|
vernecarty
Guest
|
 |
« Reply #285 on: June 08, 2005, 06:52:04 pm » |
|
Verne, I don't find it too shocking that he not only went to, but talked about the "red light district" after all he said he was raised in/ or around Dance-Halls and Clubs right ? So I think he was covering his tracks with the bros and doing a little play acting at his horror of the place. I don't think this was anything new to him. Interestingly enough Soloman the wisest man proverbs and all, let his many wives 700 and 300 concubines take away his heart. (wine and harlotry take away the heart) and Christ says," Behold a Greater then Soloman is here!" Summer.
Compromise in the matter of the affections is probably the most common reason for the failure of men in ministry. Many men of great potential have ruined their testimony and their effectiveness by allowing the enemy to use this most potent of weapons against them. I knew the Lord had done a great work in my own heart when I realised that He had in some measure taught me "discipline of the eyes" (Job 31:1)...  But seriously, only a love for Christ can really enable a man to overcome this most basic and earthy of his predilections...if you get my drift. We are men of like passions. Verne |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: June 08, 2005, 10:07:34 pm by VerneCarty »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
summer007
Guest
|
|
« Reply #286 on: June 08, 2005, 10:36:39 pm » |
|
Tom, That's astounding! I never knew his back-ground was that low-class. I've been to some Greek Restaurants with the greek god type of waiter, music and great lamb some of them get up and dance. So I was'nt imagining this hustler type of back-ground he came from, this really explains alot! Summer. p.s. Verne, I was fortunite in that my schedule did'nt allow me to attend the "tape mts", oh so sad  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
vernecarty
Guest
|
|
« Reply #287 on: June 09, 2005, 01:27:40 am » |
|
Tom, That's astounding! I never knew his back-ground was that low-class. I've been to some Greek Restaurants with the greek god type of waiter, music and great lamb some of them get up and dance. So I was'nt imagining this hustler type of back-ground he came from, this really explains alot! Summer. p.s. Verne, I was fortunite in that my schedule did'nt allow me to attend the "tape mts", oh so sad This probably explains the man's flaming inferiority complex. Verne |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
moonflower2
Guest
|
|
« Reply #288 on: June 09, 2005, 08:24:51 am » |
|
Moonie, you like my plunder post eh?? I was thinking that what we "plundered" from our assembly days can now be of some benefit in the churches we now attend. E.g. Our extensive knowledge of the Scriptures, if rightly used can be of some use now. Just not sure what, since I am still stuck on seeing certain passages the way GG taught it. Marcia I was thinking more along the lines that although we left the Geftalonian captivity, we left the spoils (gold bars and off-shore accounts) behind.  At this point in time, I still do not trust myself and what I was taught in the captivity enough to share it in a church setting, just in a one on one situation where I would have the chance to explain why I believed what I did. I keep things really simple and will read the more complicated issues here, and let someone else decide what the church members should hear. I feel free to ask questions and found out that our pastor (Bible Church) is a 4.5 Calvinist! Can you beleeeeeve it???  Just can't get away from these big C's. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: June 09, 2005, 08:36:14 am by moonflower »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
M2
Guest
|
|
« Reply #289 on: June 09, 2005, 09:58:36 am » |
|
I was thinking more along the lines that although we left the Geftalonian captivity, we left the spoils (gold bars and off-shore accounts) behind. At this point in time, I still do not trust myself and what I was taught in the captivity enough to share it in a church setting, just in a one on one situation where I would have the chance to explain why I believed what I did. I keep things really simple and will read the more complicated issues here, and let someone else decide what the church members should hear. I feel free to ask questions and found out that our pastor (Bible Church) is a 4.5 Calvinist! Can you beleeeeeve it??? Just can't get away from these big C's. Moonie, Interesting a 4.5 Calvinist pastor at a Bible Church. What is the .5 that he is not? Actually, looks like you are in a good place and probably get some good sound teaching. Re. plunder, yes I see your point about leaving the spoils behind.    From what I have observed on this BB, you have quite a talent for soap opera. Marcia |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
outdeep
Guest
|
|
« Reply #290 on: June 09, 2005, 05:49:14 pm » |
|
Moonie,
Interesting a 4.5 Calvinist pastor at a Bible Church. What is the .5 that he is not?
Actually, looks like you are in a good place and probably get some good sound teaching.
Generally, a 4 1/2 Calvinist means that the pastor has problems with the third point of TULIP of "limited atonement". This means that Jesus did not die for everyone but only for the elect. Or, put it strongly, he had no intention of dying for someone who God did not predestine to be saved. After all, dying for someone who is going to be condemned is meaningless. The reason folks struggle with this point is that they have a hard time reading John 3:16 "For God so loved the world" as "For God so loved the world of the elect" which is the explanation Calvinsts generally give to align this verse with their teaching. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
vernecarty
Guest
|
|
« Reply #291 on: June 09, 2005, 08:37:44 pm » |
|
The reason folks struggle with this point is that they have a hard time reading John 3:16 "For God so loved the world" as "For God so loved the world of the elect" which is the explanation Calvinsts generally give to align this verse with their teaching.
A more simple and precise argument is to simply ask whether there are other passages where "world" is used, but clearly does not refer to each and every single human. No well instructed Bible student need change the Scripture to defend the doctrine of limited atonement. It is self-evident. Verne |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: June 09, 2005, 08:41:18 pm by VerneCarty »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Oscar
Guest
|
|
« Reply #292 on: June 09, 2005, 10:15:38 pm » |
|
A more simple and precise argument is to simply ask whether there are other passages where "world" is used, but clearly does not refer to each and every single human. No well instructed Bible student need change the Scripture to defend the doctrine of limited atonement. It is self-evident. Verne Verne, Is the above a jest? Thomas Maddux Virulent Dog. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
vernecarty
Guest
|
|
« Reply #293 on: June 09, 2005, 10:59:25 pm » |
|
Verne,
Is the above a jest?
Thomas Maddux
Virulent Dog.
Hello Virulnent One: I jest not, forsooth. Folks who argue against limited atonement don't really understand the position they are taking in my experience. Not a single one of them is prepared to argue that everyone will be saved. (Asking the question whether everyone can be is pointless, futile and immaterial for obvious reasons... ) As you probe a little deeper, you begin to realise that the issue is not really if atonement is limited, for it clearly is. I completely agree that serious argument can be joined as to why, it is limited. There is a difference. Verne |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: June 09, 2005, 11:04:03 pm by VerneCarty »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Oscar
Guest
|
|
« Reply #294 on: June 10, 2005, 01:48:18 am » |
|
Hello Virulnent One: I jest not, forsooth. Folks who argue against limited atonement don't really understand the position they are taking in my experience. Not a single one of them is prepared to argue that everyone will be saved. (Asking the question whether everyone can be is pointless, futile and immaterial for obvious reasons... ) As you probe a little deeper, you begin to realise that the issue is not really if atonement is limited, for it clearly is. I completely agree that serious argument can be joined as to why, it is limited. There is a difference. Verne Verne, I am curious as to how you integrate the fact that John Calvin himself didn't hold the limited atonement teaching with your atonement available=atonement applied belief. Thoma Maddux Virulent Dog |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Mark Kisla
Guest
|
|
« Reply #295 on: June 10, 2005, 02:03:18 am » |
|
Verne, Your post brings up several issues to think about. Actually, the potential is always there because of the completely subjective interpretations that the "mystical meaning" makes available. Sondra's use of the Bible is an example of this. Take this illigitimate exegetical method, add narcissim, a dash of sociopathic tendencies...and viola! George is God's special servant. The history of Brethrenism shows that this can happen again and again. exegesis by a man with "spiritual" discernment. (One wonders which spirits) On the cross, Jesus said "I thirst." To a man of merely human understanding, such as myself, it means he wanted something to drink. But to the the spiritually discerning, it has layers of meaning. Typological significance. Mystical import that only the those who hear the voice of the Spirit...  He got away with it because he took advantage the pietistic tendencies in Evangelicalsim and also was able to teach new converts to read their Bibles in this way. Many of you still do! I heard about "that part of town" when I was in the service back in the early 60's. I have also seen glimpses of it on the evening news. What it is is the "Red Light District" of Amsterdam. The women put themselves on public display in picture windows right on the sidewalks. They are "dressed" accordingly. GG was there to investigate human depravity. IMHO, he was there to ogle the women! I don't think he was shopping because I think there were brothers with him. Blessings, Thomas Maddux Hi Tom, It had been difficult for me to reconcile just what type of man George really is because I had seen him in personal prayer at 4:30 am, yet he was simultaniously living a life contrary to the word of God. The man has to be mentally ill. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
M2
Guest
|
|
« Reply #296 on: June 10, 2005, 02:43:00 am » |
|
There's definitely a Scripture passage to "justify" anything we did in the assembly. Hence the added reason that so many had a difficult time actually seeing things differently and breaking free from assembly bondage if they left before the BB, except for Verne who actually had peace when he left. Here's a man who preached that the Catholic church was following the OT pattern and then used OT principles for his own means.  Marcia PS How far back are we going in this discussion in order to judge with "righteous judgement"?? MM |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
vernecarty
Guest
|
|
« Reply #297 on: June 10, 2005, 02:43:32 am » |
|
Verne,
I am curious as to how you integrate the fact that John Calvin himself didn't hold the limited atonement teaching with your atonement available=atonement applied belief.
Thoma Maddux
Virulent Dog
I guess it just goes to show tha I am not the great Calvinist I'm cracked up to be huh? But serously, you cannot read his institutes and come away with the conclusion that he did not sucscribe to a limited atonement. In fact he argues strenuously that the the wrath of God as an essential attribute requires the existence of the condemned, a far stronger stance than simply saying the atonement is limited. The fact of the matter is, if you do not believe that the atonement is limited, your are shut up to the conclusion of a Universalist Like Jukes ( an man I like immensely but disagree with) that everyone will ultimately be saved. If you are not of the opinion that everyone will ultimately be saved, you have no choce but to limit the atonement. The question then becomes how, and why, not if. I know you are familiar with the diailectic Tom but I would simply remind the readers that the main difference among believers on this is that some of us choose to limit the atonement as to its efficacy. That is to say, the price Christ paid was insufficient to atone for the sin of unbelief in those who perish, said unbelief being direct cause of their condemnation. Others choose to limit the atonement as to its extent. That is to say, the price Christ paid for the redeemed included atonement for the sin of unbelief. Mild Mannered Mystic Verne I know I know...but what about free will right? I think the answer lies in understanding the difference between God's desired will and His determined will...I did not use to believe they were not the same but if you think about it, they have to be. We would never sin as believers for example were they not different...think about it... |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: June 10, 2005, 03:23:11 am by VerneCarty »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
vernecarty
Guest
|
|
« Reply #298 on: June 10, 2005, 03:19:17 am » |
|
Hi Tom,
It had been difficult for me to reconcile just what type of man George really is because I had seen him in personal prayer at 4:30 am, yet he was simultaniously living a life contrary to the word of God. The man has to be mentally ill.
To the degree that any person who believes (as he preached ad nauseam) what Scripture states about the fate of men who do what George did, and nontheless goes ahead and does it not once but repeatedly, to that degree the person has to be somewhat cracked. For the longest time my concern as a Christian has not been that I would fall into gross and soul destroying sin, but that according to Paul's exhortation in 1 Corithians 9 that having preached to others, I would myself be disqualified. The case for some kind of insanity with the likes of Geftakys is a potent one. I am absolutely blown away by his refusal (inability?) to repent. That is a sure sign of the curse of the Almighty. Verne |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Oscar
Guest
|
|
« Reply #299 on: June 10, 2005, 03:44:13 am » |
|
Mark, Hi Tom,
It had been difficult for me to reconcile just what type of man George really is because I had seen him in personal prayer at 4:30 am, yet he was simultaniously living a life contrary to the word of God. The man has to be mentally ill.
My term for it is "delusional." Thomas Maddux |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
