Political monotheism and the slippery slope to Tucson

Hi RCofield,

What do you make of Gladerunner's sudden disappearance on the other thread? That was the first time I have engaged him, and as you saw we had a pretty extensive dialog (as did you and he). I was surprised that he just stopped responding.

I wanted to see how you were going to develop your argument.

With Gladerunner and me, I thought we were just beginning. I was going to develop the ethical argument along the lines of logic and language. He denies that Aristotelean logic has meaning in todays world. That seems to be a postmodern, relativistic, deconstructional stance if I have ever heard one.

R.C.Sproul has a book out on abortion in which he gives a preview of the first chapter and says,

"Beneath the division in society over abortion is a more foundational problem: How does one determine what is right? The irony of the United States debate on abortion is that it is a battle over "rights" in a nation that is sharply divided over how to determine what is right about anything. Allan Bloom, in his book The Closing of the American Mind, chronicled the epidemic rise of moral relativism that reduces ethics to personal preferences rather than to objective norms for what is right and wrong."

"A slogan emerged in the 1960s that crystallized the perspective of moral relativism: "Everyone has the right to do his own thing." This slogan is as crass as it is silly. If it were followed by everyone resolutely, society itself would be an impossibility. No one would have any true rights protected, because at any given moment my rights could trample your rights."

http://lmmedia01.ligonier.org/uploads/attachments/store_product/3213/Abortion_firstchapter.pdf

The idea, expressed by Peterhuff, that an Atheist could contribute anything meaningful to any discussion, is absurd, and thoroughly delusional. -GE

GoldenEagles, you are mistaken. Christians can learn a lot on how to give an answer by engaging in apologetics, and I like Bill as a person. We just have different ways of looking at and explaining this world; one is relativistic and subjective, the other, if rightly discerned, is objective and absolute, which you certainly have fallen short of discerning. You keep reading into the text of Scripture your own interpretation, not the Author's intent.

GOLDENEAGLES,

RE: Drinking from Dry Holes

You must be joking...

Discussing the Christian apologetic with atheists is being "disobedient"?!

Good grief.

Drinking from Dry Holes

As a general rule, you can safely disregard, in fact, totally ignore, anything that an Atheist has to say, in as much as the mind is enfolded, by a demonic presence, with a cloud of total darkness. If one could see their auras, you would see the brain area encased in what looks like a large black bowling ball. And it has finger holes.

The idea, expressed by Peterhuff, that an Atheist could contribute anything meaningful to any discussion, is absurd, and thoroughly delusional.

What fellowship hath light with darkness? It is a sign of intrinisic disobedience to sit before the mouth of an Athiest as one would sit before the waterfall of God, and expect water to issue forth therefrom. It will never happen.

And what you drink in from each of these dry holes, as the consequence of your disobedience, will pollute your own souls, and draw you away from The Lord Christ.

REMINDER

This thread will time out shortly. When it does, let's go here:

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/c_welton_gaddy/2011/01/guaranteed_freedoms_sometimes_come_into_conflict.html

WALTER,

Did you see the question I posed to you @ January 25, 2011 2:22 PM?

I'd really like to get cranking again on our discussion if you can spare the time.

Peace, brother

Peter,

That is tremendous. I do hope they will participate.

What do you make of Gladerunner's sudden disappearance on the other thread? That was the first time I have engaged him, and as you saw we had a pretty extensive dialog (as did you and he). I was surprised that he just stopped responding.

Peace, brother.

Hi RCofield,

Bill is a humanist/atheist who lives in my home town and thinks Christians are not being intellectually honest with themselves in examining the evidence, since he is passionate about science. We touched on the Uncaused cause during one of our walks and so last night I pointed him to your conversation with Walter, since I like where you are going with it.

He thinks that the Bible is not a divine revelation and in my stating such he feels I am being dishonest and cannot be taken seriously.

He wants me to take back my claim of divine revelation and play by his rules.

I have invited him and his humanist society of nine to debate on this forum and the link that will undoubtedly follow.

Hey Peter,

Who is "Bill"?

Hi Bill,

I'm hoping that you will comment on RCofield's and Walter's posts concerning the uncaused cause and origins.

GOLDENEAGLES,

I see that you may have learned to extend the fundamental courtesy of referring to me in the first person. There may be hope for you yet.

Now let's see if you can really expand this new-found ability to be courteous by responding to a direct question. You said:

It was the hope and dream of God our Father that Adam and Eve obey the law, and continue to live and prosper in the paradise kingdom He created for them.--GE

Characterizing the God of scripture as having "hopes and dreams" insinuates that He has purposes (goals, if you will), but somehow lacks the ability to accomplish them.

Here is the question: How do you square your view of God with the following passage?

Isa. 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, 10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: 11 Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.

”Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard,
neither have entered into the heart
of man, the things which God hath
prepared for them that love him.” - Part 1

RcoField says, "A 'god' who is characterized by 'hopes and dreams' is no god at all. And a 'god' whose 'hopes and dreams' are under the threat of being 'wrecked' by a mere creature is no god at all."

Here we have one of our best laboratory specimens for the proverbial “ravening wolf” which you have allowed to speak through your heart, mind and tongue. I would invite you Rcofield, to pull up a seat alongside me at the laboratory workbench, in way of a further examination of this specimen.

Please compare and contrast this specimen, to this important teaching given by the Master:

Luke 17

20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

This statement by the Master, focuses the attention of the disciple in the direction of the Kingdom of God, and thus, into the domain of eternal life. It is within.

By extension, we see that the Kingdom of Heaven therefore, is currently populated by souls who have successfully worked with God to bring forth this Kingdom within themselves.

And when the Kingdom of Heaven is established upon the earth, it too will be composed of people who have successfully worked with God to bring forth this Kingdom within themselves.

Now, this is the question front and center before you, Rcofield.

How can one indulge the presence of the ravening wolf WITHIN, as you do, and at the same time have the Kingdom of God WITHIN? We see that this is impossible. For the Kingdom of God to be established WITHIN, the ravening wolf must be cast out.

(more)

”Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard,
neither have entered into the heart
of man, the things which God hath
prepared for them that love him.” - Part 2

It was the intent of the Master Jesus Christ to reinforce our focus on the inner domain, as the place where the Kingdom of God is established, in the following statement:

John 4

23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

To worship God in spirit and in truth, is something the soul can do only WITHIN.

Adding these two teachings together, we see first, that the Kingdom of God is WITHIN, and second, what is happening within that inner Kingdom, is this action of worshiping God in spirit and in truth.

Now, against this backdrop, this is the question which is front and center before you Rcofield.

To what degree is your “ravening wolf” WITHIN compatible with the Kingdom of God, WITHIN?

The two are incompatible. One of these has to go. For the Kingdom of God to be WITHIN, the “ravening wolf” (the advocate of falsehood) has to be cast out.

(more)

”Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard,
neither have entered into the heart
of man, the things which God hath
prepared for them that love him.” - Part 3

Properly determining the degree of incompatibility that we see here, between these two opposites, also points to the path by which this “ravening wolf” is to be cast out.

(It is through the affirmation of truth - ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free)

As we can see in this specimen, the “ravening wolf” speaks only falsehood.

The”ravening wolf” says through your tongue, Rcofield, "A 'god' who is characterized by 'hopes and dreams' is no god at all. And a 'god' whose 'hopes and dreams' are under the threat of being 'wrecked' by a mere creature is no god at all."

Indeed, this is an egregious falsehood. One can clearly see how it is impossible to worship God in the spirit of truth, while the inner world is filled with this falsehood.

My first post on this subject, exposes the degree to which this is an egregious falsehood, and I will repeat it here.

It was the hope and dream of God our Father that Adam and Eve obey the law, and continue to live and prosper in the paradise kingdom He created for them.

His hopes and dreams for them encompassed an unfolding eternity of happiness and joyful wonder.

But they did not obey.

Adam and Eve, in their disobedience, wrecked the vast hopes and dreams of God our Father in their regard, when they chose death over his eternal life.

The question is, how is this “ravening wolf”, this advocate of falsehood, which blocks the truth from being anchored in your temple, to be cast out?

The first step in the casting out of this “ravening wolf” is to comprehend the depth of the falsehood it has uttered through your lips. This requires you to realize the truth in this area, that God our Father indeed has hopes and dreams for his children, and that when they disobey, those hopes and dreams are dashed, like in the case of Adam and Eve, as I noted above.

The second step in casting out this “ravening wolf”, this advocate of falsehood, is to formulate a prayer matrix that affirms the truth, and you would need to affirm this truth every day for the rest of your time on earth.

(more)

”Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard,
neither have entered into the heart
of man, the things which God hath
prepared for them that love him.” - Part 4

You could say, for example, “O God my Father, in the name of the Lord Jesus, please set me free from this spirit of falsehood, that has me believing that you have no hopes and dreams for me. O God my Father, I understand that I am your precious child, and that your love for me is real. I understand that in your love for me, you have the highest hopes and dreams for me. Of course you do. In your ideation of my eternity, you have the greatest treasures in store for me. And it is your greatest hope to place these treasures in my hands. My Father, I understand as well, using Adam and Eve as a reference for the truth, that those hopes and dreams which you truly have for me, cannot be fulfilled, unless I can learn to be obedient to your laws once again.”

The Lord Christ gave us this truth, through his messenger St. Paul, that God our Father has great things in store for all of his children.

I Corinthians 2

7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

And so, as the Apostle James commanded, in the name of Jesus Christ of course, “resist the devil”. We resist the devil, by resisting the falsehoods that the devil would try to chain us to.

The above prayer, said every day, would go a long way, Rcofield, in setting you free from that “ravening wolf” that spoke that egregious falsehood through your own heart, mind, and tongue.

Demonic influences are always tied into specific patterns of falsehood. By affirming the truth, we defeat the falsehood, and thereby shut out the demonic influence. That is the central meaning behind this teaching, that the truth will set us free.

If you could publically repent of allowing such a falsehood to uttered through your mouth, in as much as the falsehood was uttered publically, that would go a long way towards your freedom. This is because it is pride that shuns repentance, and it is pride that provides the open back door through which the ravening wolf enters the temple of the soul. Only the spirit of repentance is sufficient for the surrender of pride. Once pride is surrendered, only then is the door closed to the manipulation by these demonic spirits.

(end)

The term “mammon” can be used to symbolize any and all variations of demon inspired agendas.--GE

Webster's: "Mammon"--1) the false god of riches and avarice. 2) riches regarded as an object of worship and greedy pursuit; wealth as an evil, more or less personified.

Oxford: "Mammon"--god of wealth, regarded as evil or immoral; 'those who worship mammon' are equivalent to greedy people who value money too highly.

Like I said, it's all just a wax nose to be formed to fit whatever asinine argument The Eagle happens to be making at the time.

Of course, it is evident to all that The Eagle completely ignored the fact that he set up a straw-man argument here to begin with.

Ah, well. Such is the nature of men with no chests. "Defeat me on the field of battle" crows The Eagle. Yeah. Right.

Rcofield says, “The Eagle draws the word ‘mammon’ from the KJV rendering of Mt. 6:24 in which Jesus states: ‘Ye cannot serve God and mammon.’ The term mammon means ‘the dishonest gain of material wealth.’“

The general thrust of Matthew 6:24, is contained in the opening statement, “No man can serve two masters.”

The Master ends this statement with a reference to “mammon”, which brings into play the spirit of dishonesty, meaning that one cannot serve both truth and falsehood at the same time.

In other words, one’s master cannot be both truth, and falsehood at the same time. And this conjoins with the teaching on the double-minded man.

The term “mammon” can be used to symbolize any and all variations of demon inspired agendas. The spirit of dishonesty comes from direct demonic influence. Whether that (demonic) spirit of dishonesty inspires dishonest acquisition of material wealth, or dishonest acquisition of congregational respect, or dishonest acquisition of allegiance to a false doctrine, the origin is the same. The individual is serving the forces of darkness in each of these cases, while purporting to serve the interests of virtue at the same time.

WALTER,

i'm generally accepting it. but i still don't see a way out of the dilemma of what caused the first cause.

So you are arguing that there is no ultimate first cause, only an infinite regression of causes?

If so, reread the sections titled It is Impossible To Traverse and Infinite Series/Hence The Past is Not Infinite. How is my logic faulty here?

More Obfuscation and Ignorance From GoldenEagles

“As The Eagle knows full well, I have already agreed with this postulation.”

A quick review of the statements to which that agreement were address yield the obvious conclusion that I was agreeing that Christ certainly did/said more than is recorded in scripture.

The Eagle then ascends again to his throne of self-righteousness:

And then you go on to NEGATE the implications of the aforementioned burst of radiant common sense. Your statements of negation I will not quote here, for sake of brevity.--GE

My statements in no way NEGATE my agreement. My agreement, again, was that Christ did/said more than is recorded in scripture. My contention was then, and always has been, that the mere fact that He did/said more than is recorded does not render what is recorded insufficient for all that pertains to life and godliness (2 Pe. 1:2-4). Scripture is indeed sufficient.

GoldenEagles is obviously contending otherwise, exactly the same way the Serpent did in tempting Eve in the Garden (Ge. 3:1-5). "God is withholding knowledge from you. Just eat of this tree He forbid you to eat of and you will be like God. Just ignore what God has revealed and reach for what He didn't reveal." So does The Eagle hiss in unison with the Serpent.

Notice then how the holier-than-thou Eagle pummels this non-existent straw-man he has erected:

This pattern of agreement, and then negation, illustrates the double-minded condition that has a grip on your heart, through the demonic presence...etc.--GE

Then follows a three-part castigation of a position that I don't even hold. Such is the foolishness of those who erect straw-men for the sake of their own aggrandizement.

What I find truly comical is The Eagles' title for this straw-man-beat-down: ”Rcofield, One Cannot Serve Both God and Mammon”

The Eagle draws the word ”mammon” from the KJV rendering of Mt. 6:24 in which Jesus states: “Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” The term mammon means “the dishonest gain of material wealth.”

I'm sure his fancy title sounded good when it bounced out of The Eagles' uninformed cranium onto his keyboard. The fact that it renders his entire three-part post out of context with both his own title AND the meaning of his chosen text is hilarious.

But then that's what happens when one takes The Eagles' approach to scripture. To him the Word of God is nothing more than a wax nose to be shaped to correspond to whatever inane argument he happens to be making.

In the end, The Eagle deems himself a higher authority than the bible. The fact that I disagree seems to be a source of great agitation for The Eagle. That does not bother me in the least.

rco,
i'm generally accepting it. but i still don't see a way out of the dilemma of what caused the first cause.

Rcofield, One Cannot Serve
Both God and Mammon - Part 1

Rcofield says, “As The Eagle knows full well, I have already agreed with this postulation.”

You are referring to my quotation of John 21:25, and my initial interpretation of it, as follows:

John 21:25 - And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

As I have said, before, here is an INFALLIBLE statement of truth, which tells us that we currently have only a microscopic portion of the whole story of the Master Jesus Christ. It’s like a vast ocean of Radiant Light is there in the record, a fact testified to by God himself, as to what Jesus Christ said and did, and yet, we have in our hands only one microscopic thimble full.

And, I have said before, Why did GOD INSPIRE JOHN TO WRITE DOWN THESE WORDS? Was it meant to be a TEASE? NO! The Message of God in these words is clear. Don't be fooled. There is more. Much more.

And to this you respond, “As The Eagle knows full well, I have already agreed with this postulation.”

And then you go on to NEGATE the implications of the aforementioned burst of radiant common sense. Your statements of negation I will not quote here, for sake of brevity.

This pattern of agreement, and then negation, illustrates the double-minded condition that has a grip on your heart, through the demonic presence mentioned, which desires to control the expansion of the light of your own heart, where Christ dwells, to keep it tamped down to a level that does not threaten its control over you. The Master Jesus Christ spoke to this condition of double-mindedness:

Matthew 6

21 for where thy treasure is, there will thy heart be also.

22 The lamp of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is the darkness!

24 No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

There is clearly within your temple an unclean spirit that despises the call to obedience. We can see the operation of that unclean spirit as it works on your mind to dismantle the implications of John 21:25 (above).

(more)

Rcofield, One Cannot Serve
Both God and Mammon - Part 2

The immediate implication of John 21:25, is that it exposes the truth, that in your declaration of the current Bible as the “ultimate and final authority”, that you are advancing a false doctrine.

The false doctrine is the agenda of the controlling demonic presence which desires to continue to use you as a pawn to promulgate this false doctrine, and moreover, to use you as its instrument of destruction, whenever anything comes to your attention that fits within the John 21:25 paradigm.

The agenda of that controlling demonic presence is to block the coming forth of the John 21:25 paradigm. The demonic realm has used people, especially those who retain a substantial level of human pride, for this very purpose, from the very foundation of the world, and of course, since the very early days of the Christian church.

If you wonder how the Catholics have fallen into the worship of their own false doctrines, this is how it happens.

The Apostle James points the way to freedom for you, and for all of us, from any controlling demonic presence, which has you, or anybody, serving mammon, even while your soul, or their soul, desires to serve God.

The Apostle James said “resist the devil, and he will flee from you.”

What does it mean to resist the devil? First, we study scripture. This way we will have a good idea of what influences are of Christ, and what influences are of the devil.

In a particular subject area, one will use a scriptural reference to discern what is the Will of God. John 21:25 is an excellent place to begin. And then you compare and contrast your own personal behavior to the Will of God expressed in that scripture.

In your case, on the subject of John 21:25, it is clear that you still have enough reason operating in your temple to allow you to understand what is the Will of God plainly expressed there, in John 21:25.

Why did GOD INSPIRE JOHN TO WRITE DOWN THESE WORDS? Was it meant to be a TEASE? NO! The Message of God in these words is clear. Don't be fooled. There is more. Much more.

And why does God want us to know that there is much more? Does God want us to believe his words are spoken lightly, and they are without value, and can be set aside, and forgotten? NO! God wants us to realize his words express the highest truth and wisdom, and this for the saving of our souls.

And so, WHY does God want us to know that there is much more? It is because he wants us to be on the lookout for it. WHY does He want us to be on the look out for it? It because there is essential information in the larger picture, that is crucial for the soul to be aware of, and to understand. If this were not the case, the statement made in John 21:25 would not have been made.

(more)

Rcofield, One Cannot Serve
Both God and Mammon - Part 3

Therefore, in your case, comparing and contrasting your own behavior, to the Will of God expressed in John 21:25, you see that you are working against that Will. When you proclaim that the Bible as we know it, the 66 books as you say, is the ultimate and final authority, you are declaring an idea that opposes the Will of God in John 21:25.

In this well-defined area, you need to “resist the devil” as the Apostle James says, the devil that is moving your heart, and your lips in opposition to the Will of God on this point.

You need to stop promoting this doctrine that opposes the Will of God.

Every time you feel the need to declare that the 66 books of the bible are the ultimate and final authority, you need to resist this, as this is the operation of the demonic world on your heart and mind.

Does that mean that you remain silent on the value of what is in the Bible? No. It means that you consciously make the effort to incorporate the Will of God, as it is expressed in John 21:25, into your conception of the value of the Bible.

It is valuable, yes. But it is not the whole story. As John 21:25 testifies, it is only a tiny part of the story.

This is an example of what we all need to do to allow the spirit of repentance, and the spirit of obedience to have LIFE in our world. We see where we have actually been tempted to work against the Will of God, by the demonic force. We recognize this, and make the determination that the demonic force will not be able to accomplish this any more in us, on the particular point in question, whether it is the use of profanity, or the opposition to the Will of God in John 21:25.

One needs to make a clean decision in this regard, and recognize also, that all thoughts and feelings in us, which resist the act of repentance and obedience, have their origin in the same demonic force, who whips up these reaction patterns storms as a strategy to maintain its control over your heart and mind.

This is the essential purpose for which the Master Jesus Christ made this statement in John 3:36.

John 3:36 - He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life; but he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Coming to these realizations, and making these decisions to be obedient, this is process by which we attain to the whole Gift of Salvation. These decisions must be made before we find ourselves at the Gates of Heaven. For if we have not made these decisions prior to that point, we will not be allowed into Heaven, and this is for the simple reason, that the person who will not agree to be obedient to the Will of God, who has had many opportunities to agree, but who has steadfastly refused to agree, cannot live in the Heavenly Kingdom, and reap the fruit of its eternal life.

(end)

Hi Walter,

is that enough to move on?

I'm a little unclear about that last post. Are you planning on responding further, or do you generally accept my argument for the necessity of a first cause of the universe?

Peace

The Hopes and Dreams of God

RcoField says, "A 'god' who is characterized by 'hopes and dreams' is no god at all. And a 'god' whose 'hopes and dreams' are under the threat of being 'wrecked' by a mere creature is no god at all."

Rcofield, your statement proves my thesis, that when you allow yourself to be fused to the agenda of this inner ravening wolf (Matthew 7:15), that you do not live in the world of Christ’s Love, but rather in the world of the demon’s hate.

What explains the inability of an individual to conceive of this truth, that God in his Love for us, has high hopes for us, has tremendous dreams for us? You, Rcofield, express the sentiment that this possibility is alien to you. So alien to you, that you would consider a God with such hopes and dreams, a false god.

Thus, this simple conclusion is inaccessible to you, that when we spit in God’s face, through disobedience, we shatter his hopes, and his dreams for us ( in as much as hopes and dreams that do not exist, cannot be shattered.)

The only identity that cannot grasp the truth of God’s Hopes and Dreams, is the demonic presence. The demonic presence lives in a posture of hate unto God at all times, and in this posture, has no capacity whatsoever to conceptualize the possibility that God would have positive hopes and dreams in his direction. Isn’t that interesting? That which hates God, cannot conceive of God having positive hopes and dreams in his direction.

Does God have high hopes and dreams in the direction of demons? No, I don’t believe so. They have but a short time, as it is written. They exist only so long as the Children of God give them sanctuary and refuge in their own temple. Only so long as the Children of God allow these demons to “contribute” to their sense of identity. The very instant you kick that demon out, Rcofield, in all likelihood, it will be destroyed by the Holy Angels.

Rcofield, you have been in the forcefield of this demon for far too long. You have come to identify with its crude expressions of hate, through you, made in the direction of those who actually have a sense of God’s Love, as this is what the demon world hates the most.

But, you and this demon are two different things. You are a Child of God, for whom God has Great love, and in whom there is great hope for your salvation. How do I know that? I admit that I do not have any personal knowledge in this regard. I can proceed based only on principle. I proceed on this general rule, that everyone in physical embodiment is a Child of God, who God wants to save, and bring home. If God wants to save you, then he has great love for you, and has high hopes for you, and in His Love for You, HE dreams of the day when you can return home to your heavenly estate, and receive much more in the way of the treasure of his love.

But you must learn to be obedient to the Commandments of Christ, as this is the only way home.

The Hopes and Dreams of God

RcoField says, "A 'god' who is characterized by 'hopes and dreams' is no god at all. And a 'god' whose 'hopes and dreams' are under the threat of being 'wrecked' by a mere creature is no god at all."

It was the hope and dream of God our Father that Adam and Eve obey the law, and continue to live and prosper in the paradise kingdom He created for them.

His hopes and dreams for them encompassed an unfolding eternity of happiness and joyful wonder.

But they did not obey.

Adam and Eve, in their disobedience, wrecked the vast hopes and dreams of God our Father in their regard, when they chose death over his eternal life.

rco,
give me time. i'll respond. redirect the thread if necessary.

but basically:

if you're asking me what caused the big bang, i don't know. and as far as an ultimate first cause, i suppose it seems as if "something" besides matter/energy created or "caused" matter/energy to exist.

frankly, i think "in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth" is a great verse.

is that enough to move on?

What "god" is GoldenEagles Serving?

You have within you a spirit of hostility that is bent on wrecking the hopes and dreams of God himself, as set forth so clearly in John 21:25.--GE

...your determination to grind your heel into the hopes and dreams of God himself fully revealed to us in John 21:25.--GE

A "god" who is characterized by "hopes and dreams" is no god at all. And a "god" whose "hopes and dreams" are under the threat of being "wrecked" by a mere creature is no god at all.

Perhaps this explains the increasingly evident insecurity of GoldenEagles.

Another Fabricated False Accusation

You have inside of you this ravening wolf that would tear to shreds the character of ONE BILLION CATHOLICS. You define them out of the very family of Christ. You stand in your pulpit and teach your congregants to HATE the largest portion of the Christian Community on earth.--GoldenEagles

The rate at which the twisted mind and heart of The Eagle is hatching lies and false accusations is spiraling out of control. One can only imagine the horde of “demons” that must be “pressing on the feeling world” of this enraged, hate-filled soul.

It appears RCofield has seriously gotten up his nose. The extent to which The Eagle has lost his composure is beginning to become embarassing.

One can only imagine how many “reincarnated” life-times it is going to take this Eagle to “earn” his "salvation wings" at this rate.

More Smoke, Mirrors, and Clouds of Dust—Mere Obfuscation

Part 1 of 4

The Eagle says: Rcofield says, "For instance, GoldenEagles offers no explanation as to the significance of the conjunction “IF.”… Everyone knows, that when you start playing games with individual words like that, you are in a truth-dodging mode. We can thank Bill Clinton for embedding this truth in our culture, making the exposure of the spirit of prevarication that much easier to spot.

Poppycock. GoldenEagles is trying to contend that the Apostle John is declaring that there would be “more books” written. Clearly the little conjunction “IF” (at which GoldenEagles scoffs despite its inspiration) has a great deal of bearing on what the Apostle is saying. Surely GoldenEagles would not have us believe that God was not capable of having John write when these books are written….etc.

The triteness of The Eagle’s protest here becomes quite obvious when looks at the context from which he lifted the above statement by RCofield:

For instance, GoldenEagles offers no explanation as to the significance of the conjunction “IF.” Further, he seems to have no understanding of the mood, tense and voice of the Greek verb here--grapho--or “written.” No explanation as to why the verb is (in) the present tense, passive voice, and subjunctive mood. Of course, a proper consideration of these commonly accepted means of interpretation would completely undermine GoldenEagles’ interpretation of this passage, which may explain why he dispenses with them and just states his opinion.—RCO

When one recognizes The Eagle apparently has no comprehension of subject/verb/object relationship one can come to only one conclusion: This is nothing more than a weak attempt by GoldenEagles to obfuscate the clear meaning of the infallible Word of God.

More on the John 21:25--Reality Check

Am I the only one here who finds it amusing that The Eagle, who literally believes he is a reincarnated disciple/apostle from the days of Christ’s Incarnation—and who believes that he will eventually be able to walk on water, give sight to the blind, and raise the dead—is constantly wanting to give us “Reality Checks”? This is quite comical.

More Smoke, Mirrors, and Clouds of Dust—Mere Obfuscation

Part 2 of 4

The Apostle’s words pertain to the prophecies set forth in THIS book. Here the word “THIS” is a direct qualifier to the subject noun “BOOK”. If any information comes forward, in the spirit of John 21:25, that would deny the prophesy set forth, then, in “this book”, it would be an act of promoting such a major falsehood, that it would be punishable by the taking away of the gift of salvation itself.—GE

Of course, what The Eagle fails to acknowledge here is that Revelation is a summation of the prior 65 books of the accepted canon of the bible. Revelation contains no less than 550 references from virtually every book of the Old Testament and a summation of the contents of every book of the New Testament. Hence, to “add to” the book of Revelation would be to “add to” the remainder of the accepted canon of scripture.

What every gentle reader should be careful to recognize is that The Eagle is ultimately contending that the bible is not sufficient, that there must be something missing from scripture that is necessary to our salvation and godliness. This flies in the face of the clear testimony of scripture and is nothing short of a baseless and blasphemous charge by GoldenEagles against the God of the bible.

And besides, this basic principle, even when applied to the small amount of what we have in the way of the Teachings of Jesus Christ set forth in the New Testament, I have already stipulated to. In as much as Christ had no contradictory spirits operating in him, whatever he did, and said, that we don’t know about it, when it comes to light, it will be in harmony with what we already know. If it is not in harmony, then that would be a sign of falsehood.--GE

A cunningly crafted statement by The Eagle, indeed. I could make a couple of relatively minor assumptions and use that statement to refute vast portions of The Eagles’ prior postulations.

More Smoke, Mirrors, and Clouds of Dust—Mere Obfuscation

Part 3 of 4

Perhaps The Eagle would like to clarify “this basic principle” by expounding on it further. And perhaps The Eagle could clarify whether or not he views the whole of the bible as the inspired Word of God….or does he just view the “Teachings of Jesus Christ set forth in the New Testament” as inspired. Perhaps The Eagle could do this, but if prior tactics are any indication….he will not.

(Note: That would be one more criteria for salvation, by the way, refuting your belief, rcofield, that you can get the gift of salvation no matter what you do, if you are obedient or not. This passage, that you have quoted here, refutes that belief. I hope you will take note of that.)—GE (emphasis added)

The above highlighted statement represents yet another in a long list baseless and false accusation by The Eagle. I believe no such thing and have rebutted this accusation on several occasions.

Why did GOD INSPIRE JOHN TO WRITE DOWN THESE WORDS? Was it meant to be a TEASE? NO! The Message of God in these words is clear. Don't be fooled. There is more. Much more.

As The Eagle knows full well, I have already agreed with this postulation.

This passage in scripture tells us that this belief, which RcoField brings before us, which asserts that the content of the Bible is the final authority, is a FALSE DOCTRINE. We were told that False Christs will come with false doctrines, and in this passage, John 21:25, we were given the information we need to identify one of the most pernicious of these false doctrines.

Again the careful reader will notice the complete absence of any exegesis of Jn. 21:25 on the part of The Eagle. Only a statement of The Eagle’s opinion and nothing more. And we all know what opinions are like, don’t we folks?

God wants us to know that there is more, because He knows that there will come upon the land False Christs who will try to convince us that there is no more, that what we have in the Bible is all that there is (like you say). God gives us this knowledge, in John 21:25, that there is more, so we will know that the argument being advanced, that there is no more, is a LIE.

Hmmm….Strange, but RCofield doesn’t recall saying “that what we have in the bible is all there is.” RCofield does recall contending that what we have in the bible is sufficient. Perhaps The Eagle would be so kind as to point out where RCofield said “that what we have in the bible is all there is.”

More Smoke, Mirrors, and Clouds of Dust—Mere Obfuscation

Part 4 of 4

So, Rcofield, you would be well advised to bend the knee before the truth that is clearly discernible in John 21:25, and thus, understanding what is true, you will stop advancing this “final authority” FALSE DOCTRINE.

I think what The Eagle actually meant here is that RCofield should “bend the knee” to The Eagle’s abberant interpretation of Jn. 21:25. Well, good luck with that.

Whenever you ask this question of anyone, "... do you, as a professing Christian, accept the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments as the ultimate and final authority for us in all matters?" you are declaring that you are possessed of an authority to keep these miles and miles of shelves empty. Such a stand is taken in DEFIANCE of the very God who inspired those words in John 21:25 with the hope that these shelves would be filled, and that the people of the earth would benefit from the whole story.

One is left to wonder what The Eagle thinks Christ meant when he said:

Mt 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Reaching back a bit, The Eagle, in a moment of self-aggrandizement, stated the following:

Come on Rcofield, if you knew for sure that I was absolutely wrong in these areas, you would have a very strong confidence, and you would be able to marshal your arguments, and defeat me resoundingly upon the battlefield where reason and error clash.

Well, now that does seem to be quite the boast of a “brave” and competent “warrior,” does it not? Which makes it all the more curious that over the last five days RCofield has posted to The Eagle no less than 12 posts that have gone unanswered by The Eagle. (For a list, see my post @ January 22, 2011 1:16 PM).

One is left to wonder if The Eagle even knows where the “battlefield” is located.

On the Subject of Ravening Wolves

Matthew 7:15 - Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

Rcofield, you give us a very good illustration of this bible passage.

You proclaim allegiance to Christ, and prophesy salvation unto the people, even from a church pulpit, but inside, you are as this ravening wolf. You have within you a spirit of hostility that is bent on wrecking the hopes and dreams of God himself, as set forth so clearly in John 21:25.

Inside you have this ravening wolf intent on tearing to shreds the central requirement every person must meet to qualify for salvation, which is obedience unto the commandments of Christ. Yes, you preach salvation, but cut off, in your congregants, the very hand that would reach for the cup, and in this way destroy the capacity of your congregants to understand what it takes to enter into eternal life, thus blocking their way. This is a superb illustration of this bible scripture as well.

Luke 11:52 - Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered."

You have inside of you this ravening wolf that would tear to shreds the character of ONE BILLION CATHOLICS. You define them out of the very family of Christ. You stand in your pulpit and teach your congregants to HATE the largest portion of the Christian Community on earth.

Yes, you have your “reasons”. But these “reasons” are not truth. They are intellectual invitations to enter into the spirit of hatred wherein you reside.

And what makes of a soul, inwardly, like unto a ravening wolf? It is that person’s acceptance of the forces of hatred into their world. In other words, they allow the demonic world to use them as pawns through which the power of demonic hatred enters into the world of men.

These are the individuals who “resist not the devil”, as the Apostle James described so clearly. And of course these are they who, not suprisingly, make a mockery of Christ’s teaching on demon possession itself, and demon manipulation itself (as you have done)

It is in this indulging of this alliance with the forces of darkness, through the indulgence of the spirit of hatred, via an alliance with a demonic controller, which is so clearly demonstrated by your hatred of One Billion Catholics, that makes of an otherwise good Child of God, into a false prophet. (Telling people in a state of disobedience that they will be saved when they will not be saved). And this spirit of hatred has expression in so many other ways, in your overtly hostile attitude to the promise of Christ in John 14:12, and making its appearance most recently in your determination to grind your heel into the hopes and dreams of God himself fully revealed to us in John 21:25.

More on the John 21:25
Reality Check

Rcofield quotes Revelation 22:18:

Re 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

We need to understand that Apostle John wrote the passage in John 21:25, and he wrote this passage (Rev 22:18). The two must be interpreted in harmony, one to the other.

The Apostle’s words pertain to the prophecies set forth in THIS book. Here the word “THIS” is a direct qualifier to the subject noun “BOOK”. If any information comes forward, in the spirit of John 21:25, that would deny the prophesy set forth, then, in “this book”, it would be an act of promoting such a major falsehood, that it would be punishable by the taking away of the gift of salvation itself.

(Note: That would be one more criteria for salvation, by the way, refuting your belief, rcofield, that you can get the gift of salvation no matter what you do, if you are obedient or not. This passage, that you have quoted here, refutes that belief. I hope you will take note of that.)

And besides, this basic principle, even when applied to the small amount of what we have in the way of the Teachings of Jesus Christ set forth in the New Testament, I have already stipulated to. In as much as Christ had no contradictory spirits operating in him, whatever he did, and said, that we don’t know about it, when it comes to light, it will be in harmony with what we already know. If it is not in harmony, then that would be a sign of falsehood.

More on the John 21:25
Reality Check

John 21:25 - And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Here is an INFALLIBLE statement of truth, which tells us that we currently have only a microscopic portion of the whole story of the Master Jesus Christ. It’s like a vast ocean of Radiant Light is there in the record, a fact testified to by God himself, as to what Jesus Christ said and did, and yet, we have in our hands only one microscopic thimble full.

Why did GOD INSPIRE JOHN TO WRITE DOWN THESE WORDS? Was it meant to be a TEASE? NO! The Message of God in these words is clear. Don't be fooled. There is more. Much more.

This passage in scripture tells us that this belief, which RcoField brings before us, which asserts that the content of the Bible is the final authority, is a FALSE DOCTRINE. We were told that False Christs will come with false doctrines, and in this passage, John 21:25, we were given the information we need to identify one of the most pernicious of these false doctrines.

Now, in this reference to a False Christ, I am not placing that label on your soul Rcofield, I want you to understand that, as you are not the originator of this false doctrine. You are a good soul, that has otherwise become but a pawn in the promulgation of it. A pawn driven by the wind of hostility to the intent of God clearly discernible in this piece of scripture, wherein there is no question about it, God wants us to KNOW that there is more.

God wants us to know that there is more, because He knows that there will come upon the land False Christs who will try to convince us that there is no more, that what we have in the Bible is all that there is (like you say). God gives us this knowledge, in John 21:25, that there is more, so we will know that the argument being advanced, that there is no more, is a LIE.

So, Rcofield, you would be well advised to bend the knee before the truth that is clearly discernible in John 21:25, and thus, understanding what is true, you will stop advancing this “final authority” FALSE DOCTRINE.

Whenever you ask this question of anyone, "... do you, as a professing Christian, accept the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments as the ultimate and final authority for us in all matters?" you are declaring that you are possessed of an authority to keep these miles and miles of shelves empty. Such a stand is taken in DEFIANCE of the very God who inspired those words in John 21:25 with the hope that these shelves would be filled, and that the people of the earth would benefit from the whole story.

Rcofield says, "For instance, GoldenEagles offers no explanation as to the significance of the conjunction “IF.”

During the Impeachment Trial of President Bill Clinton, we heard something very similar come out of his mouth, during his video taped grand jury testimony. "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is.” From the wikipedia article:

“A much-quoted statement from Clinton's grand jury testimony showed him questioning the precise use of the word "is." Contending that his statement that "there's nothing going on between us" had been truthful because he had not seen Lewinsky on the day he was asked, Clinton said, "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the—if he—if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement".”

(Wikepedia Source Article)

(YouTube Video)

Everyone knows, that when you start playing games with individual words like that, you are in a truth-dodging mode. We can thank Bill Clinton for embedding this truth in our culture, making the exposure of the spirit of prevarication that much easier to spot.

Smoke, Mirrors, and a Cloud of Dust

Part 1 of 5

“And yet no actual attempt to refute Peter Huff's well-stated rebuttal of GoldenEagles' misinterpretation of John 21:25.“—RCO

To which GoldenEagles responds:

No, Rcofield, that was not a well-stated rebuttal by Peterhuff. It was, as I said, like unto somebody falling flat on their face into a mud puddle.--GE

And precisely why was PeterHuff’s rebuttal to GoldenEagles’ eisegesis of Jn. 21:25 “like unto somebody falling flat on their face in a mud puddle”? Is GoldenEagles going to give us an exegetically sound explanation as to why PeterHuff’s rebuttal to him falls flat? Let’s see:

I will allow that big muddy splash to stand by itself on the record, and allow people to judge for themselves. Sometimes, when you hold up an eagle, like I did, wings and all, like I did, and someone calls it a frog, as Peterhuff did, you just have to have faith in the common sense of most people.

Ah, well. I guess there is no explanation forthcoming; unless, of course, we accept that PeterHuff has fallen flat simply because GoldenEagles SAID he has fallen flat. All we get is sarcasm and mockery—smoke and mirrors designed to disguise the fact that GoldenEagles has no idea how to respond to Peter’s grammatically correct and hermeneutically sound refutation of GoldenEagles interpretation of Jn. 21:25.

Now comes the cloud of dust.

Part 2 of 5

I will give my eagle another test flight.

Ah! Maybe the great fowler GoldenEagles is about to unleash a devastating critique of PeterHuff’s rebuttal after all. Let’s see.

After quoting Jn. 21:25 again, GoldenEagles proceeds:

Here is a statement of truth, INFALLIBLE according to even your own belief structure, which tells us that we only know a very tiny portion of the whole story of the Master Jesus Christ.

Ok. We’re with you so far, GoldenEagles. Nobody is contesting the infallibility of Jn. 21:25 here. Jesus obviously said and did more than can be contained in one volume of scripture. What we want to know is on what authority and by what other scriptural mandate do you declare that there must necessarily be “more books.” As Peter pointed out, John didn’t say there were “more books.” John simply said “IF” all that Jesus said/did were recorded, the world could not contain the record. Why does GoldenEagles insist (in direct contradiction to the scripture we do have) that the bible is not sufficient?

It’s like an ocean of radiant light is there in the record, a fact testified to by God himself, as to what Jesus Christ said and did, and yet, we have in our hands only one small thimble full.—GE

Ok, ok. We get it. We don’t have a record of all that Jesus said/did. Why doesn’t GoldenEagles get to the point and tell us why this passage necessitates the writing of more books?

Why did GOD INSPIRE JOHN TO WRITE DOWN THESE WORDS? Was it meant to be a TEASE? NO! The Message of God in these words is clear. Don't be fooled. There is more. Much more.--GE

Smoke, Mirrors, and a Cloud of Dust

Part 3 of 5

WE GET IT. NOBODY IS CONTESTING THE POINT THAT THERE WAS MORE SAID AND DONE BY JESUS THAN IS RECORDED.

Indeed, what God our Father is telling us through John 21:25, is that there ought to be vast library, with miles and miles of shelving, each shelf filled neatly with golden volumes detailing all that the Lord Jesus Christ said and did during his three year ministry.

Let’s analyze that statement:

First, GoldenEagles offers no exegesis whatsoever—no consideration of the grammatical structure of the passage, no consideration of immediate context, no consideration of the broader context of the whole of scripture, no historical considerations—just a flat statement of GoldenEagles opinion (and we all know what opinions are like, right?).

For instance, GoldenEagles offers no explanation as to the significance of the conjunction “IF.” Further, he seems to have no understanding of the mood, tense and voice of the Greek verb here--grapho--or “written.” No explanation as to why the verb is the present tense, passive voice, and subjunctive mood. Of course, a proper consideration of these commonly accepted means of interpretation would completely undermine GoldenEagles’ interpretation of this passage, which may explain why he dispenses with them and just states his opinion.

Secondly, notice that GoldenEagles low view of God: “God the Father is telling us….there ought to be (a) vast library….” How pitifully powerless and impotent does God appear in GoldenEagles eyes. There should be more, much more, says the Eagle, but God has somehow failed to provide what we so desperately need. Well, if GoldenEagles “god” is that incompetent he is certainly not worthy of our worship and adoration now, is he?

Smoke, Mirrors, and a Cloud of Dust

Part 4 of 5

Then, as if he is completely unaware that he has proven nothing whatsoever by merely stating his opinion about Jn. 21:25, GoldenEagles soars heavenward on the wings of self-righteous indignation:

And so the question for you Rcofield is this. Where do you get the authority to declare that the one small book that we have, is the ultimate and final authority?

Well, how kind of the Eagle to ask. I have no authority in and of myself, but I can state precisely that on the authority of the infallible and inspired words of the very Apostle you are quoting when you refer to Jn. 21:25. Watch:

The book of Revelation is the concluding capstone of the accepted canon of scripture. It is literally a summation of the entire bible, containing no less than 550 references to the Old Testament. It is a summation of the whole of God’s redemptive purpose, from Creation to Consummation. And in the very closing words of this inspired and infallible book—written by the same Apostle the Eagle quotes in Jn. 21:25—we find this somber warning:

Re 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

So if the Eagle wants to add to the revealed canon of scripture he can go right ahead and do so. Per the inspired and infallible words of the Apostle John he does so at his own peril.

Smoke, Mirrors, and a Cloud of Dust

Part 5 of 5

That being said, the whole of the Eagles’ pontification on Jn. 21:25—that there “ought to be vast library” of the things that Christ did/said—rests on nothing more than his personal opinion. Of course, it should be noted that all of his bloviating could be given at least a semblance of credibility if he could produce ONE of these “tens of millions” of volumes. If he could offer just one of these mysterious “books” that rises to the level of majesty and sufficiency of the bible he might have a shred of credibility.

Notice that he has not done so.

All we get from GoldenEagles is Smoke, Mirrors, and a Cloud of Dust.

Hear ye, hear ye. GoldenEagles has failed to offer any direct response whatsoever to my following posts. Note that these represent only those posts unanswered over the last few days to say nothing of the months of unanswered posts prior to this:
January 21, 2011 4:41 PM
January 21, 2011 4:40 PM
January 21, 2011 4:39 PM
January 20, 2011 11:24 PM
January 20, 2011 10:53 PM
January 20, 2011 10:50 PM
January 20, 2011 7:45 AM
January 19, 2011 6:02 PM
January 19, 2011 6:00 PM
January 19, 2011 9:49 AM
January 17, 2011 10:40 PM
January 17, 2011 10:08 PM

If someone could explain to me why "If someone" appears in my last post, you'll be a step ahead of me.

"First, if we apply that principle (that if a particular text is quoted in scripture the whole of that text should be considered the inspired Word of God) wouldn't we need to include the texts of Greek mythology as part of the inspired word of God? Notice:"

First, I have enough experience to know whether or not a certain reference is compatible with scripture, regardless of its source. There are many written works full of wisdom that aren't part of any religious text.
If someone.

I'm well aware that some parts of these works were added by other authors at later dtaes. That doesn't change the fact that the content of these works are completely in line with what I believe to be sacred text.
We can make the same claims about many of the canonized books. Most scholars claim that there were three different authors of Isaish, yet Isaiah, along with Deuteronomy were the texts most often quoted by Christ.
We also know for a fact that there were some Apocraphal works included in the Dead Sea scrolls. In fact, before 92 AD, they were considered a part of Jewish sacred text.

"There are portions of these books that contradict the accepted canon."

I guess that depends on your interpretation scripture. As we've seen, some can read a passage and receive an entirely different message than someone else reading the same passage.

"Within the context of Luke 11, precisely what was Christ contending that the scribes and Pharisees had done to “take away the keys to knowledge?”

"[47] Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them.
[48] Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres.
[49] Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute:
[50] That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;
[51] From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.
[52] Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered."

We know that the priests had been teaching lies since the OT.
Jeremiah comes to mind.
God repeatedly told Jeremiah to inform Judah that they were going into captivity to Babylon, because of their sin and idolatry.
How did the priests react?
They called Jeremiah a liar, beat him, and put him in stocks. They soothed the fears of the people by promising them peace.
Instead of going in to captivity, where God promised that all would be well for them, the priests resisted, lied, and prophesied in the name of the Lord that they would have peace.
How did that work out?

Wouldn't it have been better if they had told the people that God promised them safety if they would do his will?

(Typo correction for January 21, 2011 3:00 PM - The soul cannot be saved, until the soul breaks off all alliances it has made with the demonic force.)

More on John 21:25

Rcofield says, “And yet no actual attempt to refute Peter Huff's well-stated rebuttal of GoldenEagles' misinterpretation of John 21:25. “

No, Rcofield, that was not a well-stated rebuttal by Peterhuff. It was, as I said, like unto somebody falling flat on their face into a mud puddle. I will allow that big muddy splash to stand by itself on the record, and allow people to judge for themselves. Sometimes, when you hold up an eagle, like I did, wings and all, like I did, and someone calls it a frog, as Peterhuff did, you just have to have faith in the common sense of most people. Most people can tell the difference between an eagle and a frog, and for a split second, that included you.

I will give my eagle another test flight.

John 21:25 - And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Here is a statement of truth, INFALLIBLE according to even your own belief structure, which tells us that we only know a very tiny portion of the whole story of the Master Jesus Christ. It’s like an ocean of radiant light is there in the record, a fact testified to by God himself, as to what Jesus Christ said and did, and yet, we have in our hands only one small thimble full.

Why did GOD INSPIRE JOHN TO WRITE DOWN THESE WORDS? Was it meant to be a TEASE? NO! The Message of God in these words is clear. Don't be fooled. There is more. Much more.

Indeed, what God our Father is telling us through John 21:25, is that there ought to be vast library, with miles and miles of shelving, each shelf filled neatly with golden volumes detailing all that the Lord Jesus Christ said and did during his three year ministry.

And so the question for you Rcofield is this. Where do you get the authority to declare that the one small book that we have, is the ultimate and final authority? Where do you get the authority to keep these miles and miles of shelves empty save for this one lonesome volume? Where do you get the authority to lock the library doors, and bar entrance to anyone who might have one of those volumes to place upon those shelves?

Rcofield says, “Well Framed, Peter”. That’s like Jesus saying to a disciple, after he trips and falls face down in a mud puddle, “well done.”--GE

And yet no actual attempt to refute Peter Huff's well-stated rebuttal of GoldenEagles' misinterpretation of John 21:25.

Only sarcasm and denigration..."mudballs" I think GoldenEagles likes to call them when he is fabricating another straw-man accusation against someone he disagrees with. Hmmmmm......No double-standard here, folks, no, not at all (sic).

RCofield's Full-orbed Response to GoldenEagles' “On the Subject of Resisting the Devil - Part 1 & 2:”

Can be found here:

”Diabolos: The Slandering Adversary”-- http://vimeo.com/11462539

and here:

”The Anatomy of Temptation”-- http://vimeo.com/11988155

RCofield's Full-orbed Response to GoldenEagles' “On the Subject of Resisting the Devil - Part 1 & 2:”

and here:

"You Shall Be Like God: The Intrinsic Lure of Personal Autonomy"-- http://vimeo.com/14545480

and here:

"The Descent Into Sin"-- http://vimeo.com/18633803

RCofield's Full-orbed Response to GoldenEagles' “On the Subject of Resisting the Devil - Part 1 & 2:”

and here:

The Fall-- http://vimeo.com/18914809

And where are GoldenEagles' responses to the majority of Rcofield's rebuttals and direct questions? NOWHERE TO BE FOUND. All we see coming from GoldenEagles' is one fabricated accusation and self-righteous judgment after another.

It looks like Monday or Tuesday will be my most likely response to any of your replies since I'm starting a three night, dreaded 12 hour mid-night shift.

On the Subject of Resisting the Devil - Part 1

Rcofield says, “Well Framed, Peter”.

That’s like Jesus saying to a disciple, after he trips and falls face down in a mud puddle, “well done.”

Promoting sophistry is not considered a good fruit.

“Therefore by their fruits ye shall know them.” (Matthew 7-20)

And we must ask, who is “them”?

These are the people who have allowed, and continue to allow, demonic forces to manipulate their feeling worlds, their sense of priorities.

They operate in that double-minded mode referred to by the Apostle James.

James 4

7 Be subject therefore unto God; but resist the devil, and he will flee from you.

8 Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye doubleminded.

“Therefore by their fruits ye shall know them.” (Matthew 7-20)

These are the individuals who disobey this commandment to Resist the Devil.

These are the individuals who disobey this commandment to Dray nigh Unto God.

These are the individuals who disobey this commandment to Cleanse your hands.

These are the individuals who disobey this commandment to Purify your hearts.

And what is the most significant sign that the demonic force is leaning heavily upon the feeling world of the individual? It is the inability to come to terms with the importance of OBEDIENCE. This is the primary feature of the influence of the demonic force.

WHY is this aversion to OBEDIENCE the primary feature of the influence of the demonic force?

It is because the primary agenda of the demonic force, Satan, Serpent, the devil --- a spider known by any other name, smells as rancid --- is rebellion against God. This is what the force of evil is all about, and has been so, since the beginning. The demonic force is that which explemifies the full range of fallen angels who have sworn eternal enmity against God. They are in a state of hatred for God. They are in a state of rebellion against God. And they are working to draw the Children of God into their hatred, their rebellion, their disobedience.

When you have a person before you, such as Rcofield, who is not able to get a firm hold on the principle of obedience, you have a demonic force interrupting the thought processes of that individual. The demonic force interrupts the thought processes of the individual by whipping up a storm of resentment and contempt in the feeling world of the victim whenever the victim confronts the messenger of truth, who brings the message of the importance of obedience.

When this storm of resentment and contempt is stirred up, the person is supposed to understand that this is the force of the devil working on them, and they must learn to resist it.

(more)

On the Subject of Resisting the Devil - Part 2

You can see this clearly in the full range of reaction patterns exhibited by RocField on the subject of obedience. He can talk about, and converse in what appears to be a rational manner on almost any other (Biblical) subject, but when it comes to the subject of obedience, and the subject of conforming his own behavior to the commandments of Christ, we see this Mr. Hyde personality come forth. (This is a reference to Robert Louis Stevenson’s Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde story)

Given his behavior on the subject of obedience, one might be tempted to refer to Rcofield as the devil himself. But that would be a forbidden judgment, and a false judgment. As a general rule, every individual in embodiment is a Child of God, who God our Father wants to save.

And what does God want to save the soul from? God wants to save the soul from the consequences associated with making alliances with the forces of evil.

In this regard, we are obligated, as an act of obedience, to factor in the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ on the subject of demon possession and demon manipulation. This is the middle way which gives the soul the abilility to visualize a path to freedom, which is the path of obedience, through the Power of Christ.

Where one is disobedient, one must become obedient. This act of repentance, where one consciously chooses obedience over disobedience, is what denies the demonic force access to the feeling world of the individual. The soul cannot be saved, unto the soul breaks off all alliances it has made with the demonic force. Every avenue of manipulation and control which the soul has given into the hands of the demonic force, must be cut off. The soul cannot be saved until it cooperates with this process of self-cleansing, articulated so well by the Apostle James above.

Indeed, that’s what the Apostle James refers to when he says, “resist the devil.” This is a commandment to no longer indulge any alliance with the devil. A requirement unto salvation that RcoField has yet to master.

This is a tough and onerous requirement, especially when the alliance has become so entrenched, as we see with RcoField. And this is why God our Father, in his mercy, has given us multiple opportunties to face this challenge. If one cannot fully succeed in cutting off all alliances with the dark side in the current life, the soul will be given more opportunities, in further embodiments, spread out over the future, to complete this unfinished work.

Again, the reality check provided in John 14:12 gives all of us the reference point, as to whether we have actually succeeded in this importance task of cutting off these alliances with darkness, allowing thereby, only the Light of Christ to shine forth from us. When we can do the works that Master Jesus has demonstrated, only then will we know that we have succeeded in this work, and that we are truly saved.

(end)

MRMEANER,

Sorry you were strapped for time last night. Will you be responding to part 2 of my last post to you? (January 20, 2011 8:24 AM)

Peace, brother

Hi Walter,

Glad to see you back! Have you heard from Pam on any other forums? She and you sure had me scrambling for answers during our times on these panels.

Anyway, I'll leave you to RCofield since I am interested to see what kind of answers you can come up with that can make sense of your position.

RCofield, great job in developing the argument!

I'm hope Gladerunner will re-engage also.

Hi MrMeaner,

Yes. We are made in the exact image of the angels. When God said “Let us make man in our image”, I believe he meant it very literally. The meanings of the word translated “image” ; Shade, a phantom, illusion, resemblance, a representative figure.

No, you misinterpret Scripture. Are you per chance JW?

When God said 'Let Us make man in Our image, in Our likeness' where do you ever see Him say that about angels? He said man, not angels. Are you suggesting that the us and our of Genesis 1:26 refers to angels?

Genesis 1:27 makes verse 26 more clear.

So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Where is the word angel ever mentioned?

We definitely have one example for comparison. In Heb 1:3 we read this about Jesus; [3] Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person,...There, “express image” is the word “charakter” in Greek. It means “a stamped figure, an exact copy or representation. So if Jesus was an exact copy of the Father, and he looked like we do, I have to assume that the we and the angels have the same appearance....We could speculate even further, and say that if Christ was the exact image of the Father, we must be the exact image of our “angel”.

That is assuming that men and angels are both created in the image and likeness of God.

Yes, you are indeed speculating. Nowhere in Scripture are we ever told that angels are made in the image of God. Can you show me where?

Hebrews 1:5-6 show the superiority of Jesus over the angels, even though in Hebrews 2:9 we are told that when Jesus became Man that He was made lower than the angels. How can that be in the exact image of angels?

To which of the angels did God ever say, 'Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet?

That is a rhetorical question. The answer is none. Jesus is not an angel. He is God who also became Man, the Second Adam; one Person, two natures.

What the apostle John said was, Jesus did many other things as well. If everyone of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

There is a big difference between what has been written and what could be written, between the 'if' and 'were' written.

God has given us everything that we need for salvation and relationship with Him in the Bible.--PH

Well framed, Peter.

GoldenEagles,

RcoField says, “[GE] holds human reason as the supreme measure of what scripture posits.” Not true....etc.

I think where I am getting hung up with you is with your seeming insistence that the divine illumination of the mind has it's source in our "accretion" (accumulation) of the mind of Christ.

It seems that you are contending that divine illumination originates from our obedience rather than originating from (and being increased through) a supernatural work of the Spirit (Jn. 3:1-10).

Doesn't your contention place obedience prior to divine illumination?

Am I misunderstanding you?

(Please don't respond in the third-person)

Hi GoldenEagles,

Sorry buddy, but I stopped reading your posts in entirety a long time ago. I now take a quick perusal to see what current error you are making. Your claim that RCofield's hates 'One Billion Catholics' is so far fetched, and unfounded. I have found that you are highly biased to anything that RCofield says while you make a mess of Christian doctrine, adding fictitious/imaginative books to the list of God's revelation to us without one iota of proof on your part ever. You just say it and that makes it so.

What the apostle John said was,
Jesus did many other things as well. If everyone of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

There is a big difference between what has been written and what could be written, between the 'if' and 'were' written.

God has given us everything that we need for salvation and relationship with Him in the Bible.

You said earlier that you and I shared some commonality in that link that you posted but I don't see it that way. I find many of your doctrines counter to what the word of God teaches.

I point this out with the desire that you come to your senses and in the hope God will bring you to repentance and lead you into a knowledge of the truth (2 Timothy 2:25-26).

GOLDENEAGLES,

Part 1 of 2

GoldenEagles says: What you see in the post below is truly the best expression of every resource I have access to at the time. It is the deepest expression of all the sincerity I have in my heart. I sincerely believe I have proven, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the “double-standard” you see, does not exist. Indeed, I believe with my whole heart that I have effectively shown that what you see is no different than a mirage seen through the parched and squinting eyes of a man dying of thirst on a scorchingly hot desert plain. It is simply a figment of your imagination.

Yes, and The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?—Jer. 17:9

I need but offer one (out of dozens) example to unmask your entire statement above, however heart-felt and sincere you claim to be.

You take me to task for writing “Bull.” That’s bull…period. I said nothing more and nothing less. That is a stand-alone, common term that everyone on this thread understands. You then inform me: “that is a step in the direction of profanity.” Further, you declare it “sinister” because I am “pulling each reader into a state of participation” because everyone will “complete the thoughtform.”

You then manipulatively (manipulation is NOT a fruit of the Spirit) insist that if I am even an “average Christian” I will “repent and apologize.” This you do despite the fact that I neither used profanity nor insinuated profanity. You further use manipulative tactics by stating that if I do not “apologize and repent” of this “sin” that you have fabricated and attributed to me it is because “there is a larger force of darkness operating behind that utterance.”

You then cap off all this nonsense by declaring me in “disobedience to the command of Christ.”

This you do knowing all the while that you had, just a few days earlier, written “f***” in a post addressed to me.

GOLDENEAGLES,

Part 2 of 2

Now I ask you: If “bull” is a step in the direction of profanity, is not “f***” equally a step in the direction of profanity? If “bull” is “sinister” and “pulling each reader into a state of participation” cannot the exact same thing be equally said of your use of “f***”? If “bull” would tempt “each reader” to “complete the thoughtform,” would not “f***” do exactly the same thing?

If I need to “repent and apologize” for using the word “bull,” doesn’t it stand to reason that you would need to “repent and apologize” for using “f***”? If there is a “larger force of darkness operating behind the utterance” of “bull,” is there not a “larger force of darkness operating behind the utterance” of “f***”?

If I am “in disobedience to the commandment of Christ” because I wrote “bull,” are you not equally “in disobedience to the commandment of Christ” when you write “f***”?

IF I am guilty of insinuating profanity by writing “bull” are you not equally guilty of insinuating profanity when you write “f***”?

Yet you dismiss your use of “f***” with a simple “that’s not what I meant.” Well, what you insinuated that I meant by the use of “bull” was not what I meant either. But that isn’t the point, is it? Your entire fabricated case against me was hinged on readers “completing the thoughtform.” I think readers would much more easily “complete the thoughtform” of “f***”, don’t you? That is such a common vulgarity that it is virtually unmistakable.

Now, I ask you, GoldenEagles, are the manipulative tactics that you have used here to merely try and “score a point” against me fitting for one who professes the name of Christ?

Is this not this entire fiasco over my use of the word “bull” a clear example of you having one standard whereby you judge your own writings and a completely separate standard whereby you have judged mine?

GE

Jesus became our Passover
His salvation is, in effect, the equivalent to the lamb's blood placed over the lintel, for protection from the angel of death.

If you don't have Christ's blood over your lintel, you will fall prey to the false christ, or anti-christ, which is a typology of the angel of death.... should you be in the generation alive to see him establish his short-lived kingdom on Earth.

(As a side note, this is one of the reasons I find little room for agreement when discussing eschatology with people who think that the most important prophecies in the Bible have already been fulfilled.)

My opinion on Easter changed after I began to understand what Jeremiah Ch. 7, and especially Ezekiel Ch.8 was implying.
There are quite a few practices mentioned there that are a regular part of Easter services.
Other research turned up the fact that Ashtoreth, the name of the idol from which Easter gets its name, was actually taken from the Hebrew word for *solemn assembly*.

The last piece of evidence, the one that most influenced my feelings toward Easter, came to light when I read the first chapter of Isaiah, after having translated some of the words with obscure meanings.

[13] Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. (Astoreth)
[14] Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them.
[15] And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.
[16] Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil;

PH

"I don't follow you when you say that we are made in their image. Do you mean the image of angels? If so what do you mean?

Yes. We are made in the exact image of the angels.
When God said “Let us make man in our image”, I believe he meant it very literally.
The meanings of the word translated “image” ; Shade, a phantom, illusion, resemblance, a representative figure.

We definitely have one example for comparison. In Heb 1:3 we read this about Jesus;
[3] Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

There, “express image” is the word “charakter” in Greek. It means “a stamped figure, an exact copy or representation.
So if Jesus was an exact copy of the Father, and he looked like we do, I have to assume that the we and the angels have the same appearance.

We could speculate even further, and say that if Christ was the exact image of the Father, we must be the exact image of our “angel”.
PT 1

“So your reasoning about Melchizedek is conjecture, just as mine is.”

Of course it is. I wouldn’t claim otherwise.

me--It would mean that there had to have been an earlier “Word of God”, to which Melchisedec would have had access.

"I don't follow your reasoning here.”

Well, if Melchisedec was a just a man who was able to give blessings on God’s behalf, how did he learn what it is that God considers worthy of blessing?

RC
“How would you reconcile your above contention with this passage?”

I don’t understand the question. I see no contradictions.

“You also state:
I agree. In fact most of the Word is meant to be absorbed by all. Romans is one of those exceptions that requires your being informed, (or maybe chosen?)--MM

What would be the relevant application of that statement?”

Well, the Word is open to everyone on some level, even Romans.
On some levels, it’s not meant to be understood by anyone other than the elect.
It’s what makes the elect, the elect. It’s how the wheat and the chaff are separated.

“ Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out many devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works? And then I will profess unto them; I never knew you; depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”

Why won’t they make it into heaven? Apparently, they only thought they were doing good works. My guess is, their God-given blindness and Biblical illiteracy led them to do “works” for the enemy.

PT 2

These are the people for whom Christ will be” a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense, even to them which stumble at the word”. (I Pet 2:8)
This has been taught to us countless times.

We’ve been spending some time in Romans. What did Paul mean here, as he was explaining how it was that the elect were chosen?

[7]“…Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded
[8] (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.
[9] And David saith, LET THEIR TABLE be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumbling block, and a recompence unto them:
[10] Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.

As for the “Let their table” emphasis, I think we can agree that this is referring to a table for food. (Gr. Word *trapeza*)

Allow me to use this reference from Amos Ch.8 as an example of famine symbolizing a lack of understanding God’s Word.

[11] Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:
[12] And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it.
[13] In that day shall the fair virgins and young men faint for thirst.
[14] They that swear by the sin of Samaria, and say, Thy god, O Dan, liveth; and, The manner of Beer-sheba liveth; even they shall fall, and never rise up again.

In that example, we see that a famine of hearing the Word resulted in some worshiping a false idol.

Keeping that in mind, what then is the meaning of verses 18-20 in the very important 37th Psalm?

[18] The LORD knoweth the days of the upright: and their inheritance shall be for ever.
[19] They shall not be ashamed in the evil time: and in the days of famine they shall be satisfied.
[20] But the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the LORD shall be as the fat of lamb.
To summarize;
The Word was given to the elect so those living at His return would know what we should, and more importantly, shouldn’t do.
Those who just think of the Bible as an interesting book, by people who may or may not have been inspired by God, probably won’t be as inclined to do the actual research, to know that the “alls well” message that most hear from their pastors is actually God’s will being done, as the chaff separates itself.

PT 3

That's about all the time I have this evening.

Have a good night, all

GoldenEagles on the Source of Reason

RcoField says, “[GE] holds human reason as the supreme measure of what scripture posits.”

Not true.

In a four-part post titled, “Reason vs. Intellect - The Mind of Christ” I made it clear that the human intellect by itself, does not have the capacity to properly interpret scripture, I said in part: " it is important ... to make a distinction between the operation of the illuminated intellect and that of the unilluminated intellect, the former being capable of exhibiting the framework of intelligence that we call “reason”, and the latter NOT being able to exhibit that framework of intelligence that we call “reason.” (November 24, 2010 2:04 AM)

I explained at length why divine illumination alone is what accounts for reason. All other intellectual shenanigans are but a counterfeit. And most importantly, I set forth my belief that the First Law of Reason is obedience to the laws of God. That without this obedience (within the mind and heart) there can be no Reason, as the phenomena of disobedience has its being only only within a compartment of intellectual darkness.

In the course of the subsequent dialog, I have repeatedly associated the faculty of REASON with the MIND OF CHRIST, and with the freewill choice TO BE, OR NOT TO BE Obedient to God. This is just one small sample:

The domain of reason (the accretion of the Mind of Christ in us) is this internal domain of thought, which is illuminated by divine knowledge, wherein the soul sees clearly, on the one hand, what are the Laws of God, and on the other, how one’s personal behavior is disobedient to those laws.

The domain of reason (the accretion of the Mind of Christ in us) is this internal domain where there is an understanding regarding the value of being obedient, and where there is a corresponding understanding of the negative consequences of disobedience.

The domain of reason (the accretion of the Mind of Christ in us) is this internal domain where this choice is presented to the soul in a very clear manner, between being obedient, or being disobedient.

The domain of reason (the accretion of the Mind of Christ in us) is this internal domain where there is the corresponding freedom to change one’s ways, even to make the choice to be obedient, wherein the soul has heretofore been disobedient.

(November 28, 2010 6:00 AM)

Rcofield says, “Your dishonest antics and hypocritical double-standards are beginning to multiply to the point of being comical.”

All I can say is that I addressed the issue, I gave it my best. What you see in the post below is truly the best expression of every resource I have access to at the time. It is the deepest expression of all the sincerity I have in my heart. I sincerely believe I have proven, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the “double-standard” you see, does not exist. Indeed, I believe with my whole heart that I have effectively shown that what you see is no different than a mirage seen through the parched and squinting eyes of a man dying of thirst on a scorchingly hot desert plain. It is simply a figment of your imagination.

GOLDENEAGLES,

And so, if this is the case, that you thought this “f***” substitute for fool, was intended to signify the “f” word that is used so prevalently in this culture, you were in error.

.....:-)..... Your dishonest antics and hypocritical double-standards are beginning to multiply to the point of being comical.

My response: If you thought my use of "bull" was meant to signify the common profanity of our culture you were in error.

Of course, because you have one standard for yourself and yet another standard altogether when it comes to me, that's not sufficient for you, is it?

Mt. 23:2 The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat 3 ....do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. 4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

WALTER,

Part 1 of 3

Good to hear from you, friend. Did you ever get enough snow out there to do any sculpting?

now, i've repeatedly said that i'd like to continue investigating the assumption(s) you make about the uncaused cause. if you're up for that, let's go!

In retrospect I realize now that I just dumped the conclusions of the first-cause argument on you without demonstrating how I got there. I hope you don’t mind, but I’d like to go back and construct this argument from the ground up. I’ll break it down into relatively small segments, get your response, and then move to the next stage. I think we can get to your desire to investigate the assumptions of this argument fairly quickly this way.

DISCLAIMER: I am not, in this series of posts, arguing that God is the First-Cause. I am seeking only to establish the necessity of a first-cause through the application of logic.

So, here we go:

The Premises of the First-Cause Argument

The foundational premise of this argument is derived from the universally accepted fact that from nothing comes nothing. If there ever existed a point at which nothing existed, then nothing would exist now. In other words, nothing that exists can be said to have caused itself to exist.

This leads to the second premise, that for everything that has a beginning (we’ll call these things “effects”) there exists a first and moving cause of that “thing” or “effect.” This seems self-evident to me, but if you disagree please offer an alternate explanation.

These two premises produce what is called a “chain of cause and effect.” For everything (every “effect”) that had a beginning there was a cause that produced that effect. If said cause had a beginning, then that cause is considered an “effect” as well as a cause, and so on.

WALTER,

Part 2 of 3

The universe consists of a series of events stretched across time in a long causal chain. Each one of these events is the cause of the event that comes after it, and the effect of the event that comes before it. The world as it is came from the world as it was, which came from the world as it was before.

If we trace this series of events back in time, what possibilities arise? There seem to be only two: either we eventually reach the first event in the series, the cause at the beginning of the universe that set everything going, or there is no first event in the series and the past stretches back into infinity (an infinite regression of causes). If you can think of other possibilities feel free to assert them and let’s kick them around.

The first-cause argument tells us that the second of these (infinite regression) is not possible. The past cannot stretch back into infinity but rather must have a beginning. The argument then proceeds by suggesting that if the universe has a beginning then there must be something outside it that brought it into existence. Here is why an infinite regression of causes does not seem logical:

It is Impossible to Traverse an Infinite Series

If I were to say to you that I just finished counting from infinity to zero, beginning with “infinity minus zero” you would know immediately the falsity of that claim. You would rightly say “that is impossible.” You know this because it is equally impossible to start at zero and count forward until one reaches infinity. (That was cool. When I typed that line my word processor identified a grammatical error called “Number Agreement—consider revising”!) I rest my case. :-) If I had started counting down from negative-infinity I would still be counting. I would never finish counting. Therefore my claim to have counted down from infinity is self-evidently false. It is false because it is not possible to traverse an infinite series.

Hence the Past Cannot be Infinite

The idea that time/matter/energy/universe have an infinite past is just as self-evidently false as my claim to have counted down from negative infinity to zero. If time/matter/energy/universe have an infinite past, then time would have had to count down from negative-infinity to present. That is not possible. The fact that we have reached the present in this universe demonstrates without question that the past is not infinite. Hence, we know, working purely from logic, that time/matter/energy/universe had a beginning.

Note here that the science of BB Theory has seemingly concluded precisely this, though for years some scientists claimed the universe was of infinite duration, therefore without beginning. I’m glad to see science finally caught up. :-)

WALTER,

Part 3 of 3

Now, couple the impossibility of traversing infinity with the first premise that nothing comes from nothing and the second premise that everything that exists necessarily is the result (or “effect”) of a prior cause. Here are the conclusions I think we can make:

Conclusions

1) Time/matter/energy/universe are not infinite, and are therefore not eternal
2) Time/matter/energy/universe did not cause themselves
3) Time/matter/energy/universe are therefore an “effect” that resulted from a cause

Do you agree or disagree with my arguments thus far. If you disagree, please provide details. If you agree, please acknowledge and I’ll move to the next level of my argument.

Peace, brother.

On the Subject of Fabrications and
Hypocritical Double Standards - Part 1

Rcofield says, “... you are constantly calling on me to “repent” for the “sins” you fabricate for me. You need to take a dose of your own medicine. I have posted your following hypocritical double standard three times [now] and you have completely ignored it. Nobody's fooled.”

Rcofield, you have placed two falsehoods in this paragraph.

First, your use of the word “fabricate” conveys an untruthful characterization of the issues I have raised with you. I have five primary issues wherein the teachings of Christ require repentance on your behalf..

1. Your hatred for One Billion Catholics. That is no fabrication. You have expressed that hatred. It is on the record.

2. Your rebellion against the Commandment of Christ to Love your enemy. For the time being, probably because you think I am a member of the Catholic Church, I am your enemy, and you allow to flow freely from your lips the venom of contempt and disdain in my direction. That is no fabrication. It is on the record.

3. Your repeated rebellion against the Commandment of Christ to “weary not in well doing”. You tire easily in this regard, and have QUIT this dialog at least three times so far. That is no fabrication. It is on the record.

4. You have repeatedly rebelled against the commandment of God himself, to come and let us reason together, (sayeth the Lord.), when you drop out of the mode of civilized discourse, and go into your mockery and condescension mode of behavior. Which I refer to as your Mr. Hyde side.

5. You disobeyed the commandment of Christ to let your communications be yea, yea, nay nay, more than that being of evil. And I brought before the attention of the vast readership of this blog, your use of the word “B**” as a primary example. In light of your recent declaration that you believe you have a responsibility to be obedient to the commandments of Christ, you had an opportunity to prove your sincerity in this situation. But you have yet to take advantage of the situation. You have left most people to conclude that the depth of your sincerity in making that statement, does not go very deep.

Of course, all of these points are tied together, in as much as you are under the influence of, in fact gripped by, a powerful spirit of hatred, and hatred, as you know, is the spirit of rebellion, projected into your feeling world by a demonic presence. This demonic presence has been your “friend” for far too long.

(more)

On the Subject of Fabrications and
Hypocritical Double Standards - Part 2

Now, as a point of compassion, when you are feeling this hatred, it can be understood that you cannot really feel any love for the Teachings of Christ in that condition, and thus your ability to be obedient to his commandments is reduced to practically zero. I understand that. You hate what you hate far more intensely than what you might genuinely love about the Teaching of Christ, so you go with the feelings of hatred. And express those feelings, and the ideas those feelings hatch in your mind. I understand that. But that does not free you from the responsibility to deal with the situation.

Repentance is a prerequisite for salvation as the Teachings of John the Baptist made so clear.

Come on Rcofield, if you knew for sure that I was absolutely wrong in these areas, you would have a very strong confidence, and you would be able to marshal your arguments, and defeat me resoundingly upon the battlefield where reason and error clash.

But your reaction patterns in my direction tells the whole story. You have not been able to mount any defense, other then throwing mud at the messenger. Actually these reactions patterns make it clear that deep down in your soul you know I am right. And the demon that is manipulating you with the currents of hatred knows I am right too. And you both fear the truth. In that fear, you drop out of the domain of civilized discourse, become angry, and start throwing mudballs. But Jesus Christ said fear not.

I hope you come to a deeper appreciation for the Teaching of Jesus Christ, following the lead of the Apostle Paul, on the subject of demon possession, or demon manipulation, as this allows the soul to understand that these hatred-driven behavior patterns are not part of the native identity, rather they are, as a general rule, the sign of outside manipulation.

Knowing this, the soul does not have to bend to additional demonic projections of personal worthlessness before God. This “I am a miserable sinner” feeling is a demonic projection. It applies to no Child of God.

Yes, the Children of God on the planet are trapped in a larger web of sinful behavior, but this does not define who they are.

The idea is to let the Power of Christ into your temple NOW. You do that through prayer, and by making the effort to be obedient to his commandments. Each time you make the effort to be obedient in an area where you have shown a pattern of disobedience, the Light of Christ will increase in YOU, as I explained. The idea is to let the Power of Christ, as a Force of Light to become strong NOW, as this is the only thing that can keep the demon influence at bay.

Truly Christ Saves. But only by YOU allowing His Power to radiate through YOUR HEART in the here and now, through prayer, and through obedience to his commandments.

(more)

On the Subject of Fabrications and
Hypocritical Double Standards - Part 3

This is what St. Paul was talking about when he said, “Put on the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.” This section of the Teaching is worth deep contemplation:

Ephesians 6

10 Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.

11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.

12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;

15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;

16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.

17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;

Verse 12 is essential to understand. “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”

Here, St. Paul is talking about the domain of the demons, the powers of darkness. He is talking about the forces of darkness that are able to penetrate into the mind, and into the feeling world (of a spiritually unshielded people) to prod the Children of God into disobedience to the Commandments of Christ.

And yes, as clearly stated, their goal is to compromise those in leadership positions in both church and state, and make pawns of them by the power of hatred.

(more)

On the Subject of Fabrications and
Hypocritical Double Standards - Part 4

As to the second falsehood you stated in the quoted paragraph, you say, “You need to take a dose of your own medicine. I have posted your following hypocritical double standard three times how and you have completely ignored it. Nobody's fooled.”

I have ignored this, because the charge makes no sense. And I simply let it stand, because I think everyone reading knew that it made no sense. That it was an example of how the force of hatred, when it has control of a mind, pushes the mind into a very erroneous sense of reality. But since you brought it up, and asked me to respond to it, I will.

You quote three of my paragraphs that bring forward the correct teaching on the subject of your use of the word “BULL” which is an act of disobedience to the commandment of Christ. And then, you quote another statement of mine, which I gather you see as a hypocritical statement on my part. You seem to be implying that I used a point of profanity against you, and that in this there is a double-standard. But this is not correct. I did NOT use a point of profanity against you.

The demon says to you, "Here, Rcofield, why don't you respond to this f*** like so?"--GE

You are pulling this statement out of one of my posts (January 13, 2011 2:10 PM) in the last forum thread which took you to task for calling me a “fool”. I made the point that to call someone a “fool” was an act of rebellion against a very well-known commandment of Christ who said, “whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.” And then I went on to say:

If you don't like the idea that you are being manipulated by a demonic force in these acts of rebellion against the Word of Christ, you can look at it as being open to a "suggestion" of rebellion by this demonic force. [for example] The demon says to you, "Here, Rcofield, why don't you respond to this f*** like so?" And you say in your heart, "Oh! Why didn't I think of that? That sounds like a good idea to me! I will splatter this mud all over him, and have a good time doing it!" And you give it expression. And in so doing you are in rebellion against the Word of Christ.

As you can see, the phrase at issue is in quotes. This phrase is in quotes because these are the words that the demon is speaking into YOUR ear. And this word substitute “f***” stands for “fool” which the demon is suggesting to you, to be a good label for you to put on me.

I know that this culture has another “f” word, but I was not referring to that, as the context shows. I used the “f***” substitute for “fool” to minimize its repetition.

(more)

On the Subject of Fabrications and
Hypocritical Double Standards - Part 5

And so, if this is the case, that you thought this “f***” substitute for fool, was intended to signify the “f” word that is used so prevalently in this culture, you were in error. And you can add that to the list of points for which a repentance is required by you. When you falsely accuse, you need to walk it back with an apology, which is the spirit of repentance made manifest. Such steps are essential steps on the road to salvation.

This will give you, and everyone, a superb example of how, under the influence of the power of hatred, a person can go on and on and on, advancing an erroneous idea, thinking that they have this perfect “gotcha” moment, when in fact they have nothing. This energy of hatred, which you indulge, puts you outside the domain of Christ, which is by definition outside the domain of truth, where the Master cannot get through to the soul, and where his angels cannot get through to the soul, and thus, you come to this end, where I have to tell you the truth in this matter, which makes you feel foolish and ashamed in the eyes of the world, as well it should. As this is one of the consequence of indulging the energies of hatred. Or more precisely, this is one of the consequences associated with allowing yourself to be used as a transmission electrode for the energies of hatred into the world.

The commandment of Christ to “Love your Enemy” means to hold the balance of respect and civility in all situations in which you find yourself in a dispute, never allowing your feeling world to become gripped with any energy pattern less then respect. In this way only will you be able to hold your attunement with the Mind of Christ, and be an appropriate defender of truth in his name.

On the Subject of Fabrications and
Hypocritical Double Standards - Part 5
And so, if this is the case, that you thought this “f***” substitute for fool, was intended to signify the “f” word that is used so prevalently in this culture, you were in error. And you can add that to the list of points for which a repentance is required by you. When you falsely accuse, you need to walk it back with an apology, which is the spirit of repentance made manifest. Such steps are essential steps on the road to salvation.

This will give you, and everyone, a superb example of how, under the influence of the power of hatred, a person can go on and on and on, advancing an erroneous idea, thinking that they have this perfect “gotcha” moment, when in fact they have nothing. This energy of hatred, which you indulge, puts you outside the domain of Christ, which is by definition outside the domain of truth, where the Master cannot get through to the soul, and where his angels cannot get through to the soul, and thus, you come to this end, where I have to tell you the truth in this matter, which makes you feel foolish and ashamed in the eyes of the world, as well it should. As this is one of the consequence of indulging the energies of hatred. Or more precisely, this is one of the consequences associated with allowing yourself to be used as a transmission electrode for the energies of hatred into the world.

The commandment of Christ to “Love your Enemy” means to hold the balance of respect and civility in all situations in which you find yourself in a dispute, never allowing your feeling world to become gripped with any energy pattern less then respect. In this way only will you be able to hold your attunement with the Mind of Christ, and be an appropriate defender of truth in his name.

rco,
i haven't waded through your conversation w/mrmeaner, but glad s/he's kept you busy, and that you're still here.

if you're trying to get me to say it's MORE reasonable to propose an uncaused cause (for which we have absolutely no evidence) as the cause of the BB, than to say matter/energy are eternal, or some other hypothesis, then i can't do it. if that's a deal-beaker, and you really can't continue discussing things w/o that "concession", well then, so be it.

i say i can't do it because as soon as you say "uncaused cause", i think, "huh?" and then "what caused the uncaused cause?" i know you're claiming "uncaused cause", you can't just say "uncaused cause" and make it mean anything. it's just a nonsense expression.

but...if you would like to stick with "uncaused cause", then i'll propose "uncaused matter/energy" or something similar. since we have no idea how it all could have happened, we are both proposing things w/o analogues in our everyday world. neither option is any more reasonable/likely than the other.

now, i've repeatedly said that i'd like to continue investigating the assumption(s) you make about the uncaused cause. if you're up for that, let's go!

MRMEANER,

Part 1 of 2

Thanks again for the dialog. You have certainly piqued my interest and I would like to follow this through and understand your position on the issues that you raise. I find myself agreeing with some things you are saying and at the same time not quite following your reasoning on other things you are saying.

Hmmm. Well I can think of countless examples where God explains to a person or nation that they are going to suffer consequences, that he then outlines in detail, as punishment for an act. Often those punishments are executed by other people who were completely unaware that they were carrying out God’s judgment. So I guess my answer to that question would be *both*--MM

How would you reconcile your above contention with this passage?

Eph. 1:11In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

You also state:

I agree. In fact most of the Word is meant to be absorbed by all. Romans is one of those exceptions that requires your being informed, (or maybe chosen?)--MM

What would be the relevant application of that statement?

God has given us complete access. Man has taken upon himself to limit that access. Example;
The Book of Enoch is quoted in the Book of Jude, yet church leaders decided that the Book of Enoch wasn’t part of God’s Word. There are references in Joshua and in 2nd Samuel to The Book of Jasher.
Where is the Book of Jasher?

MRMEANER,

Part 2 of 2

First, if we apply that principle (that if a particular text is quoted in scripture the whole of that text should be considered the inspired Word of God) wouldn't we need to include the texts of Greek mythology as part of the inspired word of God? Notice:

Acts 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

Paul was here delivering his Mars Hill discourse in the presence of all the alters built to the mythological Greek gods at the Athenian Areopagus. He quotes the Greek philosophers. Surely you wouldn't contend that their writings should be included in the canon of scripture?

Secondly, you have alluded that 2 Esdras, the Book of Enoch, and the Book of Jasher should be included as part of the inspired Word of God. How familiar are you with these books? What parts of them would you contend are relevant information about God that is missing in the accepted canon?

There are portions of these books that contradict the accepted canon. When you come upon these contradictions, how do you determine which is correct: The 66 books of the Old & New Testaments or the books of 2 Esdras, Enoch, and Jasher?

I think that GE is referring to the Luke Ch.11 reference. Jesus did tell those among the scribes and Pharisees that they had taken away the keys to knowledge.

Within the context of Luke 11, precisely what was Christ contending that the scribes and Pharisees had done to “take away the keys to knowledge?”

You have raised some interesting issues in bringing up Melchisedec, the possibility of the pre-existence of souls, the issue of predestination, and the possibility of texts being erroneously excluded from the accepted canon. If I were to accept your positions thus far for the sake of argument, what would be your next step in advancing your apologetic on these points?

Peace, brother

RE: Here Is Another Reality Check

Why did GOD INSPIRE JOHN TO WRITE DOWN THESE WORDS? Was it meant to be a TEASE? NO! The Message of God in these words is clear. Don't be fooled. There is more. Go and look for it, and keep looking until you have it all.

Ok. So if I'm “fooled” and there is “more”....bring it. All you are doing is talking about there being more. Bring the “more.” Bring the texts that reveal the “more” to which you refer. Let's compare them to the bible and see how they fair. If all you have is your opinion, well, I, for one, am really not interested. Opinions are like "excrement cavities"—everybody's got one, so they aren't worth much.

In the meantime, you are constantly calling on me to “repent” for the “sins” you fabricate for me. You need to take a dose of your own medicine. I have posted your following hypocritical double standard three times how and you have completely ignored it. Nobody's fooled. Your hypocrisy is evident to all. Until you deal with this (and several other issues) you have no credibility with anyone who is actually paying attention.

****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
RCofield says “Bull.” Well, that is a step in the direction of profanity. And it is the more sinister, from the standpoint of heaven, in that you pull each reader into a state of participation with it, in way of completing the thoughtform, which everyone does.--GE

A small matter you might think. If it is a small matter, you will apologize and repent. Which the average Christian would do. If there is a larger force (of darkness) operating behind that utterance, you will not apologize and repent, because it will not allow you to. So, let's see what you will do here.--GE

Now, in your use of the word "BULL" in your post of January 17, 2011, 10:40 PM, You have been disobedient to this Commandment of Christ.--GE

====================================

The demon says to you, "Here, Rcofield, why don't you respond to this f*** like so?"--GE

================================

Mt. 23:2 The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat 3 ....do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. 4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

Hi MrMeaner,

You said:

My impression is that Melchisedec was called a man in the same sense that the name Gabriel means *mighty man of God*. We are made in their image

I don't follow you when you say that we are made in their image. Do you mean the image of angels? If so what do you mean?

As for your statement:

I tend to disagree with Pink’s views on Melchisedec for a couple of reasons. 1)Nowhere does it say that Melchisedec was “taken from among men”.

The context of Hebrews 5 seems to differ.

"Every high priest is selected from among men and is appointed to represent them in matters related to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins....No one takes this honor upon himself: he must be called by God, just as Aaron was. So Jesus did not take upon Himself the glory of becoming a high priest. But God said to Him, 'You are My Son; today I have become Your Father.' And He says in another place, 'You are a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek.' During the days of Jesus' life on earth, He offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the One who could save Him from death, and He was heard because of His reverent submission." (Hebrews 5:1, 4-7)

So Jesus became a man to offer gifts and sacrifices to fulfill the role of high priest in offering Himself to God to intercede and mediate for His people.

Aside from that, Melchizedek, we are told (Gen. 14:18), was king of Salem. It seems to suggest that he was an earthly king. Either way we are not told outright whether or not Jesus was Melchizedek, but in Hebrews we are told a few times that He was a priest after the order of Melchizedek and twice that Jesus was like Melchizedek.

Inasmuch as there was no established priesthood, and no chosen people, I doubt he would leave that duty to a flesh man. If Melchisedec was a flesh man who was able to give blessings on God's behalf, that's a story even more interesting than Abraham's, who received the blessing.

This man, however did not trace his descent from Levi, yet he collected a tenth from Abraham and blessed him who had the promise.

So your reasoning about Melchizedek is conjecture, just as mine is.

It would mean that there had to have been an earlier “Word of God”, to which Melchisedec would have had access.

I don't follow your reasoning here.

MrMeaner says, “How many people would continue to observe "Easter", if they were aware ...”

This is the first time I have heard an objection to the celebration of Easter.

So, the only thing I can do, is to give you my sense of why its ok. Then you can come back and tell me where I am wrong.

As to the central reason that “Easter” is celebrated, the Resurrection, it is a major theme of the whole life and ministry of Jesus Christ, as you know, the most dramatic part of the finale as it were, where the Master proved that he had the Power of over Death. I believe it is fitting that the church calendar should contain a time to celebrate this event in the life of the Lord Christ. And spring time, where life on earth bursts out anew strikes me as appropriate.

Concerning the term “Easter”, or its origin, this doesn’t strike me as major consideration. Isn’t that sort of like Billy Graham coopting a football stadium built and designed for something else entirely, for use to gather the people together to hear the gospel? The origin of the football stadium, and the origin of the “easter” as you say, may not have been inherently Christian, yet once “built” they could be used for a higher purpose.

Spring time itself represents God’s creative power blossoming forth, and this event was coopted by cultures untutored in higher spiritual principles. Perhaps it is just that Christianity reclaim it?

Nevertheless, if you think the term “Easter” is not appropriate, feel free to make the case for another title. A rose by any other name, as they say, would smell as sweet.

John 21:25 - And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

"Here is a statement of truth which tells us that we only really know a very tiny portion of the whole story of the Master Jesus Christ. It’s like an ocean of radiant light is there in the record, as to what Jesus Christ said and did, and yet, we have in our hands only one small thimble full.
Why did GOD INSPIRE JOHN TO WRITE DOWN THESE WORDS? Was it meant to be a TEASE? NO! The Message of God in these words is clear. Don't be fooled. There is more. Go and look for it, and keep looking until you have it all."
_____________

I believe that there are many truths written in scripture that are obscured by limiting studies to pre-translated texts.
How many even know that there are three different words translated "world" in the NT, all with very different meanings?
Here's another one;
How many people would continue to observe "Easter", if they were aware that the only time the word is used, which is in Acts 12;4, it is a translation of the word "pascha", meaning Passover?
I wonder how many of those who would still observe it, would do so after learning that the only places in the Bible where the actual word from which we get "Easter" is used, are when referring to the idol-goddess, Ashtoreth?

Of course, there are also the mistakes passed down by teachers with poor reading comprehension.
How many times have you heard a sermon, where the speaker"s "verses of wisdom"....turn out to be the words of the idiots who were filling Job's head with nonsense, in the first 30 + chapters of that book?

If it weren't so sad, it would be funny sometimes

Yes, that a righteous mask could be placed on the very heart of hatred, fooling the very elect.

Here is Another Reality Check

What is really in the heart of an individual? What is really there? When a person comes upon this piece of scripture, which I take as an INFALLIBLE expression of the truth, coming as it does from the Apostle John who knew the Master Jesus Christ the best, what is their reaction?

John 21:25 - And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Here is a statement of truth which tells us that we only really know a very tiny portion of the whole story of the Master Jesus Christ. It’s like an ocean of radiant light is there in the record, as to what Jesus Christ said and did, and yet, we have in our hands only one small thimble full.

Why did GOD INSPIRE JOHN TO WRITE DOWN THESE WORDS? Was it meant to be a TEASE? NO! The Message of God in these words is clear. Don't be fooled. There is more. Go and look for it, and keep looking until you have it all.

Now, you would think that if a person has love in their heart for the Master Jesus Christ, they would want to hear more of his story. Indeed, tell me more. You would think that if a person had love in their heart for God, you would think they would want to hear more of what Jesus Christ had to say about God, as the Master Jesus Christ has been the best spokesman for God the Father we have had thus far.

A person that had love in their heart in the direction of God and His Son, and their ways and traditions and so forth, would naturally have an open and searching outlook, because there is a thirst there, born of love, to know more. The Master spoke to these individuals when he said, “Seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you.”

Now, on the other hand, if a person has hatred in their Heart for God, if a person has hatred in their Heart for His Son, then that person would think that Jesus Christ has already said far too much. They have no desire to hear more. And so, they declare that whatever has been given thus far, that it is "ultimate" and “final”, that no additional information can come forth, and any additional information that comes to light, they stamp on it as if it were a poisonous weed.

And this agenda of hatred has been passed down generation unto generation blocking progressive revelation from the very days of Jesus Christ himself.

I think there is a statement by the Lord Christ, given to us, to help us sort out, those who have love in their hearts, from those who have hate in their hearts. I think the Master said, “you will know them by their fruits.”

Why did the Master give us this teaching? Why would we have trouble knowing people for who they really are? It’s like the Master looked ahead, and somehow he knew, that we would face many kinds of confusions and deceptions in this regard.

PH

My impression is that Melchisedec was called a man in the same sense that the name Gabriel means *mighty man of God*. We are made in their image
I tend to disagree with Pink’s views on Melchisedec for a couple of reasons.
1)Nowhere does it say that Melchisedec was “taken from among men”. And while the nonsense about hi s descent not being recorded due to being from from some prior “order” of priests, sounds good for someone trying to make scripture fit their prejudiced view, it’s laughable when you consider that “order” as it is used in Psalms 110:4 is a word that means “a reason”, which is from a root meaning *a word, matter, or thing”.

Inasmuch as there was no established priesthood, and no chosen people, I doubt he would leave that duty to a flesh man. If Melchisedec was a flesh man who was able to give blessings on God's behalf, that's a story even more interesting than Abraham's, who received the blessing. It would mean that there had to have been an earlier “Word of God”, to which Melchisedec would have had access.
______________________

RC

“when you see God predestining something in scripture, do you see God as doing so as a response to events, circumstances, and individual choices? Or, do you see the predestining acts of God as originating exclusively from the perfection of His own holy will without any external influence (i.e. events/circumstances/individual choices)?”

Hmmm. Well I can think of countless examples where God explains to a person or nation that they are going to suffer consequences, that he then outlines in detail, as punishment for an act. Often those punishments are executed by other people who were completely unaware that they were carrying out God’s judgment. So I guess my answer to that question would be *both*

“That being said, it seems to me there is little question that much of scripture is descriptive of the whole of mankind. For example, Paul argues beginning in Ro. 1:18 and running through 3:20 that the entire world of humanity is under the condemnation of God because of sin, concluding that section as follows:”

I agree. In fact most of the Word is meant to be absorbed by all. Romans is one of those exceptions that requires your being informed, (or maybe chosen?)

PT 1

“I think there is an inherent danger in this contention that God has not given us complete access to His revelation of himself and his Son in his Word. Scripture is clear that God has given us everything we need to know about Him.”

God has given us complete access. Man has taken upon himself to limit that access.
Example;
The Book of Enoch is quoted in the Book of Jude, yet church leaders decided that the Book of Enoch wasn’t part of God’s Word.
There are references in Joshua and in 2nd Samuel to The Book of Jasher.
Where is the Book of Jasher?

“1 Ti. 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect (or complete), thoroughly furnished (equipped) unto all good works.”

All scripture is given by inspiration of God. But once again, at the time of this writing, there was scripture that has since been removed from “The Official Word of God”.
I think that GE is referring to the Luke Ch.11 reference. Jesus did tell those among the scribes and Pharisees that they had taken away the keys to knowledge.

PT 2

Hi RCofield,

I'm enjoying the teachings from your church!

It is hard to know how to understand Melchizedek. It does say in the NIV that he is 'like the Son of Man.' Does that mean typology or theophany/pre-incarnation?

I've heard both sides from Reformed theologians.

Still no word from Pam. Walter seems to be having a hard time justifying his position. I'm not sure if that is why he is posting less frequently? I was so looking forward to see how the argument developed. I was hoping to learn.

I'm also following your posts with Gladerunner and MrMeaner. Gladerunner has really bought into relativism/postmodernism, in my opinion. He tries to deconstruct any argument you throw at him, but his whole philosophy rests on thin air since he rests his authority on himself and on how well he can judge things truly/on how things really are, or really happened.

He disparages Aristotelean logic, but I don't see how you can do that and still make sense of anything. Aristotle expounded on something logically necessary just like the laws of gravity. He can say they are archaic, but he cannot live believing they are archaic.

RCofield says “Bull.” Well, that is a step in the direction of profanity. And it is the more sinister, from the standpoint of heaven, in that you pull each reader into a state of participation with it, in way of completing the thoughtform, which everyone does.--GE

A small matter you might think. If it is a small matter, you will apologize and repent. Which the average Christian would do. If there is a larger force (of darkness) operating behind that utterance, you will not apologize and repent, because it will not allow you to. So, let's see what you will do here.--GE

Now, in your use of the word "BULL" in your post of January 17, 2011, 10:40 PM, You have been disobedient to this Commandment of Christ.--GE
====================================

The demon says to you, "Here, Rcofield, why don't you respond to this f*** like so?"--GE
================================

Mt. 23:2 The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat 3 ....do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. 4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

”As to this assertion that “Works comes after salvation” I would say OK”.—GE

”I have repeatedly made the case that Obedience to the Commandments of Christ is a perquisite for salvation.”—GE
==============================

Mt. 5:37Let what you say be simply 'Yes' or 'No'; anything more than this comes from evil.

At no time up to this point have you, RcoField, said anything positive about the quality of obedience.—GE

Moreover, you have had many opportunities to draw the distinction that you are making now, and you have never done so.—GE

If you had made this distinction before, you would be on the record saying something positive about obedience itself, and this is something you have not done.--GE
===================================

“You are confusing the doing of good works (obedience) out of sheer gratitude for so great a salvation and the doing of good works (obedience) to earn salvation (which cannot be done).” POSTED BY: RCOFIELD—JANUARY 3, 2011 11:25 PM
===============================

Exodus 20:16 "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

What Does it Really Mean
To Believe in Christ? - Part 1

To Believe in Christ means that you must Believe in God. Then, to Believe in Christ, is to believe that Christ is the Son of God. This is the foundation upon which the higher superstructure of belief is built.

Building upon that, to Believe in Christ, is to believe that his words represent the Highest Wisdom of which the Mind of God is capable of expressing for the ACCOMPLISHMENT of the Highest Purpose for which the Mind of God is capable of conceiving.

What is that Highest Purpose? It is to lead the fallen soul back into the Heavenly Kingdom from whence it fell.

To Believe in Christ, is to believe that his words --- being of the highest wisdom and expressing the highest purpose --- faithfully and accurately mark out the precise path by which we are intended to find our way back into the Heavenly Kingdom.

To Believe in Christ, is to believe that his words mark out for us --- as the Master Cartographer draws a radiant line of true knowledge upon the map of salvation --- the one and only Yellow Brick Road, unto the Emerald City.

To genuinely appreciate the Wisdom of Christ, is to genuinely appreciate the origin of that wisdom (God). To genuinely appreciate the Wisdom of Christ, is to genuinely understand and appreciate the high purpose for which that wisdom is being expressed to us. To genuinely understand and appreciate that high purpose, is to genuinely understand and appreciate the importance of obedience to his words, especially when they take the form of commandments.

As a general rule, the guides which lead climbers to the top of high mountains, require the odedience of the people they lead. When the guide says, don’t step there, or you will fall off the mountain, he expects obedience. If the climber is disobedient, and he steps there, he will surely fall off the mountain, and perhaps carry many over the side with him.

Therefore, to obey the Commandments of Christ, is to follow in his footsteps, and thus arrive safely in the Heavenly Kingdom.

The decision to DISOBEY his words, is the decision to REFUSE to follow in his footsteps, for which the soul will always pay the consequences. Clearly, to refuse to follow in his footsteps, is to NEVER arrive in the Heavenly Kingdom.

That is why the Master spoke these words,which were faithfully recorded in the Book of John, Chapter 3, verse 36, “He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life; but he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.”

(more)

What Does it Really Mean
To Believe in Christ? - Part 2

“He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life”, because that person Believes in Christ in the manner described above, holding each word of the MOUNTAIN GUIDE as a sacred and necessary directive, and therefore, understanding the importance of following the directives, he obeys them, arriving safely in the Heavenly Kingdom.

“But he that obeyeth not the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him,” because that person, does not Believe in Christ in the manner described above, does not genuinely understand or appreciate the value and purpose of his words, and thus will not obey them, and in not obeying, the individual falls off the mountain, and crashes to the bottom of the canyon.

The wrath of God is to be understood simply as God refusing to hold out his hand to catch the disobedient climber. The disobedient climber will fall to the bottom of the canyon, and in this way, come to learn the value of obedience.

And yes, he will be given another chance to exercise his new found appreciation for obedience.

Choices have consequences. The salvation of no one is guaranteed, until they learn how to be obedient to the mountain guide who God sent to us in the Person of Jesus Christ. The salvation of no one is guaranteed, until they learn how to be obedient, unto that guide, even unto the end. For indeed, a slip off the mountain just as you are about to approach the summit, is just as catastrophic as a slip off a lower trail, perhaps more so.


(end)

Hey Peter,

Good to see you back, brother.

Have you seen any sign of Walter? He seems to have disappeared on us. I hope he is OK.

And Pam. Have you run across her anywhere else on these threads? I'm still confounded by her sudden disappearance.

Pink's statements on Melchisedec (sp?) were interesting. Hadn't thought about it in those terms. He may have been on to something, at least in part anyway.

Peace, brother.

At no time up to this point have you, RcoField, said anything positive about the quality of obedience.—GE

Moreover, you have had many opportunities to draw the distinction that you are making now, and you have never done so.—GE

If you had made this distinction before, you would be on the record saying something positive about obedience itself, and this is something you have not done.--GE
===================================

“You are confusing the doing of good works (obedience) out of sheer gratitude for so great a salvation and the doing of good works (obedience) to earn salvation (which cannot be done).” POSTED BY: RCOFIELD—JANUARY 3, 2011 11:25 PM

”As to this assertion that “Works comes after salvation” I would say OK”.—GE

”I have repeatedly made the case that Obedience to the Commandments of Christ is a perquisite for salvation.”—GE

RCofield says “Bull.” Well, that is a step in the direction of profanity. And it is the more sinister, from the standpoint of heaven, in that you pull each reader into a state of participation with it, in way of completing the thoughtform, which everyone does.--GE

A small matter you might think. If it is a small matter, you will apologize and repent. Which the average Christian would do. If there is a larger force (of darkness) operating behind that utterance, you will not apologize and repent, because it will not allow you to. So, let's see what you will do here.--GE

Now, in your use of the word "BULL" in your post of January 17, 2011, 10:40 PM, You have been disobedient to this Commandment of Christ.--GE
====================================

The demon says to you, "Here, Rcofield, why don't you respond to this f*** like so?"--GE

Hi MrMeaner,

You said:

I believe the elect will have to face persecution, and may be martyred for their testimony. (Luke 12:9-12, 21;12-15, Mk 13:9-11, Rev. 12:7-17...with a "posthumous" appearance by one of them, in Rev 19:10)-Mr.M

I see the fulfillment of these verses as having taken place in the first century, although the principle is true for us today regarding persecution also.

The audience in context were His disciples, for he says in Luke 12:11, 'When you are brought before synagogues, rulers and authorities...'

Luke 21:12-15/Matthew 24, part of the Olivetti discourse, also suggests primarily a first century audience. His disciples question Him about the Temple and its destruction. It is the time of Jacob's trouble spoken of in Daniel 9 with Luke 21:22-24 also suggesting judgment on Israel/Jacob for rejecting their Messiah.

The book of Acts lists several examples of fulfillment of these prophesies by Paul and others who spoke in the synagogues and were taken before leaders and rulers.

MRMEANER,

Part 1 of 4

Thanks for the dialog. I'll briefly address the earlier statements of your most recent post and ask a few questions by way of clarification. I'll then focus on one of the latter statements of you post in more detail.

I see one thing that may be keeping us off the same page. While I mostly agree with your thoughts on the spiritual elements of salvation, I think we have a difference on pre-destination.--MM

That may well be. I get something of a gist of what you understand predestination to mean in this post, but maybe it would be helpful if you could clarify it a little more. For example, when you see God predestining something in scripture, do you see God as doing so as a response to events, circumstances, and individual choices? Or, do you see the predestining acts of God as originating exclusively from the perfection of His own holy will without any external influence (i.e. events/circumstances/individual choices)?

I have always believed that Romans was specifically targeted toward God's elect, not the whole of man-kind. 1:5-7—MM

I agree. The whole of scripture is addressed to those who have and those who will believe the testimony God has given us in His Word concerning His Son. That being said, it seems to me there is little question that much of scripture is descriptive of the whole of mankind. For example, Paul argues beginning in Ro. 1:18 and running through 3:20 that the entire world of humanity is under the condemnation of God because of sin, concluding that section as follows:

Ro. 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

MRMEANER,

Part 2 of 4

Clearly the book of Roman's has a great deal to say about the “non-elect,” even if not directly addressed to them.

I think further clarification on your understanding of divine predestination will shed light on the remainder of your statements addressed from that issue. I want to address the statements you made to GE at the end of your last post to me.

GE offered Jn. 21:25 and then posited the following exegetically erroneous conclusion:

What does this mean? This means that if we knew everything that Jesus Christ did and said, we would have, conservatively speaking, 10 Billion Bibles in front of us. That’s what it means......This it what it means. A spirit of darkness, is asking, through Rcofield, this question, “Do you have a brain like unto a thimble?” Or more precisely, “Are you with us, in our attempt to make sure that God does not tell us anymore about what Jesus Christ did during his three year ministry?” --GE

To which you responded:

And yes to GE. I would agree that we don't have complete access to all of God's Word. But I have no doubt that all 66 books of the KJV are legit. I also believe that some Apocraphal works are legit. 2nd Esdras, for example.

Give special attention to that last question posed by GE. I'm not sure to what extent he is aware of this, but there are several “Gnostic Gospels” that are extant from late second century through the late fourth century which claim exactly that: Knowledge about things that Jesus supposedly did during his earthly ministry that are “lacking” in the New Testament canon.

The only problem is, these Gnostic writings are filled with postulations that directly contradict most of the New Testament. GE is trying to open a Pandora's box of theological error here. Interestingly enough, though he has never acknowledged such, many of his....shall I say “unorthodox” beliefs?....--such as reincarnation and his views concerning the meaning of Christ's death on the cross are in perfect accord with these aberrant “gospels.”

MRMEANER,

Part 3 of 4

I think there is an inherent danger in this contention that God has not given us complete access to His revelation of himself and his Son in his Word. Scripture is clear that God has given us everything we need to know about Him. Consider:

2 Pe. 1:2 Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, 3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: 4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

Notice that the apostle declares there is nothing lacking for the child of God in the revelation of God. We have everything necessary for life, godliness, virtue, becoming partakers of the divine nature, and escaping the corruption of worldly lusts. GoldenEagles is essentially saying that the Apostle Peter was lying when he made this statement (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) because we still lack the “key” to unlocking the “promise” of Christ. Notice further this statement by Paul:

1 Ti. 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect (or complete), thoroughly furnished (equipped) unto all good works.

Paul is flatly stating the sufficiency of scripture here. That which is given by the inspiration of God (you agreed that this was the 66 books of the OT & NT) is sufficient for: 1) Reproving us when we are in sin, 2) Correcting our thinking when we stray from the truth, 3) Instructing us how to live righteously, 4) Making us “complete” in Christ, and 5) Equipping us for every necessary good work. This is completely antithetical to what GE has contended for months on these threads.

This boils down to a rather simple question: Is GE right or was the Apostles Peter and Paul right? I'm going with Peter and Paul.

MRMEANER,

Part 4 of 4

This contention that God has somehow “withheld” some good thing, some portion of truth that is keeping us from reaching our “full potential,” has its roots in the temptation offered by the Serpent in the Garden of Eden. Notice how he tempted our first parents:

Ge. 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Remembering the prohibition of God that they not eat of the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, notice what is implied in the temptation offered by the Serpent: “God is holding out on you. He hasn't told you everything you need to know! If you will just eat of this tree you will have knowledge that God has selfishly withheld from you.”

Is this not exactly what GE is implying in his assertion that God's revelation of himself in scripture is not sufficient for us? GoldeEagles is implying exactly the same thing that the Serpent implied to Adam and Eve which caused them to sin against God.

God had given them everything they needed to know to live in right relationship with Him, including the command not to eat of the tree. But Adam and Eve, just like GoldenEagles, bought into the lie that God had withheld knowledge from them that was vital to their well-being. They trusted their own “reasoning” (just like GE) apart from the clear revelation of God's command not to eat of the tree. They embraced the lie, and as a result they determined (by their own reasoning) that evil (disobeying God's clear word) was actually good. You know the rest of the story.

I actually just preached two messages on these very points from Genesis 3:6 this past Sunday and the Sunday before. They can be viewed here:

http://vimeo.com/18633803 http://vimeo.com/18914809

The consequences of seeking knowledge outside of the revealed word of God through the use of our own senses and reasoning is deadly. I'm sure that you will agree with this given your affirmation of the authoritative nature of the canon of scripture.

Peace, brother.

Hi MrMeaner,

I found your question on Melchizedek hard to answer too.

Who was Mechisedec, and why wasn't he the Messiah? Mr.M

I, like RCofield, have thought he could be a theophanic or pre-incarnate appearance of the Lord Jesus Christ because of the language used of him in Hebrews 7, but A.W. Pink offers another opinion.

Pinks says:
That Melchizedek was not a superhuman creature, a divine or angelic being, is unequivocally established by Hebrews 5:1, where we are expressly told, “For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God”.
To be possessed of human nature is an essential prerequisite in order for one to occupy and exercise the sacerdotal office. The Son of God could not serve as Priest till He became incarnate. Observe carefully how that in verse 4 Melchizedek [I think verse 6] is expressly declared to be a “man”. What, then, it may be asked, is the meaning of the strange statements about him in verse 3? We answer, their meaning is to be explained on the principle of the apostle’s subject in this passage. “Without father, without mother, without descent”. Now in connection with the Aaronic priesthood, personal genealogy was a vital prerequisite, hence the great care with which they preserved their pedigree: see Ezra 2:61,62. But, in contradistinction from them, Melchizedek was priest of an order where natural descent was not regarded, an order free from the restrictions of the Levitical, Numbers 3:10, etc; therefore was he an accurate type of Christ, who belonged not to the tribe of Levi. Neither the book of Genesis, nor any of the later scriptures, say a word about Melchizedek’s parentage, and this silence was a part of the type. “Having neither beginning of days nor end of life” is to be explained on the same principle. The Jewish priests “began” their “days” as priests at the age of twenty-five, when they were permitted to wait upon their brethren: Numbers 8:24 and cf. 1 Chronicles 23:27,28. At the age of thirty they began their regular priestly duties: Numbers 4:3. At the age of fifty their priestly “life” ended: “from the age of fifty years they shall cease waiting upon the service, and shall serve no more” ( Numbers 8:25). But no such restriction was placed upon the sacerdotal ministry of Melchizedek: so, in this too, he was an eminent type of Christ. “But made like unto the Son of God”, or, more literally “but assimilated to the Son of God”. It is very striking to note that it is not the Son of God who was “assimilated to Melchizedek”, but vice versa. In the order of time Christ subsisted before Melchizedek; in the order of nature, Melchizedek was a priest before Christ was. The priesthood of the Son of God, ordained and appointed by the Eternal Three, was the original, and Melchizedek’s priesthood furnished the copy, and a copy given in advance is the same thing as the type. Melchizedek was “assimilated to the Son of God” as a type.

MRMEANER,

Thanks for the reply. Had a rather long day, just getting wrapped up.

Will reply tomorrow.

Peace

GE
Again, that is an area where I'm not quite comfortable giving a complete answer.
I'm pretty sure I know what you're fishing for, and I'm not sure I can make that same leap. Let me just say that my understanding is, since Jesus was the last Adam, the sin that brought about mortality was redeemed, so man-kind doesn't necessarily have to complete the same path. I think that if they come to believe, understand why they believe, and have the change in heart that comes from understanding, which
leads to their living according to his will, their salvation is secure.

I believe the elect will have to face persecution, and may be martyred for their testimony.
(Luke 12:9-12, 21;12-15, Mk 13:9-11, Rev. 12:7-17...with a "posthumous" appearance by one of them, in Rev 19:10)

MrMeaner says, "And yes to GE. I would agree that we don't have complete access to all of God's Word."

That may be one reason that Christians have not figured out how to fulfill the promise made by the Master Jesus Christ in John 14:12.

He said, "he that believeth on me ..." SHALL do such and such.

Perhaps the belief structure referred to by the Master there, which he establishes as the criteria for doing the works, and so forth, is incomplete.

In other words, when the Master said, "He that believeth on me," he had in his mind an exact definition for what it means to believe on him. And perhaps Christians don't have the necessary information to completely understand what he was saying there.

Because of incomplete information, they cannot anchor the proper belief structure, and therefore, cannot fulfill the promise.

What do you think?

RC;

I see one thing that may be keeping us off the same page.
While I mostly agree with your thoughts on the spiritual elements of salvation, I think we have a difference on pre-destination.
I have always believed that Romans was specifically targeted toward God's elect, not the whole of man-kind.
1:5-7
It are his elect who are chosen before the casting down (foundation) of the world.
It is his elect that have already been judged and declared just, because he knew them from before, and predestined them to be jointly formed (conformed) to the likeness (image) of Christ.
This is why, in my mind, there has to have been a pre-existence of the soul, in some form.
Otherwise, we're just performers of an already completed script, and quite insane.

For those who aren't chosen, my feeling is that it was deserved. And not because God already knew that they wouldn't choose good, but as punishment for not having chosen good.
Their future is still in question.
The future of God's elect is already set.

And yes to GE.
I would agree that we don't have complete access to all of God's Word.
But I have no doubt that all 66 books of the KJV are legit.
I also believe that some Apocraphal works are legit. 2nd Esdras, for example.

RCofield says “Bull.” Well, that is a step in the direction of profanity. And it is the more sinister, from the standpoint of heaven, in that you pull each reader into a state of participation with it, in way of completing the thoughtform, which everyone does.--GE

A small matter you might think. If it is a small matter, you will apologize and repent. Which the average Christian would do. If there is a larger force (of darkness) operating behind that utterance, you will not apologize and repent, because it will not allow you to. So, let's see what you will do here.--GE

Now, in your use of the word "BULL" in your post of January 17, 2011, 10:40 PM, You have been disobedient to this Commandment of Christ.--GE

The demon says to you, "Here, Rcofield, why don't you respond to this f*** like so?"--GE

66 Books as Ultimate Authority?

Rcofield asks of MrMeaner, "... do you, as a professing Christian, accept the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments as the ultimate and final authority for us in all matters?"

And MrMeaner replies, “Without question.”

MrMeaner then qualifies his answer, “That's not to say that I don't have other sources I use to fill in missing details, but I'm quick to label my conclusions drawn from those sources as "possibilities".”

At the very minimum, I think MrMeaner has read this INFALLIBLE piece of scripture:

John 21:25 - And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

What does this mean? This means that if we knew everything that Jesus Christ did and said, we would have, conservatively speaking, 10 Billion Bibles in front of us. That’s what it means.

Yet we have only one. A very small book by comparison.

And so we must ask, what is the essence of this question asked by Rcofield, "First, do you, as a professing Christian, accept the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments as the ultimate and final authority for us in all matters?"

This it what it means. A spirit of darkness, is asking, through Rcofield, this question, “Do you have a brain like unto a thimble?” Or more precisely, “Are you with us, in our attempt to make sure that God does not tell us anymore about what Jesus Christ did during his three year ministry?”

Why would anybody in their right mind want to shut God up, keep God quiet, if he wanted to release a small fraction of those 10 billion books?

Serpent (the domain of fallen angels and demons) have succeeded in twisting what has been given in this tiny bible we have, into a slew of false doctrines, by which they control the people, and make of the original teaching a dead letter, and they don’t want their control to be comprised by additional information which would expose them. That is the agenda behind RcoField’s question.

Surely, we have evidence to this exact state of affairs, in the fact that the Christian Community has completely lost the key, that would unlock the promise of Jesus Christ in John 14:12, as follows:

John 14:12 - “Verily Verily I say unto you, he that believeth on me, the works that I do, shall he do also, and greater works than these shall he do, because I go unto my Father.”

Surely, MrMeaner, you would agree with me, that if Christians knew how to fulfill this promise, if we had even 100 Christians who could do this, who could teach a 1000, and then 10,000, that this would absolutely transform our planet, and fulfill the dream of Jesus Christ himself, for which he taught us to pray, “Thy Kingdom Come, Thy Will Be Done, On Earth as it is in Heaven"?

Getting Down to Business - Part 1

Good Morning Rcofield,

I see you have reverted to your Mr. Hyde personality again. No, I don’t think there is anyone on planet earth who would believe that your post of January 18, 2011 12:02AM represents the expression of the Spirit of Christ. (I think Proverbs 16:18 describes it best). That is your mockery and condescension mode again. And at the end you top it off with another expression of rebellion against the Commandment of Christ to “weary not in well doing.” This is really a pattern with you. Whenever we get close to the truth, you run away from civilized discourse.

Placing the victim in this spitting and biting behavior mode represents the serpent strategy of intimidating people into silence. The serpent has its slave, and intends to keep it. When the subject gets too sensitive concerning what is really going on, the controlling serpent begins to spit venom, through your own tongue, and the fearful back off, and the serpent lives on to intimidate others.

Let us get down to business.

Truly, in that post (January 18, 2011 12:02AM) you are making a mockery of obedience unto the Commandment of Christ.

The issue of obedience is now on center stage since you have declared, “I DO INDEED BELIEVE WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO OBEY CHRIST.” (January 17, 2011 6:21 PM)

This simple situation we have here in your use of the word “BULL” will give all of us a sense as to what depth of sincerity goes with those words.

The primary Commandment of Christ in play here is recorded in Matthew 5:37

Matthew 5:37 - “But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.”

Now, in your use of the word "BULL" in your post of January 17, 2011, 10:40 PM, You have been disobedient to this Commandment of Christ.

Yet, as noted, you have also said, “I DO INDEED BELIEVE WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO OBEY CHRIST.”

Here is an opportunity for you to fulfill this responsibility, to move from disobedience to obedience on this small point.

This is the question. Is there, within you, a spirit of willingness, to move from disobedience to obedience on this small point?

Matthew 25:21 - “His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.”

When confronting the responsibility to move from disobedience to obedience on this small point, what did we see expressed in your post of January 18, 2011 12:02AM? We did not see the spirit of willingness expressed there. Concerning this responsibility that was before you, we saw the spirit of mockery and condescension expressed there.

(more)

Getting Down to Business - Part 2

The Master’s statement regarding the spirit of disobedience is instructive:

John 14:15 - If ye love me, ye will keep my commandments.

That which will not be obedient, and mocks the responsibility to move from disobedience to obedience, is not love for Christ. It is a spirit of hatred for Christ. That is the teaching. If you believe in the infallibility of scripture, which you say you do, you must therefore accept this reality, that the spirit of Hatred for Christ is expressing through you.

We can see the confluence here between A) the hatred for One Billion Catholics you indulge, and B) this spirit of disobedience which is the spirit of hatred for Christ himself, which has effectively blocked your path into the domain of obedience thus far.

These two streams of hatred are one, and they have their origin in a demonic presence that has a hold of your feeling world.

It is important Rcofield, that you understand this spirit of darkness for what it is, and make the decision to stop allowing it to flow through you. This is the essence of the choice to move from a state of disobedience to obedience. It is the choice to stop allowing the forces of darkness to push you into a state of disobedience, allowing you to stand more firmly in the Power of Christ, which is the Power of Love, which is the Power of Obedience. For there are consequences associated with continued disobedience, as the Master says:

John 5:14 - Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing befall thee.

The consequence of continued disobedience is that a worse thing will fall on you. That is the Teaching, and that is what you can expect. This is why the state of disobedience will bar a person from receiving the gift of salvation. You cannot both have a worse thing fall on you, and salvation too.

You have a path before you, on this small point, to move from disobedience to obedience. Yet the serpent currently blocks your path. If you do not make the effort to defeat that serpent now, believing that you will be “saved” regardless of your state of disobedience, you will actually prove correct my previous statement, that you do not believe you have any responsibility to obey Christ. Here is an opportunity, and you don’t do it. Why? Because you believe you don’t need to do it, you will be “saved” anyway. And your recent statement “I DO INDEED BELIEVE WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO OBEY CHRIST.” will be clearly exposed as only a fig leaf manufactured by the resident serpent to hide behind.

(end)

Dr. Shukla equivocates Muslim violence with Tea Party rhetoric. This is a vile analogy with no rational link. Muslims actually call for the physical death of blasphemers. There are several branches of Islam that actively promote, train and send out suicide bombers.

Active violent religious training (over a thousand years) is COMPLETELY different from rigorous political speech that merely uses battle metaphors (and has for 2 hundred years) in a non-violent speech context.

Unless Limbaugh and Palin are secretly training suicide bombers, your comparison shows magnificent misunderstanding of important issues.

MRMEANER,

Part 1 of 3

Regarding the two following questions I posed to you:

Secondly, what precisely do you mean when you say that “overcoming burdens” makes us “worthy of salvation?”--RCO

Thirdly, could you maybe expand on your statement that salvation “isn’t free?”

I posed the questions because of our natural tendency to feel that we can somehow “earn” our salvation. While it doesn't appear that you are of that persuasion, I try to be cautious when I encounter the language I was questioning you about.

As I understand “salvation” from scripture, there are the necessary elements of regeneration, justification, sanctification, and, ultimately, glorification.

I understand scripture to teach our regeneration is a supernatural act of God whereby he gives us spiritual life from the spiritual death of sin. This, I think, is what most people refer to as being “born again” or being “saved.” This I understand to be an act that God alone accomplishes in that we are in no way capable of “birthing” ourselves into the kingdom of God. (cf. John 3:1-8, Eph. 2:1-10)

I further understand scripture to teach the necessity of our justification (presently—in this life) before God. Given that we, even after being regenerated (born form above/born again), are not yet sinless, we cannot life in relation to God without being justified in his sight. Paul articulates brilliantly the means whereby we are justified in Romans chapters 1-5. After establishing beyond doubt that all men are sinful and therefore under condemnation—completely incapable of justifying ourselves before him through perfect obedience to the law—Paul makes the following statements:

Ro. 3:21But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.

MRMEANER,

Part 2 of 3

This “righteousness that is from God” is the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ, and it is inputed (credited/accounted) to us by God when we believe. The ground of our justification is found in the “propitiation” (atonement) that Christ has made for the sins of all who believe. Christ “bore our sins in his body on the tree” (1 Pe. 2:24), thus taking upon himself the just wrath of God against our sins and bearing their penalty in our stead. Christ's life of perfect obedience is “credited” to us by God, and this becomes the means whereby we stand freely and forensically justified before God, per 2 Co. 5:21:

21For he hath made him to be sin for us (atonement), who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him (imputed righteousness).

The holy wrath of God against our sin is therefore ceased toward those thus atoned for and thus justified.

However, this in no way means that we are without sin while still in our mortal bodies, nor does it mean that be go on sinning with impunity. Notice Paul's warning:

Ro. 6:1What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?....6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

Having been freely regenerated and freely justified, we cannot continue in unchecked patterns of sin because we have been given victory over sin through the death and resurrection of Christ. This is where sanctification becomes relevant.

I understand the work of sanctification to be a progressive work in the life of true believers that necessarily follows after regeneration/justification (salvation of the soul). This is a work that continues through-out the life of the believer whereby we become more and more conformed to the image of Jesus Christ (Ro. 8:28-30). Notice the appeal of Paul, after gloriously unfolding the doctrine of justification by faith in chapters 1-11 of Romans when he says:

Ro. 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.  2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

MRMEANER,

Part 3 of 3

His appeal, prefaced by “therefore” (which refers back to chapters 1-11—the mercies of God in justifying us freely by His grace), calls on us to deal with the remaining sin in our bodies. This, says Paul, is the only reasonable response to so great a salvation! Our sanctification consists of refusing to be pressed into the mold of the fallen world (be not conformed to this world), and a constant pursuit of being transformed into the image of Christ as we obey and follow him. This process of sanctification—and only this process of sanctification—gives evidence that “proves” we have been genuinely “born again” (regenerated) and freely justified. Thus our “good works” or “obedience” is not the means of earning our salvation, but is rather the fruit of sheer gratitude that we have been saved.

I'm running a bit short on time here so I will only make a brief statement concerning glorification. I understand scripture to teach that in the resurrection of our mortal bodies we will be changed in that we will receive an immortal glorified body that will be capable of living forever in the presence of God without sin (1 Co. 15:50-58). This glorified body will be vested with the sinless perfection that we strive for all the years of our mortal lives, and that perfection, just as the perfection of the imputed righteousness of Christ, will also be a gift from God, not of works, lest any man should boast. (Eph. 2:9).

I know this is a rather superficial treatment of these great truths, but I hope this might somewhat, in a round-about way, answer some of the questions you posed to me. At the least maybe it can serve as a launching-point for further discussion.

Peace, brother.

MRMEANER,

Re: Your post @ 11:33 PM

Good man! That is truly rare on these threads. I look forward to productive discussions with you.

GOLDENEAGLES,

RCofield says Bull

Gasp!

Well, that is one step in the direction of profanity.

Is it? Aren’t I blessed to be in the presence of such cautionary wisdom?

And it is the more sinister, from the standpoint of heaven, in that you pull each reader into a state of participation with it, in way of completing the thoughtform, which everyone does.

Oh, my! Sinister, you say? Am I tempting you, goldeneagles?

A small matter you might think. If it is a small matter, you will apologize and repent.

How many hail-marys do you think it will take?

If there is a larger force (of darkness) operating behind that utterance, you will not apologize and repent, because it will not allow you to.

So, if I were to flagellate myself in your holy presence…would you consider that an adequate penance? And would that ward of the demon you are about to append to my astral plane?

So, let's see what you will do here.

Will it be necessary for me to prostrate myself before the throne of goldeneagles? Will there be any ashes involved?
====================================

Ah, well. I tried, ladies and gentlemen. As you can see, it's all a one-way street with this fraudulent, insufferably arrogant, and self-righteous "GoldenEagle." I leave him to his pontification.

"First, do you, as a professing Christian, accept the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments as the ultimate and final authority for us in all matters?"

Without question. That's not to say that I don't have other sources I use to fill in missing details, but I'm quick to label my conclusions drawn from those sources as "possibilities".

"And secondly, by what method of interpretation do you discern the correct meaning of the written text? Do you agree that the literal/grammatical/historical/canonical-contextual method of interpretation yields the correct meaning of any given text of scripture? "

Yes, with an addendum;
There are many poor translations in the various versions of scripture.
I use a standard KJV, a Strong's Concordance, along with contextual comparison to more accurately discern references that are mis translatyed, or seem obscure.
I would also add that I find no harm in speculation, as long as it's not presented as fact.

MrMeaner says, "If this isn't going to be constructive, I may as well go back to bashing leftists on the main pages."

People need to work through their issues.

The ocean itself is not always calm. Sometimes people just need to keep their own boat afloat, and steer in between the waves.

Did you get to review the history of this dialog that goes back to November?

If not click here.

MRMEANER,

It's kind of boring reading arguments about what appears to be semantics. I'm interested in your ideas.--MM

You are now seeing first-hand why I earlier pulled back from engaging goldeneagles. Not to worry. I'll not continue long with this foolishness.

GOLDENEAGLES,

Still waiting for your response to my post and question @ 6:21 PM and 10:08 PM

MRMEANER,

Welcome back.

I may need a little more interaction with you to get a bead on where you are coming from. I’m not sure I completely understand what you are saying. To that end, a couple of questions may help.

First, when you say “I’m not so sure,” are you saying you are not sure that God is Omniscient?

Secondly, what precisely do you mean when you say that “overcoming burdens” makes us “worthy of salvation?”

Thirdly, could you maybe expand on your statement that salvation “isn’t free?”

BTW: What would be your position on the two questions I posed in my last post to you?

Peace, brother.

PS. I try to move slowly when I engage a new poster on these threads. I don’t want to make too many assumptions until I have a feel for the person I am dialoging with. So please bear with me.

MRMEANER,

Welcome back.

I may need a little more interaction with you to get a bead on where you are coming from. I’m not sure I completely understand what you are saying. To that end, a couple of questions may help.

First, when you say “I’m not so sure,” are you saying you are not sure that God is Omniscient?

Secondly, what precisely do you mean when you say that “overcoming burdens” makes us “worthy of salvation?”

Thirdly, could you maybe expand on your statement that salvation “isn’t free?”

BTW: What would be your position on the two questions I posed in my last post to you?

Peace, brother.

PS. I try to move slowly when I engage a new poster on these threads. I don’t want to make too many assumptions until I have a feel for the person I am dialoging with. So please bear with me.

Rcofield says, "Bull"

Well, that is one step in the direction of profanity. And it is the more sinister, from the standpoint of heaven, in that you pull each reader into a state of participation with it, in way of completing the thoughtform, which everyone does.

Let's see, I think you said, "I DO INDEED BELIEVE WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO OBEY CHRIST." Yet you just abrogated that responsibility right there. A small matter you might think. If it is a small matter, you will apologize and repent. Which the average Christian would do. If there is a larger force (of darkness) operating behind that utterance, you will not apologize and repent, because it will not allow you to. So, let's see what you will do here.

Rcofield, "I DO INDEED BELIEVE WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO OBEY CHRIST."

I have an idea.
Why not respond to an idea with another idea, instead of rebuke toward another idea.
Let truth, common sense, and faith that the idea rooted in those prevails.

It's kind of boring reading arguments about what appears to be semantics. I'm interested in your ideas.
I have found commonality with some of the points made by all three of you, and wouldn't mind seeing some other opinions, actually.
If this isn't going to be constructive, I may as well go back to bashing leftists on the main pages.

Rcofield, I appreciate your attempt at civilized discourse. This is quite a change from your last bout with the spirit of contempt for me. I pray you not return to the spirit of contempt. As I have noted, when you indulge the spirit of contempt, for me, or any Child of God, you are breaking a Commandment of Christ (LOVE your Enemy - which means at least holding the line of respect and civilized discourse - with those whom you disagree). And your current effort to be obedient to the Commandment of the Lord to reason together, is also appreciated.

Am I making it more difficult by rubbing salt in your wounded pride? You will have to learn how to deal with it. That's what it means to obey the commandments of Christ, not allowing anything, or anyone to draw you off of that foundation.

Now, I responded to your 6:44 PM question regarding your misguided flip-flopping accuation in my two part post of 9:53pm.

GOLDENEAGLES,

Your two part post “What It Means to Be Obedient To Christ” in no way “explains” your contradictory statements:

As to this assertion that “Works comes after salvation” I would say OK”.—GE

”I have repeatedly made the case that Obedience to the Commandments of Christ is a perquisite for salvation.”—GE

I am in no way “confused.” Those two statements stand in sharp contradiction. And you have close to two dozen posts in which you argue the latter over against the former.

Most people look on these words, “santification”, “progressive work” and “regeneration” as Christian techno-babble.--GE

Really? Are you unaware that both “sanctification” and “regeneration” are stated explicitly numerous times in scripture and implicitly stated more times than can be numbered? Techo-babble?

No preacher alive today can explain them.--GE

Bull. I explained them in one short paragraph, and I’m certainly not exceptional.

But after you read my statement, you will finally understand them, and in a practical way in which the understanding can be applied to secure your own salvation, and that of the members of your congregation.—GE

Riiiight…. You are some piece of work.

Still waiting for your response to my post and question @ 6:21 PM and 10:08 PM

"Please explain to me why Jesus Christ had to obtain victory over death to obtain the gift of salvation for us."
It's a bit too soon for me to answer that completely. My full, honest answer to that question may damage my future credibility in your eyes as well as others who may be interested in this conversation, without taking the proper amount of time to outline my reasoning.
For now, let me just posit that it was needed to compensate for the sin of Adam, which is why Jesus is referred to as "the last Adam" by Paul in 1 Cor. Ch. 15.
It is basically the concept that you are espousing in your commentary. What began with falling in sin and inheriting death, was rectified by overcoming sin and death.
It's the final act of completion, it's why "The Lion of the tribe of Judah, the root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof". It's why the rest of the promises of God can be delivered.

"Were not souls saved prior to that event? Did all souls burn in hell prior to that event? Did God not have mercy and compassion for the souls assigned to the earth prior to that event?"

That is answered in 1st Peter Ch.3:18-20, the result is reported in 4:6

Rcofield says, “I DO INDEED BELIEVE WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO OBEY CHRIST.”

Those are your own capital letters.

Does this responsibility to obey Christ extend to the Christ who spoke these words?

John 14:12 - “Verily Verily I say unto you, he that believeth on me, the works that I do, shall he do also, and greater works than these shall he do, because I go unto my Father.”

If you believe that our responsibility to obey Christ extends to these words, and to this promise, then will you agree that your former expressions of disbelief and mockery (related to the John 14:12 promise) extended from a spriit of anti-christ, and that you need to make the effort to block that spirit of anti-christ from expressing through you in the future? In this regard, do you believe you have a responsibility to obey Christ in this regard to “Go and sin no more?”

If you can respond directly to these questions regarding the implication of your new declaration of allegiance unto obedience, in this specific area, then we will be able to see how deep that allegience really is.

GOLDENEAGLES,

At no time up to this point have you, RcoField, said anything positive about the quality of obedience.—GE

Moreover, you have had many opportunities to draw the distinction that you are making now, and you have never done so.—GE

If you had made this distinction before, you would be on the record saying something positive about obedience itself, and this is something you have not done.--GE

Really? How about this?

You are confusing the doing of good works (obedience) out of sheer gratitude for so great a salvation and the doing of good works (obedience) to earn salvation (which cannot be done). POSTED BY: RCOFIELD—JANUARY 3, 2011 11:25 PM

Not only is that a “positive” statement about obedience, it makes the clear distinction that you are insisting I have not heretofore made. Yet again you are falsely accusing me and that without any apparent troubling of your conscience. Your above accusations are sheer fabrication.

Yet more demands/questions without reciprocation:

Now, please explain to all of us in your own words, why we have a responsibility to obey Christ. Please write at least one paragraph on that subject in the spirit of finding common ground…--GE

Ok. I already posted this, but at your insistence I’ll re-post it:

Obedience to Christ is the work of sanctification which is a progressive work following upon the regeneration (salvation) of the soul, and it continues throughout the life of all who have truly believed in the completed work of Christ on our behalf. Paul captures he nature of both the salvation of our souls and the progressive sanctification of our life's works in Ephesisans (2:8-10):--RCO

Eph. 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

I have been jumping through your brusque and demanding hoops for several posts now. Why don’t you answer the simple post and question that I addressed to you @ 6:21 PM and the post I addressed to you @ 6:44 PM?

MrMeaner says, " ... salvation is a gift .... obtained through Christ's victory over death."

Please explain to me why Jesus Christ had to obtain victory over death to obtain the gift of salvation for us.

Were not souls saved prior to that event? Did all souls burn in hell prior to that event? Did God not have mercy and compassion for the souls assigned to the earth prior to that event?

What it Means to Be Obedient to Christ - Part 1

Rcofield says, “In responding to Peter Huff [GE] states the following: ”As to this assertion that “Works comes after salvation” I would say OK”.—GE ... Yet only two or so posts earlier [GE] states: ”I have repeatedly made the case that Obedience to the Commandments of Christ is a perquisite for salvation.”—GE ... You just completely flip-flopped your position here ...”

While this is not an accurate evaluation of the relationship between these two things that I said, I can understand why you consider that a flip-flop.

Your erroneous interpretation of my words comes from your stubborn attachment to an erroneous conception of salvation. You put “salvation” out in front of you, into some nebulous future, where it is always something that is out of the reach of your current pair of hands. You appear to believe that some time in the distant future, a future you cannot see, the Master Jesus Christ is going to tap you on the head with a magic wand, and then, all of sudden you will find the gift of salvation in your hands, and you will be living in paradise, a pure and perfect Rcofield.

But salvation does not work like that.

The Teachings of the Master Jesus Christ tells us that we must work for our salvation one step at a time. It is not difficult to understand. Consider the following 12 point outline.

1. Person “A” has a spirit of rebellion living in him.

2. Person “A” compares his rebellious behavior to the Behavior Standards of Christ.

3. As a result of this comparison, Person “A” understands that he is under the influence of a spirit of rebellion. and therefore understands that he is out of alignement with the Behaviour Standards of Christ.

4. Indeed, Person “A” understands that he is required by the Commandment of Christ to “go and sin no more.”

5. Person “A” obeys Christ, and prays to God our Father in the name of Jesus Christ for freedom from that spirit of rebellion, and continues to pray until he is set free.

6. In response to the prayer(s) of Person “A”, God the Father, through the very hands of the Lord Christ kicks that spirit of rebellion out.

7. As long as Person “A” maintains his faithfulness and allegiance to that point of obedience, the Power of Christ will keep the soul free from that spirit of rebellion.

8. That Power of Christ, which kicked out, and keeps out that spirit of rebellion, is ONE installment of the Gift of Salvation. Each installment is given only in the here and now, and not in some future time.

9. As Person “A” works with Christ to identify and kick out every last spirit of rebellion in his temple, and thus, has anchored in his temple the Power of Christ to keep them all out, even forever, at that point the person is totally “saved”. He is totally saved, because his life glows totally with the Power of Christ. There is no darkness left in him.

(more)

What it Means to Be Obedient to Christ - Part 2

The Teachings of the Master Jesus Christ tells us that we must work for our salvation one step at a time. It is not difficult to understand. Consider the following 12 point outline, continued:

10. You get to real salvation, real immunity from any further vulnerability to the forces of darkness, one step at a time.

11. In this way only does the Mind of Christ come to live in us, as St. Paul tells us.

12. And because we are now toally glowing with the Power of Christ, here and now, the fulfillment of the promise of John 14:12 is within reach.

I explained how this comes to pass in my Fourteen Part statement, titled, “What Does it Mean to be Saved?”--- When we Understand what it Means to be Saved, only then can we understand the Importance of Obedience to the Commandments of Christ”

The first part appears on our last thread, beginning on January 14, 2011 7:13 PM.

But of course, you were in your Mr. Hyde self at that time. And had no interest in civilized discourse. And thus no interest in reading what I had to say. Perhpas the current Dr. Jekyll would like to read that?

You might be further interested in reading my exposition, because it actually explains what you said to MrMeaner precisely:

Rcofield - Obedience to Christ is the work of sanctification which is a progressive work following upon the regeneration (salvation) of the soul, and it continues throughout the life of all who have truly believed in the completed work of Christ on our behalf. Paul captures he nature of both the salvation of our souls and the progressive sanctification of our life's works in Ephesisans:

Eph. 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

My explanation to you, in 14 parts, “What Does it Mean to be Saved?”--- When we Understand what it Means to be Saved, only then can we understand the Importance of Obedience to the Commandments of Christ” will give you an understanding of the meaning of what you actually said. Even a matrix of understanding which exudes, as a fragrance of the flower of truth itself, a harmonious synthesis for all the Teachings of Jesus Christ.

Most people look on these words, “santification”, “progressive work” and “regeneration” as Christian techno-babble. No preacher alive today can explain them. But after you read my statement, you will finally understand them, and in a practical way in which the understanding can be applied to secure your own salvation, and that of the members of your congregation.

Just to clarify:
While it may be possible to squeak by, and make it in to the eternity with no works, just through your belief that Christ is the risen Messiah, do you really want ot be considered the least in the kingdom of heaven?

Wow
This is a pretty fast-paced discussion, and I'm not a man with much time to spare. I do enjoy this type of discussion, but be aware that my opportunities to respond are sometimes limited.

"When you add the qualifier “knowingly” to the question of did God create evil you add a dimension that can be quite easily answered. God is omniscient, possessing all knowledge innately, so IF he created evil He did so knowingly. I think we can say with certainty that to whatever extent evils exists it did not catch an Omniscient God unawares."--RC

I'm not so sure.
If God has determined the fate of each individual, namely whether that entity would choose good or evil, then why create what he already knew would become evil?
If it's for his purpose, then obviously his purpose includes the utilization of what God pre-ordained as (or what became, on it's own, through free will) evil, to use as an instrument of correction to his children.
So, if that's the case, then surely we are here to acquire a state of being more acceptable to God, through these trials.
This implies that it is our effort to become more Christ-like, through overcoming burdens placed on us by evil, that makes us worthy of the salvation offered by The Father through Christ.
This is not to say that works are a prerequisite to salvation. The salvation is a gift that was obtained through Christ's victory over death. But, it isn't free, and requires that we do the things written in the Word.

(Please strike these words from my last post - "And perhaps you have just discovered Ephesians 2:8-10, which I will get back to. If so, I appreciate that too. I appreciate you bringing that passage forward, as it is an important teaching. Perhaps this turn-around is a combination of both of these factors." I misread the paragraph at the end of which you mentioned Ephesians 2:8-10)

RcoField and the Subject of Obedience

At no time up to this point have you, RcoField, said anything positive about the quality of obedience. Peterhuff has said some positive things about obedience, once or twice, but not you.

In fact, when I try to build common ground with Peterhuff on his positive statements about obedience, you ride in and bring your “disciple” to heel. There is one really sinister example of that in the record. And of course, you can’t erase it. It is there for everyone to see. It is the only time I have ever felt like using the word “sinister” to describe your behavior.

1. Peterhuff's Common Ground - January 12, 2011 4:04 PM
2. GoldenEagles Builds on it - January 12, 2011 5:30 PM
3. RcoField trashes it - January 12, 2011 6:04 PM

Moreover, you have had many opportunities to draw the distinction that you are making now, and you have never done so. Your characterization of the dialog in which you have supposedly “repeatedly” made this distinction, is a (convenient) figment of your imagination. If you had made this distinction before, you would be on the record saying something positive about obedience itself, and this is something you have not done. I have posted links to the forum record. You can go through it to verify my recollection on this point.

Perhaps you are now making every effort to appear reasonable for the benefit of MrMeaner. If so, I appreciate that. And perhaps you have just discovered Ephesians 2:8-10, which I will get back to. If so, I appreciate that too. I appreciate you bringing that passage forward, as it is an important teaching. Perhaps this turn-around is a combination of both of these factors.

You now say, in capital letters, “I DO INDEED BELIEVE WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO OBEY CHRIST.”

OK. That is a good place to start, for sure, and I am happy to see you take a step in the direction of the truth, for whatever reason. You are really locked in now, stating that so clearly in capital letters.

Now, please explain to all of us in your own words, why we have a responsibility to obey Christ. Please write at least one paragraph on that subject in the spirit of finding common ground, and in way of helping all readers gauge the depth of sincerity with which you have made this new oath of allegiance to obedience. Please explain to us what are the consequences of not fulfilling that responsibility. Please explain to us the consequences of holding onto a spirit of disobedience unto Christ, even unto one’s physical death in this life.

GOLDENEAGLES,

So you will be sent back, and God will say to you, you must finish all of the classes in the flight training school of the Master Jesus Christ.--GE

Scripture:

Heb 9:27 ...it is appointed for all men to die once, and after that pass to their judgment...

Each church is supposed to be a flight school of the Master Jesus Christ, and each minister, a flight instructor. But how can those who know not how to fly, teach the children?

GOLDENEAGLES,

In responding to Peter Huff you state the following:

As to this assertion that “Works comes after salvation” I would say OK.—GE

Yet only two or so posts earlier you state:

I have repeatedly made the case that Obedience to the Commandments of Christ is a perquisite for salvation.—GE

You do understand that “prerequisite” means “comes before,” don’t you?!

You just completely flip-flopped your position here, now aligning yourself with the position I (and Peter Huff) have been arguing from the very beginning with you.

And don’t feed me any bull about a distinction between “obedience” and “works.” You have argued obedience/works as co-equal from the beginning.

GoldenEagles,

Part 1 of 2

I am trying to have a rational conversation with you, but you are making it rather difficult. I am going to make yet another attempt to demonstrate the irrationality of your antics. I am going to operate with the assumption that you genuinely do not understand the distinction that I am drawing in the following example. I will try to clarify this distinction for you again (as I have already done several times, all of which you completely ignored).

If, after this post, it is still unclear to you the distinction that I am making, I will be happy to answer any questions you may have concerning my position on this particular point. I am not sure how I can be any more clear or transparent than this. You would do well to follow my example. You stated:

I think this "Sufficiency in Sacrifice" dogma is a false doctrine, as it is always used as the keystone in the archway of the larger false doctrine that allows people to believe, like Peterhuff and Rcofield, that they have no responsibility at all to obey the Commandments of Christ, which is a doctrine of rebellion, having its origin in serpent.—GE (emphasis added)

Notice the accusation in bold-type, giving especial attention to your use of the categorical phrase “at all”. You have leveled this accusation against me often and with much vitriol. I responded:

You have made this utterly unfounded accusation repeatedly over the last several weeks. I have nowhere stated that we have no responsibility to obey the Commandments of Christ. That is completely antithetical to the evidence of my life, ministry, and participation on these threads.--RCO

You then responded with a two-part post insisting that I do indeed believe that we have no responsibility at all to obey Christ. Your two posts can be summed up in your following statement:

GoldenEagles,

Part 2 of 2

Show me one place where you have agreed with this essential truth, that Obedience to the Commandments of Christ is a prerequisite for salvation…--GE

Notice that the qualifier prerequisite absent in the above noted accusation (as it has been absent in virtually every instance where you level this accusation against me). I’ll restate your accusation again here for comparison purposes: “….allows people to believe, like Peterhuff and Rcofield, that they have no responsibility at all to obey the Commandments of Christ….” You are clearly accusing me of believing that we have no responsibility at all to obey Christ. I HAVE NOWHERE MADE SUCH A STATEMENT.

I have tried to correct you repeatedly on this point as I DO INDEED BELIEVE WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO OBEY CHRIST. You know full well that my disagreement with you lies in your insistence that obedience is a “prerequisite” for salvation, NOT THAT OBEDIENCE IS NOT NECESSARY IN THE LIFE OF A CHRISTIAN. As recently as this morning I posted the following to MRMEANER, which you no doubt read:

Obedience to Christ is the work of sanctification which is a progressive work following upon the regeneration (salvation) of the soul, and it continues throughout the life of all who have truly believed in the completed work of Christ on our behalf. Paul captures the nature of both the salvation of our souls and the progressive sanctification of our life's works in Ephesisans (2:8-10).—RCO

I have but one question for you: By what method of reasoning do you conclude that if I contend that obedience is NOT a “prerequisite” to salvation I am contending that obedience to Christ is not necessary at all?

The Flight School of
The Master Jesus Christ

There are any number of analogies that could made to support this simple principle of preparation unto salvation. For example, let us liken salvation to the promise of God to place the soul in the seat of an F-15 fighter jet, where the soul will be able to pilot this awesome piece of heavenly technology, setting the soul free from its tie to the earth, and giving the soul the opportunity to fly in perfect formation with all the other members of his squadron.

When you are “saved “ God can plop you down in that pilot seat, and you will know exactly what to do. But how will you know exactly what to do? You will know, because you will have prepared yourself, by attending the flight training school of the Master Jesus Christ.

If you arrive at the airfield, and have done nothing at all in terms of learning the lessons, applying the lessons, and living the lessons, set forth by the Master Jesus during his mission, you will find, that even though the jet aircraft has your name it, and has a big blue ribbon tied around it, to signify that it is a gift, that God will not let you near it. Why will he not let you near it? Because you have refused to learn how to fly before you got to the airfield. It is that simple.

If he handed you the keys at that point, in your continue ignorance of what it means to be able to fly, you will either hurt yourself, or others. So you will be sent back, and God will say to you, you must finish all of the classes in the flight training school of the Master Jesus Christ.

You must learn to be obedient to all flight rules. You must come to understand that your obedience to all flight rules is essential, is a requirement, before you get into the drivers seat of your new aircraft. Without obedience to the flight rules, you will NEVER be allowed to fly.

And this is simply a metaphor for preparing yourself to be in the forcefield of heavenly power that comes with life in the heavenly regions.

You must prepare yourself BEFORE you enter. Why do you think that Jesus came on his mission so many hundreds, and perhaps thousands of years, before the end times? It was to give people time to PREPARE.

A Distinction to Make
Concerning the Question
as to the Saving Power
of Works - Part 1

Peterhuff says, “I have pointed out to GoldenEagles ... that works comes after God's salvation. Anything that comes before or in order to be saved is not relying on Christ alone, but also on what we can do, our ability. That goes against everything that Scripture teaches. Works does not save, Christ does. GE's is saying it requires both.”

As to this assertion that “Works comes after salvation” I would say OK. That statement corresponds to my reading of John 14:12:

John 14:12 - Verily verily I say unto you, that he that believeth on me, the works that I do, shall he do also, and greater works than these shall he do, because I go unto my Father.”

Yes, indeed. Here is the reality check that the Master Jesus Christ gave to us whereby the soul will know whether or not its belief, that it has been “saved”, is either true, or simply a figment of the imagination. Yes, there are people walking around all over the world, saying, “I have been saved.” Including Peterhuff and Rcofield. Here is the criteria. Peterhuff has actually specified it, “Works comes after salvation.” If they can fulfill this promise that the Master has made, then they are truly saved. If they cannot, then they are not saved. There is more that they must do. Something is yet lacking in the salvation equation for them.

Here is an example of where more work needs to be done. Peterhuff goes on to say, “Anything that comes before or in order to be saved is not relying on Christ alone, but also on what we can do, our ability. That goes against everything that Scripture teaches. Works does not save, Christ does. GE's is saying it requires both.” - - - Somehow, Peterhuff, you need to make the effort to separate out in your mind, where this statement is true, and where this statement is false. As your mind formulates this idea, and as you speak this idea, part of your mind is looking at where this statement is true. And the idea is true, to a large degree anyway, when you are talking about what would be called charitable and philanthropic works. These works do not save. I agree, I agree, I agree.

And why did the Apostles want to make an issue of this, that charitable and philanthropic works, as a general rule, do not save? It is because people, carrying forward their stiff necked and disobedient nature, did not want to do what Christ wanted them to do. And so they said, we will do this, and that, and the other, and by these works we will be saved. And as you note, and accurately, the scripture says NO, you will not be saved by those works. And I agree, I agree, I agree.

(more)

A Distinction to Make
Concerning the Question
as to the Saving Power
of Works - Part 2

And so, we see that there is a certain class of works, which people believe will save them, but they are in error as the scripture notes. These would be charitable and philanthropic works. By themselves these do not save.

But, there are other requirements, that do not fall within this category of “works”, which the Master set forth, the Commandments of Christ, again, which are not in this “works” category. They are not in this works category. These are the areas where we are required to be obedient to the Commandments of Christ in our personal thoughts, feelings, speech, and acts, as a prerequisite to receiving our inheritance of eternal life.
Disobedience to God resulted in mankind’s ejection from the domain of eternal life.

Only Obedience to God, can allow for their return

The Master Jesus Christ came to lead us in the way of Obedience unto God. The Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes, all of this was geared towards changing a disobedient and stiff necked nature, into the nature of Christ, which is the nature of obedience unto God.

I would like for you, please, to look forward, and within your mind, place a soul at the gate of heaven, where the soul is expecting to be let through, and into the domain of eternal life.

Is the gate going to open for a soul who has done NOTHING, in way of working with Jesus Christ, to become Obedient unto God? Is that forcefield of destructive darkness, which the fallen soul psychology represents, going to be allowed through the gates of heaven into the domain of perfection and radiance?

How is it possible for the gate to open, and allow into heaven, a soul that is totally disobedient?

As far as I can see, this is IMPOSSIBLE.

By the time the soul reaches that gate, the soul must have already worked with the Master Jesus Christ, to become the obedient soul.

Perhaps we can make this distinction. Outer works, as a general rule, will not earn anyone their salvation. Not even being a Baptist pastor counts there. But it is the inner works, cooperating with Christ in the inner transformation of the soul, alone, that will prepare the soul to receive the gift of salvation (eternal life in the heaven world). Can we agree that this is an accurate distinction to make, and that the content of scripture supports this distinction?

(end)

Moving on ...

The Whole Forum Record

Here is the list of seven (7) forum links in which GoldenEagles has participated in a dialog with RcoField, Peterhuff, and others. We began on November 3, 2010. After that, every two weeks or so, when the comment feature times out, we have moved to new forums to continue the dialog.

Because this blog software does not allow the posting of multiple links in a single post, I have posted the list HERE.

I provide these links for those participants who are interested in an accurate assessment of the record.

A Small Sample from the Record

Rcofield says, “You have made this utterly unfounded accusation repeatedly over the last several weeks. I have nowhere stated that we have no responsibility to obey the Commandments of Christ. That is completely antithetical to the evidence of my life, ministry, and participation on these threads.”

For the record I wanted to give readers a SMALL SAMPLE of the attitude of defiance that you have exhibited in relationship to the subject of Obedience to the Commandments of Christ.

Here are examples of questions that I asked (from our last forum thread) and they are very simple questions, to which you refused to respond directly.

Rcofield, in your view, can an individual, enslaved to the homosexual condition, receive the gift of salvation, if he does not obey the Master’s commandment, “to go and sin no more.”? (Posted by: GoldenEagles | January 6, 2011 2:51pm)

After this question was asked, you went into a question negotiation mode. Which was a very pronounced EVASION behavior.

And so I answered the question. My answer was No, and I explained why. You responded to that statement with an explanation of why my answer was WRONG. In that two-part statement you made the case for your belief that the homosexual does not need to change his behavior to be saved. I asked for clarification.

And so, you are saying Rcofield, that a homosexual can receive the gift of salvation, even if he makes no effort whatsover in trying to change his sinful behavior? I just want to make sure I understand you correctly. For what reason did the Master Jesus Christ give the commandment, "Go and sin no more"? It sounds like you think this is an optional directive. (Posted by: GoldenEagles | January 6, 2011 6:47 PM)

No response to this question.

And then of course is the Master's Statement, which says, "Be ye therefore perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect." This goes together with "Go and sin no more." Rcofield, Don't you think these two statements by the Lord Christ have some application to the condition of homosexual slavery? (Posted by: GoldenEagles | January 6, 2011 7:53 PM)

No response to this question.

This, along with many other exchanges, or non-exchanges, we have had on the subject of obedience, makes it clear, that you believe that an indiviudual has no responsibility to be obedient before the Commandments of Christ, that their salvation is guarenteed regardless of their behavior in relationship to the Commandments of Christ.

Rcofield says, “You have made this utterly unfounded accusation repeatedly over the last several weeks. I have nowhere stated that we have no responsibility to obey the Commandments of Christ. That is completely antithetical to the evidence of my life, ministry, and participation on these threads.”

Anyone who has watched this debate has got to shake their head in disbelief at this statement. And that is a far as I will go in my characterization.

I have repeatedly made the case that Obedience to the Commandments of Christ is a prequisite for salvation. And you have repeatedly denied this. It is all there on the record.

Show me one place where you have agreed with this essential truth, that Obedience to the Commandments of Christ is a prerequiste for salvation, even as the statement of the Master in John 3:36 expresses so well (those who obeyeth not the son will not see life). In fact, there are several posts of yours, if I remember correctly, trying to repudiate this exact teaching.

GOLDENEAGLES,

Rcofield, if I might suggest, why don't you post the forum link (with the date and time stamp of the post) where I have allegedly "fabricated complete lies about [your]self". If this were true, I would agree that I would have some repenting to do myself. (emphasis added)

No problem:

I think this "Sufficiency in Sacrifice" dogma is a false doctrine, as it is always used as the keystone in the archway of the larger false doctrine that allows people to believe, like Peterhuff and Rcofield, that they have no responsibility at all to obey the Commandments of Christ, which is a doctrine of rebellion, having its origin in serpent. (Posted by: GoldenEagles | January 16, 2011 7:09 PM)

You have made this utterly unfounded accusation repeatedly over the last several weeks. I have nowhere stated that we have no responsibility to obey the Commandments of Christ. That is completely antithetical to the evidence of my life, ministry, and participation on these threads.

I await your direct reply and requisite repentance per your stated agreement. If you are as good as your word this would go a long way toward restoring a reasonable level of civility to our exchanges.

I also trust that this offer by you would also extend to further posts evidencing false accusations toward me on your part. Let's start here and see how it goes. If well, I will post others.

Peace

MRMEANER,

Part 1 of 3

Sorry. Spent time with my family last night and retired early. Only discovered you questions this morning.

Would God knowingly create evil?

Well, now, that's a loaded question if I ever saw one. This one has been kicked around for millennium. When you add the qualifier “knowingly” to the question of did God create evil you add a dimension that can be quite easily answered. God is omniscient, possessing all knowledge innately, so IF he created evil He did so knowingly. I think we can say with certainty that to whatever extent evils exists it did not catch an Omniscient God unawares.

However, Peter has already offered James 1:13-15. I think that scripture is clear that God is not the Author of either temptation or sin. Obviously Satan is the one who introduced temptation into both the heavenly (angelic) realm and the earthly realm (Ge. 3). Further, we are more than capable of succumbing to temptation and committing the evil of sin and rebellion against our Creator on our own.

That being said, I think there is an apparent logic in scripture that can give us the answer as to whether or not God “created” evil. It is quite evident that God created the angelic hosts, so this would necessarily include both Lucifer and the angels who sinned and rebelled with him and were cast from heaven. It is equally evident that God created mankind, who, beginning with our first parents Adam and Eve, are also capable of sin and rebellion against our Creator.

If God created both the angels who fell (including Satan) and mankind, it is self-evident that He created everything about them, every component of their being. So it seems obvious that God created angels and men with the ability to sin. I think it is only in this sense that God can be said to have “created” evil, if that term can be used at all. Being infinitely good, pure, holy and righteous, it can in no way be said that he is the Author of evil (per James 1:13-15). The origin of evil is found in the rebellion of Lucifer and the fallen angels, and, consequently, in Adam and Eve.

Even still, if God is Omniscient (and scripture leaves no doubt that He is) this sin, rebellion, and evil in no way “surprised” Him. I think this is further evident in that scripture says of Christ:

I Pe. 1:18 knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot. 20 He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you 21 who through Him believe in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.

MRMEANER,

Part 2 of 3

Clearly God “knew” that sin and rebellion would come to corrupt His perfect creation, and made provision for the forgiveness of sin by the sinless sacrifice and atonement of Christ before he created the “world.”

You state:

While I agree that Christ's sacrifice was sufficient, I also believe that at a certain point, believers will have to "take up our cross, and follow him", which is to say, that there will come a time when we will be persecuted for our Christian testimony. That testimony and martyrdom are works that will judged and rewarded.

I agree completely. Clearly scripture teaches the all-sufficiency of Christs atoning work to take away the penalty and power of sin in those for whom He died. Paul deals with this thoroughly in Romans chapters 1-6 and in the letter to the Galatians. Further, scripture is equally clear that those who believe savingly in the completed work of Christ (“It is finished” was the declaration of Christ himself as he died on the cross) will also, as you state it, “take up our cross and follow him.” You stated it yourself earlier in quoting from Romans 8 that those who are thus “justified” by Christ's atoning work are just as equally predestined to be “conformed to the image of” Christ (that is, they will, without exception, “take up their cross” and follow after him”).

Obedience to Christ is the work of sanctification which is a progressive work following upon the regeneration (salvation) of the soul, and it continues throughout the life of all who have truly believed in the completed work of Christ on our behalf. Paul captures he nature of both the salvation of our souls and the progressive sanctification of our life's works in Ephesisans:

Eph. 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

Notice that both our salvation and our “good works” (sanctification) are the result of the grace of God. We add nothing to the completed work of Christ in our salvation by the doing of good works, for we were “created” (through regeneration) to “walk in them.” Our good works do not save us, they are simply the observable evidence that we have been saved.

Now to GoldenEagles and the accusations that he has made. Notice only two or three posts down that he accuses Peter Huff and myself as follows:

I think this "Sufficiency in Sacrifice" dogma is a false doctrine, as it is always used as the keystone in the archway of the larger false doctrine that allows people to believe, like Peterhuff and Rcofield, that they have no responsibility at all to obey the Commandments of Christ, which is a doctrine of rebellion, having its origin in serpent.

MRMEANER,

Part 3 of 3

I find it amusing that GoldenEagles has already protested that he has nowhere falsely accused me, yet in his very next post does exactly that. I (and Peter Huff) have nowhere said that we “have no responsibility at all to obey the Commandments of Christ.” GoldenEagles knows full well that we have never stated such, yet this is an accusation that he raises over and over, ad nauseum.

GoldenEagles does this by dishonestly twisting our argument that we cannot “earn” our salvation by good works (obedience). He has been corrected on this point numerous times, yet he continues to wickedly and knowingly thus falsely accuse us, and repeatedly deems us in “rebellion” because we have “demons pressing on our feeling world.” I think it has become painfully evident where the “rebellion” and “demon” influence lies here.

Who was Mechisedec, and why wasn't he the Messiah?

Man! Why don't you just start out with some of the most difficult questions?! :-)

I'm not sure I'm ready to completely “nail my colors to the mast” on the question of Melchisedec. I'll only offer here that I have for some time thought him to possibly be a pre-incarnate manifestation of the Person of Jesus Christ. I base this loosely on the fact that he is credited in scripture with attributes fitting Deity, and that there seems to be several instances of the pre-incarnate Christ making appearances in the Old Testament.

I'm not sure what you were insinuating in that section of your post. If you can maybe give a little more clarification I might know better how to respond.

If I may, I would like to pose a couple of questions to you that I have posed to GoldenEagles (some 9 or 10 times with absolutely no direct response from him).

First, do you, as a professing Christian, accept the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments as the ultimate and final authority for us in all matters?

And secondly, by what method of interpretation do you discern the correct meaning of the written text? Do you agree that the literal/grammatical/historical/canonical-contextual method of interpretation yields the correct meaning of any given text of scripture? If you are not familiar with this method of interpretation I would be happy to provide details (it's not nearly as complicated as it may sound).

Peace, brother

Responding to Peterhuff's explanation for God's Creation, MrMeaner asks, "Is God so insecure that he needed to create his own worshipers?"

The purpose of life on earth is redemption of the fallen soul. That’s it. One cannot accurately discern the purpose of the created soul itself, unless you can examine it in its native domain, which is heavenly perfection.

Remember that we have God saying in scripture, that the ways of the people of earth, are not his ways. So we cannot look at the people of earth, and their current behavior, and expect to discern therein God’s original purpose for creating these souls.

We need to look to those heavenly civilizations that exist beyond our current vision, where the ways of the citizens thereof, are truly the ways of God.

(The evolutions of earth fell from these domains long ago, and God would bring them home if they would only agree to return to their native obedience, which is not a forced obedience, but an obedience born of understanding and love).

It is good to keep things in perspective in this regard, that the physical universe as we see it, is really no larger, and of no greater significance, than a shoebox sitting on a workbench in a basement workshop of one very large mansion, whose grounds extend far beyond the capacity of the eyesight of those who currently live there. The workshop may be in the basement, but it is well lighted, and the shop hums with activity, as this is still a very important project. The souls that fell from Grace, God our Father in his Infinite Love, will go to almost any effort to redeem.

And the work is not carried on in a hurried fashion either. God has an infinite amount of time, along with all the workers in the shop.

Looking to this larger reality, if we lived among regular citizens of heaven, all of them very much like the person of Jesus Christ (in a state of spiritual freedom) we would be able to more accurately estimate God's Purpose in the creation of these Divine Children.

The least that can be said, using Jesus Christ as an example, is that God created his children to be Co-Creators with him. He did not create them for the purpose of worshiping him, but created them for the purpose of sharing His awesome creative powers. Remember that Jesus Christ talks about watching what the Father does, and the Son doing likewise. Worship would follow as a natural consequence of such a relationship wherein you have a source of infinite goodness (God) intent on sharing as much of that goodness with the child as the child can usefully contain and apply to the purpose at hand.

The purpose for which this one son, Jesus Christ currently lives, is for the salvation of the billions of souls associated with the evolutions of this planet. God our Father gives to him great measures of power and wisdom and love to accomplish this mission. Yet, a mission that cannot be completed, unless the people will one day decide to cooperate in the redemption process.

"Well the purpose of God in created man is to know Him, to love Him, to glorify Him, and enjoy Him forever"

Is God so insecure that he needed to create his own worshipers?

" God who is pure goodness has judged evil, either in Christ and His voluntary sacrifice on our behalf, or by our own merit."

But evil still exists. Are you saying that Christ offered himself as a sacrifice so people can freely enjoy evil?

__________

If God doesn't create evil, why was Esau, who God hated while he was still in the womb, ever allowed to come in to being? -Mr.M

For His purpose. To demonstrate His justice as well as mercy. -PH

I can't agree.

Mal. Ch 1

[1] The burden of the word of the LORD to Israel by Malachi.
[2] I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob,
[3] And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.
[4] Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate places; thus saith the LORD of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall call them, The border of wickedness, and, The people against whom the LORD hath indignation for ever.

The people against whom the LORD hath indignation forever.
Wow
That's a pretty harsh sentence for a people to have to bear just because God needs someone to use as an example.

It seems to me that there would have to be some prior works involved that would result in this sort of punishment. Otherwise, God would be punishing innocence. That would make him...well...evil.
I wouldn't serve that kind of God

Hi MrMeaner,

Well the purpose of God in created man is to know Him, to love Him, to glorify Him, and enjoy Him forever, as many Reformers have expressed. Adam chose to know both good and evil and God who is pure goodness has judged evil, either in Christ and His voluntary sacrifice on our behalf, or by our own merit.

If God doesn't create evil, why was Esau, who God hated while he was still in the womb, ever allowed to come in to being? -Mr.M

For His purpose. To demonstrate His justice as well as mercy.

What could possibly explain this? - Mr.M

The rest of the chapter that you quoted.

Could it be that Esau was born, with the hope from above that he could make amends for a prior transgression? -Mr.M

That would be works righteousness.

That notion doesn't require a belief in reincarnation, just pre-incarnation. (if you will) - Mr.M

I'm not following?

Considering that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, the glory that is God, God chose a people to make Himself known by and to bring the promised Messiah into the world that would save His people from the sin and curse of Adam.

'It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.' In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring. For this is how the promise was stated: 'At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.'
Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. Yet before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad - in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by Him who calls - she was told, 'The older will serve the younger.' Just as it is written: Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.'
What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For He says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.'
It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort [Take note GoldenEagles], but on God's mercy...God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy, and He hardens whom He wants to harden....What if God, choosing to show His wrath and make His power known, bore with great patience the objects of His wrath - prepared for destruction? What if He did this to make the riches of His glory known to the objects of His mercy, whom He prepared in advance for glory - even us, whom He also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles. See Romans 9

God, the Sovereign Lord, is perfectly just in punishing evil and merciful in saving others in Christ. None are deserving the latter.

Peterhuff says, "Man could have been made robotic but man was given free will in Adam in order to glorify God in His mercy and grace."

I agree with this. This explains why the state of disobedience cannot be washed away without the freewill consent of the soul. We are not robots. We must choose this day whom we will serve. This explains why the soul must make the conscious choice to move from a state of disobedience to a state of obedience. Christ cannot make this choice for us. We must make this choice. But when the choice is made, and we pray for freedom in a given area, it is the Power of Christ that gives us the victory in making this transition. Indeed from a state where we are tormented by temptation unto sin (on a particular point) to a state where we are completely free from that temptation. That state of freedom from temptation, is a Power, and that Power is from Christ. And it represents the Gift of Salvation. In this way is the Gift of Salvation given to us in increments, as we make these freewill choices, day by day, to move from a state of disobedience to obedience.

The "Sacrifice" of Christ is more accurately interpreted to mean that this highly evolved soul, that of Jesus Christ, indeed a Son of God, vast in powers, and vast in righteousness, who proclaimed his existence prior to the very foundation of the world, freely volunteered to shepherd the rebellious and stiff necked people of the earth unto their salvation, to stay with them, live with them, in their squalor and stink, and work with them over a vast stretch of time, in order for them to be saved. Indeed to be ready at their beck and call the very instant they wake up and decide to become obedient to the Behavior Standards of Christ. At that point, he would be there to help them get free from patterns of sin, and to put on patterns of righteousness, and yes to make good on his sin-washing promises.

He could be doing things that are more pleasant to the senses in the larger heaven world. After all, in some very significant ways, having to be so close to people who have no sense of the Reality of God, must be quite a burden at some levels of his being. In this way only, I think is he actually giving something up, sacrificing something, that is truly valuable, and therefore, truly worthy of the word “sacrifice”.

Like I said before, before he was nailed to the cross, he knew he would survive. That was a few days of pain, but something that millions of people go through. I believe the Apostles, who were very enlightened individuals, saw the bigger picture, and when they used the word “sacrifice” they used the word in the sense which I just gave.

Often times they would express a very deep principle in a simple sentence. That is the case in this situation when they discussed the “sacrifice” of Jesus Christ.

And of course it underscores the travesty of the serpent-originated idea that by this death on the cross the sins of the world were all wiped away and forgiven. If that were true, the day that Christ Ascended into Heaven, on that day the Kingdom of God should've come to the earth. But you know from history, the levels of sin in the world got worse, not better, going through what we called the dark ages no less. And it looks very much like we are headed into another dark age now.

The hope of the world, was America, the Beacon of Freedom, a beacon that now radiates falsehood, the idea that the death of the innocent in the womb, and now homosexuality, are considered to be national virtues “Under God.”

Its like the forces of darknes are intent on making a mockery of the promises of Christ. "We'll show You how much of the sin of the world has been wiped away!"

Peterhuff quotes Hebrews 9:26 - “For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.”

If you want to interpret this literally, you need to point to the truth, that the sins of the world were not taken away. The world has been full of sin since the mission of Jesus Christ, and is presently getting worse.

When this truth is pointed to, your interpretation Peterhuff is empty and void of any reality or truth.

Yet, the correct interpretation is obvious, when juxtaposed to the ongoing sinful nature of mankind, that the sins of the world will only go away, when the people begin to obey, by freewill choice, the commandments of Christ.

If he could FORCE people to obey, he would have already done that. But he cannot force people to obey. They must obey by their freewill choice.

Though, this much is true. The Lord Christ will be with us unto the end of the world, and he presents himself to us, every minute of every day, ready and willing to work with any soul who sincerely wants to be set free from sin. He is ready and willing to work with souls who want to make the transition from disobedience to obedience in the here and now. In this way, he is truly able to wipe away the sins of the world.

Yes, if every person on the earth decided today, to get with his program, and to sincerely try to be obedient to his behavior standards, and if they would pray daily for help in this regard, surely, the Master Jesus Christ, as the Lord Christ, has this power to clean the sin off of everyone. But he needs their cooperation, he needs their prayers, he needs their DESIRE to be from sin, as this is the only thing a sincere prayer can spring from, and he needs them to Believe that a life without sin, is better than a life with sin.

This interpretation is on harmony with the whole of scripture. Check this out.

Mathew 5:6 “Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.”

There is it, everything that I just said supported by this one statement of the Lord Christ.

There is no salvation without first coming into this state of hunger and thirst after righteousness, which allows us to be thereby filled with it, and ready for life in the heaven world, where we will not be an offense unto our peers, who are perfect, and who love obedience.

Indeed, this is a prerequisite for salvation. And we see that whatever the “sacrifice” of Christ was, it did not even give the people universally this hunger and thirst after righteousness.

Indeed, where do people get this hunger and thirst? The answer to this question tells us even more about the process of salvation, a process that it outpicturing itself all around us, and everyday, as the consequences of sin press in upon the people.

I just have trouble believing that we are just objects for entertainment, sent here to toil while we fantasize about immortality.
There has to be a reason we are here. A plan of atonement for a past wrong, makes sense to me, and so far as I've found, is compatible with scripture.

there is a few ways of looking at this, of which I'm not sure I have the right interpretation.

God allowed evil for a purpose in giving man a will that was free to choose life and relationship with Him or reject it. The man chose to partake in the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thus realizing that he had done evil - he was ashamed of his nakedness. He chose his own authority over that of God's in partaking of the fruit.

In my mind evil was doing the express thing that God forbid Adam and Eve to do. That was His only stipulation that He forbid them of. They were free to take of the tree of life or any other tree in the Garden.

God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desires, he is dragged away and enticed. Then after desire is conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death. James 1:13b, 14-15

He permitted evil for a purpose. Man could have been made robotic but man was given free will in Adam in order to glorify God in His mercy and grace.

Hmmm
Only GE wants to answer my question, eh?
Well, I'll assume that your answers would be the same as Ge's and mine. If not, feel free to correct me.
If God doesn't create evil, why was Esau, who God hated while he was still in the womb, ever allowed to come in to being?
What could possibly explain this?
Could it be that Esau was born, with the hope from above that he could make amends for a prior transgression?
That notion doesn't require a belief in reincarnation, just pre-incarnation. (if you will)

" For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
[30] Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."

The Greek work translated "justified" has a meaning that implies a judgment, or verdict was rendered. Obviously, a judgment would require a prior act that necessitated it, would it not?
Why were the elect chosen before the "foundation" of the world, and by what criteria were they chosen?
hint:
You might find a clue in the Greek word translated "foundation".

One more question...
It is reported in the Book of Hebrews that Melchisedec, called the King of peace, King of righteousness, without father or mother, without descent,having neither beginning of days, or end of life, received tithes from Abraham.
Jesus told the Pharisees "Before Abraham was, I am", and "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad."

Who was Mechisedec, and why wasn't he the Messiah?

GoldenEagles again shows his lack of discernment in understanding the Word of God with these statements,

I think this "Sufficiency in Sacrifice" dogma is a false doctrine, as it is always used as the keystone in the archway of the larger false doctrine that allows people to believe, like Peterhuff and Rcofield, that they have no responsibility at all to obey the Commandments of Christ, which is a doctrine of rebellion, having its origin in serpent." -GE

Christ's "death" on the cross, and his demonstration of power over it, was only "sufficient" in proving to us that he was who he said he was...." - GE

"Nor did He enter heaven to offer Himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own [as is the case in the perfect sacrifice which these yearly sacrifices were pointing to was not our own blood/life either, but counted by God as our own because Christ came on behalf of those who would believe on Him - the perfect Substitute]. Then Christ would have had to have suffered many times since the creation of the world. But now He has appeared [He came in the flesh] once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of Himself. Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people [all those 'in Christ.']; and He will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for Him." Hebrews 9:25-28

because by one sacrifice He has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
Hebrews 10:14 (see 10:1-14, esp verses 10 and 12 or should I quote those too?)

When He had received the drink, Jesus said, 'It is finished.' With that He bowed His head and gave up His Spirit. John 19:30

After the suffering of His soul, He will see the light of life and be satisfied; by His knowledge My righteous Servant will justify many, and He will bear their iniquities...because He poured out His life unto death, and was number with the transgressors. For He bore the sin of many and made intercession for the transgressors. Isaiah 53:11, 12b

This is just a select few verses that could be used to show the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice in obtaining eternal salvation.

"He could no more create evil than a lightbulb can radiate a shadow"

I agree.

RC? PH?

I need to know your position on this before I can address some of the points you brought up in your portrayal of GE

(typo correction - He could no more create evil than a lightbulb can radiate a shadow.)

(typo correction - He could no more create evil than a lightbult can radiate a shadow.)

MrMeaner asks, "Does God knowingly create evil?"

No. God is Pure Love, Pure Goodness. He could no more create evil that a lightbult can radiate a shadow. But he gave his children freewill. And you know the rest of the story.

I think this "Sufficiency in Sacrifice" dogma is a false doctrine, as it is always used as the keystone in the archway of the larger false doctrine that allows people to believe, like Peterhuff and Rcofield, that they have no responsibility at all to obey the Commandments of Christ, which is a doctrine of rebellion, having its origin in serpent.

Christ's "death" on the cross, and his demonstration of power over it, was only "sufficient" in proving to us that he was who he said he was. Jesus was the Christ, and he had power over death. Or death had no power over him. The cross event was sufficient to PROVE that. And because he demonstrated that he had this power, this would increase our faith that he could fulfill his promise, that he could transfer this same power over death (eternal life) to all who would follow in his footsteps, making of them sons of God, as the scripture says, if they would only OBEY HIS COMMANDMENTS!

Remember John 3:36 - He who obeyeth not the son will not see life.

"For He chose us in Him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in His sight. In love He predestined us to be adopted as His sons through Jesus Christ,"

This is ironic that you would post this.
This is a reference I was going to use in my line of questioning to RCO, along with this, from Romans Ch.8;

[28] And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
[29] For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
[30] Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

I post this question to all;

Does God knowingly create evil?

Peterhuff says, "What [GE] is saying in a round about way is that Christ's sacrifice is not sufficient to save us; that we require working hand in hand with Him in order to be saved. It requires both our sacrifice as well as Christ's in GoldenEagles opinion."

This is a very well-crafted and accurate statement Peterhuff. You have represented my basic premise in an accurate manner.

I am assuming that in referring to "Christ's Sacrifice" you are referrig to his death on the cross. And that this death means you are saved regardless of your behavior.

And of course, Jesus Christ flapped his lips all for nothing, before that event. Is that right?

I am sure his death on the cross had meaning. For example, it proves that the Power of Christ has all power over death. And the people of the earth needed that demonstration of power.

But that begs the quesiton. What "sacrifice" was there in that, if he knew before hand, that he could not be killed? And scripture shows that he knew beforehand that he could not be killed.

Hi RCofield, MrMeaner,

I'm finding that both GoldenEagles and Thomas 'Moses' Baum are preaching a different gospel. Thomas preaches that we will all be in the kingdom, contrary to the very word of God who he has actually met personally, or so he says.

GoldenEagles says:

When Christ said, “I Am the Truth,” we can apply that statement to mean that every inspiration we have to speak up and express the truth, is always an inspiration of Christ origin.

The question is which Jesus is he preaching also?

The Galatian church were deserting the One who had called them in favor of their own works righteousness, or circumcision, or what you eat, or what you do.

Paul had a harsh warning for them.

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the One who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel - which is really no gospel at all. Evidently, some people are trying to throw you into confusion and are perverting the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned." (Galatians 1:6-7)

Now if that ain't good reason for GE to repent, I don't know what is.

If you are inspired to do a “good work” as you described, and standing up for the truth...GE

Then they asked Him, 'What must we do to do the works that God requires?'
Jesus answered, 'The work of God is this: to believe in the One He has sent.'" John 6:28-29

"To the Jews who had believed Him, Jesus said, 'If you hold onto My teaching, you are really My disciples. Then you will know the truth and the truth will set you free." John 8:31-32

Ditto to PH

While I agree that Christ's sacrifice was sufficient, I also believe that at a certain point, believers will have to "take up our cross, and follow him", which is to say, that there will come a time when we will be persecuted for our Christian testimony. That testimony and martyrdom are works that will judged and rewarded.

Rcofield, if I might suggest, why don't you post the forum link (with the date and time stamp of the post) where I have allegedly "fabricated complete lies about [your]self". If this were true, I would agree that I would have some repenting to do myself.

You present me with a quandary, RCO

Some of the beliefs you ascribe to GE are far-fetched, and some are not.
I would like to see your answers to a couple of questions, then we can proceed to works and faith.

First, this one;

Would God knowingly create evil?

That was to GE.

You sneaked up on me, RCO.
I'll read what you have to say and get back to you

Hi MrMeaner,

"I had another thought as I read your last response to PH. The easiest way to convey the value of works is by agreeing that it is Christ that saves, but with the stipulation that we will judged by our works." -MrM

GE is confusing the work God does in us to save us with the work done through the Holy Spirit in our sanctification, and the work Christ does for us, on our behalf, in meeting all God's righteous requirements not with our ability, on our own accord, to please God.

What I objected to in GoldenEagles statement was this:

"Your idea that “the finished work of Jesus Christ alone is sufficient for [our] salvation” is obviously false. And the words of the Master Jesus Christ in John 3:36 proves that beyond any shadow of a doubt." - GE

He is adding to the work of Christ our human work/effort in being necessary for our salvation. Salvation is a gift from God alone, in Christ alone, by grace alone, through faith alone. What he is saying in a round about way is that Christ's sacrifice is not sufficient to save us; that we require working hand in hand with Him in order to be saved. It requires both our sacrifice as well as Christ's in GoldenEagles opinion. What RCofield and I have pointed out to GoldenEagles is that works comes after God's salvation. Anything that comes before or in order to be saved is not relying on Christ alone, but also on what we can do, our ability. That goes against everything that Scripture teaches. Works does not save, Christ does. GE's is saying it requires both.

"According to Matt 5:19, some will "be called the least in the kingdom of heaven", and some will "be called great in the kingdom of heaven"." - Mr.M

Do you think that your righteousness will surpass that of the Pharisees and teachers of the law?

So, obviously it's not an either-or situation. -Mr.M

Yes it is. Either He has saved you or you are lost.

"For He chose us in Him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in His sight. In love He predestined us to be adopted as His sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with His pleasure and will - to the praise of His glory, which He has freely given us in the One He loves. In Him we have redemption through His blood [not ours], the forgiveness of sins [which sin did Jesus not pay the penalty for on the cross in our behalf?], in accordance with the riches of His grace that He lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding." (Ephesians 1:4-7)

Some will be great in heaven. Some will be the least in heaven. How will that be determined? Obviously works."

The works of sanctification, not salvation

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this is not from yourselves, it is a gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)

Read verse 10 in the progression.

You're right, of course.
I guess I've become jaded through the experience of debating people in other forums who knowingly pervert scripture to suit an agenda that is anti-Christian.
I should probably reserve my judgment, until I have viewed a broader sample of exchanges involving your debate partners to make a proper discernment.

MRMEANER,

Well, that didn't take long. As you can see, GoldenEagles has already determined that you have a demon influencing your decisions. :-)

If you don't respond to his post and do exactly as he is suggesting this demon-possession mantra will increase in vitriol until you will hardly recognize yourself when he posts about you. (I say "about you" because if you disagree with him he will inevitably begin referring to you in the third person.)

Happy hunting.

BTW: I would be happy to respond to the post you drafted if you would like to publish it.

MRMEANER,
Part 1 of 2

Anyway, I worked all of that, and more in to a post, then said to myself "Why bother with someone with so little knowledge to back up so much confidence? I doubt people like that are receptive to anything but affirmation.

Why, hello there. It’s a pleasure to make your acquaintance as well. :-)

You seem to be responding to what is only a fractional portion of an exchange between GoldenEagles and myself that spans several months. During that exchange, he has insisted that good works are a prerequisite to salvation. That is, that we are saved by our good works, as they come before our salvation. Further, he believes that we are “reincarnated” over and over again until we reach a level of perfection worthy of earning our salvation and entrance into the presence of God. Ultimately, he is confusing salvation (regeneration/justification) with sanctification.

Additionally, he believes that he was present (in a prior embodiment) during the earthly ministry of Christ, and was present at several of Christ’s public discourses, that anyone who does not agree with him is possessed of one or more demons, that the technology that will be able to “detect” these demons in our “astral plane” is just around the corner, and that all men will ultimately be saved through the process of ever-increasing good works over the course of multiple reincarnated lifetimes. He believes that he (personally) will eventually be able to walk on water, turn water into wine, give sight to the blind, heal the lame, and cure the sick, and raise the dead. And no, I’m not kidding.

He refuses to answer questions concerning the inerrancy and infallibility of scripture, the authority of scripture, and the interpretive method of discerning scripture. He holds human reason as the supreme measure of what scripture posits, and appears to believe that not all of scripture is divinely inspired.

The posts you have apparently read between he and I are the culmination of months of him refusing to answer any direct questions, engage in any form of exchange-dialog, etc., all the while demanding answers from myself and Peter Huff to one question after another.

If he chooses to deny any of this I will be happy to provide you links to the posts in which he has posited these things and/or refused to answer direct questions, fabricated complete lies about myself, etc.

MRMEANER,

Part 2 of 2

Further, he lifts statements made by us completely out of context and literally fabricates all sorts of unsubstantiated allegations against us, and refuses to be corrected when we try to defend ourselves against such. In short, his method of “dialog” is completely void of integrity. Hence, I (and I think Peter Huff as well) have come to the conclusion that it is virtually useless to try and engage him in debate because of his lack of integrity, refusal to answer direct questions, and general dishonestly accusatory approach.

While you may completely agree both with his beliefs and his method of engagement on these threads (I have no way of knowing as this is the first time I recall encountering you), I thought it might be helpful to give you this background information.

If you would like to engage in an exchange concerning the place of good works in salvation I would count it a privilege to dialog with you. I think you will find that I will be both cordial and reasonably conversant with the scriptural evidence associated with this issue.

Regards.

MrMeaner says, “I worked up a post addressing RCO dismissal of your question. I cited his references, pointed out that if he/she had bothered to read the context of the cherry-picked scriptures, he/she would see that works are essential to maintaining salvation ... I worked all of that, and more in to a post, then said to myself "Why bother with someone with so little knowledge to back up so much confidence? I doubt people like that are receptive to anything but affirmation.”

I appreciate hearing the voice of a kindred spirit, who has a better developed sense of the value of obedience over disobedience unto Christ. Thank you for speaking up.

In regards to your decision to not post your original work I would say this.

All of us are here (on earth) because we still have an ear for the logic of serpent. We are here, because we have yet to become strongly disciplined in telling the difference between influences upon our minds and feelings that originate from above, and influences upon our minds and feelings that originate from beneath.

This is really the essence between the question of OBEDIENCE versus DISOBEDIENCE to the Commandments of Christ.

Your initial inspiration to answer the falsehoods set before us by Rcofield and Peterhuff, was an inspiration from above. It sounds like you put some work into it. And yet, after all that, a feeling came upon you, which said, “Ah, whats the point?” And in this way did the logic of the serpent, which has an inroad into your feeling world, derail the work of Christ in you.

When Christ said, “I Am the Truth,” we can apply that statement to mean that every inspiration we have to speak up and express the truth, is always an inspiration of Christ origin.

If you are inspired to do a “good work” as you described, and standing up for the truth is always a good work, then what it is that would ride in, and at the last minute, overturn the cart full of fruit? It is the influence of that which is anti-Christ, i.e serpent.

I am using the word “serpent” to signify the world of demons which operate from hidden and unseen levels to derail the work of Christ, in us, and in this world.

The Commandment of Christ, to “weary not in welling doing”, was to give us a checking mechanism against the influence of serpent to derail valid Christ inspirations.

Moreover, one valid application of the commandment to judge not, I think, would apply to this area. If we are inspired to answer falsehood with truth, if we feel that inspiration, and we are inspired to act on it, and to bring the work to a point where we can deliver it, we are not then to judge the capacity of the individual to receive it. We are to proceed forward believing that this individual has something in them that wants to hear the truth, and that they will be able to latch on to something in our words that will one day help them to shut the door to the serpent logic that has so much influence upon their minds currently.

I had another thought as I read your last response to PH.
The easiest way for to convey the value of works is by agreeing that it is Christ that saves, but with the stipulation that we will judged by our works.
According to Matt 5:19, some will "be called the least in the kingdom of heaven", and some will "be called great in the kingdom of heaven".
So, obviously it's not an either-or situation.
There are some who will reject God completely, and will be blotted out. Some will be great in heaven. Some will be the least in heaven.
How will that be determined?
Obviously works.

The Bible says that you are right, GE.

I worked up a post addressing RCO dismissal of your question. I cited his references, pointed out that if he/she ahd bothered to read the context of the cherry-picked scriptures, he/she would see that works are essential to maintaining salvation.
I thought your response, noting the woman who Christ told "Go and sin no more" was appropriate. I also noted that while his response to you lacked in scholarly integrity, it's substance was more than made up by the bellicosity of the delivery.

My favorite part was his citing John Ch.3
It's as if the only portion he actually read was the "for God so loved the world" part.

It's as if all of this isn't even there;

Jn. 3: 18He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

19And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

20For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

21But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

What part of "deeds should be reproved" does this person understand?

Anyway, I worked all of that, and more in to a post, then said to myself "Why bother with someone with so little knowledge to back up so much confidence?
I doubt people like that are receptive to anything but affirmation.
But, there you go.
That's my take on it.

Peterhuff says, “The same message is conveyed over and over again throughout Scripture that it is alone God who saves. Salvation is not a partnership.”

One of the problems with answering your questions, Peterhuff, is that your arguments are directed mostly at a non-issue. You keep arguing that it is God that Saves. And I have repeatedly agreed with you that it is God that Saves. I have no issue with you on the central importance of God in the salvation equation. My last multi-part post (in the last thread) gives a very detailed explanation of just how it is that God Saves.

But for the saving to take place, man must cooperate.

Now, even you MUST AGREE WITH THIS, that man must cooperate, if only to the extent of believing in Jesus Christ. In the act of believing, we have one aspect of cooperation which is essential and necessary. You MUST believe. And so there is one element in the salvation equation that requires cooperation, partnership.

Certainly we can agree on that. If one does not believe, then one cannot be saved. One must make the personal effort, and the personal choice, TO BELIEVE. And so, to at least that limited degree salvation is a partnership. Yes, God has the power to save, but if the person does not cooperate in at least believing in the Lord Jesus Christ (as the saving hand) one cannot be saved.

Another way to look at this, is to liken salvation unto a Golden Ladder that leads unto heaven. We will both stipulate that only God can create the golden ladder (the ladder of salvation). We will both stipulate that only God can let the golden ladder down from heaven (the ladder of salvation). And we will both stipulate that the power that allows us to climb the Golden Ladder, that too is the Power of God.

But the question is, when men see the Golden Ladder lowered down from heaven, what will men do it? Will they mock it? With they ignore it? Or will they climb it?

God alone lowers the Golden Ladder of salvation down from heaven. And man must cooperate by first believing that it leads to heaven, and secondly by make the effort to climb it.

There we have at least one element of a partnership. Can we agree on that?

MrMeaner says, "My God that was the most bizzare, convoluted, fallacious rendition of Christian philosophy that I have ever seen in my life."

Your statement, MrMeaner, does not give anyone an idea of where you stand on the subject of Christian philosophy. Within the context of Christian philisophy, the primary debate there was over the question as to whether obedience to the Commandments of Christ is a prerequiste unto salvation. I say it is. Peterhuff and Rcofield says it is not. Where do you stand on this question?

WALTER,

Part 2 of 2
So here is my proposed solution in three part:

First, let’s take the position of absolute, 100% certainty off the table. Let’s debate probabilities. In other words, let’s debate what we can know with a reasonable degree of certainty. This will leave open the possibility that either of us could be wrong, while opening up the possibility that we can eventually reach conclusions as to what is probable, though not absolutely certain.

Secondly, working from the first proposal, we agree that reason and logic are useful tools for understanding our physical world, right? Ok. So, let’s ASSUME that IF there is anything outside of our physical universe, reason and logic MIGHT be useful in helping us understand that as well. See? That is not unreasonable at all, is it?

Thirdly, working from my first and second proposals, let’s both posit some assumptions concerning the first-cause of the universe. Remember, our assumptions are not statements of absolute, 100% certainty, so we don’t have to stick with them if they don’t hold up to scrutiny. Then, let’s use logic and reason (because we have no scientific data) to determine the probability—the likelihood, if you will—of our respective assumptions.

Fourthly, let’s both keep in mind that we can’t know these things with absolute certainty. Let’s remember that we are only seeking to establish a reasonable degree of certainty, for, in the end, that is the best we can do.

Let me know what you think.

Peace, brother.

Hi Walter,

Just two cents here. You said:

i believe reason and logic are very important tools gaining understanding about the world. but uncaused first cause is not logical. we don't know of any other time where a cause was uncaused. it's illogical to propose one at the start of the infinite regression.

But Uncaused cause is the most logical. In an infinite regression how would you ever arrive at the present? Infinite regression is infinitely long, hence no beginning.

WALTER,

Part 1 of 2

Thanks for your response. I want to focus on one statement that you made:

i believe reason and logic are very important tools gaining understanding about the world. but uncaused first cause is not logical. we don't know of any other time where a cause was uncaused. it's illogical to propose one at the start of the infinite regression.

You entire last response to me was nothing more than arguing in circles. The above statement is a pretty good summary of that. This may be partially my fault in that I gave you too much of my first-cause argument at one time. So, let’s back up a bit and try to create (or cause to evolve ;-) ) an atmosphere that is more conducive to productive debate.

First, you agree that reason and logic are very important tools for gaining understanding, but you qualify it by adding “about the world.” This is classic philosophical naturalism at its best. You presuppose that logic and reason only work in “the world”—presumably the realm of the natural/physical universe.

Secondly, being a philosophical naturalist, you are only willing to “assume” with certainty that which can be empirically verified by “science.” Hence, any time I ask you to assume something that science cannot verify, you retreat to the unassailable position of “we don’t know.” The problem I have with your position is that you are not just saying we don’t know, you are assuming we can’t know--if science doesn’t tell us.

Thirdly, you are completely unwilling to make any assumptions, especially when I propose an assumption that you disagree with by default. What you seem to be missing is the fact that you simply cannot know anything with absolute, 100% certainty, even within the natural/physical universe. The reason we can’t know anything with absolute certainty is because we are not omniscient. We can never know for certain that we are aware of all contingent possibilities. The problem with this should be obvious: If you can’t know anything with certainty you can’t argue anything with certainty.

The three points above create a philosophical impasse. If you maintain them, we have nothing to debate. Indeed, if the three above points are strictly adhered to, there is nothing to debate. I have been operating under the assumption that you understood the above, but apparently you do not.

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2010/12/whats_your_new_years_prayer.html

My God that was the most bizzare, convoluted, fallacious rendition of Christian philosophy that I have ever seen in my life.

Seriously

I've read more rational commentary in a discussion centering around "The Great Turtle", than was contained in the mental gyrations on display by some in that thread.

part 4

walter: so, like i've said probably several thousand times by now, we don't know anything about the cause of the big bang (but we do know it happened more than 6000 years ago!). we are left with apparently tow equally irrational options (uncaused cause vs self-caused universe) as potential answers. who knows? i can't choose. you've definitely chosen uncaused caused maybe, ostensibly, because of something about occam's razor? can we talk about that - and the universe of assumptions you heap onto the uncaused cause - yet?

i also find it amusing that you're talking about "big bang theory" as if it's anything like genesis.

part 3

rco: Not at all. It is a simple matter of logical progression. An uncaused cause is not dependent in any way on anything outside of itself for its existence. It is, by definition, self-existent, else it is not uncaused. Hence, an uncaused cause is without rival. Nothing can rob it of its existence because it depends on nothing external to itself for its existence, hence w/o rival/competitor/challenger. Nothing can threaten its existence.

rco: That matter and energy (the “stuff” of which the universe is made) cannot be eternal is self-evident because it is subject to the law of entropy (Second Law of Thermodynamics). To which you responded:

walter: proposing an uncaused cause violates this "law" too.

rco: Only if the proposed uncaused cause consists of matter and energy. Given the above argumentation, an uncaused cause by definition would not consist of matter/energy. This is a difficult concept for philosophical naturalists, but it is in no way illogical.

walter: hahaha - good one. more unwarranted assumptions.

rco: The limitations of the natural sciences in determining the first cause of the universe are self-evident. To which you responded:

rco: indeed. and it is a limiting characteristic of science is not to make assumptions which are not testable. the best a scientist can say about what "was" before the big bang is "we don't know". proposing and "uncaused cause" OR "uncaused matter/energy" is beyond the limitations of science. we may propose these things, but it's not scientific.

rco: ??? I pointed that out to you weeks ago. I said “this is beyond the current purview of science.” And it should be pointed out here that the mere fact that we don’t have “scientific” answers does not logically preclude either the asking or consideration of such questions. Certainly you wouldn’t contend that simply because science “doesn’t know” what caused the universe we must assume that it didn’t have a cause.

walter: i suppose we can say there's a cause, but we don't know ANYTHING about that cause.

walter: well, like i said above, i think ANY proposal about "first cause" is equally unsupported and purely philosophical.

rco: You seem to be moving inexorably deeper into the position that we cannot know anything that science doesn’t tell us. Do you believe that reason and logic are legitimate means of attaining knowledge? Does your allegiance to science require that it inform you even of that which is apparent by the application of reason and logic? If so, we have a whole other wad of string to unravel here. If not, I don’t understand your seeming reticence to debate this particular issue.

walter: i believe reason and logic are very important tools gaining understanding about the world. but uncaused first cause is not logical. we don't know of any other time where a cause was uncaused. it's illogical to propose one at the start of the infinite regression.

rco: Actually there is more than adequate evidence from reason to assume the eternality of a first cause—otherwise it is not a first cause. Nothing—including God and the universe/matter/energy—is capable of causing itself. It would have to exist before it caused itself. We don’t have to put it under a microscope to know that to be absurd.

walter: uh...ok... then i ask again, "what do you suppose "caused" god". you can't claim he's "uncaused" because that's irrational too... everything has a cause, right?

rco: AND we do have a basis from scientific observation (Big Bang/Second Law) to reject the eternality of matter/energy and therefore to reject the eternality of “natural causes.”

walter: BB and SL do not rule out the eternality of matter/energy. your notion of the universe "running down" is a metaphor. it's a layman's way of grasping a scientific principle. again, the big bang and universal "laws" only apply after the big bang. they may apply before it, but we have no way of knowing.

rco: Conversely, my position is this: The “effect” of the universe requires a first (and ultimately eternal) first and moving cause. To which you respond:

walter: Ok

rco: Are you accepting that postulate? If not, why not? “Ok” doesn’t give me much to go on.

walter: well, no - not completely. i'm tentatively accepting it, for the sake of discussion, and seeing where you're taking it. remember, i've said about a thousand times that science has no answers for what was before the big bang.

rco: Unless we claim the irrationality of an infinite regression of causes, the ultimate cause of the universe must possess the power of being within itself. By definition, only such an entity could be an “uncaused” cause—that is, a cause that is dependent of nothing outside itself for its existence. And such an entity would, by definition, be without rival. To which you respond:

walter: right, or, unless we claim the irrationality of an uncaused cause.... see? it's really the same thing.

rco: Actually it is not the same thing. You do realize that the only alternative to an uncaused cause is an infinite regression of causes, don’t you? And because your position is that of philosophical naturalism you would have to argue for an infinite regression of natural causes—which would contradict Big Bang Theory and the Second Law. Do you honestly find that more rational than an uncaused cause?!

walter: well, "uncaused cause" is also irrational. what caused the cause? "nothing" isn't really a good answer... so we're both stuck. where you choose to insert "god", i leave it at "don't know".

walter: as far as "by definition...w/o rival", well, that's true only if you assume/define the uncaused cause as an "unrivalled uncaused cause"...but you seem to be multiplying (or at least adding to) your assumptions...

part 1

rco: Your philosophical­ naturalism requires an infinite regression of causes, hence the first and moving cause of all things can never actually be determined. To which you responded:

walter: well, no. i could just make ONE assumption: the matter/energy is eternal/uncaused.

rco: So the question then becomes: Are you making that assumption? I cannot respond to your assumptions if I don’t know what they are. If you maintain that you “don’t know” and are therefore unwilling to make any assumptions, how can you contend (with any integrity) that my assumptions are certainly wrong? If you honestly don’t know, intellectual integrity requires that you not rule out the possibility of my assumptions.

walter: i have repeatedly said, we have NO WAY OF CHOOSING btwn our assumptions. this is why i keep wanting to move on to discussing characteristics of the god you propose. but you keep wanting me to make a assumptions about which i keep saying there's no basis to make assumptions... you are trying to create certainty for certainty's sake.

rco: It should be pointed out here that if you do assume that matter/energy are eternal/uncaused you do so in contradiction to Big Bang Theory and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. So…do you or don’t you make that assumption?

walter: uh, no - not in contradiction to BB theory or any "laws" because BB theory makes no assumptions about what was before the big bang, and the "laws" of the universe apply only after the big bang.

rco: This is where Occam’s Razor becomes applicable—your position requires the endless multiplication of explanatory entities (causes). To which you responded:

walter: no, just the one assumption.

rco: So do you or don’t you make the assumption that matter/energy are eternal/uncaused? If you do, you must deal with Big Bang Theory and the Second Law. If you don’t, you can’t use that assumption to argue against my above postulation.

walter: i don't make any assumption about that. i know this is unsettling to folks like you and peter who like to have everything resolved. you guys invent certainty by inventing god to create the universe. you've even bought into the ancients'

rco: Though you reject the eternality of “God,” you embrace an eternality of “natural causes.” This seems inconsistent to me. To which you responded:

walter: actually what i'm saying is more that we don't have any basis for choosing between those two options.

Hi RCofield,

I think for GoldenEagles the best possible reply is to post Scripture after Scripture, like you are doing, that defeats his position in the hope that the Holy Spirit will bring him to his senses as we pray for God's grace and mercy on him. He is failing to answer almost every question we have asked him.

He seems to think sanctification (my submitting to God) comes before salvation or leads to my salvation. What does he not understand about a gift? The sinful mind is hostile to God and does not submit to God's grace (Romans 8:7). Does he just read over the Scriptures and reason because Jesus did not speak them while on earth that they are contrary to the word of God? It is obvious that his authority does not come from the word of God, but from his own reasoning.

I am reading all your exchanges with Gladerunner. He definitely has a host of beliefs and examples from history that he believes bolsters his position on moral relativism. That is the consequences of the Fall isn't it? It is just that these examples don't explain why this ought to be the case, in a shifting sea of ideas, other than by force or might makes right, just why such is. I think relativism is a good argument against his position.

I don't see how a relativist can justify his position as 'good' when the standard keeps shifting. It looks like he has gone to school to learn how to jettison any grounds for sound logic on this matter.

I have started to listen to your series on the New Atheism to see what nuggets I can gleam from it! As you can see, I'm all over the board in my responses to Gladerunner. I definitely admire your approach, how you can remember the salient points from before and tie them together. A friend of mine who had brain surgery had a slogan that he posted at work, that of all the things that he had lost the thing he missed the most was his mind. I feel that way about my memory sometimes.

One thing about sharing our faith/battling with atheists, cultists, false religions, aberrant Christians and agnostics on matters of truth, it certainly helps and gives us understanding in working out doctrine and correctly handling the word of truth because we are brought face to face with errors and beliefs that contradict the word of truth.

Romans 3:28 FOR WE HOLD THAT ONE IS JUSTIFIED BY FAITH APART FROM WORKS OF THE LAW.

Luke 18:9 And he spake this parable unto CERTAIN WHICH TRUSTED IN THEMSELVES THAT THEY WERE RIGHTEOUS, AND DESPISED OTHERS:

10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. 11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I THANK THEE, THAT I AM NOT AS OTHER MEN ARE, EXTORTIONERS, UNJUST, ADULTERERS, OR EVEN AS THIS PUBLICAN. 12 I FAST TWICE IN THE WEEK, I GIVE TITHES OF ALL THAT I POSSESS.

13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, GOD BE MERCIFUL TO ME A SINNER.

14 I tell you, THIS MAN WENT DOWN TO HIS HOUSE JUSTIFIED RATHER THAN THE OTHER: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

To him that has been granted ears to hear…let him hear.

Hi Guys,

Hope you find your way to this thread.

Our old thread:

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2010/12/whats_your_new_years_prayer.html

Wow. I'm astonished. To continue to claim that any link exists between the actions of the gunman and political rhetoric is an act of willful, shameless ignorance. And to claim that society "spits out" people with mental illness is to completely misunderstand the nature and struggles of coping with these diseases. I have loved ones who suffer from such illnesses, Dr. Shukla, and your careless dissemination of misinformation does them no favors. Shame on you.