|
Post by Josh Parsley on May 5, 2007 9:51:07 GMT -5
www.spurgeon.org/~phil/wesley.htmI read that some time ago, along with the sermon that he was replying to. It's interesting. By the way, your link didn't work so I corrected it above.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on May 3, 2007 18:49:25 GMT -5
God Bless you Avery.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on May 2, 2007 18:03:40 GMT -5
I think you may want to prepare to debate God on the day of judgment about what you did. I can't believe you did that....
It doesn't matter to me if you "cream" Jesse in a debate, you lost a whole lot of respect for the way you went about it.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Apr 24, 2007 15:14:07 GMT -5
Another thing a lot of people don't understand is that if a thought goes through your mind, that doesn't mean you have sinned.
2Cr 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
If I were to obey that verse would I be sinning? Surely not. And for me to cast down or bring into captivity a thought, it would have to be there. So if something sinful goes across your mind, kick it out!
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Apr 24, 2007 14:17:10 GMT -5
Matthew 5:28 says, "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." Sounds like sin to me. Of course. When you lust after anything that isn't yours or shouldn't be yours it is sin. Are you suggesting natural attraction is sin? So if I am considering entering into a courtship with a woman, I am sinning until I get married?
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Apr 24, 2007 10:49:58 GMT -5
I have a little more agreement with "gentle" or maybe what you are calling classical Calvinism. Although I don't agree with everything.
Doctrines like active reprobation have no agreement in what I see as the character of God. If my thinking is right active reprobation is the view that God is active in reprobating people as in He has a working hand in all their wickedness. The other view, in Calvinism, is that God just "leaves the non-elect alone." Or he just lets them do what they want, and because they are so wicked they never want God. In that view, man has a will that is free, but because man is so wicked he never chooses anything that is contrary to his "nature." And his nature is wicked, so that is all he does. For him to be saved or seek God has has to have a change of nature prior to that.
But of course, I have problems with the latter view also though not as much.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Apr 24, 2007 9:19:51 GMT -5
I don't think all the Calvinists on the board would agree, unless you redefine some words. Can you explain what you mean?
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on May 2, 2007 18:30:34 GMT -5
The Bible does. Jew or Gentile. Okay then. We have a contradiction in the Bible: 'That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.' (Phil 2:10-11) These people obviously are not holy. 'Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.' (Rev 1:7) Of course there are no contradictions in the Bible! But this is the sort of trouble that you get into when you start reading into verses instead of reading what it actually says in the surrounding context. Can you show me the contradiction? I honestly don't see it.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on May 2, 2007 18:06:34 GMT -5
Are you saying that if we are not Holy we will not see God? The Bible does. Jew or Gentile.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Apr 19, 2007 15:49:14 GMT -5
Acts 15:18 is quoting from the OT. So the context isn't confined to the Gentiles being grafted in. Isa 46:8 Remember this, and shew yourselves men: bring [it] again to mind, O ye transgressors. Isa 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I [am] God, and [there is] none else; God, and [there is] none like me, Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times [the things] that are not [yet] done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: Isa 46:11 Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken [it], I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed [it], I will also do it.
Do you believe that verse in Acts 15:18 is quoted from somewhere else? Still, the verse in Acts does not say "some" or "most" but all. Romans 11 seems to infer that the Gentiles being grafted in was contingent upon the Jews rejecting Christ. Is that true? If so, how did God know they would reject the "stone." Do you believe he made them reject Him? Or just assumed? If they didn't reject Him, would the Gentiles have ever been grafted in? Rom 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but [rather] through their fall salvation [is come] unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. I could be misinterpreting Romans 11, but it seems that through their fall, salvation was opened to the Gentiles. Act 13:40 Beware therefore, lest that come upon you, which is spoken of in the prophets; Act 13:41 Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you. Act 13:42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath. Act 13:43 Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God. Act 13:44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God. Act 13:45 But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming. Act 13:46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Apr 19, 2007 15:01:22 GMT -5
Does God respond to man? If He does then He must know what those responses will be, since He knows all of His works from the beginning. How could He know His response if he doesn't know what man is going to do?
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Apr 19, 2007 13:31:04 GMT -5
To be honest, my contention is that God does know the future completely. Him being inside/outside time is just a carry over from that. Act 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. Are there any words in that statement we have to redefine? Josh, Where does that verse say that GOD knows all our works in the future? As far as I can tell, it only establishes His ability to make a promise and bring it about, make it come to pass. So you don't believe that God does anything in response to us? It doesn't say he has the ability, it says he knows.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Apr 19, 2007 13:22:18 GMT -5
I'm more afraid of having false theology than I am becoming a Calvinist. I don't care what "umbrella" I may end up under, as long as it's under the umbrella of "revealed truth." EDIT: I'm also not afraid of ending up with something like (hebrew) block logic, rather than (greek) linear logic. Click here to see what I'm talking about.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Apr 19, 2007 13:14:30 GMT -5
To be honest, my contention is that God does know the future completely. Him being inside/outside time is just a carry over from that.
Act 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
Are there any words in that statement we have to redefine?
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Apr 19, 2007 10:34:31 GMT -5
Does God "live" in heaven. Hmmmm... I would say no. No in the sense that His entire being resides in Heaven.
1Ki 8:27 But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?
I don't think He is "separate from" but I don't think He is "exclusively in" it either. I don't have all of this figured out, but I am not convinced that all of God resides in only on moment of "time." Or that His knowledge is confined to what has/is happened/happening. Is that philosophy? Could be. Is open theism philosophy? Could be.
I don't see where the Bible plainly says "God is inside time" any more than I see it saying "God is eternal now." I do not see that Open Theism can possibly explain the type of questions that Evan posed.
EDIT: I added a bunch..
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Apr 19, 2007 10:04:01 GMT -5
Actually, no it doesn't Heaven isn't eternal. God created it.
Act 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
I'm not a Calvinist, but when we say things like this, it's kind of silly. In the Calvinist perspective you could not just sit back and watch the show. Nor could you just "not do anything because God will do it for me." The reason being is you don't have a choice to sit back or just do nothing, because God controls it all. Comments like this are really irrelevant. When we say things like this we are still placing ourselves in our world view because we assume we have free will- when in their view we don't.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Apr 17, 2007 14:39:09 GMT -5
I don't mean to take away from Evan's question but I had a question a few days ago I thought about asking but never did. It's a question for an open theist but not dealing with eschatology.
1. Time is part of God's being.
2. God had no beginning.
3. So, there has been an infinite amount of time that has happened before this "moment in time."
Is that logically possible?
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jun 15, 2007 13:28:48 GMT -5
I really don't want to have this thread going on another topic, so this will be my last post on this thread dealing with the topic of law/gospel.
If you want to discuss this you can on the new thread Jesse just posted.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jun 15, 2007 13:27:15 GMT -5
Maybe I do. Rom 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, [even] to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
Rom 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not [in] the oldness of the letter.
2Cr 3:7 But if the ministration of death, written [and] engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which [glory] was to be done away: 2Cr 3:8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? 2Cr 3:9 For if the ministration of condemnation [be] glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. 2Cr 3:10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. 2Cr 3:11 For if that which is done away [was] glorious, much more that which remaineth [is] glorious.
Hbr 8:13 In that he saith, A new [covenant], he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old [is] ready to vanish away.
To say that there is no standard or you can do what ever you want and you are still saved. My computer is down and the one I am on now isn't really up to par. It slows me down quite a bit. It may be easier if you want an overview of my view to check this old thread out I started. The Basic Gospel Truth: The Law to Grace
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jun 14, 2007 18:10:16 GMT -5
I agree with Jed on this topic. The bible is plain as could be that Christians do not have to keep the 7th day of the week separate from the others. I dare say you don't understand the new covenant if you think that Christians have to keep Saturday holy.
The bible even says that Christians are dead to the law, and that it has passed away. Does that fit into your theology?
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jun 12, 2007 15:19:07 GMT -5
That's very interesting dmatic. What leads you to those conclusions? I haven't read the book, but I'm somewhat familiar with the author.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Apr 20, 2007 11:26:54 GMT -5
Hi Sean, I ran across an article that I think you would enjoy reading. It's a chapter from a book called "The Local Assembly" by G H Lang. The chapter is called Oversight and Ministry It isn't describing the type of "church gathering" that you might think. It tears down a lot of what modern churches do, but still stresses the need for "oversight." I haven't read it all yet, but so far I see things similar to the author.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Apr 16, 2007 15:02:15 GMT -5
Hey Sean, I was reading something by George Fox today that you might find interesting. Here are a few excerpts from "Some Principles of the Elect People of God called Quakers." Source V. Concerning the Fellowship. THe true Fellowship it is in the Gospel which is amongst us; which was amongst the Apostles, in the Spirit and in the Light; through which we have Fellowship with the Father and with the Son.
XXVI. Concerning the Sabbath Day. THe Jews kept the Sabbath Day, a Type, a Sign of Rest, that the Man-servant, Maid-servant, and Strangers, and Cattel, in which all might Rest within their Gates; A Sign of Christ, that destroyes the Devil, the author of Oppression, who gives Rest to Man and Beast, and the whole Creation, and brings it up into the blessed state which was in the beginning before Man fell. And now the Saints meeting together on the First Day of the Week, that practice is not denied, but owned by us; for they that come to Christ, come to the first Day before all things were made, and Meet in the First as the Jews did in the Last; but there is more in this.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Apr 16, 2007 12:16:44 GMT -5
No..I drive about an hour outside of Dallas every other week or so to fellowship with some believers. I'm glad you at least do that. It sounded like you didn't ever meet with anyone. Doesn't it seem odd almost all the sermons on there were recorded in a church building? You can critize till you are blue in the face, but what does that have to do with if you should be in regular fellowship with believers? Are you looking for people on "your level?" It would be more scriptural to look at the scripture and see if they just met house to house, or just went to a place of gathering... or both. We are not particularly discussing a prayer meeting, which is the context of what you are quoting from Jesus. George Fox went to church buildings, what are you referring to? During the Commonwealth period it was no violation of law or custom for a person in the congregation to stand up and speak or object after the minister had finished his sermon. In most cases, where Fox spoke in the churches, he was exercising a right which was well-established. Occasionally he interrupted, which was contrary to good order, but he justified it by an appeal to the call of the Spirit, which he could not resist. SourceHe also enjoyed preaching while he was there.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Apr 16, 2007 9:34:16 GMT -5
How are you fulfilling a NT "gathering?" Just going to a prayer meeting doesn't fulfill it. I'm sure there were times of long preaching (well over 45 minutes) and probably by one person. I remember an instance of Paul preaching all night. I hope you really don't think in a city as large as Dallas you can't find a group of saints.
Hbr 10:24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: Hbr 10:25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some [is]; but exhorting [one another]: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
Forsake means to leave, not neglect (as it's usually preached.) Have you done that?
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Apr 15, 2007 13:42:32 GMT -5
Sean, what kind of gathering of the saints to you attend?
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Apr 12, 2007 12:51:26 GMT -5
I'm curious, do you still speak against the muslim doctrine of "abrogation?" Or do you agree with them?
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Apr 12, 2007 9:13:21 GMT -5
Jonathan,
Have you ever told anyone that they were not saved or born again? Is so, how did you know?
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Apr 15, 2007 13:46:25 GMT -5
Do you believe in active reprobation?
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Apr 3, 2007 8:53:13 GMT -5
Nay nay, God said he hated Esau. Also, aren't nations comprised of individuals? So even if I could grant you the possibility of God hating a nation in Romans 9, does that really matter? Thou hast made sure where the quote under concideration originith, right? Gen 25:21 And Isaac intreated the LORD for his wife, because she [was] barren: and the LORD was intreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived.
Gen 25:22 And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If [it be] so, why [am] I thus? And she went to enquire of the LORD.
Gen 25:23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations [are] in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and [the one] people shall be stronger than [the other] people; and the elder shall serve the younger.
Rom 9:11 (For [the children] being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) Rom 9:12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
|
|