John UK wrote:
I'm surprised no-one has differentiated between the affections and the emotions; there is the source of the problem.
Psalms only - no music?
Ahem, check out the psalmist himself.

God bless.

Mike wrote:
How does one experience awe, minus the experience or the senses? Could you describe it? I did read the article. Perhaps too quickly, for I found no condemnation of music as such.
He did say this:
"We cannot worship God with our eyes and ears, or nose and hands, for they are “flesh” not “spirit.” “Must worship in spirit and in truth” excludes everything that is of the natural man."
Way too general. Should we assume he never participated in corporate worship? Did he not see anything? Hear anything?
What I find in Pink's writing that is agreeable is, he recognizes that worship is a heart matter, and not the externals people assume are worship. The condition of the heart determines whether that which is done is worship, and only the regenerate can do so.

He continues:

"...Had this lion set upon the prophet for hunger, why did he not devour, as well as kill him? ...Since we know the nature of the lion such, that he is not wont to assail man, save in the extreme want of other prey. Certainly the same power that employed those fangs restrained them, that the world might see it was not appetite that provoked the beast to this violence, but the overruling command of God. Even so, O Lord! thy powerful hand is over that roaring lion, that goes about continually seeking whom he may devour : thine hand withholds him, that though he may shed the blood of thine elect, yet he cannot hurt their souls ; and while he doth those things which thou permittest and orderest, to thy just ends, yet he cannot do lesser things which he desireth, and thou permittest not...."

Bishop Hall

You may enjoy the following quote and especially its application to SteveR's beloved RCC and the Anabaptists

"..Violent events do not always argue the anger of God ; even death itself is to his servants a fatherly castigation.

But, O the unsearchable ways of the Almighty! The man of God sins, and dies speedily : the lying prophet that seduced him survives ; yea, wicked Jeroboam enjoys his idolatry, and treads upon the grave of his reprover. There is neither favour in the delay of stripes, nor displeasure in the haste ; rather whom God loves he chastises, as sharply, so speedily, while the rest prospers to condemnation : even the rod of a loving father may draw blood. How much happier is it for us, that we die now, to live for ever, than that we live a while, to die for ever!"

SteveR wrote:
..wicked act of self styled Christians ....the spirit of the anabaptists

If you want facts, don't believe anything SteveR posts. Do your own research. Here are a few links which completely demolish the lies posted by him.

[URL=http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/b00yqvqt]]] In our time - Dicussing The Taiping Rebellion [/URL]

[URL=http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/580815/Taiping-Rebellion]]] Britannica on the Rebellion[/URL]

Note especially: "Taiping Christianity placed little emphasis on New Testament ideas of kindness, forgiveness, and redemption. Rather it emphasized the wrathful Old Testament God who demanded worship and obedience." This is more akin to Presbyterian Dominionism.

[URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Rebellion]]] Wikipedia on the Rebellion [/URL]

Note particularly the paragraph commencing, "At the age of thirty-seven...." If true, it would appear that Hong had his delirious visions before he ever read anything Christian!

Finally, [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issachar_Jacox_Roberts]]] The American Baptist and Hong[/URL]

Unprofitable Servant wrote:

the art of teaching, going from the known to the unknown.
...Thanks again for all the helpful posts you put out.

You are a gracious man, and I thank you for the interaction. I always appreciate your posts, even if sometimes I disagree with them. You bring great value to this website, and I for one am glad to make your acquaintance.

I do hope that you appreciate that I was not trying to point score, but genuinely trying to understand your hermeneutic in respect of the first ever prophecy recorded in the Bible.

The principle that I discern in the interpretation of that prophecy I believe can be applied to much of the prophetic genre. So we know from the passage that Christ was to be a man (the seed of the woman), and hence we see the incarnation. We also know that he was to engage in battle against Satan, that serpent, and be the victor, albeit that in the process he would be wounded, intimating that Christ must suffer etc.

As you say, we must let the word of Christ dwell in us richly in all wisdom. May the Lord help us all to know the depths of the riches that are laid up for our blessings.

Unprofitable Servant wrote:
The passage in Genesis talks about the seed of the women. Eve certainly took it literally when she had Seth. If something is stated figuratively, we take it figuratively. I don't see that as inconsistent with a literal approach.

Unprofitable Servant wrote:
...
I believe that Christ bruised Satan's head at the same time Satan was bruising His heel. The crucifixion was both a bruising of the seed of the women, when the Lord of life, died and was laid in a borrowed tomb. And a crushing of Satan's head by the finished work on the cross and the glorious resurrection of our living Lord. ...
I see a difference between interpretation and application which I view as manifold. God bless.

Thank you for your post. I agree with your understanding of Gen 3: 15, however, I am still struggling to understand why you would move away from a crudely literal interpretation of it when the prophecy is found in a historical book.

By crudely literal, I mean a carnal understanding that the Saviour would literally crush a serpent's head and would in the process receive a bruise.

What, in the context, makes you move away from the literal interpretation?

Unprofitable Servant wrote:
Off the top of my head, and this will probably incur the wrath of Lurker, but he is a nice guy so it won't be too bad, I would say the answer to your question is yes.

For instance, do you recognise the proto-evangel at Genesis 3:15? If so, how did you decide to see the figurative here and not the literal; in other words how is it you did not expect the Saviour to literally step on a serpent (Satan), and the serpent bruise the Lord's heal only in the work of salvation?

This could have been the case literally, if we had not known the events that passed in the New Testament. But clearly a dispensationalist's literal expectations would have been somewhat disappointed, just as the Jewish literal expectation of a deliverer King was disappointed.

I am curious to learn how a body of believers who distinguish themselves from others based on their "literal" approach to the Bible decide when the text is literal or figurative.

John for JESUS wrote:
Lurker...
Amos 9:11-12 NKJV
“On that day I will raise up The tabernacle of David, which has fallen down, And repair its damages; I will raise up its ruins, And rebuild it as in the days of old; That they may possess the remnant of Edom, And all the Gentiles who are called by My name,” Says the Lord who does this thing.
The source says the Gentiles who are called by His name are also going to be with Israel when He rebuilds the tabernacle of David. This is important because it showed the early Christians how God had a plan which included Gentiles also, so they shouldn't try to make them Jewish.

John for JESUS wrote:
Amos 9:8, 11, 14-15 NKJV
“Behold, the eyes of the Lord God are on the sinful kingdom, And I will destroy it from the face of the earth; Yet I will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob,” Says the Lord . “On that day I will raise up The tabernacle of David, which has fallen down, And repair its damages; I will raise up its ruins, And rebuild it as in the days of old; I will bring back the captives of My people Israel; They shall build the waste cities and inhabit them; They shall plant vineyards and drink wine from them; They shall also make gardens and eat fruit from them. I will plant them in their land, And no longer shall they be pulled up From the land I have given them,” Says the Lord your God.

So much for your literal hermeneutic!

Mike wrote:
You aren't surprised, are you bro John? That an amill reformed writer should come to a amill reformed writer's conclusion? The presentation of the various eschatological positions is not nearly objective, and having a list of "Some key facts to bear in mind" at the end to make sure you come away with the "right" thoughts proves it. The bias against the other positions is too obvious for these comparisons to be taken seriously.
On a lighter note, I was wondering if, in order to keep the eschatology right, the amill reading of 2 Peter 3:8 would be:
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as two thousand years.?

John for JESUS wrote:
Helps...
Isaiah 7:14 NKJV
Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.
Micah 5:2 NKJV
“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Though you are little among the thousands of Judah, Yet out of you shall come forth to Me The One to be Ruler in Israel, Whose goings forth are from of old, From everlasting.”
When these prophecies were fulfilled, they happened just like it says and it wasn't no dream!

John for JESUS wrote:
3) That was a dream, not the same as a literally stated prophecy.

Lurker wrote:
I notice some interest in Joel's prophecy and how it relates to Pentecost. I'll find some time in a couple hours to offer some thought for whoever is interested.

John UK wrote:
Aha, now we're getting into the very heart of God's work among men who are all sinners needing to be redeemed. This view of "all Israel" is the only view which fits all the pieces together and makes the picture complete.

John for JESUS wrote:
All Israel will believe and Christ will then return.
Romans 11:25-29 NKJV ....

When referring to the covenants with the father's Paul is acutely aware of the difficulty posed and says in Romans 9 :-

6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Your view contradicts this teaching.

SF from TX wrote:
Lurker, my not ao new born baby is crawling and pulling up on things! Where did time go?! Thanks for asking.
The millennium and the prophets are what I'm interested in. I don't believe in a pre trib rapture but if you wanted to you could link to some articles refuting that view-it never hurts to put more in the "armory".

[URL=http://www.the-highway.com/rapture_Woodrow1.html]]] The rapture (part 1)[/URL]

[URL=http://www.the-highway.com/rapture_Woodrow2.html]]] The rapture (part 2)[/URL]

[URL=http://www.the-highway.com/rapture_Woodrow3.html]]] The rapture (part 3)[/URL]

[URL=http://www.the-highway.com/rapture_Woodrow4.html]]] The rapture (part 4)[/URL]

Mike wrote:
Lust as a basis for marriage? Interesting. I think many unbelievers hold to the idea.

1 Corinthians 7:1,2

JJK wrote:
There is still the stated difference (v32-34) in which Paul (God) implies that the married person might not be as productive as the single.