Jim Lincoln wrote:
True Christianity is always controversial! While our Reformed/Covenant brethren will no doubt disagree with us on [URL=http://www.ihcc.org/article_print.php?art_id=Zv7awnJDyLgSEOEmxSsb96E29]]]What to Look for in a Church[/URL], I know it would please me if they did go to a Reformed Church compared to what the Obamas have went to in the past.

Timothy wrote:
People seem to be jumping to the conclusion that the PCA is "clearly" straying from the authority of God's
Word in such a close vote. I would gently caution readers here to look into the matter before passing jugdement so quickly on fellow brothers. The fact that you have godly men on both sides of this issue (Tim Keller, Ligon Duncan, Phil Ryken, Bryan Chapell, etc.) shows that charity toward one another is called for. This is not a debate about women in authority over men; the PCA is decidedly compementarian, without question.

God's Continuous Covenant wrote:
The problem Dispy is in your dismissal of the Covenant which God has made with ALL the Elect...
Your premill disp stuff chops the Bible up and rejects God's election in the OT. BUT it has been going on throughout the OT and continues today.

Rom 9+11 Rejects the Break up of the elect at any point

2. God has made more than one covenant. For example, the covenant with Abraham is different than the covenant with David. There are different covenants with different groups of people, because God chose to deal with different groups of people in different ways.

3. I am still waiting for you or another covenanter to provide a reference to God's people in the OT being "in Him" or "in Christ Jesus." Of course, it will be a long wait, since it is not there. Saying that Hebrew could not express such a concept, or that the Israelites were too dumb to understand it, is not an argument. Obviously, the Jewish writers of the NT were able to understand.

It is impossible to expect any reasonable response from you to the problem with your theory raised by the portion in Ephesians 3.

Dis am de post 2 wrote:
God in Scripture is addressing ***ALL*** the Elect.

"Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus"

When were the OT elect were ever mentioned to be in Ephesus? DJC49 has failed to answer where the OT says anyone is 'in Christ Jesus' - maybe you can do better.

And I suppose it would have been too confusing to the Israelites to discover they were actually Gentiles, as Paul notes in Ephesians 3:

"Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ."

Maybe the Hebrew was inadequate to express such concepts as "Uncircumcision."

DJC49 wrote:
1) It might be because the entirety of the OT (with the exception of Daniel which had a tiny bit of Aramaic intermingled) was written in Hebrew -- a very earthy and "concrete" sort of language -- whereas the NT was in Greek -- a language more "conceptual" and appropriate to communicating ideas.

fuzzy logic wrote:
This is ONLY A SATIRICAL RUMOR...
...They do NOT know which side will win.
Government submitting Romans 13 DARBYIST, or actual JEWS who have special DNA....

DJC49 wrote:
That sort of NT language ("in Him") is not used in the OT. God's righteous ones, people, sons, remnant, saints, chosen, and etc., are some of the Hebraic words and terminology used to denote God's elect -- those who were saved -- in the OT.

kenny wrote:
Oh I agree with you 100%, Mr. Dispy.
I am just saying that tithing is the ONLY thing that SBC churches seem to take a strong stand on without compromise. They insist that you are 'free in Christ' to do pretty much anything and everything else you please but you better not 'forsake the assembling of yourselves together' and you for sure better tithe (though I have yet to meet anyone who can show me where the Bible even vaguely suggests that Christians should tithe).
The SBC is BIG business and receipts are down. The showman CEOs are flipping out.

I agree with you about their showman CEOs, too - have been to services at a couple of the SBC megachurches in the past, and have observed that some of them have orchestras that rival the symphonies of big cities. (They wouldn't have that rock n roll - too worldly, you know - they stick to good old fashioned conservative worldliness.)

DJC49 wrote:
Didn't he just recently convert to Islam?

I don't think he was raised JW - I think he converted to JW in the 80s from whatever he was raised as - probably the Church of Mammon. At least, that's my recollection of his father's religion.

Dis am de post wrote:
Dispy
The "IN HIM" status goes back to the beginning.
Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us **IN HIM** before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Jim Lincoln wrote:
This organization really does give Christianity a bad name doesn't it? [URL=http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=10120711555910]]]How the Church Relates to the Kingdom[/URL] and [URL=http://www.ihcc.org/images/booklets/pdf/L125.pdf]]]The Church: God's Program for Ministry[/URL].

1. The Bible does not mention anything about the 'visible' and 'invisible' church. Both are visible to God at all times. Though obviously there is a distinction between local assemblies and the Body of Christ, such terms go a little too far, I think.

kenny wrote:
..without having to ... tithe (the only Biblical principal most SBC churches adhere to).

Agnes wrote:
I cannot believe that God will throw sinners in hell and say to them on judgement day(with all due reverence)"Even though I love you, I have to torture you through all eternity and separate you from my goodness forever". We sadly have a one-sided view of God.

If you don't believe it, Agnes, you might want to examine yourself, or you may end up surprised that your sin is enough to send you to the same place as mass murderers like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot; Romans emperors like Nero, Commodius, Marcus Aurelius; pagan philosophers like Cicero, Plato, Aristotle, Socrates; common unrepentant sinners like adulterers, murderers, rapists, homosexuals, thieves, drunkards; and even 'good' people like pious popes and nice ladies from Kentucky.

DJC49 wrote:
1. We're under no obligation to do so, but we should be of the same mindset as Paul especially when it comes to the Gospel.
2. I believe imprecatory prayer is especially suited against false gospels, but there are other special applications.

"I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." (1 Tim. 2.1-4)

DJC49 wrote:
Gal 1:8&9 -- "let him be accursed"
In the Greek it is simply:
"anathema esto"
esto (the verb "be")
is in the 3rd person
Present tense,
Active voice,
Imperative mood,
singular.

The questions remaining in my mind are(leaving aside the other three passages from the NT for now, so just Galatians):

1. Because Paul curses those who preach another gospel which is not another (i.e., a false gospel that puts men back under the law), does that mean we are to do the same?

2. Is this curse reserved for false teachers, or is it for all the enemies of God?

fuzzy logic wrote:
Mr. Dispy:
Could you please alert your fellow brethren about some of the extreme positions other Dispy's take?

DJC49 wrote:
Definition of: "Anathema"
From "[URL=http://www.biblestudytools.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=331&version=kjv]]]The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon[/URL]"
A thing set up or laid by in order to be kept -- specifically, an offering resulting from a vow, which after being consecrated to a god was hung upon the walls or columns of the temple, or put in some other conspicuous place
A thing devoted to God WITHOUT HOPE of being redeemed, and if an animal, to be slain; therefore a person or thing DOOMED to destruction
A curse
A man accursed, devoted to the direst of woes

DJC49 wrote:
Please don't lose any sleep over what I am about to tell you, but, even my imprecatory prayers (if I were to enter into any) would be a PART of the dynamic complex of MEANS which God uses to accomplish the salvation of His elect!
Sorry, but I don't have a schematic on how exactly God saves His own. (And I KNOW how much you pre-trib/pre-mill Dispies absolutely LOVE [URL=http://www.yeshuaagapao.com/images/blog/Bible_Chart_-_Ages_And_Dispensation.png]]]charts and diagrams[/URL]!)
_____
BTW, ALL Calvinists are "5-pointers." ALL the petals of the TULIP are necessary with Christ at the center. Denying any one of the 5 points makes one something other than a Calvinist -- some sort of hybrid -- some sort of mutation.

fuzzy logic wrote:
But as Christians, we are not to stand for WAR of any kind! I am not a Quaker nor a pacifist. But when you study the history of war in the 20th century, the ONLY ideology that is pursued and desired is to MAKE MONEY for the elite few. It's NOT ABOUT DEMOCRACY!

As ambassadors for Christ, what have Christians to do with this world's politics, other than to pray? This is not a pacifist position - I may physically harm you if you break into my home, for I'll not let you harm my family without a fight! - but what worldly ambassadors claim a right to interfere with the foreign nation's decisions? Just so, our citizenship is in heaven, though the Lord has us in this foreign land for a time to do his work.