Mike wrote: But either God ordained the prevention, or he did not. If he did, why the fuss? If he did not, why the thought that God ordains everything that comes to pass?
Bro, there is no doubt in my mind, and I will prove this conclusively later on, that every single event, whether we call it evil or good, is ultimately "of the Lord".
Now your argument is, that IF this is true, THEN God was the ultimate cause of the prevention of the committing of a crime, let us say, the killing by a gunman during a church service of several members of the church. Therefore, IF that is the case, THEN it must be that arming members of the church and training them in killing a shooter coming in the church building, is perfectly justifiable and there is no sin involved except in the gunman.
1. Have I portrayed your argument correctly, in every detail?
2. Do you yourself believe your argument, or are you arguing against Calvin's quote?
3. Are you saying that there would be no spiritual or mental consequence for the man or woman who fired the bullet which killed the gunman?
Bro US, thank you for your post, and I will try to answer. Note, an actual example:
"Mike, my own opinion on this dilemma is that in order to argue with Adriel from his own theological position, you obviously would have to understand his theological position, or you will end up arguing a strawman to no avail."
Is this what you mean? If not, I will inevitably end up building mine own strawman. The onus is on you to be clear and concise in what you are saying. Is this example suitable? If so, I will use it to show you exactly what I'm saying, and why Mike was building a strawman to knock down again. It's up to you bro. If it is not suitable, please give me one example which is suitable and we can look at it and dissect it. Thanks.
B. McCausland wrote: In Ulster at least, people have a vague idea of who are we talking about when using the terms 'Bible believing born again Christian'...
Yes the problem is that simplicity in Christ is being replaced by complexity in Christ. Some Christians describe themselves as "Baptist (1644 rather than the 1689 Confession), creationist, non-charismatic, non-ecumenical, cessationist, evangelical and born again Bible believer, premillennialist (of the Spurgeon type, that is, unsure, but still holding loosely to it in case I am wrong), Psalms Only in Sunday morning worship, but Hymns in the Evening Gospel service so that we can sing Bringing In The Sheaves and What a Friend We Have in Jesus, multiple elders but no cardinals, one pastor at a time, no women preachers or church officers, no collections but offertory box at the rear of the sanctuary as per biblical warrant (from the Temple), all sermons to be 30-45 minutes long, no cushions in the pews lest people fall asleep, women not to pray in the prayer meeting, and all men must stand up to pray!"
And if I can't find a church which ticks all those boxes, I WON'T GO TO CHURCH!
B. McCausland wrote: John, your theory sounds prime, but reality is not as simple. Most of the news mentioning 'Christian' 90% of the times or more means RC, as probably is this case, which is a vast difference from what we understand as to be a Biblical Christian. And as for being a 'follower of Jesus', even this is vague, as any devout RC trusting in the rosary, praying to Mary and relying on masses thinks him/herself as followers also. The ambiguity is vast. It is worth to define faith even if it might take extra terms or sentences to present the identity, which indirectly provides opportunity to witness by the Word contrasting true from false belief. A useful term nowadays might be a bible believing born again Christian
I know the problem sister, and of course there is vagueness and ambiguity. But even Anglicans can say they are "born again" because that happened at their christening. Before JW's adopted their new name, they were called Bible Students (KJV) and they would call themselves Bible believers. But neither Anglicans nor JW's are following Jesus.
The only people who can follow Jesus are those who know him and hear his voice calling them. These are sheep, elect and precious to him.
Quiet Christian, thank you for telling me eight times.
I've downloaded the pdf on just war theory. It is 87 pages and couched in rather highbrow scholar-style language, which I might find difficult, being, as it says, a bridge builder between the military and academia. However, I will try to slowly go through it, maybe even have it as a winter project. Thank you.
Question 2 WSC is a good answer to a good question, but does not give any idea as to what to do if scripture is unclear or silent. I think my word/Word principle is far better. If you look into this, especially asking missioners, you will find they used this principle, but never said so in case they were accused of some form of mysticism.
Mike wrote: Tongue in cheek? While his words convey God ordains everything that comes to pass, yet Adriel fusses over someone preventing a criminal from committing a crime. The prevention must therefore, to him, conflict with God's will. But either God ordained the prevention, or he did not. If he did, why the fuss? If he did not, why the thought that God ordains everything that comes to pass? Unless of course, like so many words here, everything does not mean everything. Methinks Adriel should be able to answer this for himself. Or at least question where the application of ones conclusions might lead.
Mike, my own opinion on this dilemma is that in order to argue with Adriel from his own theological position, you obviously would have to understand his theological position, or you will end up arguing a strawman to no avail.
I had this problem myself with J4, who vainly imagined he could argue with those who held a calvinistic viewpoint, not by virtue of personal knowledge, but by what he'd been taught in Yee Ha style, where mocking the theology wins the day, and that is all you need.
It must work the other way round as well. You must smile when some try to debate you despite ignorance of your beliefs.
The Quiet Christian wrote: And good afternoon, Brother John. There is a doctrine called which defines whether or not a war is just. It has been a key cornerstone of American foreign policy for many, many decades. ...
Hello bro, I'm just turning in, but if you could please explain what the above means, I would greatly appreciate it.
Amen Christopher, I am completely the same as you on this, because there is no biblical warrant for a denomination, and there is biblical instruction not to hold men in such high esteem as to cause division in the church. "I am of Paul, I am of Apollos etc."
Rather, it was simply, the church at Corinth, the church in Ephesus. They all had to get on with each other. Today we can't seem able to do that, so we split off and form yet another denomination, so there are now hundreds, thousands of splintered groups, all claiming to follow Christ. I find that very sad, very sad.
Frank wrote: To build on your points, I believe the closer we get to the return of Christ, we will see even more of these false churches uniting. One day it will not be permissible for a genuine church of our Lord to even fellowship publicly. Luke 18:8 I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth? Hope your day will be blessed brother.
Thank you brother. I have believed for some years that what we know as the ecumenical movement is a work of Satan and is filling up with - as you say - false churches. I do not see how any Christian or Christian church can possibly belong to such an obviously apostate movement, except it be sheer lack of discernment, or by being bowled over with lovey dovey sentimentality and desire to see the Christian church in the ascendancy by numbers.
I myself will have to remain aloof from such people, holding firmly to the fundamentals of the word of God, including 6 day creation, the theme of the whole Bible being redemption of sinners by the blood of Christ, his resurrection and ascension, and justification through faith alone, alone, alone in Jesus Christ alone.
Frank wrote: Brother John, There are few issues that I won‚Äôt argue in scripture, but the millennial is one of them. As you say John, people who say they take things literally differ from others who say the same thing. I am pre-millennial and my position is built around the fact that a 1,000 year period is noted over and over again. But, there are criticisms of this that I cannot answer. Lastly, I am correct!
Pilgrim, I can't say how glad I am that you are correct!
Amen Tim, I am glad to know you are heartened not disheartened by our convo. I am heartened too, bro. Here is what we studied in meeting today, and I'll break off here for a rest, as it was another long meeting.
Matthew 11:25-27 KJV (25)¬† At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. (26)¬† Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight. (27)¬† All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.
The thing is, are we of the "wise and prudent" or are we of the "babes"?
Notice that at this point, God the Father was Lord of heaven and earth. And in Matthew 28, Jesus says that all authority is given unto him (God the Son) in heaven and in earth . Temporarily, mind.
Dr. Tim wrote: I would be very interested in learning ‚Äúthe errors of...premillennialism.‚ÄĚ So far I haven‚Äôt run across any. If Revelation 20 is not to be taken literally, then why should Revelation 22?
Doctor, we are both biblical literalists, and we both know as literalists that literally not all things in the Bible are to taken literally. Of this I am absolutely certain, and I can furnish you with a text to start you off, if you disagree with that.
We have both studied the Bible over many years, and you have believed the doctrines known as premillennialism, and I have believed the doctrines known as amillennialism. In your scheme there are difficulties, and in my scheme there are difficulties. When you look at the difficulties in your scheme you say, "I still believe in premillennialism," and when I look at the difficulties in my scheme, I say, "I still believe in amillennialism."
You say to me, "Study the word, John, and all will become clear."
I say to you, "Study the word, Tim, and all will become clear."
Christopher000 wrote: 1. Always a good example (referring to Bro US).
2. Speaking of examples...the one curiosity I've had is why not a single one of any of the hypothetical, but real world examples we've posed over the course of time, have gone fully unanswered.
1. Well, usually!
2. Your question bro is a contradiction in terms. However, I get your drift, and am amazed that you have chosen to ignore my answer, which gives clarity of thought as to what to do in any (repeat ANY) situation or circumstance. No matter how many examples of real life circumstances are posted, this one principle will serve them all.
I hope that satisfies your curiosity.
My curiosity is why you ignore my answer when I give it, and then say, triumphantly, "No-one has YET answered the question!" as if to say, "No-one CAN answer the question!" or no-one WILL answer the question!"
What's the point in me providing answers if they go ignored?
Mike NY, your tongue-in-cheek Q.E.D. statement is not valid. You do not believe that, so why not say what you DO believe about God's sovereignty? It may turn out to be helpful and edifying, which is what we must all aim at. Thank you bro.