond to “that” in a positive way instead of so much supposed (or projected) negativity.
1way
Edited by - 1way on 01/02/2002 2:01:07 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/2/2002 5:39 AM (GMT -6) | | 1way: there’s nothing negative about a constructive observation, not even constructive criticism.
PoW: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. When one teaches students, or does sales, one learns that constructive criticism is negative if the hearer THINKS/FEELS that it is -- its all subjective, and the customer is always right. No matter what we may think!
1way: "The death penalty is a huge Christian tenant, it’s at the heart of Christian evangelism and the gospel message itself."
PoW: ?????????????????????????????????????????
Will you, then, add it to the Creeds?
Go in peace. | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 1/2/2002 9:20 AM (GMT -6) | | POW – (Giggling) Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I agree. Some like myself appreciate the unadulterated word of God as spiritual food for eternal bliss. And some disregard Godly teaching as negative. I don’t care about so much subjective personal opinion, objective truth matters, whether it makes me popular or opposed, that does not matter to me if the truth is sacrificed just to receive personal approval. I get solace from the ministrations from the HS for obeying Him according to His truth. The absolute eternal spiritual truth is worth the hassle, negatives and all.
(Chuckling out loud) Manmade creeds? (lol) I see you are attempting humor and irony with me. (lol) Very good, very funny. I find the truth is sufficient, man made tradition is not where it’s at.
Do you deny that the death penalty is at the heart of evangelism (times eternity), and that the death penalty is at the heart of the gospel message unto salvation (times eternity)? Please, stop neglecting God’s word and honoring manmade traditions, allow scripture it’s God given authority and truth. Heavenly truth is uplifting like no other.
(laughing) Creeds! (lol) Your positively good.
1way
Edited by - 1way on 01/02/2002 2:23:55 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/2/2002 11:01 AM (GMT -6) | | 1Way,
Starkman – I didn’t find your post to be very enlightening concerning the discussion’s line of inquiry.
Starkman: Oh, hey, that's fine. I understand.
Sometimes folks use “as if” to show doubt instead belief. Are you suggesting that God did not have any knowledge, not even theoretical knowledge, that sooner or later someone was going to sin? That doesn’t make sense since He planned to save people from their sins before the foundation of the world. Please explain what you meant.
Starkman:
I meant quite the opposite: I do believe exactly what you were saying. I was pretty sure I made that clear in my post. But yes, I agree with you. That was my point.
You mentioned to POW in after your post to me the following: The problem is not me with observing something that is less than desirable, the problem is faulting me for hoping for better.
I'll have to say, 1Way, that you're intelligent and could contribute a lot more to these posts if you weren't so caustic, sarcastic and constantly attacking people rather then their views. I agree completely with POW in his statements to you regarding your attitude in these posts. I don't say this to put you down personally, only to affirm POW's convictions from another on-looker. Hardly anyone else on this board posts so caustically or sarcastically or in an attack mode towards people in their posts. Mephi is very passionate, but it's descernable. One other, since I've been on the board, has been accused of this caustic attitude, but that's all I've seen so far.
1Way, you're intelligent, you're smart and have a lot to offer on these posts, but it's my opinion that you make it so difficult to engage in conversation because you always end up attacking the persons instead of just having a good time learning with the rest of us. It's very, very clear that this is the case.
Again, hey, we all have our issues, we all have our faults. This isn't a "let's bash 1Way", it's just a confirmation from another viewer of what POW's saying.
Talk with us, share with us, help us in the conversations, too, but avoid at all costs, if you can, 1Way, of statements that aim at the person. Maybe you're not even aware that it's coming across that way, but it's been confirmed now by another viewer. And quite frankly, I'd much rather look forward to seeing what you have to say (so that I, too, can learn) then to think that the post will be tainted with personal attacks. That just knocks the wind right out of the enjoyment of the posts, and then I miss learning what you're offering on the posts.
Thanks,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 1/2/2002 11:28 AM (GMT -6) | | Starkman – I realize very clearly my tack in life. I for one have no problem being judgmental if the situation calls for it. I care very little if I am personally rejected on account of my demeanor, although interpersonal rejection is the last of my goals. I honor the truth instead of honoring my social status.
The fact is that being vile or hypocritical or ill willed, or just somewhat provocatively unproductive is worse that being called the same.
Stop focusing on what is superficial, the outward appearance, judge rightly. – Jesus.
As to quote:
Talk with us, share with us, help us in the conversations, too, but avoid at all costs, if you can, 1Way, of statements that aim at the person.
Look, I’d rather obey God and His ways, which allow me to be as I have been.
But if it would prove helpful to allow you (non-judgmental) folks to engage in spiritual truth from the word of God, I would respect such conditional acceptance as a conditional peace offering from apparently your conditional love and concern. As long as I can still be witty and joyous and personal (in a productive way).
I also don’t like personal attacks, unless they are redemptive and true. Then, they are fine with me. Hitler was a bad and evil person, I personally condemn him. If you agree, then shouldn’t we adjust our thinking accordingly, some moderation allowed. As to quote:
That just knocks the wind right out of the enjoyment of the posts, and then I miss learning what you're offering on the posts.
Being exposed for a short coming usually isn’t enjoyable, that is why I tried to joke a little. You were actually demonstrate sarcasm in your life instead of using what you might call caustic words, that is a worse reality than me attempting slight humor while calling you for it.
***
***
If you and yours would acknowledge that being offensive is just as bad if not worse than calling someone on the carpet for being that way,
then I will acknowledge and respect your desire for a focus on God’s word instead of personal attacks.
***
***
1Way
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/2/2002 11:44 AM (GMT -6) | | The Holy Spirit is the paraklete. The Holy Spirit guides the Church into all truth. Sometimes the Church's path is hard. But Christ's promise is that even the gates of hades will not triumph against Her--the Church, His Body.
quote:
1way: (Chuckling out loud) Manmade creeds? (lol) I see you are attempting humor and irony with me. (lol) Very good, very funny. I find the truth is sufficient, man made tradition is not where it’s at.
Here is the professed truth (Creed) so far.
What would YOU add or subtact?
quote:
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages. Light of Light; true God of true God; begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man. And He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried. And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead; whose Kingdom shall have no end.
And [we believe] in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets. In one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
Amen! | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 1/2/2002 12:13 PM (GMT -6) | | POW – I don’t know the reason for this creed. But I do know the reason we have been discussing the bible’s teaching of the death penalty. So in relation to that ongoing discussion, the creed said. quote:
And He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried.
My point about the death penalty was concerning biblical evangelism and the gospel unto salvation. So I would have to add more than Jesus was crucified “for” us. Jesus died as a replacement of our just punishment of death. And that the first step in evangelism is to convey the need for a savior, because without Jesus as your personal savior, you will die a second death as a just punishment for your unforgiven and unrepentant sins.
As to quote:
And [we believe] in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets. In one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
The latter statement is quite open ended and parallels the “belief in God” statement. I “believe in” God and I “believe in” the church, but I would never present those two beliefs without qualification that God is over the church and that my faith in the so called church is from God not the leading of a manmade tradition. Nor would I name such a manmade institution as a denomination in such a broad statement of faith as being paralleled to the broad statement of “faith in” God. Plainly, I’d remove the following all together. quote:
In one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
Lets not focus on manmade precepts, can’t we all just open God’s word and share in His truth instead. Maybe I’ll just have to start developing selective hearing or something.
1way
Edited by - 1way on 01/02/2002 5:16:28 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/2/2002 1:17 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
quote:
... In one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church ...
Church as a word means those called as a particular people to perform a particular task. The Christian Church is the assembly of God's chosen people called to keep his word and to do his will and his work in the world and in the heavenly kingdom.
In the Scriptures the Church is called the Body of Christ (Rom 12; 1 Cor 10, 12; Col 1) and the Bride of Christ (Eph 5; Rev 21). It is likened as well to God's living Temple (Eph 2; 1 Pet 2) and is called "the pillar and bulwark of Truth" (1 Tim 3:15).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One Church
The Church is one because God is one, and because Christ and the Holy Spirit are one. There can only be one Church and not many. And this one Church, because its unity depends on God, Christ, and the Spirit, may never be broken. Thus, according to Orthodox doctrine, the Church is indivisible; men may be in it or out of it, but they may not divide it.
According to Orthodox teaching, the unity of the Church is man's free unity in the truth and love of God. Such unity is not brought about or established by any human authority or juridical power, but by God alone. To the extent that men are in the truth and love of God, they are members of His Church.
Orthodox Christians believe that in the historical Orthodox Church there exists the full possibility of participating totally in the Church of God, and that only sins and false human choices (heresies) put men outside of this unity. In non-Orthodox Christian groups the Orthodox claim that there are certain formal obstacles, varying in different groups, which, if accepted and followed by men, will prevent their perfect unity with God and will thus destroy the genuine unity of the Church (e.g., the papacy in the Roman Church).
Within the unity of the Church man is what he is created to be and can grow for eternity in divine life in communion with God through Christ in the Holy Spirit. The unity of the Church is not broken by time or space and is not limited merely to those alive upon the earth. The unity of the Church is the unity of the Blessed Trinity and of all of those who live with God: the holy angels, the righteous dead, and those who live upon the earth according to the commandments of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Holy Church
The Church is holy because God is holy, and because Christ and the Holy Spirit are holy. The holiness of the Church comes from God. The members of the Church are holy to the extent that they live in communion with God.
Within the earthly Church, people participate in God's holiness. Sin and error separate them from this divine holiness as it does from the divine unity. Thus, the earthly members and institutions of the Church cannot be identified as such with the Church as holy.
The faith and life of the Church on earth is expressed in its doctrines, sacraments, scriptures, services, and saints which maintain the Church's essential unity, and which can certainly be affirmed as "holy" because of God's presence and action in them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catholic Church
The Church is also catholic because of its relation to God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit. The word catholic means full, complete, whole, with nothing lacking. God alone is full and total reality; in God alone is there nothing lacking.
Sometimes the catholicity of the Church is understood in terms of the Church's universality throughout time and space. While it is true that the Church is universal -- for all men at all times and in all places -- this universality is not the real meaning of the term "catholic" when it is used to define the Church. The term "catholic" as originally used to define the Church (as early as the first decades of the second century) was a definition of quality rather than quantity. Calling the Church catholic means to define how it is, namely, full and complete, all-embracing, and with nothing lacking.
Even before the Church was spread over the world, it was defined as catholic. The original Jerusalem Church of the apostles, or the early city-churches of Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, or Rome, were catholic. These churches were catholic -- as is each and every Orthodox church today -- because nothing essential was lacking for them to be the genuine Church of Christ. God Himself is fully revealed and present in each church through Christ and the Holy Spirit, acting in the local community of believers with its apostolic doctrine, ministry (hierarchy), and sacraments, thus requiring nothing to be added to it in order for it to participate fully in the Kingdom of God.
To believe in the Church as catholic, therefore, is to express the conviction that the fullness of God is present in the Church and that nothing of the "abundant life" that Christ gives to the world in the Spirit is lacking to it (Jn 10:10). It is to confess exactly that the Church is indeed "the fullness of him who fills all in all" (Eph 1:23; also Col 2:10).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apostolic Church
The word apostolic describes that which has a mission, that which has "been sent" to accomplish a task.
Christ and the Holy Spirit are both "apostolic" because both have been sent by the Father to the World. It is not only repeated in the Scripture on numerous occasions how Christ has been sent by the Father, and the Spirit sent through Christ from the Father, but it also has been recorded explicitly that Christ is "the apostle ... of our confession" (Heb 3:1).
As Christ was sent from God, so Christ Himself chose and sent His apostles. "As the Father has sent me, even so I send you ... receive ye the Holy Spirit," the risen Christ says to His disciples. Thus, the apostles go out to the world, becoming the first foundation of the Christian Church.
In this sense, then, the Church is called apostolic: first, as it is built upon Christ and the Holy Spirit sent from God and upon those apostles who were sent by Christ, filled with the Holy Spirit; and secondly, as the Church in its earthly members is itself sent by God to bear witness to His Kingdom, to keep His word and to do His will and His works in this world.
Orthodox Christians believe in the Church as they believe in God and Christ and the Holy Spirit. Faith in the Church is part of the creedal statement of Christian believers. The Church is herself an object of faith as the divine reality of the Kingdom of God given to men by Christ and the Holy Spirit; the divine community founded by Christ against which "the gates of hell shall not prevail" (Mt 16:18).
The Church, and faith in the Church, is an essential element of Christian doctrine and life. Without the Church as a divine, mystical, sacramental, and spiritual reality, in the midst of the fallen and sinful world there can be no full and perfect communion with God. The Church is God's gift to the world. It is the gift of salvation, of knowledge and enlightenment, of the forgiveness of sins, of the victory over darkness and death. It is the gift of communion with God through Christ and the Holy Spirit. This gift is given totally, once and for all, with no reservations on God's part. It remains forever, until the close of the ages: invincible and indestructible. Men may sin and fight against the Church, believers may fall away and be separated from the Church, but the Church itself, the "pillar and bulwark of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15) remains forever.
... [God] has put all things under His [Christ's] feet and has made Him the head over all things for the Church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.
... for through Him we ... have access in one Spirit, to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow-citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.
... Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for her, that he might sanctify her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present the Church to Himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish ... This is a Great Mystery ... Christ and the Church ... (Eph 1:21-23; 2:19-22; 5:25-32).
Glad you asked.
Edited by - potonwheel on 01/03/2002 12:15:17 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/2/2002 3:46 PM (GMT -6) | | 1Way,
I realize very clearly my tack in life. I for one have no problem being judgmental if the situation calls for it.
And there it is, 1Way: where did you ever get the idea that this board and its posts were for you to be judgemental towards people here to learn? If you can only seperate the difference between judging what someone has said instead of judging the person on this board for the purpose of a learning-experience discussion, you'd understand where POW and I are coming from.
The fact is that being vile or hypocritical or ill willed, or just somewhat provocatively unproductive is worse that being called the same.
Have no idea where you're coming from here. I merely was pointing out that I agree with POW: you're postings are often beyond the point of this board: you attack people in a caustic, sarcastic and put-down manner. I have no problem, however, when you post your views of Scripture or if you simply disagree with someone and respectively print it as such. That's why we're here, but that's not what you've been doing. Again, it may simply be that you don't see it that way, but your statements like "I have no problem being judgemental" make me believe you do see it. Look, here's a perfect example: you quote me as follows: "Talk with us, share with us, help us in the conversations, too, but avoid at all costs, if you can, 1Way, of statements that aim at the person.", but then you say,
"Look, I’d rather obey God and His ways, which allow me to be as I have been.".
What, 1Way, does this have to do with this board? Obey God and be judgemental to people here to learn? Absolutely wrong and out of place. That's the point I make. I see it every time you post - snide, cut-down (and far from a Biblical, judgmental attitude toward us here trying to learn) and unnecessary personal attacks. We're here to learn!!!
But now I can turn the other way in this discussion:
Being exposed for a short coming usually isn’t enjoyable, that is why I tried to joke a little.
Hey, I agree...if it's NOT ME you're attacking with a shortcoming! Attack my theology you may, and I'll whole heartedly consider what you say (as I said, I think you have a lot to offer). It's never been a problem for anyone to expose someone, or at least think they're exposing. That - is - how - we - learn!
You were actually demonstrate sarcasm in your life instead of using what you might call caustic words, that is a worse reality than me attempting slight humor while calling you for it.
I'm sorry, but you lost me here again.
If you and yours would acknowledge that being offensive is just as bad if not worse than calling someone on the carpet for being that way, then I will acknowledge and respect your desire for a focus on God’s word instead of personal attacks.
Let us agree then to concentrate on God's Word and learn!
Starkman
Edited by - Starkman on 01/03/2002 07:57:07 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/3/2002 7:14 AM (GMT -6) | | 1way asked: "Do you deny that the death penalty is at the heart of evangelism (times eternity), and that the death penalty is at the heart of the gospel message unto salvation (times eternity)?"
Y E S! Y E S! Y E S!
I DENY IT![/center]
Read on.......
(This is in installments, in an e-mag.)
http://www.sprint.net.au/~corners/Jan98/RiverFire.htm
http://www.sprint.net.au/~corners/Mar98/RiverFire2.htm
http://www.sprint.net.au/~corners/May98/RiverFire3.htm
http://www.sprint.net.au/~corners/Jul98/RiverFire4.htm
http://www.sprint.net.au/~corners/Sep98/RiverFire5.htm
http://www.sprint.net.au/~corners/Nov98/RiverFire6.htm
http://www.sprint.net.au/~corners/Jan99/RiverFire7.htm
Read.
Edited by - potonwheel on 01/03/2002 12:26:56 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 1/3/2002 7:27 AM (GMT -6) | | Starkman – I believe and trust Jesus Christ who teaches believers to judge. But, you would rather me obey you and your manmade rules before you will accept me. You say over and over and over against how I am wrong and therein you have been harsh and judgmental against me, all you seem to think about is how bad I am for judging, while also saying that I shouldn’t judge! Your judgment against me is clear. And you say that we shouldn’t judge one another.
John 7:24 "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment."
Matthew 7:5 "Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
Acts 4:19 But Peter and John answered and said to them, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge.
You are acting like a hypocrite.
As to quote:
Let us agree then to concentrate on God's Word and learn!
Gladly, as soon as you can explain what the agreement conditions are. You plainly said several times that you didn’t understand what it meant. You can’t agree to something that you don’t understand. Forgiveness and reconciliation is just a right response away. Your move.
1way
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/3/2002 8:22 AM (GMT -6) | | 1Way,
Okay, let's agree to this: this board is not here for us to judge others. We're here to learn. If someone (you, me or anyone else) has a disagreement with a theological, psychological or any other "cal" position, we should address only it and not the person. This should be done with absolute care and love for all. There's no need for much more than that on this board.
Now, I don't spend any time at other boards because I haven't found any others quite like this one (say, if you know of others, please let me know), so I'm not familiar if other boards get a little more personal. But quite frankly, I don't like it when I'm adressed personally (and I'm refering to anyone) about something I believe. Hey, if I'm wrong, then, as you'd agree 1Way, let's go for the jugular in the Word.
If we can agree to this (not just you and me but all of us on this board), man, we'll be cookin' with gas!
1Way, I love you in the Lord, brother! Let's learn, man! I'm all for that!
For the conversation,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 1/3/2002 12:47 PM (GMT -6) | | Starkman , and all interested parties. - I love you in the Lord also. Your personal change of tack towards me is much appreciated. And I agree about opposing the many times that folks argue by mudslinging and slander and ad hominems. I agree with this attitude of yours, and greatly encourage it. But I still differ about the separation of personal beliefs from the person. Allow me to elucidate. As to quote:
We're here to learn. If someone (you, me or anyone else) has a disagreement with a theological, psychological or any other "cal" position, we should address only it and not the person. This should be done with absolute care and love for all. There's no need for much more than that on this board.
I believe that “if” you are wrong, YOU are wrong. Include me in that you, include everyone. If your wrong, your wrong. There is no separation between what you believe and you. You said that we are learning. Does that mean that YOU aren’t learning, or that YOU are learning? If YOU are learning, then YOU have to admit that you are not right about everything and sometimes learning also means that you are wrong about things that you think you are right about.
Hitler’s thoughts and beliefs were wrong. Isn’t that why we say that Hilter was wrong and evil? Isn’t that why Jesus teaches us to “know them by their fruits”. I searched for fruit*, which gets fruit, and fruits, and fruitful, and in the NT alone, I got 63 occurrences from the NKJV and I don’t know if any of them aren’t concerning the result of a moral deed or situation instead of meaning something like bananas. I doubt it that there would be much more than several occurances that are not moral adjectives.
I agree that you and this crowd, and ever the forum’s creator very well may believe that we are not supposed to judge, but that position is itself a judgment that says that it is therefore wrong to be judgmental. That position is self refuting, it is openly hypocritical. It may be your position, it may be part of the reason for this forum, but it is still wrong.
Now, back to your statement. I agree that there should be little need much more than addressing ideas as right and wrong on this board. But let me show you how sooner or later the fact is that our personal beliefs are connected and we can not really be as clinical as you seem to assume.
Take a foolish belief for example like the belief that God does not exist. I think most bible trusting believers agree that it is foolish to believe that God does not exist. But the Bible calls those who believe such a thing to be a fool.
Psalms 14:1 <> The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God ." ...
Psalms 53:1 <> The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." ...
I could go on an on. Even if the word of God didn’t connect a person’s morality to the person, reality does. Suppose you go up to someone and after hearing their belief in something, you say to them, your belief is foolish. What do wise people normally belief foolish things or wise thing? The person who is told that their belief is foolish, at the same time, they are wrong for believing something that is foolish, and if this error of believing foolish things is a consistent pattern, then it could be said that the person is foolish for their foolishness. What we believe is part of our morality, and our moral makeup is part of who we are. There is no separation between moral beliefs and a person’s morality. Sure, they are different, but they are connected, and so is judgment against either one connected to the other.
Now, if you can accept me for what I believe, even though you may disagree with me, as long as we are all subject to learning as you suggest we are, then you should allow me my belief in righteous judgment and that beliefs are connected to a person even if you only judge the belief. If you disagree with these beliefs, you are welcome to do that, but to say that I can not hold them here, is to say that learning is no longer the goal, you know that I am wrong for my beliefs and will not tolerate me for them.
So, which is it? Learning is why we are hear despite our differences of opinion, may the grace be sufficient for our difficulties, or is my belief in judging not acceptable and you can not “learn” about how it is what God teaches us to judge, personal rejection to all who believe in Godly righteous judgment.
I don’t see any other choice. And as for me, I am very happy to be more theoretical, but I know that the blessings only come when our personal concrete beliefs conform to the truth from God. I don’t want theoretical blessing and learning, I was real genuine meaningful learning and blessing and correction.
As to other Christian forum sites, Bob Hill’s site is great for what I think you might be looking for. It’s not always as busy as some, but he is a very respectful Bible teacher who is largely against my personalized judgmental approach. I have learned great lessons about how a personal and judgmental approach holds downfalls. I believe in judging, but I as for general demeanor and intent, I completely agree with intellectual and peaceful means, I just find judgment to be indispensable to Godly correction. Judgment is employed every time you kindly suggest that someone else is somehow wrong or mistaken. And if you have a Bible question, the two site’s administrators represent a huge repository of study and collective wisdom. You can find it at:
BiblicalAnswers.com
I am a longstanding member of
TheologyOnline.com,
and I am one of the most vocal proponent for the benefits of personalizing theological discussion, including righteous judgment. Over time, I mellowed and moved away from the fringe on that scale towards moderation, but I still believe that it is right to righteously judge. It is a good site, it’s very active, and has the best formatting features that I know of, and my theology is generally like minded to it’s founders, as is also my association to Bob Hill’s site. TheologyOnline is an exciting often self challenging site, you can find just about every single theology represented as well as different religions and philosophies. I recommend each one. I don’t frequent many different sites as I try to support the sites who’s theology I agree with. The two largest distinctions of my theological faith is that I am openness, and I am an Acts 9, 12 out, dispensationalist. And trust me, these three sites that I frequent give me plenty to chew into, both for and against my views.
I believe that Christianity is a relational and intensely moral. It’s not quite so much what we believe now, as much as it is our response to a new Godly truth that tells us we are wrong. Growth can’t happen if all you do is stand on what you are familiar with. Growth can only happen by venturing into our ignorance or our error. If we are not ignorant or wrong, we can never learn and grow. So I for one, welcome differences of opinion over God’s word, because that is the area for the blessing of correction and truth and growth.
For the discussion in hopes of edification. Thanks kindly for your time and consideration.
1way
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 1/3/2002 6:00 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi 1way and Starkman and PoW,
It's too bad we don't all live in the same town. I swear if we all got together over a beer or a glass of wine or a cup of coffee, or whatever is agreeable and non-offensive to all, that more progress could be made in ten minutes than happens in a month on this board. We need to see each other smile and laugh, so we can actually believe that we're not trying to kill each other.
1way, you are right to see that God asks us both to judge and to not judge. Bonhoeffer has the best understanding of this that I have ever read. He talks about spurious (or bad) judgment-- the kind where we are judging our brother as Jesus asks us not to do; and good judgment--which is always an action.
Here is a passage from Bonhoeffer's Ethics. I have posted it before, but I trust that 1way and PoW will not judge me too harshly for repetition, as they themselves are famous re-posters themselves. It is from page 4 of the Homosexuality, Women and Slavery thread. Mephi does a great synopsis of sorts on the next page of that thread, which gives a good idea of what that good judgment (always an action) would look like, if you are interested.
DOING from Bonhoeffer’s Ethics:
It is evident that the only appropriate conduct of men before God is the doing of His will. The Sermon on the Mount is there for the purpose of being done (Matt.7.24). Only in doing can there be submission to the will of God. In doing God’s will man renounces every right and every justification of his own; he delivers himself humbly into the hands of the merciful Judge. If the Holy Scripture insists with great urgency on doing, that is because it wishes to take away from man every possibility of self-justification before God on the basis of his own knowledge of good and evil. The Bible does not wish man’s own deed to be set side by side with the deed of God, even as a thank-offering or sacrifice, but it sets man entirely within the action of God and subordinates human action to God’s action. The error of the Pharisees, therefore, did not lie in their extremely strict insistence on the necessity for action, but rather in their failure to act. ‘They say, and do not do it.’
When the Bible calls for action, it does not refer a man to his own powers but to Jesus Christ himself. ‘Without me ye can do nothing’ (John 15.5). This sentence is to be taken in its strictest sense. There is really no action without Jesus Christ. All the innumerable different activities which in general assume the appearance of action are, in the judgment of Jesus, as though nothing had been done. This saying of Jesus demonstrates more clearly than any other saying in the Bible that all action is entirely bound up with Jesus Christ and no clearer distinction can be drawn than this between true action and all kinds of false action.
Our definitions are designed to ward off possible misunderstandings of the action of which the Bible speaks and to display the peculiar character of this action.
The irreconcilable opposite of action is judgment. ‘He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge’ (Jas.4.11). There are two possible attitudes to the law: judgment and action. The two are mutually exclusive. The man who judges envisages the law as a criterion which he applies to others, and he envisages himself as being responsible for the execution of the law. He forgets that there is only one lawgiver and judge ‘who is able to save and to destroy’ (Jas.4.12). If a man employs his knowledge of the law in accusing or condemning his brother, then in truth he accuses and condemns the law itself, for he mistrusts it and doubts that it possesses the power of the living word of God to establish itself and take effect by itself. In making himself the lawgiver and judge he invalidates the law of God. Hence there arises the irreparable cleavage between knowledge and action. If by his knowledge of the law a man has become the judge of his brother and so eventually of the law itself, then he can no longer perform the law, however much else he may appear to reform. The ‘doer of the law’, unlike the judge, submits to the law; the law never becomes a criterion for him such as he might apply to his brother; the law never confronts him otherwise than in summoning him personally to action. Even when he has to deal with a brother who is at fault, the ‘doer of the law’ has only one possible means of giving effect to the law, and that is by performing it himself. It is precisely in this way that the law is held in honor and is rendered effective, and is acknowledged to be the living word of God which takes effect by its own power and which has no need of human assistance. This does not mean, then, that the doer of the law is content with his own doing and that with a sidelong glance he calls upon God to be the judge of his sinful brother whom he himself is, unfortunately, not permitted to judge. There is really no such sidelong glance here, but there is only conduct which is appropriate to the law of God, namely the doing of the law, and it is only in this exclusive concentration upon one’s own doing of the law, without any other thought in mind, that the law is given its due and is allowed to exercise its power also upon one’s brother. There does not therefore remain, in addition to action or through action, some ultimate possibility of judgment; action is and must continue to be the only possible attitude towards the law of God; any residue of judgment would disrupt this action entirely, and transmute it into false action, into hypocrisy.
Peace, brothers.
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/3/2002 6:40 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/4/2002 11:51 AM (GMT -6) | | 1way and Semeia have seen this on other threads. But for the ontinuity of this one, as a follow up explanation to why I say that I "deny that the death penalty is at the heart of evangelism (times eternity), and that the death penalty is at the heart of the gospel message unto salvation (times eternity)?" (in 1way's words) I wanted to put this here.
It is fine if 1way and I disagree. And it is good to exchange ideas by potting them on the table for each to consider. I'll be trying to stay off the internet for a few weeks -- so OTHERS can discuss this or anything else with him for a while. But IDEAS and BELIEFS are different. (I think that I really agree with 1way that Christianity is really, really about the integration of belief and who we are. He used different words. But perhaps we do agree. But I also agree with Semeia or others that thoughts-under-consideration are also possible. ultimately, though, that integration of belief and self is essential!!!)
Shalom, brother 1way. Shalom!
===========
SO, WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY, SOMETHING THAT I WISH TO "PUT ON THE TABLE."
From: from "The River of Fire--A reply to the questions: Is God really good? Did God create hell"
Now if anyone is perplexed and does not understand how it is possible for God1s love to render anyone pitifully wretched and miserable and even burning as it were in flames, let him consider the elder brother of the prodigal son. Was he not in his fatherís estate? Did not everything in it belong to him? Did he not have his fatherís love? Did his father not come himself to entreat and beseech him to come and take part in the joyous banquet? What rendered him miserable and burned him with inner bitterness and hate? Who refused him anything? Why was he not joyous at his brotherís return? Why did he not have love either toward his father or toward his brother? Was it not because of his wicked, inner disposition? Did he not remain in hell because of that? And what was this hell? Was it any separate place? Were there any instruments of torture? Did he not continue to live in his fatherís house? What separated him from all the joyous people in the house if not his own hate and his own bitterness? Did his father, or even his brother, stop loving him? Was it not precisely this very love which hardened his heart more and more? Was it not the joy that made him sad? Was not hatred burning in his heart, hatred for his father and his brother, hatred for the love of his father toward his brother and for the love of his brother toward his father? This is hell: the negation of love; the return of hate for love; bitterness at seeing innocent joy; to be surrounded by love and to have hate in oneís heart. This is the eternal condition of all the damned. They are all dearly loved. They are all invited to the joyous banquet. They are all living in God1s Kingdom, in the New Earth and the New Heavens. No one expels them. Even if they wanted to go away they could not flee from God1s New Creation, nor hide from God1s tenderly loving omnipresence. Their only alternative would be, perhaps, to go away from their brothers and search for a bitter isolation from them, but they could never depart from God and His love. And what is more terrible is that in this eternal life, in this New Creation, God is everything to His creatures.
His footnotes include:
Death was not inflicted upon us by God.l3 We fell into it by our revolt. God is Life and Life is God. We revolted against God, we closed our gates to His life-giving grace.l4 "For as much as he departed from life," wrote Saint Basil, "by so much did he draw nearer to death. For God is Life, deprivation of life is death."15 "God did not create death," continues Saint Basil, "but we brought it upon ourselves." "Not at all, however, did He hinder the dissolutionÖ so that He would not make the infirmity immortal in us."l6 As Saint Irenaeus puts it: "Separation from God is death, separation from light is darknessÖ and it is not the light which brings upon them the punishment of blindness."l7
Edited by - potonwheel on 01/04/2002 4:52:38 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 1/4/2002 1:00 PM (GMT -6) | | POW – As to quote:
(I think that I really agree with 1way that Christianity is really, really about the integration of belief and who we are. He used different words. But perhaps we do agree. But I also agree with Semeia or others that thoughts-under-consideration are also possible. ultimately, though, that integration of belief and self is essential!!!)
I agree, well said.
Shalom POW
1way
Edited by - 1way on 01/04/2002 6:04:55 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/4/2002 6:26 PM (GMT -6) | | Semeia,
Such a wonderful post!
Oh, and by the way, up until December I lived in Farmington and worked out of Lakeville (Holyoke and 50 - transit bus company)! I moved near the Alexandria area December 21 (well, "near" is a very relative word, you know! I'm somewhere out in nowhere's land. Even God's up there with a map going "Well, I can't find it. Where's this place again?")
Anyway, I thought of getting a hold of you but thought it'd be inappropriate. Wasn't too sure how to approach that one! I see now I should have just emailed you and asked. It'd been cool to find out who else was nearby!
And with regard to the original question for this post, "we should identify what exactly God did ordain before the foundation of the world", I noted "God had a plan" after the researched Scriptures Chance and 1Way gave. I feel that is EXACTLY what God ordianed: a plan; specifically those items which you two most specifically noted.
If there's more to be found, I'm watching to learn!
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 1/5/2002 12:03 PM (GMT -6) | | Starkman, That's too bad that you didn't email me when you lived down here. I think it would be fun someday to have a Discussion Board get-together in the Twin Cities. But since at the moment I'm trying to break my addiction to the board, I'm not going to start planning it...
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 1/7/2002 5:57 PM (GMT -6) | | Semia – And all interested parties. - I will post my response in the thread where you said the Bonhoeffer post resided earlier, since this is off topic here.. quote:
the "Homosexuality, Women and Slavery" thread.
I am still looking for responses there from past discussions.
In Christ,
1way | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bob Hill
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 98
| Posted 3/5/2002 12:38 PM (GMT -6) | | POW,
quote:
(I kind of wonder whether the founders of the Acts-niners got rid of all of their "Calvinistic" presupposition from their formative days--such as one sees in hyper-Calvinists who start schism at the drop of a doctrinal difference. The elevation of arguing doctrine to the level of priority as evangelism on the Acts-nine site hints in this direction. Presuppositions can be tricky. Let each "judge" themselves for themselves. )
I just want to help you with your understanding of Mid-Acts Dispensationalists.
Our denomination started back in the 1920's as a mission. It was called Worldwide Grace Testimony. We have far more churches in Africa, South America, Philippines, Indonesia, Australia, and Europe.
Our purpose for existing is evangelism and missionary work to bring Christ to the world.
The majority of the Mid-Acts Dispensational movement is made up of Calvinists. Most are 4 point Calvinists, but some are 5 pointers. I believe that Hilston is a 5 pointer.
Just a small minority of us are zero point Calvinists. We do believe in eternal security not perseverance of the saints.
In Christ,
Bob Hill
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 3/5/2002 2:44 PM (GMT -6) | | Thanks for the clarification, Bob.
That post was so long ago, I barely remember posting it.
I wonder if you could add one thing though. It looks like I had noticed something, which perhaps it was you that said, and so I wondered the below, as a result of reading on your site. Here is the real question. Can you help with it?
on the Acts-nine site. . . (it) . . .elevation(s) arguing doctrine to the level of priority as evangelism. . . | | Back to Top | | |
| 53 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:19 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|