BRF wrote: John UK I know we are mixing up different threads but in response to the other I should have said that I think the FPCS are the only church that by a synod decision that the only version allowed is the KJV. I think (again I could be wrong on this)that both FPU and the Free church continuing allow other translations to be used mainly the NIV. If I am wrong somebody will correct me. When they say that only the KJV is to be used they are not saying that the KJV is inspired English but that they believe it to be the most trust worthy version in English.
FPU stands for the sole use of the KJV and so the Free Church continuing. The FPU adheres to the WCF with some substandards in place
John for Jesus wrote: Now who was that one time sacrifice for sin for?
.. Jesus, ...that .. by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone. Hebrews 2:9
... He ... is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world. I John 2:2
... Jesus, .. gave Himself a ransom for all, I Timothy 2:5‚Ä≠-‚Ä¨6
Everyone! The whole world! For all!
Any Israelite could avail himself from pardon in the day of atonement, yet those that refused to afflict their souls, repent, were cut off, and those that disregarded the day as any other day for work were doomed to personal destruction by direct intervention of God:
" .. on the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day of atonement: it shall be an holy convocation unto you; and ye shall afflict your souls, and offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD .. to make an atonement for you before the LORD your God. ... whatsoever soul it be that *shall not be afflicted* in that same day, he shall be cut off from among his people .. And whatsoever soul it be that does any work in that same day, the same soul will I destroy from among his people." Leviticus 23
The atonement was made for all, yet not all availed themselves of it
John for Jesus wrote: The atonement was a one time sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, but is only applied to those who believe, when they believe. It is unlimited in range or scope and limited in scale. Reason being, the atonement is in Christ.
Please, John 4J It would be helpful if you would document these statements with Scripture for others to see Thanks
Mike wrote: True, B. The harder questions are often answered by finding more acceptable verses, almost a necessity when maintenance of the particular theology is deemed of higher importance than what is written. Major divisions equally guilty of this. Even Calvin had difficulty with Romans 5:15.
New verses are not a necessity too often, but a curving of wild speculations, neglect, wrong inferring, or flawed deductive reasoning, and superimposition of texts. Often truth runs hidden in the depths of Scriptural language which can be either missed, or neglected, or taken at 'face value' by novices in the Word, when in reality it goes beyond the simplistic meaning. Regretfully truth is missed in such cases due to poor knowledge of Scripture or due to the ignorance of wider principles.
We are privileged in that we bask in the fruits of studious men of the past. However, surely Calvin had problems with many verses other than Rm.5:15, and was sometimes short of correct judgement regarding other issues. Let's face it, no one should treat this figures of the past as semi-popes; this is the sad story.
Yes, John, as useful as doctrinal distinctives are, we have to admit to their limitations. Say the five points of Calvinism were not intended to be a complete system of theology, but they originated in the Dutch lands as a response to the 5 points of Arminism, culminating in the synod of Dort. Calvinism does not cover practical Christianity, for instance, neither prophecy or scathology, or the ordinances of the church, the rearing of children, sanctification, or how man's response to the gospel developes. On the other hand systems can run so rigid as for instance to avoid explaining how 1 John 2:2 or I Tim 2:4 harmonises with the Calvinist setting
John for Jesus wrote: It's a philosophy to explain doctrine that people don't understand. Reformers follow the teachings of their saints, such as, Luther, Calvin, Sprouls, etc. .. limited view of God's love .. They may love a brother, parent, child, or friend who they want to be saved, all the while, God has determined before time began not to give those people an opportunity to be saved because He hates their wickedness which they were born with and can't do anything about. Those who are saved are made so against their previous will, ..
With respect to those attaining to fixed doctrines of grace here, it is fair enough to admit that human systems of theology, not only are limited to explain in full the great designs of God, but actually become escape-goat philosophical gaggeds, with tag names included as trade marks
We should be humble enough to realise the outrageous conclusions, or pointless dead ends one can arrive to, if a system is not wisely balanced against all the revealed truth.
Often people spent more time elaborating on a particular system of belief than in reading Scripture at face value per se, which practice not only balances truth, but can reveal flaws, and elucidate apparent 'mysteries' that diffuse distorted conclusions
Mike wrote: ... fully man, but then deny it by saying, well, he wasn't quite fully man because he wasn't in Adam
Sorry, Christ was fully man but not tainted by sin in Adam. He was not a replica (descendant) of Adam, but *a second* Adam, a different one, separate from sin.
"... such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, *undefiled*, *separate from sinners* ..." ".. was ... tempted like as we are, yet without sin"
He took flesh and blood, but it does not say that he partook of the sinful nature of Adam:
"as the children are partakers of *flesh and blood*, he also himself likewise took part of the same"
He did not partake of sin, but bore sin, when he was made sin for us: ".. he did .. *bear* the sins of many"
"he ... *made him to be sin* for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him"
The value of his substitutionary atonement is that he tasted death, not as a payment for the wages of personal sin, but of others:
"Jesus .. was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, ... that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man .. ... in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings"
John for Jesus wrote: Do you believe Adam's actual sin was imputed to Jesus? Wouldn't that make Him guilty before God the Father?
Christ suffered as a substitute, so the imputation of sin did not occur by/at his birth, but in his death
"Christ ... suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit"
See, "the just for the unjust". The verse says that Christ was *just* when carrying on the substitutionary work for us. He had to be just to bear substitution aright.
The imputation of sin comes illustrated with the type of the Passover which required a lamb *without blemish*. Also the sacrifices of the OT illustrate how guilt was imputed to the substitutionary victim by the individual extending his/her hands on the victim at the spot of sacrifice.
The imputation of sin happened at the spot in the types; so actually with Christ, the imputation of sin was not transmitted at birth but at the point of the real sacrifice, say Calvary:
"It pleased the Lord to *lay on him* the iniquity of us all"
"the chastisement of our peace was upon him ... make his soul an offering for sin ... stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted ... wounded for our transgressions
Mike wrote: ... how the sin nature is passed from Adam, only through fathers to the children, male and female, yet no passing of that nature via the mother, though she be in Adam, too.
The conception of Christ was a miracle wrought by the power of the Holy Ghost, not corresponding to any human conception. This is the reason why the Bible does not speak of Mary's sinless state, or of her need to have been conceived sinless
".. that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost" Mt 1:20
"The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: *therefore* ... *that holy* ... which shall be born (gennaŇć = engendered /conceived/ brought forth/ begotten) of thee shall be called the Son of God." Lk 1:35
Mike wrote: Being counter-culture generally fits the Christian life well. But culture is constantly changing. Do we then say fixed opposition to everything in culture, whatever it is, is the mark of the Christian? Seems like more a reflex than Christian thoughtfulness. When we oppose something in the culture for no other reason than "I'm a Christian, that's the culture, so I can't do that, or wear that, or sing that, etc.," we've lost our way.
Principle always finds a way to overcome ungodly culture, but personal pretexts are overcome by, or sucumb to ungodly culture in no time
John UK wrote: If Christianity is not a counter-culture, coming under the authority of God and his kingdom, it is no more than a secular religious way of thinking.
Yes, the church has been afraid for some decades to owe their own distinctiveness.
Some follow the quimera of exclusive internal accountability to justify 'free-willed' patterns of conduct in the externals, ignoring how often external pictures speak of internal realities in God's language, see for instance the language and meaning of baptism, circumcision, OT sacrifices and patterns, head covering, the Lord's supper, etc..
The issue of the victorians was not about precised/exact measurements of skirt length, but as always has been the issue, the instance of rebellion. Any woman breaking the status quo of modesty in that particular context was seen as one doing away with principle. The same has happened since then, especially regarding the breaking away of standards of which America has led the way during the last century. The sad reality is that we've got used to the breaking of the limits that signalise rebellion, and worse, we've got used, to the point of justifying such attitudes as the acceptable norm
John UK wrote: Amen Frank. Philippians 3:9 KJV (9)¬† And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:
Thanks both "Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear
Surely, shall one say, in the LORD have I righteousness and strength: even to him shall men come; and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed. In the LORD shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory." Isa 45
"For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren" Heb 2
John UK wrote: If the inner man is cleansed and sanctified, so will the outer be manifest in godliness But as you say, if a woman wears a headcovering while praying, it does not necessarily mean that she is submissive to her head. However, if she is a godly, submissive wife, and obedient to God, she will wear a headcovering while praying
Thanks, John, this is the correct approach. The wearing, or not wearing of an item does not make us more or less acceptable/holy in his sight as we are accepted in the beloved, not by our own making, but by the blood offered once for ever on our behalf However, what we approve, do, practice or wear speaks of how serious is our obedience, sincerity, commitment and devotion. The tendency in modern Christianity is to stretch the logic of faulty permissive arguments to the point of relativism to ease any guilt, by shearing of the conscience.
CONNOR Harassment :To subject (another) to hostile or prejudicial remarks or actions, this may include insinuations, false accusations or potential insult
Mike Christians get desensitised towards sin. This can be easily proved; take the desensitisation about screen violence or impure scenes. Those who have trained the senses against sin are more sensitive to such things
Youth in Asia wrote: ... I hate it when they walk outside in shorts so short they look like underwear.
Cont It is quite doubftful that your personal disgust about the matter you mention above has to do with a personal preference; more likely, your disgust has to do with a principle you sense is been violated.
However, in reality jeans and shorts violate the same principle, even if it does not appear as such at first glance, only by different routes. One by the lack of cover, or flesh exposure, the other by physically / visually usurping the gender role, and by the violation of modesty. So, there should not be a-better-than option between them if concerned about godliness.
If we take dress as a matter void of sense and purpose, say as something trivial / 'neutral' subject to personal preference, we imply that not conforming to the world is not an absolute, but a relative option that needs redefined according to case and circumstance.
While in the body, dress forms part of our sanctification, like it or not. Joshua's filthy garments in Zechariah typified a defiled spiritual condition. To pretend we are only soul matter in the eyes of God after being saved, is to deny the reality of our fallen physical existence in the ultimate case. Cont
Youth in Asia wrote: ... annoyed by another culture
Sorry, while rushing, the autocorrect in my last post to you messed up the content when explaining the matter about 'culture'
As a principle, we are not for ungodliness in any culture, yet as it has been discussed before, we admit that rules may change from one setting to another, though the principle remains the same.
However, nowadays the Western influence is so vastly extended, that one can find a Chinese, or an African tribe member wearing the same provocative jeans an American does. So the flaw has passed into other cultures by means of a secularised package.
For the reasons already explained before, jeans are not conducive to biblical culture and character, as they pertain to a philosophy contradicting the teaching of the Word.
In the beginning God created male and female and the distinction between the different roles is to be sustained for our benefit, including in the physical appearance.
The different roles for the genders are reaffirmed in the teaching of 1Cor. 11 where the order of submission is the key factor.
We are body, and soul, and by definition we are to glorify God, not only with our souls, but with our bodies also which are God's. I Cor.6:20
Youth in Asia 1. Please, observe that my comment made a general remark parting from your comment, using your words to illustrate the common attitude about today in many Christian circles. Sorry, you took it personally. 2. Biblical culture is what matters. You may be an American or an Russian, yet the Word should mold sure how cultures
I E Thanks for M. HENRY's comment
John UK Timely verse. Thanks. There are many about that have more technology than Christian insight, or manners about a decent walk of grace in public.
- Mike The Lord looks inside the heart, but what is inside, comes out. If we hide rebellion, self-will, carelesness or carnality, it will show but the choices we take, including in our dress.
Connor7 wrote: ... quite silent when it comes to inward sinfulness ...
Perhaps, we'll speak about such inward sinfulness here on the case of individuals as you, or J4J and others, who take into harassing people they disagree with, and of whom they do not have a personal acquaintance, to pronounce negative and idle judgements against their person. Such conduct resembles the *inward* sins of bearing false witness, being an unkind busibody, and practicing uncalled for backbiting, things which the accuser of the brethren is a master of.