Adelphos wrote:
Dr. Phil,
These posts are topic specific, so I am not speaking outside of the given topic.
If you want to talk about the Deity of Christ, salvation by grace through faith, or any other aspects of soteriology, we can do that on another thread.
What is quite disturbing is the ongoing aspects of bearing false witness by those who are proclaiming their love for Christ and His Gospel. These sins of assuming and accusing people of actions and/or basic theology heretics are not based upon fact, but unfounded false opinions. Jesus Himself said, "Judge with righteous judgment".
One of the problems with the Pharisees was placing the demands of the tradition of men over against the Law. Perhaps it is important for one to compare their own traditions compared to the clear consistent teaching of God's Word!

Adelphos wrote:
Minnow
1. Christian Polygyny Families were in the NT Church. This information is supported by many scholars. Read for example, Jay Adams on Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage. . . .
5. Jesus said that one should never delete anything from the Law. God used polygynous men to carry out His most important work. He never condemns polygny anywhere, yet he condemns harlotry and adultery, and marrying ungoldy spouses. The Bible tells us that the Law is good, perfect, and spiritual. The Bible gives us the defintion of sin in 1 John: Lawlessness. So, unless you can show that the Law condemns polygyny, it is a allowable practice and is not considered sin by Bible standards.

Adelphos wrote:
However, it is a contradiction the words of Jesus, and Jesus would not teach something that contradicts Himself.
Go look up the wored "one" in 1 Timothy. It may be translated "first" or even as "a". This would agree with the Words of Jesus concerning not taking away from the Law and agree with the entire Old Testament - this is a consistant hermeneutic.
Progressive revelation will never contradict previous revelation unless it also supplies reasons.

John_for_Christ wrote:
I'm sure you feel pretty smart finding what you feel are "logical fallacies" in everything, but logical fallacies are generally of limited use except in formal debate. In real life, logical fallacies are wrong more often than right. Statistics are more often right.
You call the Patriarchs sinful, but you don't specify why.
You also go into this bass-ackwards. Everything is "lawful" that isn't prohibited, not the other way around. God doesn't have to commend something in order for it to be good. Only the things He condemns are wrong.

The patriarchs were sinful men with like passions such as us. And like us they were saved by grace through faith in Christ alone, because there is not another way to salvation. John 14:6

WSG wrote:
That interpretation of 1 Tim. 3:2 (is very debatable.)

John_for_Christ wrote:
Are you aware that women outnumber men by about 2-5%? Where are the husbands for all those extra women?
Everyone can BELIEVE that polygamy is a good and righteous form of marriage WITHOUT ENTERING INTO POLYGAMY.
I'm not a polygamist, but I have polygamist Christian brothers in Africa and even a few here in America.

Adelphos wrote:
Dr. Phil,
Shame! Shame!
1. The Scripture does not tell us that all the practicing polygamists were living in sin. This is speculation!
2. You contradict yourself by saying that all polygamists should be shot, yet, proclaim that Abraham, Mose and David (polygamists) are great men.
3. I understand if you cannot handle more than one wife. Some men cannot handle too much.
4. I suppose that you think Solomon was an illegitmate son too? Afterall, David was married to many women when he took Bathsheba as a wife!

It is not contradiction to say that NT believers enjoy a clearer revelation of the will of God than OT saints. The Apostle Paul by the Spirit of God tells us that an elder of the church should be "the husband of ONE WIFE". (1 Tim. 3:2) Yet, the cultic Mormons falsely teach their followers polygamy as a qualification for elders. Now, lets talk about contradiction.

Casob wrote:
Dr Phil wrote
"Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel." Rom. 9:6
___
Rogerant wrote
My point is: "His" sheep are the "Real Israel" Those O.T. and N.T. Saints whom God in eternity past, through soverign grace, predestined into the body of Christ
___
So Dr Phil has not been clued in that they ARE all Israel who are of the real Israel as rogerant says??? Who are the others? Dogs? As DJC49 seems to say?
I think we can work through this with all of us working together.
Bernard, can you help us please?

No surprise here.

KK wrote:
Blah...
Do you read yet without HEARING ???
LISTEN !!!
Heb 12:15 Exercise foresight and be on the watch to look [after one another], ***to see that no one falls back from and fails*** to secure God's grace (His unmerited favor and spiritual blessing), in order that no root of resentment (rancor, bitterness, or hatred) shoots forth and causes trouble and bitter torment, and the many become contaminated and defiled by it--
16 That no one ***may become*** guilty of sexual vice, or ***become*** a profane (godless and sacrilegious) person as Esau did, who sold his own birthright for a single meal.
How do you get around that all you Biblical Scholars ??? ------------------ BY IGNORING IT ???
Dead ReLiGiOn has taken hold in America !!! --- and it stinks just like Hillary and Obama !!!
Veritas Vincit !!!
"IN" Christ, KK

Take a close look at Barak's and Hillary's religions. They are Arminian like you. Therefore, you condemn yourself just as a man who does not yet believe is "condemned already".

Your false doctrine presupposes that man by nature has the natural ability to choose what is right. He will not. See 1 Cor.2:14

Casob wrote:
Ohay, DJC49, now we have Israel as being both sheep and dogs, huh. I think I see where you are going with this. Some are sheep and some are dogs and Jesus Christ did not mean he was sent to the lost dogs of the house of Israel, but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, The lost dogs are on their own. This is brilliant with a capital B and I take back my doubts about you being smart. I can say WOW to this. The Dogs of Israel are unelect! Yes, it makes sense! And the other gentleman, (I forget his name) said there is no difference in the house of Israel and the church any way. Have you thought about this? The dogs of the house of Israel are gentiles. No, wait, that can't be because Cornelius was saved and he was a gentile so he must have been a lost sheep of the house of Israel because that is who Jesus said he was sent to. But wait, some sheep did not hear his voice and follow him but they were not dogs and the dogs did not morph into sheep.
I am so confused. Help me here DJC49. I beg you. Please!

Old Time Polygamist wrote:
Polygamy has nothing to do with being a pedophile. Polygamy is between adults. Even if teenage girls were involved, that is a good thing because the sooner we can get them reproducing the more the godly inheritance there are.
Phil there are joys in polygamy for everyone. Join with me and establish a nation of polygamists. Understand there can be horrors in any relationship. The monogamous relationship of Adam and Eve produced Cain and Abel (where Cain killed Abel). I think once you experience polygamy, you will really enjoy it.
2Sa 5:13 And David took him more concubines and wives out of Jerusalem, after he was come from Hebron: and there were yet sons and daughters born to David.

I have a very satisfying and happy relationship with my one wife. I do not want to introduce more problems by adding wives nor children from multiple wives, nor do I wish to divide the inheritance of my children with illegitimate children from adultery.

KK wrote:
WARNING, BEWARE -- man has a CHOICE !!!
KK

Eph. 1:4

Old Time Polygamist wrote:
Polygamy worked in the past and it can work in the future. I look forward to the day when we live like my ancestors did a hundred years ago. Back then Polygamy was just accepted.
As I think about restoring that legacy, I come back to the children. We must establish training schools which promote polygamy.
I am not here to argue about Mormonism. I have not added to the book of Revelation, neither do I intent to. I am here to announce a new order of polygamy that we must establish.
1Ch 14:3 And David took more wives at Jerusalem: and David begat more sons and daughters.

Old Time Polygamist wrote:
We need to teach our children to accept polygamy as a way of life. Teach them that it doesn't have to be something of inequality. Teach them that it is good.
Exodus 21:10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.

What does this have to do with the gospel? Also, given your location, and your advocacy of polygamy, I am wondering what your thoughts are on 1 Jn. 4:3 "And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of anti-christ, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world".

son of Oak wrote:
. . .Try as you might and convince me he actually stoned the adulteress when actually he defended her to her accusers. He didn't need to tell her something she was already fully aware of.

Minnow wrote:
Just out of curiosity,
The western nations are more and more accepting and legalising this abomination, in accordance with your decision are you also boycotting your homeland???

Interesting question. However, given time and if the Lord removes his grace entirely, the Barney Franks, Rosey O'Donalds, will gain more popularity and power to fill the vacuum. Driven by their insatiable reprobate minds, they will either boycott us . . . or kill us. For a Biblical example of the homosexual mind and consequent behavior see Gen. 19:9

"But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut the door.
And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door." Gen. 19:10-11

son of Oak wrote:
What precedent? For starters how we treat homosexuals as the worst of sinners. . . . The original comment had to do with how ridiculous I think boycotts are in making a statement and how counterproductive it is to our evangelism. For this I was confronted and accused of licentious papal doctrine. (How about that Moderator?)
I think God is the final authority not the Apostles. . . .

I would like to correct your statement here. Your original comment had more to do with this discussion than merely boycotting McDonalds. Let's recap what you said:

"Instead of boycotting a business that promotes the "gay agenda" why not befriend a gay or lesbian person. Take them into your home. GET TO KNOW THEM AND LISTEN TO THEIR HURTS AND JOYS AND INTERESTS. Love them."

This is not evangelism. This is a liberal Roman Catholic redefinition of evangelism. To help you better understand, you should first understand what is the gospel. The gospel is not "listen to their joys and hurts". Please read 1 Cor. 15:1-5 lest you preach "another gospel". Gal.1:8

son of Oak wrote:
So, what you're saying then is that the OT is obsolete?
It's ironic to me then that the NT came out of the OT.