|
: While It Is Yet Called Today... : al Hartman September 14, 2004, 06:09:23 AM When my erratic sleep pattern has me up at hours when most sane people are asleep, and I come to this board, there are almost always guests on-line. Most of these I presume to be dwellers on the far side of the globe, where the hour is more conducive to cognizance and cogitation, or else insomniacs in the Americas. People are still registering as members, although few of them post. But generally the board seems to have peaked and its use, if not its usefulness, is in decline. While it has been a Godsend to me, I shall not mourn its eventual demise-- to everything under heaven there is a season. But, as I hope to have indicated in the paragraph above, the function of this medium has not yet fully expired. To those who read here, but do not post, I issue this request: Pray to God about posting the questions you harbor, as well as the statements you may feel inclined to make. Time passes quickly, and this opportunity may be gone before you know it. I could cite numerous personal examples of my having seen opportunities pass by unsiezed, but I think you all know what I mean without my belaboring the point. Say what's on your mind. You will not be graded on grammar or spelling. No points will be deducted for late papers. This board is a pass/pass venue. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain, but the opportunity won't be here forever... God bless, al Hartman : Re:While It Is Yet Called Today... : lenore September 14, 2004, 06:37:20 AM :DHello Al:
Dont we all kick ourselves with missed opportunities, sometimes years that have gone by. Are you raising an alarm, do you know something that the alarm is being raised. I was wondering who are all the guest. Sometimes I will view the board as a guest, prior to signing on. Checking the birthdays and prayer requests maybe that is all I have time for at this time. I would miss this board as well, because I got so much out of it, by participating in it. Look at my totals I have been only on the board since May 5th 2004. Dont forget the fall is up us, and after a summer haitus, the activities of church, work, school, community, etc, will take up our time. For me and myself, I am trying to make sense of a badly neglected house. And getting more into spending time in Word of God again. I went back to making fill in word puzzles with verses of Bible. I just finished Isaiah, and now starting in on Jeremiah. I have about 30 note books filled with these puzzles. I started them summer of 2003 when I was bed bound because of a broken ankle. I have stopped at Isaiah 63 way last March. I really dont know what to do with them now. Getting back to the time is now, seize the opportunity. Is there a vote that we can make of keeping the bb. Lenore : Re:While It Is Yet Called Today... : Recovering Saint September 14, 2004, 03:52:23 PM When my erratic sleep pattern has me up at hours when most sane people are asleep, and I come to this board, there are almost always guests on-line. Most of these I presume to be dwellers on the far side of the globe, where the hour is more conducive to cognizance and cogitation, or else insomniacs in the Americas. People are still registering as members, although few of them post. But generally the board seems to have peaked and its use, if not its usefulness, is in decline. While it has been a Godsend to me, I shall not mourn its eventual demise-- to everything under heaven there is a season. But, as I hope to have indicated in the paragraph above, the function of this medium has not yet fully expired. To those who read here, but do not post, I issue this request: Pray to God about posting the questions you harbor, as well as the statements you may feel inclined to make. Time passes quickly, and this opportunity may be gone before you know it. I could cite numerous personal examples of my having seen opportunities pass by unsiezed, but I think you all know what I mean without my belaboring the point. Say what's on your mind. You will not be graded on grammar or spelling. No points will be deducted for late papers. This board is a pass/pass venue. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain, but the opportunity won't be here forever... God bless, al Hartman Hi Al The board is still active. If we see new members coming on then they are getting their feet wet. At some point they may feel lead to post. I don't post all the time but I like to have time to think about it before I post. I am busy with many things and when I think about it someone else may say what I would have said and even put it better so I say well hold your fire. Other times I think people like to sandbag because they are looking for fodder to disagree with and are not interested in being a part of the forum in a constructive way. Perhaps a confidentiality clause with all who view being required to log in would stop those from coming but what is the purpose of this forum. Is it not to tell the truth to free those who have and still are bound by the Assembly either by being an active member or one who is stll dealing with emotional, psychological, or spiritual damage caused by the association with this ministry. Give it time and prayer you may still see more souls delivered from the sinking ship when they see the corruption for what it really is. Hugh : Re:While It Is Yet Called Today... : al Hartman September 15, 2004, 12:04:50 AM OK-- the responses thus far show me that I have not made myself clear. While I deeply appreciate the concern shown toward me, please let me emphasize the reason I began this thread... I am not worried about the health of the BB. It is what it is. God has used it in my life and in numerous others, and I pray He will continue to do so as long as it serves His purpose. Nor am I concerned that many former posters no longer post or post far less than they once did. My concern is for those guests and registered members who do not post, perhaps have never posted, because they are shy, or they are self concious about their writing skills, or they feel they are not scholarly enough thinkers, or they are confused, or for any number of other reasons. This board is here for those people (for you) right now. While there is no constraint for you to post, there IS the opportunity, and none of us knows how long that opportunity will last. So, I am saying to those who have had an inclination or a desire to post but for some reason have not done so: Pray about siezing the opportunity while it is yet available. None of us knows what the future holds. Venues such as this could be banned or heavily taxed by the government before we realized it was happening. I am not predicting such a thing, nor do I wish to alarm anyone. To put it differently, the Lord could call home tomorrow the person who might answer your question today. Should you post? I don't know, but it is important that you should know, and not be paralyzed by uncertainty. Cast all your cares upon Him Who cares for you... God bless, al Hartman : Re:While It Is Yet Called Today... : summer007 September 17, 2004, 10:42:15 PM Al, I do have to agree with Hugh on this one. And don't forget the code of silence. I think some of it is fear...Plus there's alot to read and follow in the posts to give a decent answer. A few of us have asked something that was answered last year and it old hat to many ...so I think shyness or just not that interested comes into play. Your retired and can devote alot more time to the boards as well as Lenore and Tom.M others have computers at work...But it is interesting when a new board member goes to all the trouble to sign-up and then does'nt post. It does make you wonder why??? I think you nailed it!!! Summer.
: Re:While It Is Yet Called Today... : lenore September 20, 2004, 06:49:02 PM :DGood Morning:
I have been thinking on this post since Al initiate it. Sometimes I will look at the bottom to see who else is on and how many guest there is. Most of the time I see only my name as user, then 5 or more guest viewing in on. MAYBE AL you should posted a title of GUEST ARE WELCOME TO PARTICIPATE. Sometime I feel like I am being "WATCHED". All kidding aside. OPPORTUNITIES, the TIME IS SHORT. I have to agree with Al. The time is short. I am two years away from 50. I could live another 50 years if the longivity of the female side of my family keeps up. But as I look at the obituraries within the newspaper, it is not the seniors of 80 & 90's who are leaving this world. It is the 40's & 50's years old that are also leaving this world. Look at the Hurricane situation in Florida, the Carribean Islands, etc. They have had 3 major hurricanes so far, and two more on the way. IT IS NOT JUST SEIZING THE OPPORTUNITY TO WRITE ON THE BULLETIN BOARD. IT IS NOW THE TIME TO SEIZE THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET RIGHT WITH GOD. Whether it is an unChristian to get right with accepting our LORD JESUS AS SAVIOUR, Or a Christian to get right on the path the GOD IS LEADING US. Or a long time Christian who is stuck to get reflamed under his spiritual butt. Or as Christian who are God's ambassador's , we must be aware of the opportunities God is leading us to minister to the world. SO GUEST, if you are in need to vent so you can recover from your experiences of past spiritual damage teachings, then vent, these people here are here to hear you out and empathize with you. SO GUEST, if you are just taking the time to read and listen to other and just wonder when to jump in , listen to God's prodding. SO MEMBERS WHO HAVENT PARTICIPATE, no one will laugh at you, no one will put you down, we may disagree and discuss your ideas, but you will be respected. No question is stupid to ask, there is always someone who will take the time to answer. If you are just afraid. NO ONE WILL BITE YOU, but take your time. Just even say hello and introduce yourself so we know who to pray for .??????????? Maybe someone who have been at this bb a little longer than me, can tell them the history of the bb, why it was formed, and what the bb consisted of. So these guest and new members will have a proper introduction. One thing I learned you dont have to go with the flow on threads. You can find one persons contribution, quote it and answer the one you chosen. It is a maze if you try to go with the flow at time, and you have no idea what the topic is about, so jump in somewhere and type , type, type. Well Al. Have I helped at all, or have I made a mess of your thread. Talk to you later. YOU HAVE A REALLY GIDDAY. Lenore : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : hopon December 04, 2005, 09:41:41 PM This topic has been barely scraped here and I think it is an important one: Remarriage of a Christian.
The Bible calls remarriage adultery. In Malachi, it is mentioned that God hates divorce, which is one issue, but the issue of remarriage seems to go beyond that to a point of adultery, which was punishable by death in the OT. Death separated the person from God, so, bringing the issue to NT times, might suggest that the remarried person, considering that they are in the constant state of adultery, have removed themselves from the presence of God. No one who is filled with the spirit would steal, commit murder, commit adultery. If we are not in God's presence, it would follow that we would not be filled with the spirit, and would actually be "on our own" by choice, and would be left to head knowledge, psychological reasoning, and in fact are looking from the outside, in, to where others who have not made the same choice to remarry, are actually enjoying the reality of God's presence in a closer way. This is not to say that the remarried Christian has lost salvation. I would like to hear what others have to say about this important issue, without hearing that this is a gg issue which can now be ignored. : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : Uncle Buck December 04, 2005, 10:28:52 PM This topic has been barely scraped here and I think it is an important one: Remarriage of a Christian. The only allowance for divorce that I have read is Matthew 19:9 "And I say unto you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultary; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery" The Bible calls remarriage adultery. In Malachi, it is mentioned that God hates divorce, which is one issue, but the issue of remarriage seems to go beyond that to a point of adultery, which was punishable by death in the OT. Death separated the person from God, so, bringing the issue to NT times, might suggest that the remarried person, considering that they are in the constant state of adultery, have removed themselves from the presence of God. No one who is filled with the spirit would steal, commit murder, commit adultery. If we are not in God's presence, it would follow that we would not be filled with the spirit, and would actually be "on our own" by choice, and would be left to head knowledge, psychological reasoning, and in fact are looking from the outside, in, to where others who have not made the same choice to remarry, are actually enjoying the reality of God's presence in a closer way. This is not to say that the remarried Christian has lost salvation. I would like to hear what others have to say about this important issue, without hearing that this is a gg issue which can now be ignored. I know one Christian couple who divorced based on the wifes adultery and her refusal to fidelity. He moved on, remarried, has a stable home and is doing very well. His ex is out bar hopping, has herpes, openly brings men home for the night in front of her children. The only stable home life these kids have is when they are with their dad. : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : hopon December 05, 2005, 01:49:41 AM The only allowance for divorce that I have read is Matthew 19:9 "And I say unto you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultary; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery" I know one Christian couple who divorced based on the wifes adultery and her refusal to fidelity. He moved on, remarried, has a stable home and is doing very well. His ex is out bar hopping, has herpes, openly brings men home for the night in front of her children. The only stable home life these kids have is when they are with their dad. Obviously this man is better off than his promiscuous wife, and the children are better off with him, but the fact remains that God says that remarriage is an adulterous relationship. (This man would still be a better influence in his children's lives even if he had not remarried.) : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : vernecarty December 05, 2005, 07:05:18 AM This topic has been barely scraped here and I think it is an important one: Remarriage of a Christian. The Bible calls remarriage adultery. In Malachi, it is mentioned that God hates divorce, which is one issue, but the issue of remarriage seems to go beyond that to a point of adultery, which was punishable by death in the OT. Death separated the person from God, so, bringing the issue to NT times, might suggest that the remarried person, considering that they are in the constant state of adultery, have removed themselves from the presence of God. No one who is filled with the spirit would steal, commit murder, commit adultery. If we are not in God's presence, it would follow that we would not be filled with the spirit, and would actually be "on our own" by choice, and would be left to head knowledge, psychological reasoning, and in fact are looking from the outside, in, to where others who have not made the same choice to remarry, are actually enjoying the reality of God's presence in a closer way. This is not to say that the remarried Christian has lost salvation. I would like to hear what others have to say about this important issue, without hearing that this is a gg issue which can now be ignored. My perspective on this has evolved somewhat over time. I am personally convinced that one marriage per lifetime is God's ideal. Having observed my brother go through a painful divorce that he did not choose, my thinking has changed a bit. I was initially a bit conflicted when he asked me to be his best man at his re-marriage but ultimately agreed. This is an extremely difficult topic and is too often used to induce guilt in believers who are re-married. I for one am quite content to leave this as a matter of conscience before God of each person, unless Scripture is clearly being violated. The one thing about my perspective that has not changed is the standard when it comes to leaders in the church. That is where I think the great tragedy has taken place. It is also why I have a very hard time with folk who try to argue that Geftakys was ever qualified be to anything other than a vessel of dishonor in God's house. One of the first things that God does in the lives of truly spiritual men is to teach them discipline of the affections. This is why the Bible states that the elder must be a "one-woman" kind of man. This is impossible unless God does it and is one way we recognize God's preparation, in ourselves and others. It is high blasphemy that a lecherous, lying and adulterous whoremonger like Geftakys could ever have been considered by any as "God's servant" It is now not an uncommon thing to see divorced and remarried pastors, and couples involved in "ministry" who have had multiple marriages. It is my opinion that the weakness we see in many churches today has a lot to do with the abrogation of God's standard in this regard. I believe God delivered the standard He did to us so that the people of God would always have an ideal they could aspire to, granted many of them fail in their marriages. The fact that we can no longer point to a consistent standard of excellence not only in official minsitry, but in Christians in general (the divorce rate is not different from non-believers) means that we no longer take the Biblical standard regarding the sanctity of marriage very seriously. We will pay dearly for that, in fact we are already... Verne : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : hopon December 05, 2005, 08:27:12 AM This is an extremely difficult topic and is too often used to induce guilt in believers who are re-married. Not my intention.I for one am quite content to leave this as a matter of conscience before God of each person, unless Scripture is clearly being violated. We are told that remarriage is the equivalent of adultery, which is clearly listed as a sin in God's eyes. It seems that it is an irreversible state, one that cannot be confessed and turned from. My inquiry is how does this affect the person who is in that irreversible state of adultery in regards to his relationship to God?The one thing about my perspective that has not changed is the standard when it comes to leaders in the church. Definitely a requirement for an elder. How could he teach God's people in any other state? If the elder was remarried, he would be teaching that adultery is not a sin, which is clearly not what God's word teaches us. If adultery is not wrong, the door is opened.............already... Verne : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : vernecarty December 05, 2005, 01:49:17 PM Not my intention.We are told that remarriage is the equivalent of adultery, which is clearly listed as a sin in God's eyes. I think this is true when the divorce is not Scripturally justifiable. I agree that marrying someone justifiably divorced would constitute adultery. Some Biblical scholars (and I am not sure that I necessarily agree) argue that the critical issue is not of re-marriage, but of divorce. In other words, in the instance where divorce is Scripturally permitted, then remarriage is also. On the one hand, it seems really harsh to insist that someone remain single who found themselves in a marital relationship that was physically abusive or involved unrepentant infidelity (circumstances that I think justify divorce), espcially if the relationship was entered into prior to being saved. I have far less compunction in this regard for Christians who knowingly violate the clear instructions in God's Word and marry unbelievers, then refuse to accept responsibility for their own disobedience. When it comes to prior Christians who divorce for any reason, I tend to agree that the Scriptural directive appears to be one of remaining single, although I do not want to be dogmatic about that. It is so interesting that this topic has come up. I know a Christian couple in the process of getting divorced...and there are children involved...we are all praying that God would change hearts... :'( It seems that it is an irreversible state, one that cannot be confessed and turned from. My inquiry is how does this affect the person who is in that irreversible state of adultery in regards to his relationship to God?Definitely a requirement for an elder. How could he teach God's people in any other state? If the elder was remarried, he would be teaching that adultery is not a sin, which is clearly not what God's word teaches us. If adultery is not wrong, the door is opened............. This is what I think poses a very difficult problem. A person in this position unquestionably faces severe constraint as regards being an effective minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ. By definition, they are incapable of promulgating the Biblical standard and in fact the presence of so many divorced and remarried leaders in the church has had the inevitable effect of conscience making cowards of many who can no longer speak the truth in love. The CMA faced a serious problem in this reagard in dealing with former muslim men who came to Christ after marrying several wives. This was a situation in which these women were wholly dependent on their husbands for their livelihood and were not easily remariagealbe if put away. I think in these cases the men were not asked to divorce. I have mixed feelings about this compromise although I understand it, especially if the conjugal relationships all continued. It would appear to me to be contrary to what Scripture teaches for the believer. What would be a better solution is not clear to me. In some of these cases these were very young women and I would be more inclined to permit divorce and remarriage for them, rather than to allow them to continue in a spousal plurality situation. I could be wrong... Verne p.s it got even more complicated if either the husband or wife, but not both came to Christ...! For those of you who understand Muslim culture, I think you get the picture. : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : Chuck Miller December 05, 2005, 03:54:39 PM In light of the discussion on this BB and others under the subjects "Forget and Forgive" and "Traversing Purgatory" - is the Christian who divorces and remarries living in adultery? We are told in, 1 Corinthians 6:9, that adulterers will not inherit the kingdom of God?
Anybody care to explain how these adulterers fit into the debate about "overcomers," "being"in Christ," "and "Grace Flight 777?" God bless, Chuck Miller : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : vernecarty December 05, 2005, 06:12:29 PM In light of the discussion on this BB and others under the subjects "Forget and Forgive" and "Traversing Purgatory" - is the Christian who divorces and remarries living in adultery? We are told in, 1 Corinthians 6:9, that adulterers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Anybody care to explain how these adulterers fit into the debate about "overcomers," "being"in Christ," "and "Grace Flight 777?" God bless, Chuck Miller A fair question. One might well ask can any unforgiven sin keep us out of the kingdom. I think it is helpful to remember that flesh and blood shalll not inherit the kingdom... Verne : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : Chuck Miller December 05, 2005, 07:23:43 PM Quote from: Chuck Miller on Today at 05:54:39 AM
In light of the discussion on this BB and others under the subjects "Forget and Forgive" and "Traversing Purgatory" - is the Christian who divorces and remarries living in adultery? We are told in, 1 Corinthians 6:9, that adulterers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Anybody care to explain how these adulterers fit into the debate about "overcomers," "being"in Christ," "and "Grace Flight 777?" Verne wrote: A fair question. One might well ask can any unforgiven sin keep us out of the kingdom. I think it is helpful to remember that flesh and blood shalll not inherit the kingdom... So, what is your answer to my question and your own question, Verne? Chuck : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : vernecarty December 05, 2005, 08:04:47 PM Quote from: Chuck Miller on Today at 05:54:39 AM Verne wrote: So, what is your answer to my question and your own question, Verne? Chuck My understanding is that Christ has once suffered for sin. While I have great difficulty understanding how a person who has been redeemed can knowingly remain in a state of disobedience to God (some may argue that we all do and it is simply a matter of duration and/or degree), the fact remains that many professing Christians do just that. Clearly God will be faithful to discipline his own. This is not the same thing as saying that he will exact payment for sin twice. It may make some of us feel self-righteous that we are not guilty of the sin of adultery, while we may be entirely unaware of the sin of covetousness for example. Both, as a matter of jurisprudence are worthy of not just exclusion from the kingdom, but of death. Here is a list of folk who John tells us in Revelation will be excluded from the New Jerusalem: For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. Are people who are believers but have in their lifetime been guilty of murder excluded? How about former practioners of withcraft? If they are not excluded, why not? Think about it. Verne p.s. Chuck is has really helped me to think about questions like these in terms of God's stages of salvation in the redeemed. All Christians have been delivered from sin's penalty. Not all Christians currently evidence deliverance from its power. Every child of God will one day be delivered from sin's very presence. He breaks the power of cancelled sin... this songwriter was really onto something...! :) : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : Chuck Miller December 05, 2005, 08:17:42 PM OK, Verne
So what is your answer? Chuck : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : vernecarty December 05, 2005, 08:34:16 PM OK, Verne So what is your answer? Chuck If Christ has paid the penalty for someone's sin, clearly that sin cannot be basis for exclusion from God's kingdom. Verne p.s Obviously this discussion is about a very fundamental question of how we view the nature/extent of the doctrine of atonement... : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : Chuck Miller December 05, 2005, 09:32:30 PM Verne,
You wrote: If Christ has paid the penalty for someone's sin, clearly that sin cannot be basis for exclusion from God's kingdom. Verne Then what is the meaning of 1 Cor 6:8-10? On the contrary, you yourselves wrong and defraud. You do this even to your brethren. Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Chuck : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : vernecarty December 05, 2005, 10:56:32 PM Verne, You wrote: Then what is the meaning of 1 Cor 6:8-10? On the contrary, you yourselves wrong and defraud. You do this even to your brethren. Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Chuck It means what it says - the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God. I will assume your failure to quote the following verse is an honest omission. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. 2 Cor 6:11 Context is everything... Verne : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : Chuck Miller December 06, 2005, 02:29:09 AM Verne,
So, let me see if I understand correctly. In context 2 Cor 6-12 is saying that, a believer who is an adulterer is going to inherit the kingdom? Chuck : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : vernecarty December 06, 2005, 03:11:00 AM Verne, So, let me see if I understand correctly. In context 2 Cor 6-12 is saying that, a believer who is an adulterer is going to inherit the kingdom? Chuck Unless I misread Paul the tense he used is past. Chuck, there will be no sinners, (adulterers or any other kind) in heaven....i.e. in the kingdom. If you think that the fact that we are not adulterers qualifies you or me for inheritance and God's kingdom ( and conversely disqualifies another believer who is guilty of this particular sin)...well, that would explain the fundamental difference in our theology on this point... :) Just imagine my showing up before God with that list from 1 Cor.6 and informing Him - I am guilty of none of these things, now let me in...I'm entitled! Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Verne p.s. this conversation is a glorious illustration of how counter-intuitive to the rational mind, is the Biblical concept of grace... p.p.s I am not dismissing your underlying question as to what becomes of a Christian who sins, and sins "badly", after he is saved (don't make the fatal error of assuming that adultery will disqualify you but pride, which is not mentioned in that verse will not, for example. What disqualifies a person is unrighteousness!!!!) I am strenuously contending that you are simply not prepared to tackle that question until and unless you fully understand what being saved actually means...namely, to be declared righteous!!!...and that by Almighty God... : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : Uncle Buck December 06, 2005, 05:44:41 AM Obviously this man is better off than his promiscuous wife, and the children are better off with him, but the fact remains that God says that remarriage is an adulterous relationship. (This man would still be a better influence in his children's lives even if he had not remarried.) Hopon Are you ultimately saying this man and anyone else who is divorced then remarried is going to hell unless their former spouse dies or they get divoced from their new spouse ? Buck : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : Joe Sperling December 06, 2005, 06:09:31 AM I will share something personally and then ask a question. After I left the Assembly I totally
walked away from God. I felt I was worthless as a christian, so why even try? I got married to an unsaved woman, who eventually began to see another man and left me. It was a horr- ible time in my life and completely my fault. I have not married since, but do have a girlfriend now who believes. What if I wanted to marry her? Am I forbidden to do so? Perhaps God would say "Joe, too bad. I sure wish you had murdered someone--I could forgive that mistake. But you have commited the one act that I can never forgive--you can never marry again, because if you do so you will commit adultery. I know it was all a terrible mistake for which you have asked forgiveness, but sorry Joe, I can forgive all manner of laciviousness, blasphemy, and even murder. But I cannot forgive you if you remarry--you will be disowned by me and cannot inherit the Kingdom. I made a mistake in my life. If I remarry, to a Christian woman, do you really think God would look down and frown, and never forgive me for "an adulterous act"? Why can God forgive all other errors made in one's life except this one? Ask yourself that and tell me if you really believe it. --Joe : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : Chuck Miller December 06, 2005, 06:39:07 AM Verne,
You wrote: If Christ has paid the penalty for someone's sin, clearly that sin cannot be basis for exclusion from God's kingdom. Then later you wrote: Chuck, there will be no sinners, (adulterers or any other kind) in heaven....i.e. in the kingdom. Verne, Since you contradict yourself in subsequent posts on the same day. I'm having a difficult time determining exactly what it is that you believe. I'll repeat my original question and perhaps someone else will be able to answer it. I asked: In light of the discussion on this BB and others under the subjects "Forget and Forgive" and "Traversing Purgatory" - is the Christian who divorces and remarries living in adultery? Chuck Miller : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : Uncle Buck December 06, 2005, 07:02:16 AM I believe that C.S. Lewis married a divorced women after he became a Christian. Are there any other prominent Christians that anyone is aware of ?
: Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : hopon December 06, 2005, 07:42:32 AM Hopon Buck, if you look back to my original post, you will see, where I highlighted red, that this is not an issue of heaven or hell. Are you ultimately saying this man and anyone else who is divorced then remarried is going to hell unless their former spouse dies or they get divoced from their new spouse ? Buck quote author=hopon link=topic=773.msg28072#msg28072 date=1133714501] This topic has been barely scraped here and I think it is an important one: Remarriage of a Christian. The Bible calls remarriage adultery. In Malachi, it is mentioned that God hates divorce, which is one issue, but the issue of remarriage seems to go beyond that to a point of adultery, which was punishable by death in the OT. Death separated the person from God, so, bringing the issue to NT times, might suggest that the remarried person, considering that they are in the constant state of adultery, have removed themselves from the presence of God. No one who is filled with the spirit would steal, commit murder, commit adultery. If we are not in God's presence, it would follow that we would not be filled with the spirit, and would actually be "on our own" by choice, and would be left to head knowledge, psychological reasoning, and in fact are looking from the outside, in, to where others who have not made the same choice to remarry, are actually enjoying the reality of God's presence in a closer way. This is not to say that the remarried Christian has lost salvation. I would like to hear what others have to say about this important issue, without hearing that this is a gg issue which can now be ignored. : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : vernecarty December 06, 2005, 08:04:04 AM I will share something personally and then ask a question. After I left the Assembly I totally walked away from God. I felt I was worthless as a christian, so why even try? I got married to an unsaved woman, who eventually began to see another man and left me. It was a horr- ible time in my life and completely my fault. I have not married since, but do have a girlfriend now who believes. What if I wanted to marry her? Am I forbidden to do so? Perhaps God would say "Joe, too bad. I sure wish you had murdered someone--I could forgive that mistake. But you have commited the one act that I can never forgive--you can never marry again, because if you do so you will commit adultery. I know it was all a terrible mistake for which you have asked forgiveness, but sorry Joe, I can forgive all manner of laciviousness, blasphemy, and even murder. But I cannot forgive you if you remarry--you will be disowned by me and cannot inherit the Kingdom. I made a mistake in my life. If I remarry, to a Christian woman, do you really think God would look down and frown, and never forgive me for "an adulterous act"? Why can God forgive all other errors made in one's life except this one? Ask yourself that and tell me if you really believe it. --Joe There are two separate issues as I see it. The first is your marrying an unsaved person in clear contravention of God's Word. Granted you were discouraged, you still knew better. I have no doubt that you have confessed that and repented of it and without a doubt God has forgiven you. It must be obvious to you and everyone else who reads your story that God's forgiveness did not mean you would not suffer consequences for your decision. You should consider the first issue closed for God does. The second issue is the departure of an unbelieving spouse. Many Biblical scholars interpret the Christian not being "bound" as is referred to by Paul, as meaning the deserted Christian spouse is free to re-marry. Now here is the real deal. When it comes to how and why you should make a decision about this, everything that has been written on this BB about the topic is totally irrelevant. Few of us are in a position to really profit others by engaging in idle speculaton about the condition of the soul of a person who for whatever reason is in a re-marriage situation. My own feeling is unless that person is in a position of spiritual leadership, it is none of our bees wax. Joe my friend let me give you a word of advice. There is only One Pperson whose opinion is at all important in all this. Do not repeat your first error. This time get His opinion! Verne : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : vernecarty December 06, 2005, 08:29:06 AM I believe that C.S. Lewis married a divorced women after he became a Christian. Are there any other prominent Christians that anyone is aware of ? Many of us think that Lewis disobeyed Scripture in this marriage. I am however in no position to declare his inheritance as a child of God null and void, or that he has forfeited the kingdom of God. ::) That particular sin, and all the others Lewis ever committed during his life-time is fully atoned for if he was saved, and I believe he was. You would be quite surprised at how common divorce and re-marriage is these days. I was absolutely stunned to hear that Charles Stanley's wife divorced him... I do not know if this is true or if he re-married. Verne : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : hopon December 06, 2005, 09:19:11 AM Many of us think that Lewis disobeyed Scripture in this marriage. You are saying that if sin is fully atoned for, that there are no consequences for it in the next life?I am however in no position to declare his inheritance as a child of God null and void, or that he has forfeited the kingdom of God. ::) That particular sin, and all the others Lewis ever committed during his life-time is fully atoned for if he was saved, and I believe he was. You would be quite surprised at how common divorce and re-marriage is these days. Surprised? More like dismayed.: Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : Oscar December 06, 2005, 10:17:11 AM Hopon,
You said: The Bible calls remarriage adultery. In Malachi, it is mentioned that God hates divorce, which is one issue, but the issue of remarriage seems to go beyond that to a point of adultery, which was punishable by death in the OT. Death separated the person from God, so, bringing the issue to NT times, might suggest that the remarried person, considering that they are in the constant state of adultery, have removed themselves from the presence of God. Your assertion that "death separated the person from God" seems problematic to me. Everyone dies, so physical death alone does not separate us from God. Adam died spiritually on the day he rebelled, but he continued in bodily life for many years. There is physical death, and there is spiritual death. It seems to me that you are confusing the two. If you mean that a person executed under the law was in a state of spiritual death, then that would mean that he was unsaved. If so, this certainly is not analogous to a born-again Christian who commits the sin of adultery. So "bringing the issue to NT times" can't be done. Blessings, Thomas Maddux : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : vernecarty December 06, 2005, 10:18:36 AM You are saying that if sin is fully atoned for, that there are no consequences for it in the next life? Can anybody show me in Scripture what those consequences will be? I am told that we will all give an account at the judgement seat of Christ. This in no way changes the fact that the destiny of each child of God is one of glory. The way some people talk about what others are going to experience in eternity you would think they had been there and back with detailed report in hand. The fact is hopon, we do not know the answers to many of these questions and what is often asserted with great confidence is nothing more than rank speculation and a sloppiness in the handling of what is revealed. Christ paid for the sin, and sins of every believer who places faith in him - sins present past and future! At the time He died for your sins, they were all future. He paid the price in full, or God could not possibly redeem you, or could at best do so only conditionally. This is critical!! This is fundamental!!! I am probably flogging a dead horse here but I find it astonshing how this simple doctrinal tenet escapes so many otherwise insightful folk. None of us have any warrant for pompous statements about what the Lord Jesus Christ is going to do about the partucular sins of any believer. It seems some people are going to have to throw king David right out of the kingdom... :) Surprised? More like dismayed. It is indeed troubling. I shake my head in amazement as I now see ministries galore springing up for "blended" families...how sad...! Verne : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : vernecarty December 06, 2005, 10:23:29 AM Hopon, You said: Your assertion that "death separated the person from God" seems problematic to me. Blessings, Thomas Maddux More precisely, sin is what actually separates from God. That separation is what issues in death and is in fact an accurate definition of the state. For example, physical death is separation of soul and body... Verne : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : Oscar December 06, 2005, 10:37:06 AM If Christ has paid the penalty for someone's sin, clearly that sin cannot be basis for exclusion from God's kingdom. Verne p.s Obviously this discussion is about a very fundamental question of how we view the nature/extent of the doctrine of atonement... Amen! The answer to the question, "what about this or that sin" is that Christ bore it on the cross. Legalists who demand that we bear our own sins, (who apparently feel that they are in a position to demand it of us), have forgotton that a just punishment has already been inflicted for those sins. Isaiah 53:5, "But he was pierced for our transgressins, he was crushed for our iniquities. The punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed." Blessings, Thomas Maddux : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : vernecarty December 06, 2005, 10:48:13 AM Amen! The answer to the question, "what about this or that sin" is that Christ bore it on the cross. Legalists who demand that we bear our own sins, (who apparently feel that they are in a position to demand it of us), have forgotton that a just punishment has already been inflicted for those sins. Isaiah 53:5, "But he was pierced for our transgressins, he was crushed for our iniquities. The punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed." Blessings, Thomas Maddux In view of how absolutely fundamental this is Tom, I must say I am more than a bit surprised at some of the commentary and queries that have arisen... Is it possible that some of us just do not understand what it means to be saved, and from what??!!! Verne : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : hopon December 06, 2005, 08:17:35 PM In view of how absolutely fundamental this is Tom, I must say I am more than a bit surprised at some of the commentary and queries that have arisen... Then it's not possible to lose our crowns? Is it possible that some of us just do not understand what it means to be saved, and from what??!!! Verne : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : Joe Sperling December 06, 2005, 08:48:39 PM Hopon---
I'm not sure why you ask the question "Then it's not possible to lose our crowns?" Tom and Verne are speaking of salvation, not "rewards". Tom is referring to the fact that Jesus has born ALL of our sins and paid the price forever for all who receive him and are born-again. When one receives Christ they are translated from the Kingdom of darkness to the Kingdom of Light. They are saved forever and to the utmost because "it is finished". The born-again believer is placed "in Christ" and becomes part of his body. The believer "in Christ" can live godly ("Yea, and all who will live godly IN CHRIST JESUS shall suffer persecution" 2 Tim 3:12) but they can also backslide, and as Peter states "they cannot see afar off having forgotten that they were purged of their old sins"--but they are still IN CHRIST as his children. They will be chastened and brought back to the Lord. The crowns are awards that will be given for your service "In Christ". Crowns can be lost(or never obtained), but crowns have nothing to do with salvation. The crowns are for works done in the body after one has been saved--crowns are not some reward of salvation BECAUSE OF your works. --Joe : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : hopon December 06, 2005, 08:48:51 PM It seems some people are going to have to throw king David right out of the kingdom... :) David repented from his adultery and since Uriah was killed in battle, David was free to marry Bathsheba, who was no longer considered to be in a married state. Is there no one who will answer Chuck's question below? Verne, Since you contradict yourself in subsequent posts on the same day. I'm having a difficult time determining exactly what it is that you believe. I'll repeat my original question and perhaps someone else will be able to answer it. I asked: In light of the discussion on this BB and others under the subjects "Forget and Forgive" and "Traversing Purgatory" - is the Christian who divorces and remarries living in adultery? Chuck Miller : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : hopon December 06, 2005, 08:51:29 PM Hopon--- I'm not sure why you ask the question "Then it's not possible to lose our crowns?" Tom and Verne are speaking of salvation, not "rewards". Tom is referring to the fact that Jesus has born ALL of our sins and paid the price forever for all who receive him and are born-again. When one receives Christ they are translated from the Kingdom of darkness to the Kingdom of Light. They are saved forever and to the utmost because "it is finished". The born-again believer is placed "in Christ" and becomes part of his body. The believer "in Christ" can live godly ("Yea, and all who will live godly IN CHRIST JESUS shall suffer persecution" 2 Tim 3:12) but they can also backslide, and as Peter states "they cannot see afar off having forgotten that they were purged of their old sins"--but they are still IN CHRIST as his children. They will be chastened and brought back to the Lord. The crowns are awards that will be given for your service "In Christ". Crowns can be lost(or never obtained), but crowns have nothing to do with salvation. The crowns are for works done in the body after one has been saved--crowns are not some reward of salvation BECAUSE OF your works. --Joe I never brought up the issue of salvation. If you look back at my first post, you will notice that I mentioned that the remarriage of a divorced Christian is not an issue of heaven or hell. : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : vernecarty December 06, 2005, 08:59:15 PM Then it's not possible to lose our crowns? Your question illustrates the kind of conditioning that has taken place as a resut of listening to false teachers. I will freely confess that I myself have been such a victim. Show me one verse of Scritpture that makes any reference whatsoever to anyone's losing a crown. I suspect you are thinking of revelation 3:11 where the Lord exhorts the church of Philadelphia that they see to it that no man take their crown. A few quick questions hopon. Many crowns are referred to in Scripture. Exactly which of the ones referenced are you of the opinion that anyone is at risk of loosing? There are also two words used in the Greek text - diadem and stephanos and there is a difference, one being of royalty, the other of victory. do you think a diadem can be forfeited? David repented from his adultery and since Uriah was killed in battle, David was free to marry Bathsheba, who was no longer considered to be in a married state. Is there no one who will answer Chuck's question below? There is something petulant about your and Chuck's repeated suggestion that this question has not been answered. It goes without saying that Christians commit this as well as many other sins, and if Scripture is violated when a Christian engages in divorce, Scripture considers him or her still married and this is what makes remarriage an adulterous act! This is a simple fact that you both seem unable to acknowledge. If the divorce is Scripturally warranted - REMARRIAGE IS NOT ADULTERY! Am I still being too subtle? :) The contention that adultery on the part of a believer will keep him out of the kingdom betrays a complete lack of understanding of what it means to be saved. Your point about David's repentance is well taken - what does it tell you about judging other people's sin? Verne : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : Oscar December 06, 2005, 09:04:14 PM Then it's not possible to lose our crowns? Hopon, If the "loss" of crowns by Christians is a possibility, then there should be a place in the Bible where this is clearly taught. Do you know of such a place? If so, please quote it and tell us why you have come to this conclusion. If you do not know where this is taught, why does it concern you? Blessings, Thomas Maddux : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : Jem December 06, 2005, 10:18:47 PM Whoa, did I miss something in the I & II Samuel?
I can see how the death of Uriah would put Bethsheba in an unmarried state, but David? Had all his wives died? I think the spirit of the story is David's repentence and the grace that followed not the letter of his legal standing under the law. : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : hopon December 06, 2005, 10:44:46 PM Whoa, did I miss something in the I & II Samuel? Multiple wives doesn't seem to be an issue with God in the OT. It is not addressed as sin for David. They were his wives and always had been.I can see how the death of Uriah would put Bethsheba in an unmarried state, but David? Had all his wives died? I think the spirit of the story is David's repentence and the grace that followed not the letter of his legal standing under the law. And David suffered tremenous consequences afterwards because of his sins with Bathsheba and Uriah: The death of the infant of Bathsheba, the behavior of his son Absalom in response to his father David's behavior, and his ability to build the temple taken from him by God : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : hopon December 06, 2005, 10:55:32 PM Hopon, If the "loss" of crowns by Christians is a possibility, then there should be a place in the Bible where this is clearly taught. Do you know of such a place? If so, please quote it and tell us why you have come to this conclusion. If you do not know where this is taught, why does it concern you? Blessings, Thomas Maddux Revelation 3:11 Behold I come quickly, hold fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown. If someone takes your crown, you no longer have it. : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : Elizabeth H December 06, 2005, 11:03:48 PM Is there no one who will answer Chuck's question below? Chuck's questions have been answered multiple times! Mark answered him, Verne answered him, Tom answered him, Joe answered him. I answered him. But Chuck doesn't like the answers. Or he doesn't agree. So he gets ever more abrasive and starts backing people into corners, throwing out personal jabs (questioning people's spirituality, etc.) & generally playing dirty. Not cool. We don't agree but we have answered. E. : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : vernecarty December 07, 2005, 12:46:10 AM Chuck's questions have been answered multiple times! Mark answered him, Verne answered him, Tom answered him, Joe answered him. I answered him. But Chuck doesn't like the answers. Or he doesn't agree. So he gets ever more abrasive and starts backing people into corners, throwing out personal jabs (questioning people's spirituality, etc.) & generally playing dirty. Not cool. We don't agree but we have answered. E. Much of what is written in Scripture is pretty black and white - no lying, no stealing etc. etc. The issues of divorce and remarriage are not so black and white and Chuck and Hopon do strike me as being a bit more rigid on this than the Scripture is. I watched with interest as Chuck previously raised the issue about R rated movies and seem adamant that those queried would and should admit that going to see a R rated movie was...well, sinful. :) This kind of perspective I consider to be a bit on the legalistic side frankly. The reason God redeemed us was so that we could be free. To impose on a fellow believer what may be for you a matter of conscience is really unhealthy IMHO. This is really what I had been trying to subtly get across on the question of divorce and remarriage - we need to be extremely careful to not engage in a wholesale condemnation of others. We rarely have all the facts. O.K. I will now leave it alone... :) Verne : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : hopon December 07, 2005, 01:17:56 AM It goes without saying that Christians commit this as well as many other sins, and if Scripture is violated when a Christian engages in divorce, Scripture considers him or her still married and this is what makes remarriage an adulterous act! This is a simple fact that you both seem unable to acknowledge. If the divorce is Scripturally warranted - REMARRIAGE IS NOT ADULTERY! So then if the divorce is not scripturally warranted, you are saying that the person who remarries is committing an adulterous act, but is not living in a continous adulterous situation? But what I'm seeing is that even though God hates divorce, he says one may divorce their spouse if the spouse has already "left" them (to cavort with another, or to do their own thing, etc.). But, God will not and cannot deny his own (2 Tim. 2:13), so that we are still considered his own, as a prodigal son, even though we have left him. In the same way, I believe that God considers every divorced person to be still married to the spouse that they have divorced on paper. These are spiritual bonds, so that it would seem to me that even though a person is legally divorced, they are still "married" to the first spouse and so are in a continous state of adultery with the second spouse. If divorce/remarriage is important enough to keep one from occupying the office of a church leader, what does it say to anyone else in the church? The contention that adultery on the part of a believer will keep him out of the kingdom betrays a complete lack of understanding of what it means to be saved. 2)The fact that there are rewards given in heaven indicate that there is a consequence in eternity for our behavior in this life. Your point about David's repentance is well taken - what does it tell you about judging other people's sin? Nathan confronted David with his sins. This divorce/remarriage issue is one that is worthy of discussion of any scriptural reference and discussion of the consequences of it given to us by God in the Word. Verne Until David had repented, his relationship with God was not what it had been before he sinned, just as the prodigal son was not in fellowship with his father while he was off doing his own thing. My concern, and what initiated my first post on this topic, was whether one's relationship with God would change after one had been remarried. I believe this is a legitimate and important concern, for if remarriage is considered to be a continous state of adultery, it would be hard to find God in it, wouldn't you think? How could you return to your original relationship with God when you have permanently left it behind? (Esau couldn't find it, though he sought it with tears.) : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : Elizabeth H December 07, 2005, 01:52:37 AM (Enoch couldn't find it, though he sought it with tears.) I think you mean Esau? Enoch being the one who was not found--having been raptured and all. ;) : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : hopon December 07, 2005, 02:02:35 AM I think you mean Esau? Yes, thank you.Enoch being the one who was not found--having been raptured and all. ;) : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : Joe Sperling December 07, 2005, 02:18:09 AM Hopon---
Honest mistake--but I think you mean Esau not Enoch. I do have a question though---why would God consider divorce and then remarriage adultery, and not the death of a spouse and remarriage? Wouldn't the person still be considered in God's eyes as married to their original wife? If the man/woman remarries after the death of a spouse why isn't that considered adul- tery? The person is not gone forever--they have entered eternity. I really do believe that when Jesus says if someone "puts away" his wife and then marries another he has committed adultery, he is referring to getting rid of one wife to obtain another. What of the wife who has been put away? Was that her fault? If she marries again is she an adulteress? According to what you are saying she is. Do you really believe God would want a woman to be miserable the rest of her life, or a man who made a mistake earlier in his life? As is the custom in Arab countries, it was in the days of Israel when a man could say "I divorce you, I divorce you, I divorce you" and they were considered divorced. I think that is what Jesus is referring to--considering marriage something that could be thrown away with a whim. But I seriously and truly do not believe that God is going to eternally separate himself from someone who made a mistake earlier in their life, and then remarries years later. Lamentations says that God does not willingly vex the children of men. Would God really put something into effect that would destroy someone's life forever? A man marries a woman at 19 years for example. It is a terrble mistake(perhaps the woman got pregnant, and he, feeling it is the right thing to do marries a woman whom he never should have married in the first place). They slowly disintegrate because they never really loved one another, but instead were infatuated with one another. They wind up divorced. They both agree that they were not made for one another and made a huge mistake. Now---according to your theology, if either of them marries again they are committing adultery. So, if either of them genuinely falls in love with someone else they can NEVER get married again, because God sees it as adultery. Even if 30 years have passed. I don't believe that is the correct interpretation of Scripture. God does not "vex" us due to mistakes we have made. He is the "God of second chances". I personally may never get married again. But I believe he has forgiven my youthly errors--yes, I knew it was wrong, but it was MY mistake. If I choose to remarry due to the deep love I have for someone, do you really believe that God will frown upon it, and not honor it, and separate himself from me for eternity? When Peter asked Jesus "How often shall I forgive my brother? Until seven times?" Jesus replied "No, until 70 times 7 times". Does the God who made that statement hold grudges? Does he plant something in his word which will vex and eliminate any joy in future life due to past errors? He can forgive anything else--according to your theology this is the one thing he cannot forgive or allow. Why? Why would he grant second chances in everything else except marriage? The prodigal son took his inheritance, blew all the money on prostitutes, liquor and fun. What if, in his youthful folly he got drunk and got married? He realizes his error, gets immediately divorced and returns to his father to be "one of his servants". The father forgives him for everything in joy, but then says "Son, I'm truly sorry, but there is one thing I cannot forgive you for. Remember that woman you married during your inebriated journey? Well, you are stuck with her for the rest of your life. If you attempt to marry someone else--even if you deeply love them--I am always going to consider you married to that woman. In anything else I would give you a second chance, but in this one thing I am afraid I cannot". Does this sound like God? --Joe : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : vernecarty December 07, 2005, 02:29:18 AM Okay. I see what you are saying here. Thank you for finally, clearly stating your belief. So then if the divorce is not scripturally warranted, you are saying that the person who remarries is committing an adulterous act, but is not living in a continous adulterous situation? A fair qustion and I am not sure I know the answer. The nature of true repentance when one has sinned is ultimately between the soul and God. The question that you are asking is whether someone who knowingly, and I stress knowingly, enters into a marital relationship while still married to another Scripturally, should leave the second marriage? My own opinion is that yes, they should; and as long as they do not, they are indeed in a state of disobedience to God. Romans speaks to this exact issue. While they are married to another, it obviously has to be considered an "adulterous situation" as you so aptly put it. But what I'm seeing is that even though God hates divorce, he says one may divorce their spouse if the spouse has already "left" them (to cavort with another, or to do their own thing, etc.). Don't get me wrong on this Hopon. My sentiments are with you on this one 100%. Having put my foot in my mouth on the topic in the past, I am far more cautious in what I now assert. But, God will not and cannot deny his own (2 Tim. 2:13), so that we are still considered his own, as a prodigal son, even though we have left him. In the same way, I believe that God considers every divorced person to be still married to the spouse that they have divorced on paper. These are spiritual bonds, so that it would seem to me that even though a person is legally divorced, they are still "married" to the first spouse and so are in a continous state of adultery with the second spouse. This indeed is the difficulty. Marriage is supposed to reflect the relationship of Christ to the Church - very serious business indeed... If divorce/remarriage is important enough to keep one from occupying the office of a church leader, what does it say to anyone else in the church? This is a marvellous question! My theory is that it is exactly because of the church's failure to uphold a Biblical standard as regards its appointed leadership, that you are now seeing the problem become not only prevalent, but accepted. 1)Can you explain who are the sheep in the second resurrection and why they haven't been included in the first resurrection? (I'm not insinuating that they are divorced/remarried folks, and yes, these sheep are written in the book of life.) Could you specify the verse you are referring to here? 2)The fact that there are rewards given in heaven indicate that there is a consequence in eternity for our behavior in this life.Nathan confronted David with his sins. This divorce/remarriage issue is one that is worthy of discussion of any scriptural reference and discussion of the consequences of it given to us by God in the Word. Rewards in heaven yes. Implications for eternity not stated...so no one knows really.Until David had repented, his relationship with God was not what it had been before he sinned, just as the prodigal son was not in fellowship with his father while he was off doing his own thing. My concern, and what initiated my first post on this topic, was whether one's relationship with God would change after one had been remarried. You are certainly right about fellowship. The relationship however does not ever change, thank God! When my daughter is having a bad day and exasperating her dad does she stop being my daughter? Sometimes in my moments of greatest exasperation is realisation of how deeply I love,care and want the very best for her...a pale reflection of the reality of the disposition of our Heavenly Father. I believe this is a legitimate and important concern, for if remarriage is considered to be a continous state of adultery, it would be hard to find God in it, wouldn't you think? How could you return to your original relationship with God when you have permanently left it behind? (Esau couldn't find it, though he sought it with tears.) I agree it is legitimate and important. The path of repentance and return for those who have failed in this way would indeed be difficult...but God is able.... Verne : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : soul dreamer December 07, 2005, 03:12:08 AM “Whoever marries her who is divorced from her husband commits adultery” (Lk. 16:18b). The woman has committed an adulterous act, and the Lord says the second man who married her commits adultery. Why is the second party also an adulterer? I believe it is because he has married a woman who is still bound to a living mate. Paul writes, “For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man” (Rom. 7:2-3). A man and a woman covenant themselves to each other in the marriage relationship, but God joins the two eligible parties in the marriage bond (Matt. 19:6). Divorce does not loose the marriage bond; only physical death does.
In the Old Testament, the Lord allowed divorce because of “the hardness of their hearts,” but even then the Lord said that if the divorced woman was remarried to someone besides her original husband, she was “defiled” (Deut. 24:4). The Hebrew for this word “defiled” is the same as the “defiled” in the following verse: “Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbor's wife, to defile thyself with her” (Lev. 18:20). Now, the Lord says, “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 5:19). It is plain then that there are varying measures of praise from the Lord for those who both taught and did on earth according to the Sermon on the Mount. I believe He shall examine our doctrine and behavior through each verse of this great Sermon -- “teachers receive stricter judgment” (Jam. 3:1), and “everything shall be manifested;” “shouted from the rooftops” (Lk 12:2). I believe it is possible that a teacher could receive glowing praise from the Lord for teaching and doing faithfully according to every verse of the Sermon… except for one verse. Although a teacher may have many “rewards” or “crowns” or “Well done!-s” from the Lord for other aspects of his life/ministry, I believe many teachers from my generation shall not hear “Great! Good teaching!” when the Lord queries them for how they taught on: “Whoever marries her who is divorced from her husband commits adultery.” I believe it is possible that they may even hear something as, “That was erroneous teaching, son, and you encouraged some of My children to sin by your teaching.” : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : vernecarty December 07, 2005, 03:40:26 AM Hopon--- Lamentations says that God does not willingly vex the children of men. Would God really put something into effect that would destroy someone's life forever? A man marries a woman at 19 years for example. It is a terrble mistake(perhaps the woman got pregnant, and he, feeling it is the right thing to do marries a woman whom he never should have married in the first place). They slowly disintegrate because they never really loved one another, but instead were infatuated with one another. They wind up divorced. They both agree that they were not made for one another and made a huge mistake. So far as I can tell, Scripture does not aknowledge that a marriage such as this is a "mistake" At its core, marriage is committment, and a sacred one at that. The problem is the marriage vow in someway that I do not fully understand has Divine imprimatur. Our subsequent belief that it was a mistake does not change that. This is why marriage is so incredibly serious and why Scripture strongly cautions that what God has joined, let not man ( the married parties themselves included) separate. Now---according to your theology, if either of them marries again they are committing adultery. So, if either of them genuinely falls in love with someone else they can NEVER get married again, because God sees it as adultery. Even if 30 years have passed. I don't believe that is the correct interpretation of Scripture. I suppose the way I look at this is that it underscores the seriousness of the marriage vow. The explanation of "falling in love" with someone else is one the most frequent reasons given for infidelity. I do not envy those who have to work through issues like these. God was remarkably merciful and kind to me in this regard and for that I will be eternally grateful to Him. Had he given me what I thought I wanted, I am convinced it would have led to life-long regret... Verne : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : Joe Sperling December 07, 2005, 04:05:14 AM Verne---
I fully agree that many take marriage lightly, using the excuse of "falling in love with someone" as an excuse for divorce. The point I am making is that people do make mistakes in a wide variety of ways that effect their lives. In many cases it is not God who has joined together, but the people in haste, without seriously thinkiing things out, who get married and realize that it wasn't meant to be. Should they be penalized for the rest of their lives for such a mistake? It is a lot different than willfully divorcing someone so you can marry someone else---that I can clearly see would be adultery. If both parties realize it is an error and say "I don't love you" to one another, and decide it is best they part ways, do you really believe they have to stay together in torment, because if they divorce and remarry someone else it is adultery? I know I am speaking from opinion, but I just don't believe God would be cruel and make two people spend the rest of their lives together because of a bad choice they both made in youth. "What God has joined together let no man put asunder" implies a work which God has done in bringing two people together in the bonds of love. Can we do things out of the will of God, and thus join together with someone God never intended? If there is a divorce are we putting asunder something God joined together? No. Both parties may both fully agree it was never meant to be. Again, would God "force" these two people to stay together when he never brought them together in the first place? I know I am arguing far more from opinion than anythihng else, so I will shut up about this now, but I just cannot believe that God would do something like that. -Joe : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : hopon December 07, 2005, 04:22:46 AM Verne--- In many cases it is not God who has joined together, but the people in haste, without seriously thinkiing things out, who get married and realize that it wasn't meant to be. Should they be penalized for the rest of their lives for such a mistake? If both parties realize it is an error and say "I don't love you" to one another, and decide it is best they part ways, do you really believe they have to stay together in torment, because if they divorce and remarry someone else it is adultery? I know I am speaking from opinion, but I just don't believe God would be cruel and make two people spend the rest of their lives together because of a bad choice they both made in youth. "What God has joined together let no man put asunder" implies a work which God has done in bringing two people together in the bonds of love. Can we do things out of the will of God, and thus join together with someone God never intended? Again, would God "force" these two people to stay together when he never brought them together in the first place? -Joe Joe, the "marriage from hell" was made hellish by the two people involved. It's exactly in this spot that we can learn to live according to what God wants because we have come to the end of what we can accomplish on our own: a marriage from hell. Most marriages would be in this condition if God is left out. Thus today we have the easy "no-fault" divorce. Abraham took things into his own hands with his relationship with Hagar. It was not what God had in mind for Abraham, but look at how God has kept his promise in blessing and increasing that lineage of Abraham. God still recognizes Hagar's children as Abraham's seed, though they were not the direct descendents of the "child of promise" to Abraham, but the result of Abraham's trying to work out God's promise to him. : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : hopon December 07, 2005, 04:53:33 AM from hopon: Could you specify the verse you are referring to here?1)Can you explain who are the sheep in the second resurrection and why they haven't been included in the first resurrection? (I'm not insinuating that they are divorced/remarried folks, and yes, these sheep are written in the book of life.) Verne The reference to sheep and goats is found in Matt.25:31-34, which also refers to Jesus sitting on the judgement throne as in Rev. 20. There in Rev.20 it also speaks of the first resurrection in which it seems only the martyrs will be a part of, who are also going to enjoy the millenial kingdom. So is the first resurrection for the martyrs only and the second one for the general Christian population mixed with those headed for the red lake? : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : Joe Sperling December 07, 2005, 05:38:57 AM Hopon----
The Bible speaks of (3) Judgements----- The judgement seat of Christ where Christians will be judged. The judgement of the Nations(this is Matt. 25:31-34) in which they are judged on how they treated the nation of Israel. These are the sheep and the goats. Most likely is a judgement right afer the Great Tribulation. The Great White Throne Judgement--where the unsaved are judged by their works and by the law and shown why they are being damned in the Lake of Fire. There are not (2) resurrections of Christians---there are (2) resurrections--of the "righteous" who will live through the Millenium, and the second resurrection of the lost or "unrighteous" (see the book of Daniel). --Joe : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : Uncle Buck December 07, 2005, 06:13:40 AM I will share something personally and then ask a question. After I left the Assembly I totally walked away from God. I felt I was worthless as a christian, so why even try? I got married to an unsaved woman, who eventually began to see another man and left me. It was a horr- ible time in my life and completely my fault. I have not married since, but do have a girlfriend now who believes. What if I wanted to marry her? Am I forbidden to do so? Perhaps God would say "Joe, too bad. I sure wish you had murdered someone--I could forgive that mistake. But you have commited the one act that I can never forgive--you can never marry again, because if you do so you will commit adultery. I know it was all a terrible mistake for which you have asked forgiveness, but sorry Joe, I can forgive all manner of laciviousness, blasphemy, and even murder. But I cannot forgive you if you remarry--you will be disowned by me and cannot inherit the Kingdom. I made a mistake in my life. If I remarry, to a Christian woman, do you really think God would look down and frown, and never forgive me for "an adulterous act"? Why can God forgive all other errors made in one's life except this one? Ask yourself that and tell me if you really believe it. --Joe Hi Joe, My opinion is that we should persue Gods will in everything, we should do our best to live for Him, but we screw things up don't we...."prone to wander". Some of us punish ourselves way too much and sometimes we give no second thought to actions and attitudes we realize later are repulsive to God. I don't know you but I think very highly of anyone who can admit that they screwd up. Some people play it safe , but have they ever really stepped out in faith ? Obeying Gods statutes and laws are life but there is more to faith than obeying laws and statutes. After reading the whole Bible many times I believe it pleases God when we can admit we screwed up. I think King David was like this, he posessed a greater quality...He trusted and hoped in Gods mercy. David looked beyond the laws, he looked to the character of God. He knew God, he had a relationship with God. He did'nt play God for a chump, he knew God as the only King, because of this David faith gave him great liberty. David knew mercy has many possibilities. So I say put our faith in God, not in fear. Buck : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : hopon December 07, 2005, 07:35:27 AM Hi Joe, David looked beyond the laws, he looked to the character of God. David knew God's laws. That's why he tried to cover his sin! He knew God's laws stood fast and that he had committed a sin. He also knew the only way he could be married to Bathsheba was to have Uriah killed. It was the only way he could change the circumstances to appear to be innocent. What a picture to us of how we try to finagle our way around issues because we know what we have done is wrong. David didn't walk into his relationship with Bathsheba figuring ahead of time that God would forgive him for it. He never thought it would be found out. Yes, David knew God. : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : Uncle Buck December 07, 2005, 08:51:18 AM He never thought it would be found out. Maybe more like; somehow it would work out. I don't think he ever imagined the ramifications. Do you think David still loved Bethsheba after all the dust settled? Do you think God still loved David ?Yes, David knew God. Yes, David knew God : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : vernecarty December 07, 2005, 09:47:56 AM David knew God's laws. That's why he tried to cover his sin! He knew God's laws stood fast and that he had committed a sin. He also knew the only way he could be married to Bathsheba was to have Uriah killed. It was the only way he could change the circumstances to appear to be innocent. What a picture to us of how we try to finagle our way around issues because we know what we have done is wrong. David didn't walk into his relationship with Bathsheba figuring ahead of time that God would forgive him for it. He never thought it would be found out. Yes, David knew God. The larger lesson I draw from David's failure is what got him into the situation he found himself in. This unquestionably great man certainly did not purpose to take a stroll on his verandah expressly for the purpose of ogling some neigbour's wife taking a bath. What was, considering the rest of his life, a momentary weakness wreaked untold havoc on him, his family and his nation. The man was in the wrong place at the wrong time, a combination that can spell disaster for the strongest among us...and sometimes does... By God's grace, control your environment! Verne : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : hopon December 07, 2005, 10:01:16 AM Maybe more like; somehow it would work out. I don't think he ever imagined the ramifications. Do you think David still loved Bethsheba after all the dust settled? Do you think God still loved David ? Yes, David knew God Yes, I believe that David knew the ramifications. He was the king wasn't he? God put him in that position for a reason. He knew God's laws and how to obey, interpret and apply them. David was desperate when he arranged for Uriah's death. To arrange for someone's death to cover your own sin shows desperation in my mind. He was the king and the world was watching. (If David can do it, why can't we?) This is why God said that Bathsheba's child would die. The world was watching David as king and representative of God. Of course David was hoping that it would work out. Don't we all wish that? I believe that David loved Bathsheba. After his repentance, he could view Bathsheba thru God's eyes. He had wronged her. But look at the gentleness of David while he pleaded with God for the life of the child who died because of David's sin. Did God love David? Absolutely. David didn't die as a result of his sins and Solomon follows David as king. That is a strong statement in my mind. In reading the psalms, it is obvious that the most important relationship in David's life is his relationship with God. God values that kind of man. : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : hopon December 07, 2005, 10:06:52 AM The larger lesson I draw from David's failure is what got him into the situation he found himself in. This unquestionably great man certainly did not purpose to take a stroll on his verandah expressly for the purpose of ogling some neigbour's wife taking a bath. What was, considering the rest of his life, a momentary weakness wreaked untold havoc on him, his family and his nation. The man was in the wrong place at the wrong time, a combination that can spell disaster for the strongest among us...and sometimes does... By God's grace, control your environment! Verne I agree with you. And Bathsheba wasn't bathing in hopes of seducing a man, like many have tried to suggest. : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : Oscar December 07, 2005, 10:36:44 AM Revelation 3:11 Behold I come quickly, hold fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown. If someone takes your crown, you no longer have it. Hopon, I think there are a few problems with your understanding of this verse: 1. The "taking" could be hypothetical. We do not know if this has actually ever happened, or will happen. Just because you are warned against something does not mean you will actually do it. 2. This particular "crown", (STEPHANOS can mean many things, such as wreaths worn on the head at weddings), seems to be already in possession of the persons addressed. If so, it could not be one of the crowns that represent heavenly rewards for individuals. 3. The crown is probably an honor conferred upon the church at Philadelphia collectively. The church is being addressed through its "messenger". The passage speaks of "your crown", not "your crowns". 4. If a man can 'take" the crown it couldn't be a heavenly reward. 5. The church in Philadelphia is long gone, and did not last until the second coming of Christ. It could well be that the coming Christ speaks of a different coming, (!) or a "coming" in some other sense. All in all, using this verse to support the idea of eternal consequences doesn't work too well. Blessings, Thomas Maddux : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : hopon December 07, 2005, 11:19:42 AM Hopon, Why are you warned if there is not the possibility of the situation being warned against actually happening?I think there are a few problems with your understanding of this verse: 1. The "taking" could be hypothetical. We do not know if this has actually ever happened, or will happen. Just because you are warned against something does not mean you will actually do it. 2. This particular "crown", (STEPHANOS can mean many things, such as wreaths worn on the head at weddings), seems to be already in possession of the persons addressed. If so, it could not be one of the crowns that represent heavenly rewards for individuals. And there is the possibility of the crown not being awarded to the church as a whole, eh?, or there wouldn't have been the necessity of the warning.3. The crown is probably an honor conferred upon the church at Philadelphia collectively. The church is being addressed through its "messenger". The passage speaks of "your crown", not "your crowns". 4. If a man can 'take" the crown it couldn't be a heavenly reward. Could the "take" mean someone could keep you from getting the crown by distracting you and causing you to turn aside?5. The church in Philadelphia is long gone, and did not last until the second coming of Christ. It could well be that the coming Christ speaks of a different coming, (!) or a "coming" in some other sense. All in all, using this verse to support the idea of eternal consequences doesn't work too well. Blessings, Thomas Maddux This crown business reminds me of the verses in I Cor. 9:24-27 that describe the race where only one wins the prize. We are encouraged to live the Christian life as one who is running to win a race. If you've ever been to a race, you already know the comparisons are true to life, ie, preparation, distraction, determination, etc. There it talks about obtaining an imperishable crown, which means you don't already have it. : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : Chuck Miller December 07, 2005, 02:31:23 PM Quote from: VerneCarty on December 06, 2005, 11:47:56 pm
The larger lesson I draw from David's failure is what got him into the situation he found himself in. This unquestionably great man certainly did not purpose to take a stroll on his verandah expressly for the purpose of ogling some neigbour's wife taking a bath. What was, considering the rest of his life, a momentary weakness wreaked untold havoc on him, his family and his nation. The man was in the wrong place at the wrong time, a combination that can spell disaster for the strongest among us...and sometimes does... By God's grace, control your environment! Verne If you read the account in 2 Samuel 11 you will note that "David sent Joab out to battle........but David stayed at Jerusalem" (2 Sam 11:1) It was one of the only times that I can recall that David did not lead his men into battle. How true of us also, that we can fall into sin because we are not doing what we are supposed tro be doing or are not where we are supposed to be. And as Hopon pointed out , Bathsheba "was not bathing on the roof in order to seduce a man." But she was indiscreet in failing to recognize the possibility of being seen by others. Some lessons here for us to learn from. Chuck : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : vernecarty December 07, 2005, 05:18:06 PM Quote from: VerneCarty on December 06, 2005, 11:47:56 pm If you read the account in 2 Samuel 11 you will note that "David sent Joab out to battle........but David stayed at Jerusalem" (2 Sam 11:1) It was one of the only times that I can recall that David did not lead his men into battle. How true of us also, that we can fall into sin because we are not doing what we are supposed tro be doing or are not where we are supposed to be. And as Hopon pointed out , Bathsheba "was not bathing on the roof in order to seduce a man." But she was indiscreet in failing to recognize the possibility of being seen by others. Some lessons here for us to learn from. Chuck Right on the money! Why are you warned if there is not the possibility of the situation being warned against actually happening?And there is the possibility of the crown not being awarded to the church as a whole, eh?, or there wouldn't have been the necessity of the warning.Could the "take" mean someone could keep you from getting the crown by distracting you and causing you to turn aside? This crown business reminds me of the verses in I Cor. 9:24-27 that describe the race where only one wins the prize. We are encouraged to live the Christian life as one who is running to win a race. If you've ever been to a race, you already know the comparisons are true to life, ie, preparation, distraction, determination, etc. There it talks about obtaining an imperishable crown, which means you don't already have it. Tom makes some good points aobut the need to be careful in our application of the verse. I don't know about you hopon but a lot of the erroneous ideas I harboured about things like loss of our inheritance "losing out" and just a general attitude of some kind of spiritual ellitism came from so may years of listening uncritically to a man like George Geftakys. The man clearly had his motives among which were to manipulalte the emotions, control and instil fear, and create a sense of dependency in his hearers - leaving the assembly was leaving the covering! What incredible hogwash the man fed us all those years! It is often good to examine why we think a certain way about a particular Scripture. Having said that, I will confess that passage in 1 Corinthians 9 is to me one of the most sobering in all of Scripture and one of the reasons is that it is not explicit what is at stake although something clearly is. George Geftakys with terrible clarity illustrates the dire possibility that one can preach to others and end up being disqualified. My attitude about this passage, and all other such warnings in the Scripture is simply: I don't want to find out what the means, so Lord do whatever it takes... If one is following the Lord Jesus, you really don't have much time to be worrying about what you might loose; you are far too busy enjoying what you already possess! :) :) :) Good discussion...carry on! Verne p.s. I would like to pint out that in the Lord's exhortation to the church at Philadelphia, the structure suggests that holding fast to what they had, was equivalent to not losing their crown... : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : Oscar December 07, 2005, 07:41:42 PM Hopon,
You said: Could the "take" mean someone could keep you from getting the crown by distracting you and causing you to turn aside? I don't know. If you think that is what it means, tell us why. In this whole discussion of the Overcomer teachings the "overcomer" side has attempted to advance their position by merely asking questions. This, to many, serves as evidence of the weakness of the position. If people have positive arguments for their views they advance them. What has been going on is that the "overcomers" seem to feel that in asking these questions they will force those who believe in a full salvation by grace alone to join them in their rejection of this apostolic doctrine. Now this passage could be referring to what you have said. But does it? Until one is confident about the meaning of this verse, you cannot legitimatly use it as a premise. How can one conclude anything sound on the basis of "I don't know?" Clear thinking people know that that is not logically possible. This is why one of the most important principles of Biblical Hermeneutics is: Passages that are not clear should be interpreted in the light of passages that are clearly understood. This follows from the idea that the Bible, having a single omniscient author, does not contradict itself. This is what the Bible means when it says, "No scripture is of any private interpretation." This crown business reminds me of the verses in I Cor. 9:24-27 that describe the race where only one wins the prize. We are encouraged to live the Christian life as one who is running to win a race. If you've ever been to a race, you already know the comparisons are true to life, ie, preparation, distraction, determination, etc. There it talks about obtaining an imperishable crown, which means you don't already have it. Well, at least it means that the wreath of I Cor. 9:25 has not been obtained. What you are arguing here is that the wreath of Rev 3:11 is the same. Do you actually know that? If so, how? I Corinthians 9 is about Paul's apostleship. Paul is defending his claim to be an apostle against his critics. Apparently someone has accused him of being a "pork barrel preacher" who is in it for financial gain. Paul argues that: 1. He has a right to be supported as he preaches the gospel. 2. He has abstained from exercising his rights. 3. He devotes himself to a lifestyle and to ministry methods that make this possible. Interestingly, the NIV says in verse 27, "disqualified for the prize". The greek text, however, simply says "adokimos", which can mean "disqualified" or "rejected". Paul is arguing that he hopes to win a wreath of honor by faithful service in his apostleship, and is devoting himself to a lifestyle that makes that possible. Could he be disqualified from his apostleship? Seems to me he could. And if he were disqualified he could not, by faithful discharge of his office, earn his laurels. However, reading into this verse, as "Overcomer" teachers do, a loss of our inheritance in Christ is totally illegitimate. Paul is talking of reward for faithful service. He is not discussing our inheritance in Christ. GG, and others of his persuasion, "morph" this verse from its legitimate context to support their ideas in a completely different context. Blessings, Thomas Maddux : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : hopon December 07, 2005, 07:45:58 PM Tom makes some good points aobut the need to be careful in our application of the verse. I don't know about you hopon but a lot of the erroneous ideas I harboured about things like loss of our inheritance "losing out" It is often good to examine why we think a certain way about a particular Scripture. If one is following the Lord Jesus, So right here you say "if". We know that Christians exist who are not following the Lord. We know that we could be in the same condition they are. There would be no need for individuals giving account and undergoing individual judgement if there were no differences between the lives of saved individuals or unsaved individuals. (It could be done as a large classroom event) (However, back to the prodigal son, who spent his entire inheritance. It was gone. But he could still be accepted into his father's home.) Isn't Paul saying "run so you can get it all?" I don't think he is saying if you don't get it all you get nothing. : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : Oscar December 07, 2005, 07:46:23 PM Folks,
It is often good to examine why we think a certain way about a particular Scripture. Amen! In this discussion it is very evident that some understandings of passages that are brought up are imported from our experience in the cultic Geftakys assemblies. We need to be more like the Bereans. Blessings, Thomas Maddux : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : Chuck Miller December 07, 2005, 09:26:15 PM TOM
YOU WROTE: What has been going on is that the "overcomers" seem to feel that in asking these questions they will force those who believe in a full salvation by grace alone to join them in their rejection of this apostolic doctrine. RESPONSE: Your accusation that I reject the doctrine of “full salvation by grace alone” is blatantly false, and totally unwarranted. I will ask you to refrain from ever again making such a reckless statement. Chuck : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : vernecarty December 07, 2005, 11:04:18 PM One of the things we so often overlook about sin is its opportunity cost so to speak.
Perhaps this is one reason God's Word describes sin as deceitful. We are all quite familiar with sin's devastation in the life of the sinner and those around him, whether it be the drunk driver who visits death and destruction on an unsuspecting family, or some unfaithful spouse who plunges the family into a nigtmare of economic and emotional ruin, and the scarring of the young and innocent lives involved. Have we ever thought much about the other side of the coin, namely, all the subsequently missed opportunity for doing good, and if you are a Christian bringing glory to God's name in this life? Frankly, I find this a greater motivator than the fear of material loss or injury - what I fear most is the loss of opportunity! There are some sins that I can commit, that would forever deny me the opportunity to glorify my Lord and Saviour in the way he intended. How tragic! If I know myself to be a man given to lust, it would be high folly for me to be serving as an elder in my church for example. Think of the man Geftakys and what opportunities are now lost to him! Oh I know that he will continue to pretend, and posture but that will change nothing. Personally, I can think of no more powerful stimulus in our pursuit of holiness than theprospect of loss of opportunity available to us only in this life. I suspect the nature of any regret in glory will be a sudden apprehension of this truth, and not so much finger-wagging on the part of our Redeemer. Once faith becomes sight, such oppotunities are forever lost...think about it...just thinking out loud... Verne : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : Oscar December 07, 2005, 11:13:20 PM TOM YOU WROTE: RESPONSE: Your accusation that I reject the doctrine of “full salvation by grace alone” is blatantly false, and totally unwarranted. I will ask you to refrain from ever again making such a reckless statement. Chuck Chuck, A few days back I posted this: I am familiar with Dillow’s book, and find that there are some interesting insights in about several scriptures. However, I would not recommend it to anyone for any positive purpose. It is rife with circular reasoning, theological speculation, attempts to use analogies to “prove” interpretations, and appeals to fine points of Greek as a method to avoid the clear meaning of texts that don’t fit into his scheme. Thankfully, most folks will not be willing to endure all 605 pages of text as he spins his theories out in detail. The book is, IMHO, mind numbing. Having said that, I must go further. When I read Chapter 23, entitled “Negative Judgement and the Believer”, I was quite plainly shocked and alarmed. It will take a few paragraphs to explain what I mean. Here is the statement that first caused my sense of alarm, and further statements that strengthened that feeling: 1. “The atonement must therefore be a satisfaction for the sins of all men without exception.” (p.540) 2. “…the atonement must be a satisfaction for sin in a special sense.” (p.541). At this point I was saying to myself, “Can he really mean what I think he means?” He then goes on to convince me that he does. 3. Describing the ideas of a theologian named Dabney, he says, “He argues that the satisfaction of Christ does not obligate God to cancel our whole indebtedness, precisely the view of this writer. His acceptance of Christ’s death as a legal satisfaction ‘was, on His part, an act of pure grace; and therefore the acceptance acquits us just so far as, and no farther than God is pleased to allow it.’ “. (p.541) I became alarmed because I recognized what he was teaching. He confirms this over the next several pages. Earlier in this discussion I stated that anyone holding the Overcomer teaching must have a “low view of the forensic theory of Christ’s atonement, ie, that Christ bore the punishment for our sins and that our account is “reckoned” clear by God when we believe, who subsequently imputes the righteousness of Christ to us. From then on we have a standing with God as possessing Christ’s righteousness. All our sins are forgiven when we enter heaven. I was wrong. Dillow does not have a low view of this crucial doctrine. He has rejected it outright! In its place, he has resurrected the medieval Catholic speculations known as the “Satisfaction Theory of the Atonement”. According to this theory, taught by speculative Catholic theologians such as Anselm of Canturbury, (1033-1109AD), God, the great sovereign of the universe, has been “offended” by man’s sin. Now these folks understood just how much trouble you could get into if you offended a king or other high ranking official. These folks were powerful and could do terrible things to you if they wished to. God, in this view, condemns man because his honor is offended. The way to get back into a king’s, or in this case God’s, good graces is to make up for the offence, and then to go beyond the damage you did to the king and do something really great for him. He will then have received sufficient “satisfaction” to restore you to favor to the degree he wishes to do so. This is the meaning that this theory places upon Christ's work upon the cross. He satisfied God's offended honor when we could not do so. The reformers of the 16th century rejected this teaching and insisted upon a return to Apostolic and Biblical theology. The Catholic Church rejected their pleas, and you know what happened. It was the cries of “Sola Scriptura” and “Sola Fide”, (Scripture alone and faith alone), that were the battlecries of the Reformation. It was for preaching the apostolic doctrine of forensic justification by faith alone that many were persecuted, even burned alive, by Catholic officials. Now a few “evangelical” theologians such as Dillow and Hodges are returning to the errors of past ages in order to find a way to teach that only some of our sins are forgiven, and that we will have to bear others into heaven. I will not be following these fellows any time soon. Blessings, Thomas Maddux Undercomer Dillow has quite clearly rejected full salvation by grace alone. He openly admits it. He teaches that all of our sins are atoned for, but that full forgiveness is based on performance of religious duty. In doing this, he has rejected the apostolic teaching on justification by grace through faith. If you agree with Dillow, you have done so as well. Do you agree with him? You can't have your cake and eat it too, you know. Blessings, Thomas Maddux : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : hopon December 08, 2005, 12:17:29 AM One of the things we so often overlook about sin is its opportunity cost so to speak. Have we ever thought much about the other side of the coin, namely, all the subsequently missed opportunity for doing good, and if you are a Christian bringing glory to God's name in this life? Frankly, I find this a greater motivator than the fear of material loss or injury - what I fear most is the loss of opportunity! I suspect the nature of any regret in glory will be a sudden apprehension of this truth, and not so much finger-wagging on the part of our Redeemer. Once faith becomes sight, such oppotunities are forever lost...think about it...just thinking out loud... Verne Yes, this is something to consider, isn't it? Even now we can see opportunities that we lost. So run, that we may obtain it all. Isn't that what it says in the scriptures? : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : Joe Sperling December 08, 2005, 02:04:31 AM Uncle Buck---
Thanks for your post in response to mine. (I have to admit, when I see "Uncle Buck" I picture the face of John Candy who played that character in the movie). David really screwed up didn't he? And he fell so far that Nathan the prophet had to say "You're the man!!!" when telling the story of the man who was rich, but sunk so low as to take the poor man's sheep, his only sheep. But God loved david deeply and chastened him to bring him back to himself(not without suffering the consequences of his actions). He didn't lose his position as King of Israel though, interestingly enough. But when David was walking with God he had the right heart. He wasn't looking to obtain a crown---he was caring for the sheep. The Lord chose David to replace Saul because of David's heart---a heart that loved God and hoped in his lovingkindness and mercy. I think when speaking of "rewards" the motivation is very important. Are we running to obtain some thing? Or are we running to bring glory to God and for more to throw at the feet of the Lord on that day?(the saints throw their golden crowns at the feet of Christ)--is the "reward" the crown itself? Or is the reward to have something to throw at the feet of Christ? By throwing the crowns at the Lord's feet we are saying that even the very rewards are his, not ours. Tom---I appreciate your re-post concerning Dillow's books. To think that one could do something in themselves to help appease God, and receive "complete forgiveness" through that is a most awful teaching. The one that thinks there is something in themselves, or something that they can do in themselves to gain any type of righteousness doesn't know their own heart very well. I remember in one of C.H. Spurgeon's sermons he said that there are many when hearing the story of the crucifxion, that they weep, thinking inside "how could they have done that to Jesus?" They think "if I had been back there then I would have tried to do something--I would be weeping underneath the cross for my Lord". But Spurgeon said the one who knows his own heart well, and realizes what the righteousness of God really means, would never say those things. He would realize that he would be one of the one's screaming "crucify him!! crucify him!!!" He would not be weeping under the cross, he would be helping them put the nails in Jesus' hands. "The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked, who can know it?" "There is none righteous, not one"-- when one realizes how desperately wicked his heart is he realizes he can never "earn" anything, but must totally "receive" what Christ did on the cross. Thank God for the words "IT IS FINISHED". I pray that I might learn this more and more, and look to the lovingkindness and mercy of God as David did. "Against thee and thee only have I sinned and done what is evil in thy sight" "But there is forgiveness with thee that thou mayest be feared". --Joe : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : vernecarty December 08, 2005, 06:34:12 AM Yes, this is something to consider, isn't it? Even now we can see opportunities that we lost. So run, that we may obtain it all. Isn't that what it says in the scriptures? Indeed! I do wonder however, if a preoccupation with what we may achieve in some distant future assessment, sometimes blinds us to the awesome possibilities in the here and now. Christ came that we might have life, and life more abundantly. I for one very much want to experience the fulness of His resurrection power, to the degree that this is humanly possible, in this life. I want to know the wonders of his matchless grace and boundless mercies - in this life. I want to see Christ fully formed in me - in this life. Surely whatever else He has in store, must just be icing on the cake no? :) Verne But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. Doesn't this verse give you goose-bumps on your goose-bumps?! Now where did I first hear that? ;D : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : Chuck Miller December 08, 2005, 08:38:53 AM Tom wrote:
Dillow has quite clearly rejected full salvation by grace alone. He openly admits it. He teaches that all of our sins are atoned for, but that full forgiveness is based on performance of religious duty. In doing this, he has rejected the apostolic teaching on justification by grace through faith. Here is the statement that first caused my sense of alarm, and further statements that strengthened that feeling: 1. “The atonement must therefore be a satisfaction for the sins of all men without exception.” (p.540) 2. “…the atonement must be a satisfaction for sin in a special sense.” (p.541). At this point I was saying to myself, “Can he really mean what I think he means?” He then goes on to convince me that he does. 3. Describing the ideas of a theologian named Dabney, he says, “He argues that the satisfaction of Christ does not obligate God to cancel our whole indebtedness, precisely the view of this writer. His acceptance of Christ’s death as a legal satisfaction ‘was, on His part, an act of pure grace; and therefore the acceptance acquits us just so far as, and no farther than God is pleased to allow it.’ “. (p.541) I became alarmed because I recognized what he was teaching. He confirms this over the next several pages. Tom, It makes me wonder why the "alarm" didn’t go off when you were subjected to George's perverted teaching on this and other subjects for 18 years. You criticized me for asking questions. Had you done so in the Assembly, you might have saved yourself many years of distress. I did, and that was the beginning of the end of my the Assembly days. I believe all of us are in agreement that it is very important to the understanding of scriptural passages, that they be viewed in the context of the entire passage. So also with a sentence from a book. You were obviously so intent on refuting Dillow’s exposition on the Kingdom, that you pulled a couple of sentences out of context and tried to make it sound as if he believes that we are not saved by faith alone. Anyone who has read the book in its entirety know that this is not true. But in your endeavor to try to discredit Dillow, you neglected to include the following from the very next page (542). It reads: When a man does believe, he is not only unconditionally accepted by the Father, but the benefits of the atonement are extended in his case to protect him from hell. This extension occurs through the free gift of justification, acquittal at the divine bar of justice. P. 542 Does this sound like a man who believes that “full forgiveness is based on performance of religious duty?” You erroneously equate Dillow’s admonition for a godly life in Christ (our sanctification, which is conditional), with our salvation by grace through faith (our justification, which is unconditional). This is a basic premise that runs all through the book, that you would have very easily discovered long before you reached page 542. God bless, Chuck : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : hopon December 08, 2005, 08:49:27 AM I want to see Christ fully formed in me - in this life. And we find this in the relationships and situations we are in, in the here and now. So, we're back home again, eh? ;D I believe that Job saw this when he speaks in 42:5&6 - "I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees You." It was in reading this verse when I was in a difficult situation that caused me to see Christ in it. Do you think that Job may have been seeing the same thing? But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. Doesn't this verse give you goose-bumps on your goose-bumps?! Now where did I first hear that? ;D : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : vernecarty December 08, 2005, 09:30:04 AM You erroneously equate Dillow’s admonition for a godly life in Christ (our sanctification, which is conditional), with our salvation by grace through faith (our justification, which is unconditional). God bless, Chuck I would ask Dillow this question but I cannot so I will ask you Chuck. Can there be glorification without sanctification in your opinion? Tom wrote: Tom, It makes me wonder why the "alarm" didn’t go off when you were subjected to George's perverted teaching on this and other subjects for 18 years. God bless, Chuck In my humble opinion this is hitting below the belt and I think you know it Chuck. Tom would be the last person to contend that he is the same man today, that he was eighteen years ago. In that we should all rejoice... :) Verne : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today...istortng : Chuck Miller December 08, 2005, 03:51:42 PM You're right, Verne, and I apologize to Tom. It won't happen again because I find my flesh gettng the best of me when my views are continually misrepresented. I'd rather bow out of a debate than lose out on the kingdom. I find I still have to overcome fleshly desires on a daily basis. I bowed out once, but this time I'm removing the site from my favorites list so that I'm not even tempted to peek in once in a while. My e-mail address is posted for anyone who wants to communicate directly with me. And in answer to your question - no, I don't believe there can be glorification without sanctification. Paul said, "and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him" (Romans 8:17) And yes, I'm aware of Romans 8:30 and will be glad to discuss it with you through e-mail. God bless, Chuck Miller : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today...istortng : vernecarty December 08, 2005, 04:34:55 PM You're right, Verne, and I apologize to Tom. It won't happen again because I find my flesh gettng the best of me when my views are continually misrepresented. I'd rather bow out of a debate than lose out on the kingdom. I find I still have to overcome fleshly desires on a daily basis. I bowed out once, but this time I'm removing the site from my favorites list so that I'm not even tempted to peek in once in a while. My e-mail address is posted for anyone who wants to communicate directly with me. And in answer to your question - no, I don't believe there can be glorification without sanctification. Paul said, "and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him" (Romans 8:17) And yes, I'm aware of Romans 8:30 and will be glad to discuss it with you through e-mail. God bless, Chuck Miller Just between you and me Chuck, if you read some of the exchanges that I have had with Tom on the BB, I don't mind telling you that I have sometimes felt like hitting him in the exact same place (and probably did on occasion)... :) I hate to see you go as I think the discussion extremly helpful though at times a bit heated. One of the lessons I have learned over the past couple of years is to be bit more thick-skinned than I used to. Another reason I hate to see you go Chuck is that this is also my last few weeks on the BB and the BB really needs a few seasoned posters like yourself to keep the mix interesting. Please reconsider. And in answer to your question - no, I don't believe there can be glorification without sanctification. Paul said, "and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him" (Romans 8:17) And yes, I'm aware of Romans 8:30 and will be glad to discuss it with you through e-mail. The reason I asked this question, as you probaby figured, is that it raises serious questions about Dillow's attempt to distinguish justification from sanctification by making one of them conditional. I agree with your above position. Here is Dillow's problem Scripturally and it shows the problems that arise when we attempt to deal with the things of God from only, as we must, a human space-time constrained perspective. I appreciate your contribution Chuck. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. Romans 8:30 Please correct my logic if I posit that since justification and glorification according to Romans 8:30 are unconditional as all being entirely in the Divine Purview, and, there can be no glorification without sanctification, as we agree, then, sanctification cannot be conditional as Dillow suggests. Verne : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today...istortng : M2 December 08, 2005, 06:31:08 PM You're right, Verne, and I apologize to Tom. It won't happen again because I find my flesh gettng the best of me when my views are continually misrepresented. I'd rather bow out of a debate than lose out on the kingdom. I find I still have to overcome fleshly desires on a daily basis. I bowed out once, but this time I'm removing the site from my favorites list so that I'm not even tempted to peek in once in a while. My e-mail address is posted for anyone who wants to communicate directly with me. And in answer to your question - no, I don't believe there can be glorification without sanctification. Paul said, "and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him" (Romans 8:17) And yes, I'm aware of Romans 8:30 and will be glad to discuss it with you through e-mail. God bless, Chuck Miller Unforunately, Tom's misrepresentation to support his argument is one of those problems this BB suffers from. Many have departed this BB because it becomes pointless to have a reasonable discussion with Tom. Tom's "credentials" have earned him his little support group. I am in no way saying that everything Tom posts is off the mark, or that I agree with everything that Chuck says either. But it is the very same dynamic that allowed George Geftakys get away with atrocities, while silencing those who were attempting to intelligent discussion with him. Dillow's book, which I have not read, was recommended reading by GG et al, so it is of some relevance to discuss it here. Marcia : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today...istortng : vernecarty December 08, 2005, 07:24:18 PM Tom's "credentials" have earned him his little support group. Marcia You've got to be kidding me Marcia. You think a Master's degree (or whatever other "credential" you think insures Tom from ever being wrong) is the reason for the post I made?! You surprise me. If any other poster had made the same comment about you, my response would have been the same. I get the impression that Tom has somehow ticked you off and it is conditioning your perspective on this. Am I right? If my arguments are misunderstood or misrepresented, I view it as an opportunity to clarify my position, not get hot under the collar. That is what BB life is all about is it not? There is a lot of stuff that Tom and I disagree on and anyone who has read the BB for any time knows that. My post does not in my view make me member of any "support group" if you don't mind... :) Verne : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today...istortng : M2 December 08, 2005, 07:30:39 PM You've got to be kidding me Marcia. You think a Master's degree (or whatever other "credential" you think insures Tom from ever being wrong) is the reason for the post I made?! You surprise me. If any other poster had made the same comment about you, my response would have been the same. I get the impression that Tom has somehow ticked you off and it is conditioning your perspective on this. Am I right? If my arguments are misunderstood or misrepresented, I view it as an opportunity to clarify my position, not get hot under the collar. That is what BB life is all about is it not? There is a lot of stuff that Tom and I disagree on and anyone who has read the BB for any time knows that. My post does not in my view make me member of any "support group" if you don't mind... :) Verne I had to smile with this response, Verne. No, I did not include you in his "support group", unless your "support" :-\ is based on his "credentials". Marcia : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : Marty December 08, 2005, 08:42:24 PM You gotta admit Verne that Tom has a following that supports him to the end. That’s what makes this bb very difficult to converse on. Tom is right and everyone else is wrong. Tom never has to explain his position he just has to twist the others. You have pointed that out yourself. From there his little elves bustle around paying homage to Tom and trying to parrot his points. Seems like Chuck has seen that and will take the same course of action all others have. Then it will be Tom and his buddies all by themselves. Whom will Tom display his vast knowledge to? They will have to start evangelizing on college campuses to bring in new blood that Tom can mold into his image. : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today...istortng : vernecarty December 08, 2005, 08:48:12 PM I had to smile with this response, Verne. No, I did not include you in his "support group", unless your "support" :-\ is based on his "credentials". Marcia Mine, credentials that is, never did me much good. I found myself saying things like: I investigated the bioactivity of fused hetero-cyclics with halogen substitiution in non-activated positions, and after retro-synthetic analyis, attempted to elucidate the enzymatic pathways by which the activation enerygy reduction needed for this kind of synthesis could occur...! blah! blah! :) A few folk know exactly what I am talking about. The vast majoprity will go - huh??!! Verne : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : vernecarty December 08, 2005, 08:55:53 PM You gotta admit Verne that Tom has a following that supports him to the end. That’s what makes this bb very difficult to converse on. Tom is right and everyone else is wrong. Tom never has to explain his position he just has to twist the others. You have pointed that out yourself. From there his little elves bustle around paying homage to Tom and trying to parrot his points. Seems like Chuck has seen that and will take the same course of action all others have. Then it will be Tom and his buddies all by themselves. Whom will Tom display his vast knowledge to? They will have to start evangelizing on college campuses to bring in new blood that Tom can mold into his image. Well I do have to admit there were a few occasions on which I thought I had Tom dead to rights on some point of debate or Scripture ( so few participated I rarely if ever had any affirmation in this regard) and fully expected him to concede. I seem to reacall that he did on at least one occasion, :) but I will agree he does have a bit of difficulty backing up. Having come out of the assemblies like I have, that may not always be a bad thing. The way you promote good debate is that you continue to make your point as clearly and as calmly as the heat of the situation permits, abeit sometimes difficult. It is really too easy to take your marbles and go home. So what if the other person fights unfair soemtimes? That does not make them right and you wrong. We need to learn to stick to our guns when we are convinced of a matter. We also need to be gracious if it turns out the other fellow is perhaps better instructed than we are. Utlimately, don't forget it is quite O.K to disagree! :) : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : Joe Sperling December 08, 2005, 10:08:15 PM ;D ;D
Oh, we're back to "support groups" again are we, because a few agree on the same doctrinal position? It's amazing to see people come in, ask doctrinal questions, receive answers they don't like, get into a spat, and then leave in a huff. ***addition Not that I've ever done that myself ;D I will refrain from doctrinal argu- mets from now on(at least I'll try), although I find them rather stimulating actually. I agree with Tom's position because I have read and have a copy of "The Reign of the Servant Kings" by Joseph C. Dillow. The below writing concerning this book I believe to be correct, and is the same stance I believe Tom takes. The whole "overcomer" theology is based on a wrong understanding of the BEMA seat, or Judgement seat of Christ. Please read this explanation: FALSE BEMA: The teaching set forth in this book typifies the erroneous "overcomer" movement, which is dominated by "partial" or "split" rapturists. This particular group, however, allows for a complete rapture, but then splits or divides the body at the BEMA seat. They teach Judgement of the PERSON, as well as their works and deeds done in the body. (If you recall when God "judged" Adam he cursed THE GROUND not ADAM HIMSELF--my own note--Joe). Their motivation for the growth of the believer is future kingdom reward, or loss of same. In an effort to have the believer persevere in growth, they threaten his future. Unless he continues in good works to the very end, he himself will be judged and suffer loss at the BEMA seat. He will lose his inheritance and privileges in the coming kingdom. If he produces sufficient good works to "qualify" he will be an overcomer, a servant king in the millenial kingdom. For them, all is horizontal, earthly, and kingdom centered. The body of Christ is thus diverted from her heavenly position and priveleges, "hidden with Christ in God". TRUE BEMA: Although the believer's WORKS are both judged and rewarded, he himself is in no way judged or condemned(again, remember Adam, the ground was cursed, but he was not). "For we must all appear before the judgement seat of Christ, that everyone may receive the things done in the body, according to that he hath DONE, whether good or bad(2 Cor. 5:10). The Bema Judgement seat refers to the place where winners of contests were rewarded--it was never used as a judicial bench. The word Paul chose to describe the place before which this event takes place suggests it's character is not judgement, but honor dignity and authority. Paul did not use the word for "bad" which would signify that which is morally evil, but rather the word which reads "unacceptable". It is not the Lord's purpose at the BEMA seat to chasten his beloved bride for her already forgiven sins, but to reward her service and way of life. After all, it is God "who works in you both to will and to do his good pleasure". And we are "confident of this very thing, that he who has BEGUN a good work in you WILL PERFORM IT until the day of Jesus Christ"(Phil. 2:13). I believe the above definition to be right on the money, and shows the error of Dillow's teaching. The Bema seat is not a judicial bench("There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus) where believers will be tried with fire---his "works" will be tried with fire. --Joe : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : BenJapheth December 08, 2005, 10:42:49 PM Hurting others with the truth That’s what makes this bb very difficult to converse on. Tom is right and everyone else is wrong... his position he just has to twist the others. You have pointed that out yourself. From there his little elves bustle around...trying to parrot his points. Seems like Chuck has seen that and will take the same course of action all others have. Marty, I agree that this board has a flavor of argument, one-upsmanship, spiritual pride – it’s very much like the evangelical church at large – only perhaps a bit more so since it is even a bit more extreme in terms of being fundamentalist. The more fundamental and scripture focused a group is the more characters of the heretical type a forum like this will attract. Having said this I admit to being an evangelical-fundamentalist -- And, at my worse I’ve seen myself as an agitating controversialist – Yes, with Mike Zach I called a spade a spade, but I went too far back in February 2003.. For most of my Christian life, I too perceived that argument and rolling in the mud with folks over every variety of interpretation could indeed advance the kingdom of God. However, I’ve never seen it done. Argumentative – controversy seeking believers simply act as spiritual flatulence in a God-seeking environment. It doesn’t win. It doesn’t enlighten. In fact, it ruins the hearers and sours the audience to the deeper things of God. A couple months ago I had a real difference with my Dad-in-law on the subject of forgiveness – I’ll address this a bit on the Seven Pillars thread in coming weeks – I was set to jump into the forum and drive home some thoughts for the BB to consider – No one on the planet has the ability to get my adrenaline going like Chuck Miller - He’s my best spiritual friend and perhaps this is how I conned him out of his daughter 24 years ago ;) - I prayed about getting into the discussion and I decided not to since the ground had been covered by Brent and I a couple years ago - my views at that time had been thoroughly vetted. Moreover, the flavor already was getting a little stressed – There’s a point when milk sours that one cannot make it good again by adding more fresh milk and we should refrain from taking a dog by the ears. What I did do was ask Chuck Miller at breakfast (We live a couple miles from each other) – “Chuck, I’ve found as I reflect upon my own salvation and my own sin and how God has so amazingly and unconditionally saved me – and, that he was saving me even while I was hating Him and His enemy – and now knowing his salvation and love – that I’m incapable of not forgiving George Geftakys for what he’s done to Ann, you, Maryann, all the kids and our family. Chuck, do you have any problem with me forgiving George even though he is probably still guilty and has not sought our forgiveness? Moreover, I can’t help forgiving others…I can’t not forgive others. Christ has made me incapable of holding something against my neighbor. Do you have any problem with me holding this belief?” He said – “No, Chuck, I don’t.” When he said that my burden left and it was settled. The need to fight was gone. Yes, we need to contend for the faith, but if one cannot articulate one's beliefs with grace than even the truth of the views will cause the hearers to not only be disgusted with the teacher, speaker, or writer, but it will cause a reaction and loathing for the truth itself. Wise words in the mouths of fools destroy more effectively than foolish words from a fool. Remember we're at war - Let's consider if scoring a few points in the "See how smart I am" tussles are really worth it. Will it build? Will it edify? Could folks be more like Him with these words? For the time being I will post here – Not because of various people who view this site as their place to pontificate or bully others’ opinions, but because there are over 500 people registered here and many of the people - or maybe just some - who check posts here every few weeks or months are seeking God and are trying to make sense of their spiritual walk. I know I am. ::c:v:: : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : al Hartman December 08, 2005, 10:48:11 PM Verne, I suggest you e-mail to Chuck your thoughtful response to his last post. I imagine he won't be checking the bb any more.
There is a lot to be said for Chuck's choice to withdraw from the board, chiefly because he has left the door wide open for e-mail correspondence with any and all who desire to continue discussion with him. The advantage to such communication is that it allows conversation to be direct and unbiased by observers who may or may not have an interest or prejudice in the matter under discussion. A bb is very much like the Areopagus (Mars Hill, Acts 17) in Athens, where the crowd was composed not only of earnest seekers (v.34), but of those who attended strictly to propound their own "wisdom" and to ridicule those with whom they disagreed, and of those many who stood silently by just to hear the "latest." As in v.21, they "would spend their time in nothing except telling or hearing something new," so is often the case on a bb. Of course, e-mail, just as even face-to-face verbal/visual communication, is no better than those attempting to use it. Only (ONLY) the Holy Spirit can open the eyes and ears of another person's understanding, no matter how glibly and cleverly we frame our thoughts into words. And He will only do so in His chosen time and way, regardless of our straining efforts. I do not advocate less effort, but merely less straining and more trust, faith, hope, prayer and, above all, more love, both to Christ and to our brethren and neighbors. Love is "the greatest of these," incorporating all the others, and is the identifying hallmark of the true Christian, by which all may know that we are Christ's disciples. Regarding love, it has been suggested that 1Cor.13 should be considered withing the context of chapters 12 and 14. This is absolutely true, as should those chapters be examined within the context of the entire letter to the Corinthians, which in turn bears scrutiny in light of the entire Bible. All of Holy Writ verifies itself, the Holy Spirit enlightening it to those who seek to understand. Context in no way diminishes content. Soon I will probably also depart this board and, like Chuck, I will leave it behind me when I go, with no intention of checking in from time to time. I am indebted to many posters, both current and past, for insights that have by one means or another brought me nearer to Christ. Rather, I should state that I am grateful to God for those posters, both friendly and hostile, who He has used to influence my life. This will probably not be my last post, but my final post may or may not identify itself as such. Like Chuck, I will leave my e-mail address available for any who may wish to stay in touch with me. There is truly no one here who I would not be delighted to hear from. (If you doubt the truth of that statement, you are probably among those from whom I would most enjoy hearing.) A brief word about credentials and followings, neither of which I find particularly impressive or attractive: My respect, including any lack or degrees thereof, is toward the persons on this board, not their achievements or their beliefs. I'm sure there are those who count me among one "camp" or another-- they are those who ignore the disagreements and criticisms that occur between me and the person(s) I am supposed to support. These things serve only as distractions from the purpose of discussion here. There is only one reason to either read or to post on this board, and that is to find and draw nearer to Jesus Christ our Lord. If you are here for any other reason, you may be in the right place, but you are here for the wrong reason. May your days be merry and bright, but much more, may the love of Christ sustain you throughout this Christmas season and always, al Hartman : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : Elizabeth H December 08, 2005, 11:59:10 PM Manners matter. Even on a bb. This has been discussed here (at length!) many times before. Brian has brought it up countless times, especially when he said things like: "Don't post angry!"
We all need to be reminded to be polite, including myself. I realize that I can get sarcastic, esp. when someone claims to have the Final Revelation on something. But ultimately, being right isn't the most important thing. You can be right until you're blue in the face and still be hurtful to someone. I think it's more important to be kind than to be right. Here's something I found: "Manners are about showing consideration and using empathy. But they are also about being connected to a common good; they are about being better. Respect and consideration are traditionally due to people for all sorts of reasons, some big, some small." ---Lynn Truss, author of "The Utter Bloody Rudeness of Everyday Life (or Six Good Reasons to Stay Home and Bolt the Door)" E. : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : Oscar December 09, 2005, 12:59:04 AM Part I Chuck wrote: Tom wrote: Tom, You were obviously so intent on refuting Dillow’s exposition on the Kingdom, that you pulled a couple of sentences out of context and tried to make it sound as if he believes that we are not saved by faith alone. Anyone who has read the book in its entirety know that this is not true. But in your endeavor to try to discredit Dillow, you neglected to include the following from the very next page (542). It reads: When a man does believe, he is not only unconditionally accepted by the Father, but the benefits of the atonement are extended in his case to protect him from hell. This extension occurs through the free gift of justification, acquittal at the divine bar of justice. P. 542 Does this sound like a man who believes that “full forgiveness is based on performance of religious duty?” You erroneously equate Dillow’s admonition for a godly life in Christ (our sanctification, which is conditional), with our salvation by grace through faith (our justification, which is unconditional). This is a basic premise that runs all through the book, that you would have very easily discovered long before you reached page 542. God bless, Chuck You asked me a question in the above post. You said: Does this sound like a man who believes that “full fforgiveness is based on performance of religious duty?” First, I would point out that what I actually said was that Dillow does not believe in full salvation by grace alone. Nevertheless, it is quite easy to demonstrate that he does not believe in full forgiveness by grace alone either. First, however, I will explain my statement that Dillow, (and others who who accept the "Overcomer" teaching), do not believe in full salvation by grace alone. The real question here is "What is full salvation?" A few Scriptures will shed some light on the subject. Full salvation includes: 1. Forgiveness of sins; “In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance of the riches of God’s grace…” (Eph.1:7). 2. Justification; Justification has two aspects, a. We are declared righteous by God. “However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness,” (Romans 4:5).b. God imputes Christ’s righteousness to us. “It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God-that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption,” (I Cor.1:30). 3. Sanctification; “But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God,” (I Cor.6:11). At salvation, this is our spiritual state. It is what we are “in Christ.” It is our true identity. Because this is true we are admonished to “…continue to "work out your salvation with fear and trembling,” (Phil.2:12). While in the body, we cooperate with God in a progressive realilzation and manifestation of that spiritual reality. And we can have confidence that the process will be completed. First of all, there is the promise of Eph.5:25-27. “…Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy….” Second, we are promised that we will be freed from the presence of the sinful tendencies that we struggle against, sin which dwells in our bodies, (Rom.7:23). “…we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies,” (Rom.8:23). 4. Glorification: “For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his son…and those he predestined he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified,” (Rom.8:28-30). Glorification means that…”so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven,” (I Cor.15:49). 5. Sharing in the inheritance of the saints: “…joyfully giving thanks to the Father who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in the kingdom of light,” (Col.1:12). 6. Reigning with Christ: “…how much more will those receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ,” (Rom.5:17). Now this is a pretty minimal description of what “full salvation” means, but the term does mean at least this much. However, it is evident to anyone who reads Dillow’s book that the fundamental reason he wrote it was to deny that this is true. Instead, he attempts to transfer all of #4, #5, and #6 into the category of rewards for faithful service. To accomplish this, he is forced to deny much of #1, #2, and #3!!!! I will complete this in part II Thomas Maddux : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : Oscar December 09, 2005, 01:06:01 AM Part II Now, you asked me: “Does this sound like a man who believes that “full fforgiveness is based on performance of religious duty?” The answer, of course, is yes. Dillow does not believe in full fogiveness of sins by grace through faith at all. “The sacrifice of Christ gives sacrificial protection from the former, (what he calls ‘eternal’ sin), on the basis of faith and the permanent gift of regeneration and justification. But it does not give sacrificial protection to unconfessed temporal sin.” (P.545). “Paul speaks of our rewards and punishments within the family of God. The satisfaction, (there it is again, Catholic satisfaction theory), of Christ unconditionally and irrevocably covers the former but only provisionally covers the latter. We must confess daily to obtain the benefits of having the atonement extended to forgive sin within the family of God.” (P.545). The man is arguing that we cannot have full forgiveness of sin unless we perform our religious duty of confession every day. He most definitely bases full forgiveness of sin on performance of religious duty. He tells us exactly what the duty is. But what about the problem of unconfessed sin? No one alive on earth today is free from unconfessed sin! People who think they can be free from unconfessed sin do not understand sin. Sin permeates fallen human nature. Sin dwells in our bodies. Sometimes, by the empowering of the Holy Spirit, we do some unselfish act for others just as Jesus taught us….and then we are proud of it!! Selfishness, self-centeredness, lust, covetousness, pride, revenge, hatred, cruelty, unforgiveness….on and on. These things beset us constantly. Frequently we are not even aware of it! If unconfessed sin disqualifies us from #3-#6, no one will ever experience these things! I would just ask a question of every reader, “Have you confessed every sin you have committed since becoming a Christian?” John answers the question for us: “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us,” (I John 1:8). All of us have flat out forgotten about all sorts of sins. There is no hope for us in Dillow’s legalism. But there is in Christ. “But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense-Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours, but also for the sins of the whole world,” (I John 1:1-2). Blessings Thomas Maddux : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : Uncle Buck December 09, 2005, 01:42:23 AM Uncle Buck--- Joe,But when David was walking with God he had the right heart. He wasn't looking to obtain a crown---he was caring for the sheep. The Lord chose David to replace Saul because of David's heart---a heart that loved God and hoped in his lovingkindness and mercy. I think when speaking of "rewards" the motivation is very important. Are we running to obtain some thing? Or are we running to bring glory to God and for more to throw at the feet of the Lord on that day?(the saints throw their golden crowns at the feet of Christ)--is the "reward" the crown itself? Or is the reward to have something to throw at the feet of Christ? By throwing the crowns at the Lord's feet we are saying that even the very rewards are his, not ours. --Joe What you are saying reminds me of "The bride eyes not her garment, but her dear bridegrooms face I will not gaze at glory, but on my king of grace not at the crown he gives, but on his pierced hands the lamb is all the glory.... I'm sure when David over complicated his life, he longed to be back in the countryside with the sheep and singing under the stars. I sure don't miss the over complicated life in the assembly. Were we gluttens for punishment or what ! Buck : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : vernecarty December 09, 2005, 01:46:28 AM (If you recall when God "judged" Adam he cursed THE GROUND not ADAM HIMSELF--my own note--Joe). --Joe This reminds me of one of Tom and my discussions about the exent of sin's effect in the cosmos. I believe Tom objected to my idea that the entrie creation was in a fallen condition and made the case that God pronounced the ground, as oppposed to the cosmos, as cursed. My cosmplogical model is one that recognizes that although sin entered the world (earth) through man, sin did not begin with man's transgression but with Lucifer's. It seems a stretch that we should imagine there were not cosmoglogical reperrcussions to the sin of angelic beings. The unvierse is a violent place....both spiritually and physically, as is the earth... Verne : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : vernecarty December 09, 2005, 03:55:45 AM Part II “Paul speaks of our rewards and punishments within the family of God. The satisfaction, (there it is again, Catholic satisfaction theory), of Christ unconditionally and irrevocably covers the former but only provisionally covers the latter. We must confess daily to obtain the benefits of having the atonement extended to forgive sin within the family of God.” (P.545). Blessings Thomas Maddux I have come to the conclusion that people who espouse this line of reasoning have a very low view of the consequence of sin indeed. There is a profound consequence if Dillow's line of reasoning is correct. It is inescapable. The wages of sin is death. Any sin, that the atonement does not extend to, confessed or not, must necessarily issue in the death of the perpetrator if God's righteous standard is to be upheld. It seems to me that Dillow is missing some very fundamental tenets of the nature of the propitiation. If he is right, a lot...., what am I saying....?!! EVERY SINGLE BELIEVER WILL BE CONDEMNED AT THE JUDGMENT SEAT OF CHRIST! What mortal is capable of confessing all in his life that fails to meet the Divine standard, which ultimately is what sin is? The more I think about this, the more startling the concept becomes. It is because of this very impossibility to often recognize, much less do anything, confession included, about our sinfulness, that made it necessary for the righteousness of Christ to be imputed. This man is scary.... Verne p.s. the thing I am wondering is whether Dillow tries to meet this standard of daily confession (why not hourly, or by the minute, or better yet by the second...can we make that every pico-second? ???) so that his conscious slate is ever atoned for...wears me out just thinking about it... : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : moonflower2 December 09, 2005, 06:05:25 AM p.s. the thing I am wondering is whether Dillow tries to meet this standard of daily confession (why not hourly, or by the minute, or better yet by the second...can we make that every pico-second? ???) so that his conscious slate is ever atoned for...wears me out just thinking about it... I don't know about you, Verne, but I know what I'm going to ask Santa for Christmas: The newest, fastest computer on the market!! I already type over 60wpm, so that won't be a problem. Hmmm....maybe I'm looking at a new job. Hear ye! Hear ye! Hear ye! Hear ye! I'm accepting sin lists, now. Send them to me (after December 25) and I'll get them into the computer faster than......your cat can topple an xmas tree! : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : brian December 09, 2005, 06:07:15 AM Manners matter. Even on a bb. hear hear! all very good points. religious doctrine is a topic of discussion that can stir up passionate debate on the most normal of boards. and this board is anything but normal! ;) seriously tho, while its understandable that someone would take their beliefs very seriously, you have to understand that in a bb discussion other people are going to occasionally misunderstand or misjudge your beliefs. try not to take it personally, and don't get personal yourself! i know thats hard to do with something as personal as religious beliefs, but its the only way to have an open, public discussion about them that doesn't end in flamewars. i agree with liz, that there are far more important things than being "right", especially when recovering from a group like the assembly. brian : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : vernecarty December 09, 2005, 07:00:56 AM I don't know about you, Verne, but I know what I'm going to ask Santa for Christmas: The newest, fastest computer on the market!! I already type over 60wpm, so that won't be a problem. Hmmm....maybe I'm looking at a new job. Hear ye! Hear ye! Hear ye! Hear ye! I'm accepting sin lists, now. Send them to me (after December 25) and I'll get them into the computer faster than......your cat can topple an xmas tree! You are also going to need one with a very large hard drive, probably in the terrabytes territory, if you really intend to record and make right all those transgressions. Since I am not that fast, nor that accurate for that matter, a typist (as many can tell - some people probably think I am dyslexic), you are going to also have to help me write down my own failings Moonie. It looks to me like you are going to be real busy for the rest of your life... Then again we could accept that: All my sins were laid upon him Jesus bore them on the tree God who knew them, laid them on him, And believeing, thou art free! I try not to do this too often but let me say something serious. The fear of sin's consequences is apparently insufficient to keep countless sinners out of hell. Why do some well-meaning Christians so often attempt to motivate their brethren to a pursuit of holiness with this same cudgel? Do we not understand that the heart quickened by Divine love begins to fear loss of fellowship with the Saviour more, than some kind of spiritual spanking? We should turn the hearts of the redeemed to nobler things.... If you love me, keep my commandments... this means if you don't love Him, you won't...you can't...! Verne : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : moonflower2 December 09, 2005, 07:50:12 AM You are also going to need one with a very large hard drive, probably in the terrabytes territory, if you really intend to record and make right all those transgressions. I figured I'd just email them off real quick into cyberspace to the local Catholic church. Don't they keep lists somewhere?All my sins were laid upon him This is so true. Nothing softens the heart and changes you more than knowing someone loves you, especially to the depths that Jesus showed. Jesus bore them on the tree God who knew them, laid them on him, And believeing, thou art free! I try not to do this too often but let me say something serious. The fear of sin's consequences is apparently insufficient to keep countless sinners out of hell. Why do some well-meaning Christians so often attempt to motivate their brethren to a pursuit of holiness with this same cudgel? Do we not understand that the heart quickened by Divine love begins to fear loss of fellowship with the Saviour more, than some kind of spiritual spanking? And, if one is in the state of adultery, there is no fellowship, no revelation of Himself. :( We should turn the hearts of the redeemed to nobler things.... If you love me, keep my commandments... this means if you don't love Him, you won't...you can't...! Verne : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : Oscar December 09, 2005, 12:24:35 PM Verne,
You said: I try not to do this too often but let me say something serious. The fear of sin's consequences is apparently insufficient to keep countless sinners out of hell. Why do some well-meaning Christians so often attempt to motivate their brethren to a pursuit of holiness with this same cudgel? That is a very interesting question and very important. I have been mulling over a post that discusses this. However, I will be teaching on Sunday in our adult sunday school class. I must devote time to that first. My text, btw, is Hebrews 4:15-5:10. A glorious consideration. Blessings, Thomas Maddux : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : vernecarty December 09, 2005, 04:55:09 PM Verne, You said: That is a very interesting question and very important. I have been mulling over a post that discusses this. However, I will be teaching on Sunday in our adult sunday school class. I must devote time to that first. My text, btw, is Hebrews 4:15-5:10. A glorious consideration. Blessings, Thomas Maddux Would you consider posting your thoughts? ...desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: Now I know that Hebrews may be viewed by some as strong meat, but I am sure you will be able to cut it into small and digestible pieces...! :) Verne p.s would it not be great if regular exposition of the Word became part and parcel of the BB dynamic? the Word is where true spiritual life resides! The one caveat is that it of course should be fresh, insightful edifying and sound...no stale warmed- over leavings of the effort of others mind you... :) : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : vernecarty December 10, 2005, 06:45:32 PM I am really looking forward to reading Tom's post on Hebrews.
After all is said and doen about inheritance and the like, the bottom line is that it is the Spirit of God that is responsible for applying to our lives the benefits of salvation. The key instrument he employs in this objective is the Word of God. If you want to inherit, you will have to have spiritual nourishment. The enemy of our souls is well aware of this. The ground on which you will face the fiercest and most cunning opposition from him is in the area of your rcommitment to the Word of God, more that any other. If you want to inherit, you have to undertand a thing or two about warfare. You have to learn to fight! Have you ever made a committment to spend time daily in God's Word? Have you ever made a commitment to read God's Word daily to your children? Have you ever made a commitment to try and commit to memory some passage of Scripture? How have you done? Most of you know me well enough to know that I am not talking about some sort of slavish legalism. I am merely recounting the real-life experience of every saint of God who has a desire to pursue Him. What I am saying is familiar terrotory to every spiritual warrior. Too many Christians don't even know there is a war going on... The book of Joshua is filled with incredible principles regarding how we secure the inheritinace and I think is the Old Testament counterpart to the remarkable picture of the contest in the heavenly places presented to us in Ephesians. God's instruction to Joshua as regards the prospects of his success are straighforward. : Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper whithersoever thou goest..... You want to inherit? You won't unless you are fed. You won't unless you are armed! ...and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God: Verne : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : al Hartman December 10, 2005, 09:10:59 PM Most of you know me well enough to know that I am not talking about some sort of slavish legalism. When I was in the assy, and for most of my adult life, slavish legalism was the only version I knew. I am merely recounting the real-life experience of every saint of God who has a desire to pursue Him. I haven't yet come up with an adequate description of what constituted my desire during all that time, but the pursuit of Christ was buried within a heap of other motivations, none of which was worthy of Him. What I am saying is familiar terrotory to every spiritual warrior. The pursuit of Christ leads to spiritual warfare just as surely as dawn follows night, and many enter actively into it before they have even realized it. The young David, tending sheep, wasn't likely to think of himself as a warrior, even when facing the giant. It was His singular faith in his God's certainty to triumph that enabled and ensured Goliath's defeat. God is able to do mighty works by the hands of His disciples. Too many Christians don't even know there is a war going on... ...and because of that, for many of them there is no struggle. But those who pursue Christ find out, sooner or later, that there is a war, that they are in the midst of it (their very lives the battlefield), and that its outcome is secure. The stronger our pursuit of Him, the sooner the Light will break upon us... al : Re: While It Is Yet Called Today... : moonflower2 December 13, 2005, 04:54:01 PM Folks, I want to post something that will add to the discussion on divorce and remarriage. However, I cannot find the discussion. Which thread was it in? Thanks, Thomas Maddux Is this the thread you were looking for, Tom? |