Not just from the mother but the daughters of the harlot

Dear Neal,

Some of your lyrics from "Sola Scriptura" hit the nail on the head. I especially like the following:

==If you think the whore is only history/Are there those who teach her lies?/Wherever they believe what came out from her/The same spirit is still alive==

and

==Not just from the mother but the daughters of the harlot/Everything that comes from her it must be left behind==

You state the truth.

In the first set of lyrics, you answer the argument that the Great Whore is something of the past. It is not. If there are any who teach the lies of the Whore, and if there are any who believe what came out of the Whore, the same spirit of the Whore is still alive.

In the second set of lyrics, you answer the argument that it is enough just to come out from the Mother of Harlots. It is not enough. True Christians will also come out of the Daughters of the Harlot, and they will leave behind everything that comes from the Great Harlot.

But I wonder - do you really know what that means? You mentioned John Wesley in a positive light in your liner notes. Maybe you just don't know very much about him. John Wesley was in bed with the Roman Catholic Whore, and his teachings came from the Roman Catholic Whore.

Have you ever heard of Augustus Toplady? He was the writer of "Rock of Ages":

==Rock of ages, cleft for me,/Grace hath hid me safe in Thee,/Where the water and the blood,/From Thy riven side which flowed,/Are of sin the double cure,/Cleansing from its guilt and power.

Not the labour of my hands/Could fulfil the law's demands:/Could my zeal no respite know,/Could my tears for ever flow,/Nought for sin could e'er atone/But Thy blood, and Thine alone.

Found by Thee before I sought,/Unto Thee in mercy brought,/I have Thee for righteousness,/From Thy fulness grace for grace:/Thou hast washed me in Thy blood,/Made me live, and live to God.

While I draw this fleeting breath,/If mine eyelids close in death,/When I soar to worlds unknown,/Still of Thee I'll sing alone:/Rock of ages, cleft for me,/All my boast and joy's in Thee.==

What many people don't know is that Toplady wrote a treatise showing that John Wesley and Arminianism (which John Wesley believed and taught) were from the Great Roman Catholic Whore. Witness these words:

==WHOSE VOICE DO YOU HEAR?

"My sheep, saith Christ, hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me; and I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish."

O, most worthy Scriptures! which ought to compel us to have a faithful remembrance, and to note the tenor thereof; which is, the sheep of Christ shall never perish.

"Doth Christ mean part of his elect, or all, think you? I do hold, and affirm, and also faithfully believe, that he meant all his elect, and not part, as some do full ungodly affirm. I confess and believe assuredly, that there shall never any of them perish: for I have good authority so to say; because Christ is my author, and saith, if it were possible, the very elect should be deceived. Ergo, it is not possible that they can be so deceived, that they shall ever finally perish, or be damned: wherefore, whosoever doth affirm that there may be any (i.e. any of the elect) lost, doth affirm that Christ hath a torn body."(1)

The above valuable letter of recantation is thus inscribed: "A Letter to the Congregation of Free-willers, by One that had been of that Persuasion, but come off, and now a Prisoner for Religion:" which superscription will hereafter, in its due place, supply us with a remark of more than slight importance.

JOHN WESLEY, A FRIEND OF ROME?

To occupy the place of argument, it has been alleged that "Mr. Wesley is an old man;" and the Church of Rome is still older than he. Is that any reason why the enormities, either of the mother or the son, should pass unchastised?

It has also been suggested, that "Mr. Wesley is a very laborious man:" not more laborious, I presume, than a certain active being, who is said to go to and fro in the earth, and walk up and down in it: (2) nor yet more laborious, I should imagine, than certain ancient Sectarians, concerning whom it was long ago said, "Woe unto you Scribes, hypocrites; for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte:"(3) nor, by any means, so usefully laborious, as a certain diligent member of the community, respecting whose variety of occupations the public have lately received the following intelligence: "The truth of the following instance of industry may be depended on: a poor man with a large family, now cries milk, every morning, in Lothbury, and the neighbourhood of the Royal Exchange; at eleven, he wheels about a barrow of potatoes; at one, he cleans shoes at the Change; after dinner, cries milk again; in the evening, sells sprats; and at night, finishes the measure of his labour as a watchman."(4)

THE QUARREL IS WITH THE WOLF

Mr. Sellon, moreover, reminds me (p.128.) that, "while the shepherds are quarrelling, the wolf gets into the sheep fold;" not impossible: but it so happens, that the present quarrel is not among "the shepherds," but with the "wolf" himself; which "quarrel" is warranted by every maxim of pastoral meekness and fidelity.

I am further told, that, while I am "berating the Arminians, Rome and the devil laugh in their sleeves." Admitting that Mr. Sellon might derive this anecdote from the fountain head, the parties themselves, yet, as neither they nor he are very conspicuous for veracity, I construe the intelligence by the rule of reverse, though authenticated by the deposition of their right trusty and well-beloved cousin and counsellor.

Once more: I am charged with "excessive superciliousness, and majesty of pride:" and why not charged with having seven heads and ten horns, and a tail as long as a bell-rope? After all, what has my pride, or my humility, to do with the argument in hand? Whether I am haughty, or meek, is of no more consequence either to that, or to the public, than whether I am tall or short: however, I am, at this very time, giving one proof, that my "majesty of pride" can stoop; that even to ventilate the impertinences of Mr. Sellon.

ARMINIANISM AT HOME IN ROME

But, however frivolous his cavils, the principles for which he contends are of the most pernicious nature and tendency. I must repeat, what already seems to have given him so much offence, that Arminianism "came from Rome, and leads thither again."

Julian, bishop of Eclana a contemporary and disciple of Pelagius, was one of those who endeavoured, with much art, to gild the doctrines of that heresiarch, in order to render them more sightly and palatable. The Pelagian system, thus varnished and paliated, soon began to acquire the softer name of Semipelagianism. Let us take a view of it, as drawn to our hands by the celebrated Mr. Bower, who himself, in the main, a professed Pelagian, and therefore less likely to present us with an unfavourable portrait of the system he generally approved. Among the principles of that sect, this learned writer enumerates the following:

"The notion of election and reprobation, independent on our merits or demerits, is maintaining a fatal necessity, is the bane of all virtue, and serves only to render good men remiss in working out their salvation, and to drive sinners to despair.

"The decrees of election and reprobation are posterior to, and in consequence of, our good or evil works, as foreseen by God from all eternity."(5)

Is not this too the very language of modern Arminianism? Do not the partizans of that scheme argue on the same identical terms? Should it be said, "True, this proves that Arminianism is Pelagianism revived; but it does not prove, that the doctrines of Arminianism are originally Popish:" a moment's cool attention will make it plain that they are. Let us again hear Mr. Bower, who, after the passage just quoted, immediately adds:

"on these two last propositions, the Jesuits found their whole system of grace and free-will; agreeing therein with the Semipelagians, against the Jansenists and St. Augustine."(6)

The Jesuits were moulded into a regular body, towards the middle of the sixteenth century: toward the close of the same century, Arminius began to infest the Protestant churches. It needs therefore no great penetration, to discern from what source he drew his poison. His journey to Rome (though Monsicur Bayle affects to make light of the inferences which were at that very time deduced from it) was not for nothing. If, however, any are disposed to believe, that Arminius imbibed his doctrines from the Socinians in Poland, with whom, it is certain, he was on terms of intimate friendship, I have no objection to splitting the difference: he might import some of his tenets from the Racovian brethren, and yet be indebted, for others, to the disciples of Loyola.

PAPISTS AND PREDESTINATION

Certain it is, that Arminius himself was sensible, how greatly the doctrine of predestination widens the distance between Protestantism and Popery.

"There is no point of doctrines (says he) which the Papists, the Anabaptists, and the (new) Lutherans more fiercely oppose, nor by means of which they heap more discredit on the reformed churches, and bring the reformed system itself into more odium; for they (i.e. the Papists, & etc.) assert, that no fouler blasphemy against God can be thought or expressed, than is contained in the doctrine of predestination."(7)

For which reason, he advises the reformed world to discard predestination from their creed, in order that they may live on more brotherly terms with the Papists, the Anabaptists, and such like.

The Arminian writers make no scruple to seize and retail each other's arguments, as common property. Hence, Samuel Hoord copies from Van Harmin the self same observation which I have now cited.

"Predestination (says Samuel) is an opinion odious to the Papists, opening their foul mouths, against our Church and religion:"(8) consequently, our adopting the opposite doctrines of universal grace and freewill, would, by bringing us so many degrees nearer to the Papists, conduce to shut their mouths, and make them regard us, so far at least, as their own orthodox and dearly beloved brethren: whence it follows, that, as Arminianism came from Rome, so "it leads thither again."

THE JESUITS AND PREDESTINATION

If the joint verdict of Arminius himself, and of his English proselyte Hoord, will not turn the scale, let us add the testimony of a professed Jesuit, by way of making up full weight. When archbishop Laud's papers were exam- ined, a letter was found among them, thus endorsed with that prelate's own hand: "March, 1628. A Jesuit's Letter, sent to the Rector at Bruxels, about the ensuing Parliament." The design of this letter was to give the Superior of the Jesuits, then resident at Brussels, an account of the posture of civil and ecclesiastical affairs in England; an extract from it I shall here subjoin:

"Father Rector, let not the damp of astonishment seize upon your ardent and zealous soul, in apprehending the sodaine and unexpected calling of a Parliament. We have now many strings to our bow. We have planted that soveraigne drugge Arminianisme, which we hope will purge the Protestants from their heresie; and it flourisheth and beares fruit in due season. For the better prevention of the Puritanes, the Arminians have already locked up the Duke's (of Buckingham) eares; and we have those of our owne religion, which stand continually at the Duke's chamber, to see who goes in and out: we cannot be too circumspect and carefull in this regard. I am, at this time, transported with joy, to see how happily all instruments and means, as well great as lesser, co-operate unto our purposes. But, to return unto the maine fabricke:--OUR FOUNDATION IS ARMINIANISME. The Arminians and projectors, as it appeares in the premises, affect mutation. This we second and enforce by probable arguments."(9)

THE SOVEREIGN DRUG ARMINIANISM

The "Sovereign drug, Arminianism," which said the Jesuit, "we (i.e. we Papists) have planted" in England, did indeed bid fair" How merrily Popery and Arminianism, at that time, danced hand in hand, may be learned from Tindal:

"The churches were adorned with paintings, images, altar-pieces, & etc. and, instead of communion tables, alters were set up, and bowings to them and the sacramental elements enjoined. The predestinarian doctrines were forbid, not only to be preached, but to be printed; and the Arminian sense of the Articles was encouraged and propagated."(10)

The Jesuit, therefore, did not exult without cause. The "sovereign drug," so lately "planted," did indeed take deep root downward, and bring forth fruit upward, under the cherishing auspices of Charles and Laud. Heylyn, too, acknowledges, that the state of things was truly described by another Jesuit of that age, who wrote:

"Protestantism waxeth weary of itself. The doctrine (by the Arminians, who then sat at the helm) is altered in many things, for which their progenitors forsook the Church of Rome: as limbus patrum; prayer for the dead, and possibility of keeping God's commandments; and the accounting of Calvinism to be heresy at least, if not treason."(11) (Those who rail upon and detest so-called Calvinism are nothing more than Protestant Papists and no better, but worse by far. PR)

ARMINIANISM FROM THE PIT

The maintaining of these positions, by the Court divines, was an "alteration" indeed; which the abandoned Heylyn ascribes to "the ingenuity and moderation found in some professors of our religion." If we sum up the evidence that has been given, we shall find its amount to be, that Arminianism came from the Church of Rome, and leads back again to the pit whence it was digged.

Endnotes:

1. Strype, u.s. 2. Job 1:7 with 1 Peter 5:8. 3. Matt. 23:15. 4. Bath Chronicle, for Feb. 6, 1772. 5. Bower's Hist. of the Popes, vol. 1, p. 350. 6. Bower ibid. 7. Arminius, in Oper. P.115. Ludg. 1629. (See book for Latin.) 8. Hoord, In Bishop Davenant's Animadversions, Camb. 1641. 9. Hidden works of darkness, p. 89, 90. Edit. 1645. 10. Tindal's Contin. of Rapin, vol. 3 octavo, 1758. 11. Life of Laud, p. 238.==

For more on John Wesley, see www.outsidethecamp.org/wesley.htm .

TRULY - "Not just from the mother but the daughters of the harlot/Everything that comes from her it must be left behind." If you think the whore is only history/Are there those who teach her lies?/Wherever they believe what came out from her/The same spirit is still alive." John Wesley's Arminianism is a daughter of the Great Harlot. John Wesley believed and taught what came out of the Great Whore. A person who still believes in the false gospel of salvation conditioned on the sinner is STILL PART OF THE GREAT WHORE. Have you really come out of not just the mother but the daughters of the Harlot? If so, you will not believe or teach the lies of the Harlot, which include the damnable heresies of prevenient common grace, free will, conditional election, universal atonement, and conditional perseverance. The truth of the gospel is the good news of God's promise to save His people conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ alone.

For more on the true gospel, see www.outsidethecamp.org/egd.htm .

To God alone be the glory,

Marc D. Carpenter


Re: Not just from the mother but the daughters of the harlot

Outside the Camp:

Excerpts from their Confession of Faith:

Quote:

God actively causes the reprobate to hate His glory, persecute His people, and oppose His gospel, that He may justly punish them. [Exo 7:3; 9:12; Jos 11:20; 1Sa 2:25; Psa 105:25; Rom 9:18; Rev 17:17]

Quote:

God does not have any love toward the reprobate or any desire to save them, for God does not show love at the expense of His justice. The good things that God gives to them in this life lead only to their destruction, increasing their guilt for their thanklessness to God. Jesus Christ did not die for the reprobate in any sense, and they do not benefit in any sense from His death

I know I only pasted a small portion of the statement that is of an inflamatory nature but I was astounded at this.

WHOOOOAAAAA NELLIE!


Re: Not just from the mother but the daughters of the harlot

Yeah I made the mistake of reading some of that site yesterday. I was actually so angry I had to step outside and pace in the cold air for half an hour. I really hope this guy is not the leader of a church. I'm sorry but romans9 reminds me of Fred Phelps...

DianeAdams

Gentle Spirit


Re: Not just from the mother but the daughters of the harlot

Actually, this is a very common spirit among hard core Calvinists. They are very arrogant and militant. I'd send the links to prove it, but i don't want to message board/blog swarm.

Matthew


Re: Not just from the mother but the daughters of the harlot

Joh 13:35 By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."

1Jo 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God.

1Jo 4:8 Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.

1Jo 4:9 In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him.

1Jo 4:10 In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

1Jo 4:11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.

1Jo 4:20 If anyone says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.

Mat 5:43 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'

Mat 5:44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persec[/u] Mat 5:45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust[/b].

Mat 5:46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?

Mat 5:47 And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?

Mat 5:48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.


Re: Not just from the mother but the daughters of the harlot

Quote:

Actually, this is a very common spirit among hard core Calvinists.

Matt I think you missed the heretic hall of fame page. Calvin is right at the top. Honorable mentions for Billy Graham, Spurgeon, and somewhere A.W. Tozer. Dude's thrown so many people into hell, I can't see how he's gonna find room for us!

Warning: if you've had breakfast already this morning, I highly recommend waiting for it to settle a bit before venturing over to Outside the Camp. That is, if you feel you should go. I don't think you really should though.

DianeAdams

Gentle Spirit


Re: Not just from the mother but the daughters of the harlot

Welcome to the board Marc!

I'm with you against Arminianism. I'm also a Calvinist. However, judging from the part of your post that I read, and some of the comments it generated, you sound like you might be more of the hardcore Reformed/Covenant Calvinist type. If that is so, this is one voice that is not represented in the current group of active participants here. I welcome such a view to counter the heavy Catholic dogmatics that have had main stage here for the past several months! Please stick around! Although, I'd recommend a more gentle approach, and keeping the posts to a more easily digestible length. It's hard to follow and adequately respond to such large posts.

Sola fide!

In Christ,

Scott


Re: Not just from the mother but the daughters of the harlot

I follow Calvin.

I follow Paul.

I follow Apollos.

I follow Joel Osteen (ha ha couldn't resist)

It's all the same to me - they were no more inspired than you or I can be.

If you disagree, then you may as well let Calvin do all of your thinking for ya


Re: Not just from the mother but the daughters of the harlot

Calvinism, Arminianism, Catholicism, Wesleyanism, whores, heretics, apostates... Goodness. To quote our friend romans9, quoting someone else who probably has his own ism, "while the shepherds are quarrelling, the wolf gets into the sheep fold;" This statement is true.

Merry Christmas to all you isms out there.(or happy Legalism Day for those of you who want to ban Christmas) I'm going out with Mark for some air.

DianeAdams

Gentle Spirit


Re: Not just from the mother but the daughters of the harlot

Quote:

I follow Calvin.

I follow Paul.

I follow Apollos.

Just to clarify: I DO NOT follow Calvin. I agree with many of the doctrines that fall under the general designation of "Calvinism", and this is because I believe that they are taught by Scripture. I do not consider myself an unreserved Calvinist, but when discussing these specific issues that can fall under the general designation of "Calvinism", "Arminianism", "Catholicism", etc, for the sake of simplicity, I will say: "I am a Calvinist". But that does not mean that I agree with everything that Calvinism teaches, nor indeed do I agree with everything that Calvin himself believed. In fact, like anyone else, I believe that he was plain wrong on many points.

ALL systems of doctrine are flawed. But that does not mean that they are all worthless. We can learn much from the insights and teachings of others. We can burn by allowing them to think for us.

K?

Scott


Re: Not just from the mother but the daughters of the harlot

All I can say after reading some of this guys stuff is that I want to know what he drives. Basically so I can make sure if I come across it I can have it checked for explosives. I'm glad Calvin isn't offering the whole passel o' virgins in the afterlife deal...

Just sayin...


Re: Not just from the mother but the daughters of the harlot

Scott,

Please go read their Confession of Faith, then come back and comment. I want to know if you go along with that on any level.

Peace in Christ,

Libby


Re: Not just from the mother but the daughters of the harlot

Anyone else notice that romans9 hasn't been back?

I'm thinking of a word, and it ryhmes with roll.


Re: Not just from the mother but the daughters of the harlot

Libby,

I will read their document entitled "The Christian Confession of Faith" from the Outside the Camp site, and let you know where I stand in regard to their statements therein.

Scott


Re: Not just from the mother but the daughters of the harlot

Ok. I've read The Christian Confession of Faith. According to the strict reading of this, I'm unregenerate. This is a perfect example of "The Frozen Chosen". This is EXTREME Calvinism. Calvin wouldn't even be allowed to fellowship with people holding to this confession (nor do I think that he would want to...).

There are some things that I agree with in this confession. There are more than a few things I disagree with. And there are some things that I would add clarification to before I would agree with it.

I will now start with some comments, but I won't be able to cover all points in one post.

Regarding "I. Scripture" under this confession. I agree with letter A. regarding the Inspiration of God's Word.

Regarding letter B. I would only comment that there are very minor errors in the existing copies of the Scriptures, but none that would change the message or affect the truths therein.

I agree with letter C. under the Scripture heading completely.

Regarding "II. God", I agree with A and B completely (except for what they mean when they use "His people" as expanded on later in the confession).

Under "C. Divine Attributes", I agree with point 1.

Point 2:

Quote:

2. God created the universe in six days and continues to sovereignly and actively uphold, control, and sustain it.

I don't believe that dogmatism on this is essential. I do believe that the 6 days in Genesis are 6 literal, consecutive 24 hour days, but I do not necessisarilly believe that the creation of the Universe was begun on day 1. Here is where I would be considered an unregenerate according to this confession. I didn't make it very far!

Quote:

3. God absolutely controls all actions and events; nothing at all happens by chance or merely by His permission. All actions and events happen because of His sovereign decree, including the sins of men and angels. Contrary to the aspersions of the enemies of God, this doctrine does not attribute sin to God; instead, it provides great comfort for believers.

I believe that God is completely Sovereign over the universe, but I do not believe that He causes sin, nor that He wants and demands that people sin and suffer. Lord help me!

I agree with point #4.

I will continue with "D. Predestination" later. While I believe that Scripture absolutely teaches the doctrine Election (and/or Predestination), I will just say that there are some points under this heading that I believe are FALSE and Un-Scriptural (making me an unregenerate by their standards. )

Scott


Re: Not just from the mother but the daughters of the harlot

KirksNoseHair wrote:

==Anyone else notice that romans9 hasn't been back?==

I'm baaaaaaack! I don't get on the web every day or even every few days on a regular basis. I have a job, a newsletter, a web site, a wife, six home-schooled children ... you know, a life.

I'll respond to a few of the responses.

CLCMJC wrote:

==Actually, this is a very common spirit among hard core Calvinists.==

FreedomSlave74 wrote:

==I'm also a Calvinist. However, judging from the part of your post that I read, and some of the comments it generated, you sound like you might be more of the hardcore Reformed/Covenant Calvinist type.==

And FreedomSlave74 wrote later:

==This is EXTREME Calvinism. Calvin wouldn't even be allowed to fellowship with people holding to this confession (nor do I think that he would want to...).==

Livingstill wrote:

==I follow Calvin.

I follow Paul.

I follow Apollos.

I follow Joel Osteen (ha ha couldn't resist)

It's all the same to me - they were no more inspired than you or I can be.

If you disagree, then you may as well let Calvin do all of your thinking for ya==

Master Chuin wrote:

==I'm glad Calvin isn't offering the whole passel o' virgins in the afterlife deal...==

What all these statements have in common is the assumption that I'm a Calvinist. That is an incorrect assumption right off the bat. I am not a Calvinist. I do not claim to be a Calvinist. John Calvin didn't even believe in the third point of what is commonly known as "The Five Points of Calvinism"; instead, he believed the whorish Roman Catholic doctrine of universal atonement, just like John Wesley did. I do believe in what is commonly known as "The Five Points of Calvinism," but that, interestingly enough, makes me a NON-Calvinist. "The Five Points" should not be attached to Calvin's name. They are the Doctrines of Grace. And what the whole "TULIP" acronym stands for really doesn't do the doctrines justice, either. The Doctrines of Grace, without the cute acronym, are as follows:

Total Inability/Total Depravity

Unconditional Election

Efficacious Atonement

Irresistible Grace

Unconditional Preservation

Now FreedomSlave74 says that "Calvin wouldn't even be able to fellowship with people holding to this confession," and he's absolutely right. Calvin was an unregenerate man when he espoused universal atonement.

What is universal atonement? It is the damnable heresy that Jesus Christ died for every single human being without exception. For anyone interested, there is an article on this entitled "Gospel Atonement" at www.outsidethecamp.org/gospatone.htm .

DianeAdams wrote:

==Matt I think you missed the heretic hall of fame page. Calvin is right at the top. Honorable mentions for Billy Graham, Spurgeon, and somewhere A.W. Tozer. Dude's thrown so many people into hell, I can't see how he's gonna find room for us!==

It is a completely false accusation that I have thrown people into hell. I have not even condemned anyone to hell, as is a common accusation. I'm not even saying that all the people in the Heterodoxy Hall of Shame are in hell or will go to hell. The person's final destiny is not for me or any Christian to judge. What Christians do judge, though, is the state of a person's soul when he made the heretical statements. See "Righteous Judgment" at www.outsidethecamp.org/rightjudg.htm . Is John Calvin in hell right now? I have no idea. And I am not condemning him to hell or throwing him into hell. Was John Calvin an unregenerate person when he taught universal atonement? Yes. And if he continued in that unregenerate state until death, then he went to hell. But I do not know if he continued in that unregenerate state until death. God could have saved him before he died. One thing we do know is this: If God did save Calvin or Wesley or anyone else who believed in universal atonement, then they would STOP believing universal atonement and START believing the true gospel of salvation conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ alone IMMEDIATELY upon regeneration.

PaulGH wrote:

==Also, do you appreciate people referring to you or others with whom you fellowship with derogatory terms like Bible-thumper, Bible-basher, fundie, etc.? If not, then perhaps you could do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and avoid perjorative terms like popery, papist, and whore.==

Hey, notice that I posted NEAL MORSE'S lyrics. He used the biblical terms of harlot and whore. Have you told Neal that you don't appreciate his use of these biblical terms? And then I posted Augustus Toplady's article that used the terms like popery, papist, and whore. I have absolutely no problem using these terms. Many times, Christians get accused of being mean, harsh, or unloving in the way they use words. craigmoon even posted a bunch of Scriptures on loving others, as if I were being unloving when I quoted Neal Morse and Augustus Toplady and told the truth that people who believe a false gospel are unregenerate. And FreedomSlavef74 recommended "a more gentle approach."

Is it unloving to tell people the truth? If a doctor knows a patient has a deadly disease, what would be the loving thing for him to do - tell him that everything is okay, or tell him that he has a deadly disease and then tell him the cure?

Is using a certain kind of language being mean, harsh, or unloving?

Consider:

Was Paul being mean, harsh, or unloving when he said that he wished that the professing Christians who brought in a false gospel would literally emasculate themselves (cut off their private parts) in Galatians 5:12? How about when he called certain people haters of God (Romans 1:30), fools (1 Corinthians 15:36) accursed (Galatians 1:8-9), dogs (Philippians 3:2), liars (1 Timothy 1:10) and bastards (Hebrews 12:8)?

Was John the Baptist being mean, harsh, or unloving when he called certain people vipers (Matthew 3:7; Luke 3:7)?

Was Jesus Christ being mean, harsh, or unloving when he called certain people hypocrites (Matthew 6:2,5; 7:5; 15:7; 16:3; 22:18; 23:13,14,15,23,25,27,29; Mark 7:6; Luke 6:42; 11:44; 12:56; 13:15), vipers (Matthew 12:34; 23:33), dogs (Matthew 7:6; Revelation 22:15); swine (Matthew 7:6), children of hell (Matthew 23:15), fools (Matthew 23:17,19; Luke 11:40; 12:20; 24:25), blind (Matthew 15:14; 23:16,17,19,24,26; Revelation 3:17), serpents (Matthew 23:33), of their father the devil (John 8:44), liars (John 8:55; Revelation 2:2), and a synagogue of Satan (Revelation 2:9)?

Was James being mean, harsh, or unloving when he called certain people adulterers and adulteresses and enemies of God (James 4:4)?

Was David being mean, harsh, or unloving when he called certain people fools (Psalm 14:1; 53:1; 92:6; 94:8; 107:17), brutish men (Psalm 92:6), and haters of God (Psalm 21:8; 68:1; 83:2; 139:21)?

Was Isaiah being mean, harsh, or unloving when he called certain people fools (Isaiah 19:11), brutish (Isaiah 19:11), blind (Isaiah 56:10), dogs (Isaiah 56:10,11), seed of the adulterer and whore (Isaiah 57:3)?

Was Jeremiah being mean, harsh, or unloving when he called certain people liars (Jeremiah 50:36) and said they had a whore's forehead (Jeremiah 3:3)?

Ezekiel likened those religionists who spoke peace to and fellowshipped with and worshipped with idolaters to fornicators , adulteresses, prostitutes, and whores. He said that they prostituted themselves, s pread their legs to all who passed by, multiplied their fornications, played the whore, poured out their lewdness, and bared their nakedness in their fornication (Ezekiel 16). Was Ezekiel being mean, harsh, or unloving when he said these things?

Of course not. All these men were telling the truth. And we who are Christians are truth-tellers. The truth is that the work of Jesus Christ on the cross demands and ensures the salvation of every single person for whom He died. That means that no one for whom He died will go to hell. This effectual atonement of Jesus Christ is at the very heart, the very core of the gospel. And the truth is that any who do not believe that Jesus Christ actually accomplished full atonement for all whom He represented on the cross believe in a false gospel of salvation conditioned on the sinner. That's the truth. Am I being mean, harsh, or unloving to tell you the truth?

Repent and believe the gospel of salvation conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ alone.

To God alone be the glory,

Marc D. Carpenter


Re: Not just from the mother but the daughters of the harlot

Hi Marc,

This seems do be a synergism/monergism discussion... does God court and propose and then (if all goes well) marry his redemption, or does he "have his way with her", or not, regardless of her?

If that is the issue, it seems clear which conception of humanity would be the whore.


Re: Not just from the mother but the daughters of the harlot

Quote:

Hey, notice that I posted NEAL MORSE'S lyrics. He used the biblical terms of harlot and whore. Have you told Neal that you don't appreciate his use of these biblical terms?

It is no secret that I find some of the lyrics on that album to be offensive, to the point that I have avoided purchasing it or listening to it. Neal and I had a long discussion about these lyrics and other related issues a while back, but let's please not rehash that.

Quote:

And then I posted Augustus Toplady's article that used the terms like popery, papist, and whore. I have absolutely no problem using these terms.

Then you evidently are determined to be rude and offensive, and I will consider your participation here to be that of a troll, unless and until you give me reason to change that assessment.

Quote:

Many times, Christians get accused of being mean, harsh, or unloving in the way they use words.

With the example that you are giving, it is not hard to see why.

(Though I too am harsh and unloving sometimes, so I do not hold myself blameless. But I do not set out to try to be harsh and unloving though.)

Quote:

Was Paul being mean, harsh, or unloving when he said that he wished that the professing Christians who brought in a false gospel would literally emasculate themselves (cut off their private parts) in Galatians 5:12? How about when he called certain people haters of God (Romans 1:30), fools (1 Corinthians 15:36) accursed (Galatians 1:8-9), dogs (Philippians 3:2), liars (1 Timothy 1:10) and bastards (Hebrews 12:8 ) ?

Fine. Then try referring to some of the folks on this board as bastards, haters of God, fools, dogs, etc., and see how far it gets you. And also please understand if I am more inclined to listen to St. Paul (who, by the way, had legitimate spiritual authority over those he was writing to) than to listen to some guy intentionally spouting off rude and offensive language in the name of Christ on an internet forum.

Paul


Re: Not just from the mother but the daughters of the harlot

romans9,

I agree with Paul GH's comments above wholeheartedly.

I would like to take this opportunity to tell you that, while your intentions may be good, you have fallen away from the Love of God, and instead have fallen in love with your own understanding of scripture.

Your system of belief is your idol. Take it down off the throne of your life so that you can see and accept the truth of God's UNIVERSAL and UNCONDITIONAL love toward all that he has created.

I don't expect you to agree with my assessment of your hyper Calvinistic (or whatever you want to call it) schtick, but I am required to tell you the truth about your extremely offensive doctrines.

Repent for misrepresenting the Love of God and teaching false doctrine.

Mark


Re: Not just from the mother but the daughters of the harlot

Hmmmm ... correct me if I'm wrong here ... is this the NEAL MORSE discussion board? On the NEAL MORSE web site? ... Yes? ... Okay, just checking.

PaulGH wrote:

==It is no secret that I find some of the lyrics on that album to be offensive ...

Then you evidently are determined to be rude and offensive, and I will consider your participation here to be that of a troll, unless and until you give me reason to change that assessment.==

Okay, let me get this straight. If NEAL MORSE came on here and used the words he used on the album, you would consider NEAL MORSE'S participation on NEAL MORSE'S discussion board on NEAL MORSE'S own web site to be that of a troll. Correct? So NEAL MORSE himself would not be welcome on HIS OWN WEB SITE to say these things that he already said on his album? Is it just me, or does anyone else smell something rotten?

I was actually listening to NEAL MORSE'S album "Sola Scriptura" last night and found some of them apropos to our discussion (which, by the way, is on the NEAL MORSE discussion board, in case any of us forgot):

==How can I keep silent when I know the truth?/I ask myself one question: What would Jesus do?==

==Something burns inside of me that you don't understand/I'm under the authority of God and not of man==

==I stand accused I'm beaten used and tired/They took all my words and threw them in the fire/ As they cast me down there's somethin' found within me/They can grind me dust but life is just beginning==

==Something's burning inside of me/There's something deep within my heart/'Cause when my Savior died/I was crucified with Him on that cross/So they may come and they may kill me/But they cannot kill what's in my heart==

Do what you will. Slander me, marginalize me, call me a freak, a kook, a wacko - but how can I keep silent when I know the truth? I ask myself one question: What would Jesus do?

Let's see what Jesus did.

Here's an excerpt from John 10:

==I am the Good Shepherd! The Good Shepherd lays down His life on behalf of the sheep. ... I am the Good Shepherd, and I know those that are Mine, and I am known by the ones that are Mine. Even as the Father knows Me, I also know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep.==

Okay. So here, Jesus says that he lays down His life for the sheep. Are you with me so far? Any questions? Pretty straightforward, wouldn't you say?

Now look further down in the same chapter:

==Then the Jews encircled Him, and said to Him, Until when do You lift up our soul? If You are the Christ, tell us publicly. Jesus answered them, I told you, and you did not believe. The works which I do in the name of My Father, these bear witness about Me. But you do not believe for you are not of My sheep, as I said to you.==

According to Jesus, why did these Jews not believe? Anybody want to answer that one? Do I see any hands? Okay, you over there. Yes, it's because they were not of His sheep! Jesus said that these Jews did not believe because they were not of His sheep! Hey, simple, eh?

Now let's put these two things together. First, Jesus says that He lays down His life for the sheep. Second, Jesus says that these Jews are not of His sheep. Is everybody with me?

Now for the final exam, which is a one-question no-brainer:

Did Jesus lay down His life for these Jews?

It's so easy, even a child can understand it.

I don't go by man's opinions; I go by the inerrant, inspired Word of God. People in this thread had problems with some of the things in the Christian Confession of Faith. Yet there are Scripture references after every section. Did anyone care to read any of them? Do your opinions matter more than the very Word of God?

For example, libbybutero quoted the following from the CCF:

==God actively causes the reprobate to hate His glory, persecute His people, and oppose His gospel, that He may justly punish them. [Exo 7:3; 9:12; Jos 11:20; 1Sa 2:25; Psa 105:25; Rom 9:18; Rev 17:17]==

Let's take a look at one of the Scripture passages: Psalm 105:25:

==He turned their heart to hate His people, to deal craftily with His servants.==

Did you know that this verse was in your Bible? What will you do with it? Will you believe it, or will you say, "That's not the God I worship"? Is your view of God formed by Scripture, or is it formed by your own carnal opinion?

God TURNED the HEART of His people's enemies to HATE His people. Like Proverbs 21:1 says:

== As streams of waters, the king's heart is in the hand of Jehovah; He turns it wherever He desires.==

Do you want other Scripture on God causing people to do whatever God wants them to do (including sin)? Here are some: Gen 50:20; Exo 4:21; 7:3; 9:12; Deu 2:30; 32:39; Jos 11:20; 1Sa 2:6-8,25; 2Sa 17:14; 2Ch 10:15; 11:4; 25:20; 36:22; Job 12:14-25; 23:13-14; 26:7-12; Psa 105:25; 115:3; 135:5-7; Pro16:4,33; 21:1; Isa 40:23-26; 42:9; 43:13; 45:6-7; 46:9-11; Jer 18:6; 52:3; Eze 17:24; Hab 1:6,12; Joh 19:11; Act 2:23; 4:27-28; Eph 1:11; Rev 17:17

Read the Scriptures.

If God does not actively control all actions and events, then He would not be able to keep His promises. And if God is not able to keep His promises, then the gospel promise is meaningless.

The ultimate event in history is the crucifixion. Did God cause certain people to take Jesus Christ, beat Him, and crucify Him? Were these things sin? If God did not cause this, was the crucifixion just something that happened outside of God's active control? Did God just "let" these people do whatever they wanted? If so, why did these people not just beat Jesus Christ up and let Him go? Or kill him another way (like they originally wanted to - by stoning: see John 8:59)?

Well, the Scripture tells us why:

==The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were assembled on the same day against the Lord, yea, against His Christ. For truly both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the nations and the peoples of Israel, were assembled against Your holy child Jesus, whom You anointed, to do whatever Your hand and Your counsel before-determined to be done. (Acts 4:26-28)==

If you do not believe in the God who controls all actions and events, you do not believe the promise-keeping God of the Bible. You do not believe the gospel of salvation conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ alone. You are one of those who believes what came from the Great Whore. As NEAL MORSE wrote:

==If you think the whore is only history/Are there those who teach her lies?/Wherever they believe what came out from her/The same spirit is still alive==

There are most certainly those who still teach her lies. There are most certainly places where they believe what came out of her. And yes, the same spirit is still alive.

Is it okay for NEAL MORSE to write these lyrics, and then we do not discuss their meaning on the NEAL MORSE web site? Why can we not define who the WHORE is and what the LIES OF THE WHORE are?

And, as NEAL MORSE wrote:

==Not just from the mother but the daughters of the harlot/Everything that comes from her it must be left behind==

Can we not say who the DAUGHTERS OF THE HARLOT are? Are the daughters of the harlot some fictional phantom? Or are they real? Are they among us today?

Once again, Augustus Toplady wrote many things clearly showing that Wesleyanism/Arminianism (which teaches the heresies of Partial Depravity/Free Will, Conditional Election, Universal Atonement, Resistible Grace, Conditional Perseverance) was a daughter of the harlot - it came right from the Great Whore herself, the Roman Catholic Whore Church. (By the way, this is not a blanket endorsement of Augustus Toplady.) Here are some Toplady titles:

"Harmony between Popery and Arminianism"

"Arminianism proved on the church of Rome"

"Pope Leo X. anathematizes Luther for denying the doctrines of free-will and perfection"

"The Arminianism of the church of Rome farther evinced in her treatment of Jansenius and Quesnel"

"The decisions of that council [Trent], and therein of the Romish church at large, in favour of free-will, conditional predestination, merit, and justification by works"

Wherever they teach that unregenerate man has the free will to choose to be saved, wherever they teach that God chose to save people by looking down through time to see who would choose Him, wherever they teach that Jesus Christ died for everyone without exception (even those burning in hell), wherever they teach that God's desire to save a person can be thwarted, wherever they teach that justification, sanctification, or preservation is based on anything but the work of Jesus Christ alone - that same spirit of the Great Harlot is still alive in the Daughters of the Great Harlot. Everything that comes from her, IT MUST BE LEFT BEHIND.

To God alone be the glory,

Marc D. Carpenter


Re: Not just from the mother but the daughters of the harlot

Mr. Carpenter,

You rightly point out that this is NEAL MORSE'S message board. And...does that mean everyone here agrees with NEAL MORSE about spiritual matters? Nope. In case you don't know, and I don't think you do, NEAL MORSE and you yourself are not in agreement. In fact, he would not agree with many of the Commandments you have fabricated on your website. That, I believe, will qualify him as a whore in your book. So, since he doesn't agree with you on (omg, more than ONE of your qualifications for 'true' Christians), and the rest of us miss on MORE THAN ONE of your qualifications, and you promise to disassociate yourself from anyone who dares to disagree with YOUR interpretation of the Bible, how about sticking to your principles and leaving the lot of us to burn in hell? After all, you've done all you could, you've been a voice in the wilderness spitting at the rest of us the 'TRUTH' according to Marc Carpenter; fling the dust from your sandals and travel on brother.

Your friend (the whore)

Diane

PS--You most certainly are sending people to hell over on your website Marc. Ok, so you make a distinction between your position to judge the souls of others now, and handing the reins over to God when it's His turn--big deal. You're still in the business friend; I guess it's something like God, then at His right hand sits Jesus, with Marc kind of directing the operations down here until the big Day right?


Re: Not just from the mother but the daughters of the harlot

Oh, well - why not! Maybe a few minutes are worth sacrificing in order to hear Marks views on the question that popped up in my mind when I read his last post.

I will only post three scriptures in order to illustrate my question.

Deuteronomy 30: 19 (for context you might read verses 15 through 20):

19 I do take the heavens and the earth as witnesses against YOU today, that I have put life and death before you, the blessing and the malediction; and you must choose life in order that you may keep alive, you and your offspring,

Jeremiah 25:3-5 (Read from verse 1 for context)

3 "From the thirteenth year of Jo•si´ah the son of A´mon, the king of Judah, and down to this day, these twenty-three years the word of Jehovah has occurred to me, and I kept speaking to YOU people, rising up early and speaking, but YOU did not listen.

4 And Jehovah sent to YOU all his servants the prophets, rising up early and sending [them], but YOU did not listen, neither did YOU incline YOUR ear to listen, 5 they saying, 'Turn back, please, every one from his bad way and from the badness of YOUR dealings, and continue dwelling upon the ground that Jehovah gave to YOU and to YOUR forefathers from long ago and to a long time to come.

Romans 2: 4, 5 (Context… bla, bla, bla,….)

4 Or do you despise the riches of his kindness and forbearance and long-suffering, because you do not know that the kindly [quality] of God is trying to lead you to repentance? 5 But according to your hardness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath and of the revealing of God's righteous judgment.

My question is quite simple - what understanding do you have on these scriptures (and similar ones). To me they seem to be on collision course with your statement quoted below:

Quote:

"God… controls all actions and events"

From Deuteronomy: Why the appeal to choose if we really don't have that choice (=No free will)

From Jeremiah: Wouldn't this appeal likewise be pointless if God had already fixed each individual's destiny.

From Romans: Why is God trying to lead the person to repentance if HE actually is responsible for the unrepentant, hardened heart described in verse 5.

Maybe you've addressed this already and I missed it since English is not my first language… In that case I apologize in advance.

/FilipUser


Re: Not just from the mother but the daughters of the harlot

12th April 2034

Meet George,

George is a 72 year old men who just died peacefully.

Just before he died he had a talk with a preacher friend, confessed his sin and gave himself over to Jesus.

When he open his eyes he finds himself in front of two gates, a big golden one on the right, and a smaller wooden one on the left.

Standing between the gates is a friendly looking men with a small name tag which spells "Peter".

George says:

Hey Peter, I heard about you, back on earth. You're gonna let me in the big gate aren't you?

Peter:

Well George, I'm very sorry George but despite your late repentance I can't let you in

WHAT? WHY NOT?

Well you never learned the Doctrines of grace and never disapproved of Calvinism, Arminianism, Wesleyaninsm and a bunch of other isms.

What the heck are all those things?

Well, I myself don't really know but you really need to get all those things exactly right, before you can enter the gate.

Whoah! I never knew that. So you must be pretty clever to get in right?

Yes, It's not that easy you know!

So, How about Billy Graham? He's in there right?

Uhm………. No!

And C.S. Lewis? He sure must be there too!

Sorry, No

How about Mother Theresa?

Are you kidding me? She was one of them Catholics! None of them get in!

And Martin Luther King?

Who's that?

Cliff Richard?

No way, that two-faced freak was just scary, and anyway he was probably gay.

And how about the Spock's dude that became Christian?

Well, he was one of the few musicians that were even appreciated in heaven, but he wasn't a Trinitarian, so he isn't there either.

So who did actually enter the gate?

Well there are a couple of guys from the 1st century. But that was before there were any isms, it was much easier back then. Over the last 19 century's it's been very quiet. But that's not a problem because Marc is there, he makes enough noise for a billion people.

Merry Chrism,

G.


Re: Not just from the mother but the daughters of the harlot

GsusKing, that's perfect! Nicely done, and the English is flawless!

I do feel a little sorry for Marc, when I'm not angry with him, and a little worried that his hopped up righteous frenzy may lead to something tragic. I found myself actually wondering if Marc would get into to heaven (oh the hypocrisy eh?). Course I'm one of those damnable Universalists, and I have to let 'em all in eventually. I do expect to meet Marc one day. I think he's 'saved', he just doesn't know Jesus very well yet.

DianeAdams

Gentle Spirit


Re: Not just from the mother but the daughters of the harlot

Perhaps I should follow my own advice and not respond here, but after reading Diane's response, I was curious to go and read Marc's latest post. And I have decided to give Marc the benefit of the doubt long enough for one more reply...

Quote:

Okay, let me get this straight. If NEAL MORSE came on here and used the words he used on the album, you would consider NEAL MORSE'S participation on NEAL MORSE'S discussion board on NEAL MORSE'S own web site to be that of a troll. Correct? So NEAL MORSE himself would not be welcome on HIS OWN WEB SITE to say these things that he already said on his album? Is it just me, or does anyone else smell something rotten?

Hi Marc,

Listen, as I say, let me give you the benefit of the doubt for a moment that just MAYBE you don't mean to offend quite as much as you sound like you do, and that just MAYBE you are open to listening to other points of view. Regarding what you said above, a few thoughts:

1. You are going beyond what Neal "already said on his album." Neal's lyrics never use two of the three terms that I politely requested that you not use, since they are designed to be pejorative and offensive. The one term that he did use is at least found in the Bible (unlike the other two), though I think that he is wrong in his interpretation of how to apply that term.

2. Neal has posted here many times, and while I have strong disagreements with some of his theological views, he is at least polite and respectful in presenting them. I'm not sure that I could characterize your posts as polite and respectful.

3. On one level though, you do actually have a valid point, and it is certainly one that I have been aware of for quite some time. Neal's lyrics (on Sola Scriptura) are quite clear in not only condemning the Catholic Church (using terms from Revelation like whore and mother of harlots), but also condemning any other churches ("daughters of the harlot") to the extent that they have been influenced by what he sees as the errors of the Catholic Church. At least I can say that (on this board), Neal has been as charitable as one could be in taking such an extreme negative position, and I think that it is clear that he has love and respect for individual people regardless of their faith traditions. But still, I think that his lyrics can potentially provide cover for those who want to do exactly what you are doing -- to come here and use derogatory terms with no attempt at being polite, with the excuse that at least some of what you are saying lines up with the negative views in Neal's lyrics.

In closing, I do wish you and your family a Merry Christmas! Oh, and I believe you mentioned earlier that you have six homeschooled kids. I know or have met several (Catholic) families in similar situations, where they have anywhere from three to ten kids, and where most or all of the kids are homeschooled. From my experience with these families, I find that I am always in awe of the parents for their patience, their sacrifices, their love and devotion to God, their love and devotion to each other and to their children, and their openness to the blessings (and sacrifices) of having children. But I hope you realize that homeschooling is very controversial, as is having a large family, and so I hope you'll keep in mind that your negativity here could be reflecting badly on these choices in the eyes of others -- which I think is unfortunate.

Paul


Re: Not just from the mother but the daughters of the harlot

Hey, everybody -

I noticed that you didn't respond to any of the SCRIPTURES I put forward. Why not? (Of course, this is a rhetorical question; I know why not.)

I'd first like to respond to GsusKing's little analogy that all of you found hilarious. It is actually slanderous. In particular, the following:

==Peter:

Well George, I'm very sorry George but despite your late repentance I can't let you in

WHAT? WHY NOT?

Well you never learned the Doctrines of grace and never disapproved of Calvinism, Arminianism, Wesleyaninsm and a bunch of other isms.

What the heck are all those things?

Well, I myself don't really know but you really need to get all those things exactly right, before you can enter the gate.==

Here is an accusation that I believe that if someone has "never disapproved of Calvinism, Arminianism, Wesleyanism, and a bunch of other isms" or "gotten all those things exactly right," that he will not go to heaven. This is a false accusation. If you would just take even a short period of time to read what is on the Outside the Camp web site, you would see that this is an absolutely false accusation.

Let me make this very clear to you: I COULDN'T CARE LESS if someone has ever heard of "Calvinism," "Arminianism," "Wesleyanism," or any of the other "isms." That doesn't matter one bit to me. In fact, I COULDN'T CARE LESS if someone has ever heard of the terms "the Doctrines of Grace" or even "Limited Atonement"! That makes no difference to me! And yet you would slander me by saying that it does make a difference to me. That's the kind of people you are, I see. Build up a straw man and destroy it.

What do I and every Christian judge a person's spiritual state by? It is by THE GOSPEL. I don't care what kind of theological phrases you've heard or haven't heard. I don't care if you're able to articulate and systematize the doctrines of grace. The question is this: Do you believe THE GOSPEL? That's all that matters. If the person in GsusKing's story believed the gospel before he died, then he will go to heaven, no matter if he has heard of Calvinism, Arminianism, Wesleyanism, or whatever.

As I have said before, the gospel is the good news of God's promise to save His people conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ alone. All who believe this are saved and will go to heaven. All who die not believing this will go to hell.

Now note: belief of the gospel is not a PREREQUISITE to regeneration; it is an IMMEDIATE FRUIT of regeneration. And as part of believing the gospel, the person repents of all of his former dead works and idolatry.

PauGH wrote:

==Fine. Then try referring to some of the folks on this board as bastards, haters of God, fools, dogs, etc., and see how far it gets you.==

My mission is not to "get far" by tickling the ear (1 Timothy 4:3), by smooth speaking and flattering that deceives the minds of the simple (Romans 16:18). It is to tell the truth.

Jesus said, "Woe to you when all men speak well of you" (Luke 6:26). His concern was not to be spoken well of, to "get far" with people. Consider this:

"Then coming, the disciples said to Him, You know that hearing the Word, the Pharisees were offended?" (Matthew 15:12)

What a shock - Jesus offended the self-righteous religionists! You people would tell Jesus to tone it down so he could get a hearing! Away with such trash!

PaulGH also wrote:

==And also please understand if I am more inclined to listen to St. Paul (who, by the way, had legitimate spiritual authority over those he was writing to) than to listen to some guy intentionally spouting off rude and offensive language in the name of Christ on an internet forum.==

And if you were familiar with your Bible, you would see this:

"Because of this, I urge you, be imitators of me." (1 Corinthians 4:16)

"Be imitators of me, as I am also of Christ." (1 Corinthians 11:1)

"Be fellow-imitators of me, brothers, and consider those walking this way, even as you have us for a pattern." (Philippians 3:17)

Christians are to be imitators of Paul. So the language Paul uses, Christians are to use. The attitude Paul had, Christians are to have.

And finally, to answer FilipUser's questions about certain Bible passages:

==Deuteronomy 30: 19 (for context you might read verses 15 through 20): ... From Deuteronomy: Why the appeal to choose if we really don't have that choice (=No free will)==

==Jeremiah 25:3-5 (Read from verse 1 for context) ... From Jeremiah: Wouldn't this appeal likewise be pointless if God had already fixed each individual's destiny.==

This is really basic. Do you think that commands to choose (or to do anything, for that matter) are contrary to the Scriptural truth that God controls all actions and events? Let's take Pharaoh, for example. God commanded Pharaoh, "Let My people go" ten times before each plague. And why did God command this? Is it because He desired that Pharaoh let His people go each time? Was He appealing to Pharaoh's free will? Check this out:

"And Jehovah said to Moses, See, I have made you a god to Pharaoh; and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet. You shall speak all that I command you, and your brother Aaron shall speak to Pharaoh. And he will send away the sons of Israel from his land. And I will harden the heart of Pharaoh. And I will multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt. And Pharaoh will not listen to you. And I will put My hand on Egypt, and will bring My armies, My people, the sons of Israel, from the land of Egypt with great judgments. And the Egyptians shall know that I am Jehovah when I send forth My hand on Egypt and bring out the sons of Israel from their midst." (Exodus 7:1-5)

"And the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, and he did not listen to them, as Jehovah had said." (Exodus 7:13)

"And the magicians of Egypt did so by their secret arts. And Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he did not listen to them, as Jehovah had said." (Exodus 7:22)

"And Jehovah made heavy Pharaoh's heart, and he did not listen to them, as Jehovah had said to Moses." (Exodus 9:12)

"And Pharaoh's heart was made strong, and he did not send away the sons of Israel, as Jehovah had said by the hand of Moses." (Exodus 9:35)

"And Jehovah said to Moses, Go in to Pharaoh, for I have made his heart heavy and the heart of his servants, so that I may set these signs of Mine in their midst; and so that you may recount in the ears of your son and the son of your son what I exerted Myself to do against Egypt, and My signs which I have done among them, and you may know that I am Jehovah." (Exodus 10:1-2)

"And Jehovah made strong the heart of Pharaoh, and he did not send away the sons of Israel."

(Exodus 10:20)

But wait a minute, you may say. If God hardened Pharaoh's heart, then why did God still find fault with Pharaoh? For who could resist the will of God if God controls all actions and events?

Hey, those questions sound familiar. Let's look at Romans 9:

"For He said to Moses, I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will pity whomever I will pity. So, then, it is not of the one willing, nor of the one running, but of the One showing mercy, of God. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, For this very thing I raised you up, so that I might display My power in you, and so that My name might be publicized in all the earth. So, then, to whom He desires, He shows mercy. And to whom He desires, He hardens. You will then say to me, Why does He yet find fault? For who has resisted His will? Yes, rather, O man, who are you answering against God? Shall the thing formed say to the One forming it, Why did You make me like this? Or does not the potter have authority over the clay, out of the one lump to make one vessel to honor, and one to dishonor? But if God, desiring to demonstrate His wrath, and to make His power known, endured in much long-suffering vessels of wrath having been fitted out for destruction, and that He make known the riches of His glory on vessels of mercy which He before prepared for glory, whom He also called, not only us, of Jews, but also out of nations." (Romans 9:15-24)

Did any of you know that Romans 9 was in the Bible? It directly answers the question of the free-willers: "Why does He yet find fault? For who has resisted His will?" And look how he answers it. He doesn't say, "Well, you still have free will, and that's how he can find fault." No way. God Almighty says this: "YES, RATHER, O MAN, WHO ARE YOU ANSWERING AGAINST GOD?" God has mercy on whomever He wants and hardens whomever He wants, and man has no business shaking his fist at God and saying "Why"? God hardened Pharaoh's heart in order to make His power known and to make known His grace to His people. Every person whom God has chosen to damn from before the foundation of the world has been created as a VESSEL OF WRATH, FITTED OUT FOR DESTRUCTION. Every person whom God has chosen to save from before the foundation of the world has been created as a VESSEL OF MERCY, PREPARED BEFOREHAND FOR GLORY. Either believe what the Bible says here or reject the entire Bible. You can't pick and choose.

And speaking of picking and choosing, check out what God says in Romans 9 before and into this passage:

"For the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of the One calling, it was said to her, The greater shall serve the lesser; even as it has been written, I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau. What then shall we say? Is there not unrighteousness with God? Let it not be! For He said to Moses, I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will pity whomever I will pity." (Romans 9:11-15)

God LOVED Jacob before Jacob had done anything good, and God HATED Esau before Esau had done anything bad. Chew on that one for a while.

==Romans 2: 4, 5 (Context… bla, bla, bla,….) ... From Romans: Why is God trying to lead the person to repentance if HE actually is responsible for the unrepentant, hardened heart described in verse 5.==

Here we get into your corrupt version of the Bible. We already know that the "Bible" of the Jehovah's Witnesses says, "In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God,

and the Word was a god." (John 1:1). In the passage you mentioned, the kindness of God is not TRYING to lead to repentance. This passage says that the kindness of God DOES lead to repentance. Quite a difference.

To finish, I quote Acts 13:48:

"And hearing, the nations rejoiced and glorified the Word of the Lord. And as many as were appointed to eternal life believed."

Did you know this verse was in the Bible? Notice that it does NOT say, "And as many as believed were appointed to eternal life." That would be the free-will conditional election heretics' version. It says, "And as many as were appointed to eternal life believed."

Read it and bow to the Almighty Sovereign God, the Creator and Controller of the Universe.

To God alone be the glory,

Marc D. Carpenter


Re: Not just from the mother but the daughters of the harlot

Wow. It's no surprise that your posts have been deleted on other boards. I hope our moderators spot you, delete your posts, and ban you from the board. You are a really mean man.

DianeAdams

Gentle Spirit


Re: Not just from the mother but the daughters of the harlot

Hi Mark,

I'm really sorry if i offended you in my little story, i was just trying to express my feelings about your posts.

Your argument that none of us is really responding to your scripture-qoutes is a strong argument, and you're totally right about it.

My problem with your statements is, that they are so much lacking of love. Jesus himself was a teacher that used very understandable easy parabels to make his message clear to the common men.

Your tone is a much harder one. The vey first thing you wrote on this forum really hurted some regular visitors here.

People on this forum come from many different backgrounds, most of us are just having a bit of fun with each other here, every now and then the gloves do come of, but usually in a much more respectful matter then your contributions.

For me your posts are just far to difficult to understand anyway. I'm not a great theologist, and I don't now about a lot of isms, I just really love Jesus for what he did to me. But your posts are giving me the feeling that i might be on a road to hell, even though i really believe that Christ paid for my sin. I hope you'll understand that feeling.

I'm not going to try to argue with your scripture quotes, and your explanation of those, you're probably right about most of them.

But it's not just what you say, it's also when, why, where and to who you say certain things.

You're just so un-Chist-like in my opinion. We might be wrong about a lot of things here, but continiously slapping everybody in the face will not help to change people's beliefs


Re: Not just from the mother but the daughters of the harlot

For anyone who would like to know Jehovah's Witnesses understanding of the "primary text" that Mark has put forth I will post a small portion of an article that is about "Predestination/Free Will".

Quote:

"Now to consider the controversial text wherein Jehovah said: "I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt. But Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you." (Ex. 7:3, 4) Now Jehovah did not actually harden the heart of Pharaoh so that Pharaoh lost his free will in the matter. His heart hardened because of the message declared to him by Moses and Aaron. It was what caused him to react in hard stubbornness and anger. But since the message Moses and Aaron declared was really Jehovah's message, the account says Jehovah hardened his heart. The repeated extension of God's mercy to him by the lifting of plague after plague did not soften the Egyptian ruler, but as is usual in the case of bullies and tyrants this forbearance only made Pharaoh more intolerable, brought to the fore all the more his bullying characteristics. At Exodus 8:15 the result of relief is shown: "When Pharaoh saw that there was respite, he hardened his heart." And again after the lifting of one of the plagues: "Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also." (Ex. 8:32) Also 1 Samuel 6:6 states: "The Egyptians and Pharaoh hardened their hearts." Does it not say Pharaoh hardened his own heart? Yes, because that was actually what happened. It only says Jehovah did it because that was how Pharaoh reacted to Jehovah's message. Mercy shown to such arrogant men only serves to let them store up more wrath against themselves. (Rom. 2:4, 5) It is not unusual for wicked men to interpret Jehovah's long-suffering as a sign of weakness and thus become more set in their evil ways, thinking the time of reckoning will never come: "Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil." (Eccl. 8:11) Pharaoh's heart was so set in him.

11 The charge that such a view of the hardening of Pharaoh's heart is private interpretation cannot be proved, because the Bible itself so interprets a similar expression. At Isaiah 6:10 Jehovah tells Isaiah: "Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed." Now, God did not mean for Isaiah to actually go and fatten their hearts and stop up their ears and close their eyes to forestall any repentance; but he was predicting that that would be the effect of the message that Isaiah had been commanded to go and tell the people, that the people themselves would show closed eyes and unhearing ears and fatty hearts, that they would not repent and turn to Jehovah for healing spiritually. The message declared made these rebellious ones unreceptive because it did not please them, and since Isaiah delivered it he was said to have done these things to them. But that they did it to themselves is shown by no less an authority than Jesus himself, for in quoting this prophecy as having fulfillment upon rebellious ones in his day he said: "The heart of this people has grown thick, and with their ears they have heard with annoyance, and they have shut their eyes." Years later Paul quoted it in the same words. Though in Isaiah's prophecy it speaks of Isaiah as doing it, both Jesus and Paul show the people themselves did it, and not actually Isaiah.--Matt. 13:14, 15; Acts 28:24-27, NW.

12 Another instance of this is where God's servants are commanded to "keep making straight paths for your feet", and yet elsewhere it is said concerning Jehovah: "He will make straight your paths." (Prov. 3:6, AT; Heb. 12:13, NW) Who makes the paths straight? Predestinarians say it is God, not men, and try to prove it by quoting Jeremiah 10:23: "It is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Man in himself cannot do it, but Jehovah will do it for him, not through predestination, but through His Word: "How can a young man keep his path pure? By heeding thy word." "Thy word is a lamp to my feet, and a light on my path." (Ps. 119:9, 105, AT) It is you that must of your own free will "keep making straight paths for your feet", but since you can do it only by heeding God's Word it is also correct to say Jehovah "will make straight your paths", by means of his Word."

Maybe someone think it's interesting to know our view on this passage/text.

One thing that puzzles me a bit, and which I would like to ask you Mark is the following:

If we don't have free will, i.e. if our destiny already in every little detail is decided by God (If this is a correct understanding of what you are saying), then what is the purpose of your posts? I mean if God already have decided our fate to the letter then you can type 'til your fingers bleed and it won't change a thing - right?

This is a sincere question so there's no need for an angry answer - a well presented one will do fine! I'm really wondering about this!

Thank's

/FilipUser


Re: Not just from the mother but the daughters of the harlot

Hi Marc,

You're like a protestant jogomu on crack! Seriously though. Some advise from

Scripture:

Quote:

Colossians 4:

5 Walk in wisdom toward them that are without, redeeming the time. 6 Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer each one.

Do you love Christ Jesus?

Scott


Re: Not just from the mother but the daughters of the harlot

True, love is definitely vital, placed above ALL gifts (ref. end of I Cor 12 and beginning of chapter 13). Even if given the gift of intruction, without love it's just making noise.

Regarding free will, here's an illustration I recently heard explaining why some verses APPEAR to promote election. Maybe all of you already know it and I'm just new to the scene. Feel free to shoot holes in it, as long as it's done in love. There are plently of scriptures to support this, verses mentioning the elect of God and the foreknowledge of God. I'd be happy to reference those if you'd like, but I think many of them have already been thrown out on this board:

There are 2 perspectives when viewing a parade: one from the sidewalk and one from the Good Year blimp. Due to His omniscience and omnipresence, God sees the whole thing at once, the beginning and the end. At one point we make a conscious decision to ask Him into our heart; He just happens to know it will happen before we do.

He died once for all...

(Not sure if I explained that effectively. I hope it makes sense.)

-Joe (Ps 33:3)


Re: Not just from the mother but the daughters of the harlot

Scott,

Quote:

You're like a protestant jogomu on crack!

Thank's - this made me laugh! No offense Marc or Jogomu!

And very good advice, indeed (But then again-what advice from scripture isn't?)

Another scripture which says pretty much the same thing is 2 Timothy 2:24,25:

Quote:

24And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. 25Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth,

Thank's for the great input Scott!

/FilipUser


So DianeAdams thinks I'm a "really mean man" for giving all that Scripture. What a meanie!!! How dare I actually quote Scripture? It's no wonder the Roman Catholic Whore used to burn people who tried to translate the Bible into the common language! Those MEAN people who actually wanted EVERYONE to read GOD'S WORD! Meanies!!!!!

As for what GsusKing wrote, I have another surprise for all you non-Bible readers. GsusKing wrote:

==My problem with your statements is, that they are so much lacking of love. Jesus himself was a teacher that used very understandable easy parabels [sic] to make his message clear to the common men.==

Okay, everybody. Brace yourselves. I'm going back to ... gasp! ... the Scriptures!!

What did Jesus Himself say about why he spoke in parables? Let the Scripture speak, and not the opinions of men:

"And coming near, the disciples said to Him, Why do You speak to them in parables? And answering, He said to them, Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of Heaven, but it has not been given to those. For whoever has, to him will be given, and he will have overabundance. But whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. Because of this, I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. And the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled on them, which says, In hearing you will hear and in no way understand, and seeing you will see yet in no way perceive. For the heart of this people has grown fat, and they heard heavily with the ears, and they have closed their eyes, that they not see with the eyes, or hear with the ears, and understand with the heart, and be converted, and I heal them." (Matthew 13:10-15)

Do you realize what Jesus Christ said in that passage? Read it again! Why did Jesus say He spoke to the people in parables? Was it to make his message easy to understand and clear to the common man, as GsusKing said? Look at what it says!

Jesus quoted Isaiah 6:9-10 when He was telling the disciples why He spoke in parables. Look at what God told Isaiah in this passage:

"And He said, Go and say to this people, Hearing you hear, but do not understand; and seeing you see, but do not know. Make the heart of this people fat, and make his ears heavy, and shut his eyes, that he not see with his eyes, and hear with his ears, and understand with his heart, and turn back, and one heals him." (Isaiah 6:9-10)

You tell me - was God desiring that this people be saved through Isaiah's preaching? What was the purpose of Isaiah's preaching? It was to make their hearts fat, make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes, so that they would not see with their eyes, hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and so they would not turn back and be healed!! This is what God intended in Isaiah's preaching, and this is what Jesus intended by speaking in parables!! Does that make Jesus Christ "a really mean man"? Does that make Jesus Christ "so much lacking of love"? What will GsusKing now say about his accusation: ==You're just so un-Chist-like [sic] in my opinion.==? Was Christ being un-Christ-like??

Have you EVER heard this taught about the parables? Did you even KNOW that it existed in the God-inspired Holy Scriptures? But it's there - there's no denying it. What will you do about it? Is God using this to harden your heart? What a terrifying thing that would be.

Will you bow to the Sovereign Redeemer who chooses whom He will save and whom He will damn, or will you say to Jesus Christ, "You're a really mean man"?

To God alone be the glory,

Marc D. Carpenter


[I then got kicked off the list. -mdc]


Home

E-mails, Forums, and Letters