Evil.Eye.*{@}*
New member
[MENTION=13955]glorydaz[/MENTION] ... I had theologically cliqued up... you were an instrument of God to help me un clique up. So ... thanks for being an instrument of God.
If this was Evil Eye
- Thread starter Not.Evil.Eye.<(U)>
- Start date
Evil.Eye.*{@}*
New member
I’m thankful you express yourself without reigning in your passion... it helps people like myself know there’s others out there with the same struggle. You, GloryPJ, are an agent of hope, to me.
Lon
Well-known member
Well, conjecture on the preacher's part. I tend to like Tony Evans and Chuck Swindoll sermons (expository preaching) far over and above topical sermons (less scripture). I probably should make these FAR and ABOVE by preference, which means I prefer teaching over preaching. Such shows a bit of difference between us. Good bad? In my thinking, temperament difference and also why I don't get worked up and others do, about disagreements. I'm simply looking for truth between the scriptures and a "wrong idea" isn't always for false teaching, especially if such doesn't effect much at all. For instance, does it affect giving the gospel? :think: Romans 3:23, 5:8, 6:23, 10:9,10,13 :nono: Does it affect one coming to Christ then? :nono: It is simply a sentiment of how far one thinks the love of God reaches and extends. It is also, imho, the difference between extravagance and stewardship accounting. Both are good attributes, and so no poor thing concerning God. One may very well argue that where love comes in the picture, extravagance is needed. Matthew 5:45
I genuinely believe that dialogue with a Calvinist (and vise versa) is inherently better than banter and debate at such a point. Why? Because each is emphasizing what the other often may miss about the beauty, nature, and character of God from different aspects. Imho, threads and threads on Calvinism are okay, but the banter should be left at the door. Talking about the difference, again, is most always a good thing Romans 8:58
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
13And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Yeah, you just hope you can find other deceivers around here, so your evilness won't stand out.
It won't work. Your "hope" in me is just as misplaced as your hope in your own ability to whine your way out of being caught in your own traps. I'll not give you the excuse you're searching for, but will continue to call you out on your lies every single time.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Epistle of Barnabas
CHAP. IX.
That the commands of Moses concerning clean and unclean beasts, &c., were all designed for a spiritual signification.
BUT why did Moses say Ye shall not eat of the swine, neither the eagle nor the hawk; nor the crow; nor any fish that has not a scale upon him?—answer, that in the spiritual sense, he comprehended three doctrines, that were to be 1 gathered from thence.
2 Besides which he says to them in the book of Deuteronomy, And I will give my statutes unto this people. Wherefore it is not the command of God that they should not eat these things; but Moses in the spirit spake unto them.
3 Now the sow he forbade them to eat; meaning thus much; thou shalt not join thyself to such persons as are like unto swine; who whilst they live in pleasure, forget their God; but when any want pinches them, then they know the Lord; as the sow when she is full knows not her master; but when she is hungry she makes a noise; and being again fed, is silent.
4 Neither, says he, shalt thou eat the eagle, nor the hawk, nor the kite, nor the crow; that is thou shalt not keep company with such kind of men as know not how by their labour and sweat to get themselves food: but injuriously ravish away the things of others; and watch how, to lay snares for them; when at the same time they appear to live in perfect innocence.
5 ( 2 So these birds alone seek not food for themselves, but) sitting idle seek how they may eat of the flesh others have provided; being destructive through their wickedness.
6 Neither, says he, shalt thou eat the lamprey, nor the polypus, nor the cuttle-fish; that is, thou shalt not be like such men, by using to converse with them; who are altogether wicked and adjudged to death. For so those fishes are alone accursed, and wallow in the mire, nor swim as other fishes, but tumble in the dirt at the bottom of the deep.
7 But he adds, neither shalt thou eat of the hare. To what end?—To signify this to us; Thou shalt not be an adulterer; nor liken thyself to such persons. For the hare every year multiplies the places of its conception; and so many years as it lives, so many it has.
8 Neither shalt thou eat of the hyena; that is, again, be not an adulterer, nor a corruptor of others; neither be like to such. And wherefore so?—Because that creature every year changes its kind, and is sometimes male and sometimes female.
9 For which cause also he justly hated the weasel; to the end that they should not be like such persons who with their mouths commit wickedness by reason of their uncleanness; nor join themselves with those impure women, who with their mouths commit wickedness. Because that animal conceives with its mouth.
10 Moses, therefore, speaking as concerning meats, delivered indeed three great precepts to them in the spiritual signification of those commands. But they according to the desires of the flesh, understood him as if he had only meant it of meats.
11 And therefore David took aright the knowledge of his threefold command, saying in like manner.
12 Blessed is the man that hath not walked in the counsel of the ungodly; as the fishes before mentioned in the bottom of the deep in darkness.
13 Nor stood in the way of sinners, as they who seem to fear the Lord, but yet sin, as the sow.
14 And hath not sat in the seat of the scorners; as those birds who sit and watch that they may devour.
15 Here you have the law concerning meat perfectly set forth, and according to the true knowledge of it.
16 But, says Moses, ye shall eat all that divideth the hoof, and cheweth the cud. Signifying thereby such an one as having taken his food, knows him that nourisheth him; and resting upon him, rejoiceth in him.
17 And in this he spake well, having respect to the commandment. What, therefore, is it that he says?—That we should hold fast to them that fear the Lord; with those who meditate on the command of the word which they have received in their heart; with those that declare the righteous judgments of the Lord, and keep his commandments;
18 In short, with those who know that to meditate is a work of pleasure, and therefore exercise themselves in the word of the Lord.
19 But why might they eat those that clave the hoof?—Because the righteous liveth in this present world; but his expectation is fixed upon the other. See, brethren, how admirably Moses commanded these things.
20 But how should we thus know all this, and understand it? We, therefore, understanding aright the commandments, speak as the Lord would have us. Wherefore he has circumcised our ears and our hearts, that we might know these things.
Lon
Well-known member
It is really, then, a disagreement about blood definition, and not so much about a 'gaping error.' IOW, you define the Blood of Christ as THE LOVE OF CHRIST and that's really what it means to you. Calvinists define the blood of Christ as the redemptive act of God. Whoever God redeems, is saved, no exceptions. When you understand that, you will see, I think, that Calvinists tend to just be a LOT more persnickety about parsing between definitions than you and others do. Granted some Calvinists do not, but AMR nor I are arguing that man is without hope on God's side of meeting the need of sin and death. There is no lack in ability to save all mankind on God's part nor a loss of desire. 2 Peter 3:9
Basically, if you list and post any scripture, there will be no rejection from me. I believe it all and also believe that 'all' means 'all.' God is omniscient. Often times, a Calvinist is primarily trying to understand his/her world, from God's conveyance and perspective. On the other hand, God used 'human' terms and met us halfway. That too, is an appreciable (I think) difference between theologies that when grasped, helps one understand the other's perspective (and appreciate it).
One more point for yet another important perspective: Whenever I get into these debates, one thing I settled was this: "Does this person love the Lord Jesus Christ and people?" If 'yes' then my disagreement is really between me and the Lord, and he/she and the Lord. I am not my brother's judge on such an account. If I see the problem, and may make a difference, like here, I think it wise to debate 'gently.' in Him -Lon