Seth Doty

To accurately discern the teaching of a particular passage it is important to look at the scriptures as a whole rather than a particular passage in isolation. A classic example is the commandment "thou shalt not kill". Taken as a standalone passage it might be reasonable to conclude it is a blanket prohibition on all killing. However when the whole body of the scriptures is examined it is clear that there are exceptions and it is not a blanket prohibition as it would appear in a standalone passage. Such is the case with Calvinism. There are a few passages that if they are taken as standalone passages might be interpreted in line with Calvinistic doctrine, however when the body of scripture and the character of God revealed therein is examined as a whole it is clear(to some anyway I suppose, few things are ever clear to all) that Calvinism is a gross perversion of the bibles doctrine and the character of God.

Some of the vast volume of scripture verses that fly in the face of Calvinistic doctrine:

"Ezekiel 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?"

"Luke 13:34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!"

"1 Timothy 2:3-4 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."

"2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."


If Calvinism( the irresistible grace aspect) is to be taken as true it must first deal with this enormous and glaring issue. How could God predestine some to be saved and give them "irresistible grace", but predestine others to hell(as calvinism teaches) and after having done that still honestly say that he wants everyone to be saved as he does numerous times in the scriptures? Either Calvinism is a lie, or God is a liar and not at all who he says he is in the bible. That is pretty much the only two reasonable conclusions that can be reached when Calvinism is contrasted with the whole of scripture. The fact that it of necessity makes God a capricious unholy liar is doubtless the single biggest issue with calvinism although there are also numerous smaller issues that arise when it is taken to its logical conclusion. Issues such as if all the elect are going to be saved regardless because God has already decreed they will why bother with attempting to convert the lost? The "elect" will be saved regardless and the non-elect cannot be saved anyway so why bother irritating the non-elect and putting yourself to any kind of trouble or inconvenience? Calvinism is basically just pagan fatalism reworked and going through mental gymnastics under the pretense of taking a high view of the power of the God of the bible. Never mind that if such a thing were so God would be in violation of his own laws making him an unjust judge by his own revealed standard, the bible. The God presented by Calvinism is a God that flat has no bounds, law, or restrictions. Everything that happens, good or evil, he has decreed that it shall be so and is therefore the author of both. The God of the bible is a God that recognizes and fully understands both good and evil, and has chosen to limit himself to that which is good, because it is who he is. He has set bounds, defined right and wrong, and abides by his own law. He allows evil to continue for a time and a purpose, but he does not cause it, is not the originator of it, and will one day do away with it all together. The God of the bible is light, the God presented by Calvinism cannot be, for he would be utterly without regard for his own law. Morally by the standard of the bible he would be closer to a thug and a bully than the righteous judge scripture declares him to be and there would be nothing to morally recommend him over the devil. That ultimate conclusion is why Calvinism is such a serious perversion of the truth.

Ok John, if you think it is wrong I will be the second witness to the substance of the statement per 1 Timothy 5:19. I am sure we can find more witnesses to attest to it if necessary. Doesn't mean Jerry isn't a useful addition to the forum but we all have our flaws and that statement is just a fact. Also while it is true that no one is forced to read these threads I think in general most don't really want to hear about such things any more than we have to. I only clicked on it because of all the responses. If it had none I would not have bothered opening it. The world is full of enough such things as it is and your not going to find anyone on this forum defending or agreeing with his actions. Such things once were the focus of tabloids but now they are accepted as somehow highly news and discussion worthy.

Ok John, if you think it is wrong I will be the second witness to the substance of the statement per 1 Timothy 5:19. I am sure we can find more witnesses to attest to it if necessary. Doesn't mean Jerry isn't a useful addition to the forum but we all have our flaws and that statement is just a fact. Also while it is true that no one is forced to read these threads I think in general most don't really want to hear about such things any more than we have to. I only clicked on it because of all the responses. If it had none I would not have bothered opening it. The world is full of enough such things as it is and your not going to find anyone on this forum defending or agreeing with his actions. Such things once were the focus of tabloids but now they are accepted as somehow highly news and discussion worthy.

By that logic it is wrong for a Christian to work for a secular company, work for the government, listen to the news and on and on. "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers","come ye out from among them and be ye separate" and all that. Problem is that is improper logic. Like I said I don't think public schools are the best option and it isn't something I would recommended, but that doesn't make it automatically a sin.

If your flat "either the bible clearly teaches separation or it doesn't" was accurate Paul would have never written this:

"1 Corinthians 5:9-10 wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world."

Biblical separation is a lifestyle difference not isolation from every error that is in the world.

By that logic it is wrong for a Christian to work for a secular company, work for the government, listen to the news and on and on. "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers","come ye out from among them and be ye separate" and all that. Problem is that is improper logic. Like I said I don't think public schools are the best option and it isn't something I would recommended, but that doesn't make it automatically a sin.

If your flat "either the bible clearly teaches separation or it doesn't" was accurate Paul would have never written this:

"1 Corinthians 5:9-10 wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world."

Biblical separation is a lifestyle difference not isolation from every error that is in the world.

This thread is for the defining of Israel and the current position of NT believers and discussion of the scriptural passages dealing with each. In this opening post I hope to express some of the similarities, and yet point out that there are clear differences. I do not feel the scriptures support the idea that the church has "replaced" Israel.

First I will start with a couple of their similarities.

Israel is God's chosen people. NT believers are God's chosen people.
Specific promises were made to Israel. Specific promises have been made to NT believers.
Abraham was the physical father of the nation of Israel. Abraham is a spiritual father of NT Christianity.

Now for a couple differences.

The nation of Israel rejected Christ in unbelief. NT believers accept Christ in faith.
The fullness of God's blessing departed from Israel. The blessing came upon NT Christianity and Gentiles were "grafted in".
Blindness came upon Israel.(till the fullness of the gentiles come in) Any NT Christian has the opportunity for spiritual sight.

Now where the confusion starts for some is the many scriptural parallels drawn between the physical and the spiritual. For example lets take this passage:

Romans 9:1-8 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all ° Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.


Passages like this, when it is not compared to other scriptures, is where replacement theology comes from.

Here is another one that I will discuss a bit:

"Galatians 4:22- 31 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free."

Now before you decide this is proof that God is done with the nation of Israel lets look at what God said about the son of the bondwoman.


"Genesis 21:12-20 And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called. And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed. And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread, and a bottle of water, and gave it unto Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and the child, and sent her away: and she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beersheba. And the water was spent in the bottle, and she cast the child under one of the shrubs. And she went, and sat her down over against him a good way off, as it were a bowshot: for she said, Let me not see the death of the child. And she sat over against him, and lift up her voice, and wept. And God heard the voice of the lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar out of heaven, and said unto her, What aileth thee, Hagar? fear not; for God hath heard the voice of the lad where he is. Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thine hand; for I will make him a great nation. And God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and filled the bottle with water, and gave the lad drink. And God was with the lad; and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness, and became an archer."

The son of the bondwoman is still of the seed of Abraham in one sense, and God isn't finished with that son just because he has been cast out as can be seen here. The very name which God commanded he be given is a testament to that fact. The name "Ishmael" means essentially "God will hear". Notice that even while God is directing Ishmael to be cast out he is not sending him out to be destroyed or forgotten, and promises Abraham that he will make a nation out of Ishmael too even though Ishmael is the child of the flesh and Isaac is the child of the promise. Now we see from scripture that Abraham is a picture of faith, Hagar is a picture of the law, Ishmael is a picture of Israel after the flesh, and we know that bread is a picture of God's provision, and that water is a picture of the Word of God. Israel was cast out when they rejected Christ as the messiah, and metaphorically speaking they were sent forth with the Law, God's provision, and a limited amount of God's word. God's provision for Israel did not run out, but his word to Israel did, rather like the plumbline Amos saw the Lord set in the midst of the house of Israel in the seventh chapter of that book. As the water ran out Israel after the flesh withdrew from the law a certain distance, they are forced to ignore certain requirements like certain sacrifices because they have no temple. Nevertheless even though Israel after the flesh is nearly dead spiritually without the water of the Word of God one day the Lord God will hear their voice, the valley of dry bones will live, the angel of the Lord will bring back the Law to Israel after the flesh, for a season at least(the water was once again placed in a bottle), and once again they will have the water of the Word of God. God will be with them but they will be in the wilderness, which is a picture of solitude(post rapture), and they will be spiritually strong warriors for the Lord.


Of course that is just one passage of an OT "ensample" given unto us and scripture is full of teaching on the subject.

"Philippians 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things."

Most of the people who object to C.S. Lewis do so for exactly the reason you acknowledge. His stories contain quite a bit of false doctrine. A half truth can be more dangerous than a complete lie sometimes. Why do you think false religions can be and historically have been so much more successful than pure atheism? Generally it is because they mix some truth and "spiritualism" with error. A little truth makes a lie more likely to be accepted. The less truth a lie contains the harder it is going to be to make it believable. Suppose I said I was 6ft six inches tall(which I am not). Without knowing or seeing me you might believe that statement were I to state that as a fact because you would known that it is true that some people are that height and you would have no reason to doubt me. However if I were to state that I was 20ft tall you would not believe that because it is a known truth that there are not any 20ft tall people. A lie like that would be difficult to get people to believe because it is getting even farther away from the truth. Thus it is with the devil. He is very fond of half truths or even twisting the scriptures to make his lies more believable.



It has been a long time since I have read those but I remember some pretty weird doctrine being mixed into those "letters". For example I seem to recall that it was taught that demons "ate" the souls of men and in turn were "eaten" by other demons. That sort of silliness is how errors in common thought gets started, such as the common perception of the devil as a horned creature with hoofs for feet, a pitchfork, a pointed tail, and a little pointy beard. Also such things as a long haired Jesus, people or angels having "halo's", angels being women, people become "angels" when they die and on and on... When doctrine and spiritual things are being taught it is a very bad idea to ignore a "little" false doctrine. At best it risks gradual acceptance of error as no big deal through familiarity, at worst it can mislead those who don't know any better into believing that the error is actually the truth.




The real question is such a thing pure? Is such a thing unrebukeable? Is it necessary or very smart to flirt with evil for the sake of a "story"? Not that any of us are or ever will perfect till we get our glorified bodies, but every Christian should be constantly doing their best to head more and more in the direction of the perfection of Christ. If that goal is persistently sought after out of a pure heart it results in many things. It results in a change of both actions and attitudes. Way to many Christians decide that since it isn't possible to be completely holy or perfect they are not going to make any effort in that direction at all. That is where many liberal elements of "christianity" are at. They attack anyone they perceive as having standards as a "legalist" since the thought or suggestion that a Christian really shouldn't be doing a whole lot of highly questionable things makes them uncomfortable. The other extreme is mistakenly and sometimes unconsciously deciding that holiness is important but that it is based mostly on Christ honoring "standards" such as the the way you dress, what you do or don't watch, what you do or don't read and so on. All the while putting a rather low emphasis on showing such things as biblical mercy, grace, self control, and so forth which are certainly every bit as important in being holy before God as holding Christ honoring standards(not that standards don't matter, they do, but they are only a piece of the picture rather than the whole picture). Few things bug me as much online as when I encounter people I generally agree with on doctrine and share their biblical standards yet they show very little or no evidence of self control, grace, longsuffering and so forth when they are arguing with people who don't see it. Of course this is subjective to a point, often times when someone disagrees they will claim they are being mistreated simply because there is disagreement when that really isn't so. Sometimes it really is so though. In such cases it unfortunately defeats the whole purpose of an argument over spiritual things even if one is technically right. It becomes a case of this: "Titus 1:16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate." When that happens it is quite sad and is the single greatest hindrance to the truth IMHO.

Your problem here rick is that your interpretation does not fit in with the rest of scripture. No interpretation of any scripture is valid if it contradicts other scriptures. Saying that a person can loose their salvation at any time based on works flies in the face of everything the scriptures teaches about the character of God and what salvation is in the first place.

Before automatically assuming the wicked servant in the parable Matthew 24 is a saved believer that looses salvation in another dispensation look at the whole counsel of God. Look at some of the other things Jesus had to say.

"Matthew 3:10 And now also the ax is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire."

"Matthew 7:17-19 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit ; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire."

Then there is the parable of the sower:

"Mark 4:13-20 And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables? The sower soweth the word. And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts. And these are they likewise which are sown on stony ground; who, when they have heard the word, immediately receive it with gladness; And have no root in themselves, and so endure but for a time: afterward, when affliction or persecution ariseth for the word's sake, immediately they are offended. And these are they which are sown among thorns; such as hear the word, And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful. And these are they which are sown on good ground; such as hear the word, and receive it, and bring forth fruit, some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some an hundred. "

Biblically when looking at many scriptures,(and not just these) it is impossible for someone to be truly saved and not produce any fruit assuming there is sufficient time. There will be no "one talent" Christians that buried God's one talent in the earth and did nothing with it. Good seed in good soil equals growth and fruit in due season. Any parable of Christ where a servant produces nothing at all is indicative of a lost, but religious, individual. Since the multiplication of talents is good growth, in the parable asked about in the OP the multiplication of "talents" can be fairly called "fruit". The initial talents each individual was given are of course representative of gifts from God that you did not work to receive, it was simply given to you. The talents that were gained as a result of making use of the talents "given" to them represent the fruit of the believer. What have you done with Jesus so to speak. The servant with "one talent" represents someone who has only mental knowledge of Christ. Someone who believes IN Christ, but has not believed on Christ to the salvation of their soul. Essentially what the book of James talks about, how that faith without works is dead. As it is sometimes expressed, we are saved by grace through faith alone, but true saving faith will be followed by works. Out of the seed of saving faith will grow the fruit of works in due season.

On what grounds is it wrong for the government to kill the sworn enemies of your country who by their evil actions have shown that they are worthy of death regardless of whether they are armed or not? Remember what Jael did to Sisera, and what Samuel did to Agag? I could care less if Osama and his friends had time to take guns in hands or not. One of the main points of a surprise attack is to catch the enemy ill prepared to resist or escape and kill or capture them before they can get that way.




"Spiking the football" because of a military victory over the enemy is a extremely common thing in the bible and makes good practical sense. It is good for morale on your side and bad for morale on the other side. Even Christ Jesus "spiked the football" metaphorically speaking over the devil after his victory on the cross. "Colossians 2:15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it." As far as the Europeans or anyone else being "upset" that America went into Pakistan and took out Osama without asking "permission" I could care less and would guarantee not one country would have had the nerve to complain about it had this happened say the month after 9/11 2001. From my perspective time hasn't changed a thing. I think it is a good thing that they did not take him alive as that would have turned into a extremely long and expensive affair and he might well have died of old age before conviction and execution. Killing Osama outright made a lot more sense. David told Solomon this about Joab and Shimei when he was basically giving him his "hit" list.

1 Kings 2:5-6 Moreover thou knowest also what Joab the son of Zeruiah did to me, and what he did to the two captains of the hosts of Israel, unto Abner the son of Ner, and unto Amasa the son of Jether, whom he slew, and shed the blood of war in peace, and put the blood of war upon his girdle that was about his loins, and in his shoes that were on his feet. Do therefore according to thy wisdom, and let not his hoar head go down to the grave in peace.

"1 Kings 2:8-9 And, behold, thou hast with thee Shimei the son of Gera, a Benjamite of Bahurim, which cursed me with a grievous curse in the day when I went to Mahanaim: but he came down to meet me at Jordan, and I sware to him by the LORD, saying, I will not put thee to death with the sword. Now therefore hold him not guiltless: for thou art a wise man, and knowest what thou oughtest to do unto him; but his hoar head bring thou down to the grave with blood. "


Osama attacked America without just cause and killed thousands of innocent people. This was an action that demanded his death as a matter of principle. It was the duty of the American government to do their best to insure that they brought Osama's "hoar head" down to the grave with blood one way or another. Killing him was the morally right thing to do, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with being pleased to see justice done. The USA's government taking out Osama is a classic case of Romans 13:4.

On what grounds is it wrong for the government to kill the sworn enemies of your country who by their evil actions have shown that they are worthy of death regardless of whether they are armed or not? Remember what Jael did to Sisera, and what Samuel did to Agag? I could care less if Osama and his friends had time to take guns in hands or not. One of the main points of a surprise attack is to catch the enemy ill prepared to resist or escape and kill or capture them before they can get that way.




"Spiking the football" because of a military victory over the enemy is a extremely common thing in the bible and makes good practical sense. It is good for morale on your side and bad for morale on the other side. Even Christ Jesus "spiked the football" metaphorically speaking over the devil after his victory on the cross. "Colossians 2:15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it." As far as the Europeans or anyone else being "upset" that America went into Pakistan and took out Osama without asking "permission" I could care less and would guarantee not one country would have had the nerve to complain about it had this happened say the month after 9/11 2001. From my perspective time hasn't changed a thing. I think it is a good thing that they did not take him alive as that would have turned into a extremely long and expensive affair and he might well have died of old age before conviction and execution. Killing Osama outright made a lot more sense. David told Solomon this about Joab and Shimei when he was basically giving him his "hit" list.

1 Kings 2:5-6 Moreover thou knowest also what Joab the son of Zeruiah did to me, and what he did to the two captains of the hosts of Israel, unto Abner the son of Ner, and unto Amasa the son of Jether, whom he slew, and shed the blood of war in peace, and put the blood of war upon his girdle that was about his loins, and in his shoes that were on his feet. Do therefore according to thy wisdom, and let not his hoar head go down to the grave in peace.

"1 Kings 2:8-9 And, behold, thou hast with thee Shimei the son of Gera, a Benjamite of Bahurim, which cursed me with a grievous curse in the day when I went to Mahanaim: but he came down to meet me at Jordan, and I sware to him by the LORD, saying, I will not put thee to death with the sword. Now therefore hold him not guiltless: for thou art a wise man, and knowest what thou oughtest to do unto him; but his hoar head bring thou down to the grave with blood. "


Osama attacked America without just cause and killed thousands of innocent people. This was an action that demanded his death as a matter of principle. It was the duty of the American government to do their best to insure that they brought Osama's "hoar head" down to the grave with blood one way or another. Killing him was the morally right thing to do, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with being pleased to see justice done. The USA's government taking out Osama is a classic case of Romans 13:4.

Yes. It has been that way since governments have existed. If you commit murder, then run, the government should quite rightly be authorized to kill you without a trial, or capture you and force you to stand trial. It doesn't matter which. There is no question about Osama's guilt anyway. He himself freely admitted to it.




Really.

"1 Samuel 15:32-33 Then said Samuel, Bring ye hither to me Agag the king of the Amalekites. And Agag came unto him delicately. And Agag said, Surely the bitterness of death is past. And Samuel said, As thy sword hath made women childless, so shall thy mother be childless among women. And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal."

"Judges 4:17-21 Howbeit Sisera fled away on his feet to the tent of Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite: for there was peace between Jabin the king of Hazor and the house of Heber the Kenite. And Jael went out to meet Sisera, and said unto him, Turn in, my lord, turn in to me; fear not. And when he had turned in unto her into the tent, she covered him with a mantle. And he said unto her, Give me, I pray thee, a little water to drink; for I am thirsty. And she opened a bottle of milk, and gave him drink, and covered him. Again he said unto her, Stand in the door of the tent, and it shall be, when any man doth come and inquire of thee, and say, Is there any man here? that thou shalt say, No. Then Jael Heber's wife took a nail of the tent, and took an hammer in her hand, and went softly unto him, and smote the nail into his temples, and fastened it into the ground: for he was fast asleep and weary. So he died."....."Judges 5:24 Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be, blessed shall she be above women in the tent."

"1 Kings 2:28-34 Then tidings came to Joab: for Joab had turned after Adonijah, though he turned not after Absalom. And Joab fled unto the tabernacle of the LORD, and caught hold on the horns of the altar. And it was told king Solomon that Joab was fled unto the tabernacle of the LORD; and, behold, he is by the altar. Then Solomon sent Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, saying, Go, fall upon him. And Benaiah came to the tabernacle of the LORD, and said unto him, Thus saith the king, Come forth. And he said, Nay; but I will die here. And Benaiah brought the king word again, saying, Thus said Joab, and thus he answered me. And the king said unto him, Do as he hath said, and fall upon him, and bury him; that thou mayest take away the innocent blood, which Joab shed, from me, and from the house of my father. And the LORD shall return his blood upon his own head, who fell upon two men more righteous and better than he, and slew them with the sword, my father David not knowing thereof, to wit, Abner the son of Ner, captain of the host of Israel, and Amasa the son of Jether, captain of the host of Judah. Their blood shall therefore return upon the head of Joab, and upon the head of his seed for ever: but upon David, and upon his seed, and upon his house, and upon his throne, shall there be peace for ever from the LORD. So Benaiah the son of Jehoiada went up, and fell upon him, and slew him: and he was buried in his own house in the wilderness."


Dead is dead. It doesn't make the slightest moral difference if an evil man deserving of death is killed while armed or unarmed. What ever works in the particular situation.





If the hypothetical family member freely admitted to intentionally killing thousands of innocent people based on hatred I would not object in the least if the government hunted them down and killed them. I would assist the government in doing so as much as I could. They would fully deserve it and the government would be within its rights to kill them. Indeed it would be the governments duty to kill or capture them(which ever is easier) unless the person willingly gave themselves up to stand trial. You run and you forfeit any right to a trial.





Except that your notion that the government is wrong to kill a self confessed murderer that is on the run without first having a trial isn't Gods way at all. There are many scriptural examples of evil men being put to death or even "assassinated" without trial. If Osama had denied his guilt or wanted a trial he could have turned himself in and stood trial at any time. He didn't wan't a trial, freely admitted his guilt, and eventually received that recompense of his crime which was fitting. The government did one of the primary things the government exists to do, and in this case it seems they did it well.

"International laws" are a tenuous concept at best and ridiculous at the worst. In reality national governments are the highest level of law except for Gods law. Pakistan isn't really Americas friend or ally and most everyone knows that including our government though they would say otherwise for political reasons. Like the Saudi's and the vast majority of the middle eastern countries Pakistan tries to play both ends against the middle. They hate America and take American money and use it to fund terrorism and fan hatred against America while occasionally pretending to be our friends when they need us. America has long said we would strike at Osama no matter where he was if we found him. We quite rightly didn't tell the Pakistanis what we were up to because we knew they can't be trusted with information like that. The chances are good someone would have tipped him off and he would have escaped again. Fortunately common sense prevailed over politics this time. Remember Tora Bora where we thought we would leave the capture or killing of Osama up to the Afghan's and it turned out that some of our "allies" let him get away on purpose? Fortunately America didn't make that same mistake again. I am sure we would have told Pakistan and asked permission if they had been genuine allies like England, Canada, Australia, Japan, etc. but that just isn't the way it is. The vast majority of the population in just about every Muslim country is either publicly or secretly cheering for our enemies and America denies that reality at its peril.

On what grounds is it wrong for the government to kill the sworn enemies of your country who by their evil actions have shown that they are worthy of death regardless of whether they are armed or not? Remember what Jael did to Sisera, and what Samuel did to Agag? I could care less if Osama and his friends had time to take guns in hands or not. One of the main points of a surprise attack is to catch the enemy ill prepared to resist or escape and kill or capture them before they can get that way.




"Spiking the football" because of a military victory over the enemy is a extremely common thing in the bible and makes good practical sense. It is good for morale on your side and bad for morale on the other side. Even Christ Jesus "spiked the football" metaphorically speaking over the devil after his victory on the cross. "Colossians 2:15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it." As far as the Europeans or anyone else being "upset" that America went into Pakistan and took out Osama without asking "permission" I could care less and would guarantee not one country would have had the nerve to complain about it had this happened say the month after 9/11 2001. From my perspective time hasn't changed a thing. I think it is a good thing that they did not take him alive as that would have turned into a extremely long and expensive affair and he might well have died of old age before conviction and execution. Killing Osama outright made a lot more sense. David told Solomon this about Joab and Shimei when he was basically giving him his "hit" list.

1 Kings 2:5-6 Moreover thou knowest also what Joab the son of Zeruiah did to me, and what he did to the two captains of the hosts of Israel, unto Abner the son of Ner, and unto Amasa the son of Jether, whom he slew, and shed the blood of war in peace, and put the blood of war upon his girdle that was about his loins, and in his shoes that were on his feet. Do therefore according to thy wisdom, and let not his hoar head go down to the grave in peace.

"1 Kings 2:8-9 And, behold, thou hast with thee Shimei the son of Gera, a Benjamite of Bahurim, which cursed me with a grievous curse in the day when I went to Mahanaim: but he came down to meet me at Jordan, and I sware to him by the LORD, saying, I will not put thee to death with the sword. Now therefore hold him not guiltless: for thou art a wise man, and knowest what thou oughtest to do unto him; but his hoar head bring thou down to the grave with blood. "


Osama attacked America without just cause and killed thousands of innocent people. This was an action that demanded his death as a matter of principle. It was the duty of the American government to do their best to insure that they brought Osama's "hoar head" down to the grave with blood one way or another. Killing him was the morally right thing to do, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with being pleased to see justice done. The USA's government taking out Osama is a classic case of Romans 13:4.

OK, OP, I did not give Scripture because it has been given throughout this thread. My definition of a missionary (and I presumed for the sake of this discussion we all were speaking of the same thing) is one who is starting local churches in a foreign land. Therefore, they would be a pastor, even if it were only until a national pastor could take the position. If you are talking about something else, as it seems that the thread has shifted, then that is a different ball of wax. Divorce renders someone ineligible for certain things. Pastor (and in my definition-missionary) is one of those things.

To Wichbla, I am sorry you have such a sad view on things. You sound very angry and bitter in your sarcasm, or perhaps you are serious. Tithing is one area that I appreciate the opportunity to be able to do. To give back a small segment of the blessings God has given is a privilege. If that were the only way I could serve Him, I would be privileged to be allowed to do so. It is one thing that we can say that we are clear about in obedience. Ten percent is clearly defined. Makes it easy to obey. I believe the Bible is just as clear about the position of pastor within a church. It isn't that someone is Pariah. We are all Pariah, saved by grace.

I can not be a pastor because I am a girl. Does that make me Pariah, or merely ineligible. (I am very well versed in the Bible, I have a strong theological education, I have had many ladies say that I have a gift in teaching, so is it fair that I can't be a preacher or an evangelist?) I can help my gender less than one can help the choice of the person whom they marry. By the OP's definition (evangelists are not pastors) does that mean I can be an evangelist? I wouldn't be a pastor, just a helper in the church, right? (I do not believe that I have the right to be an evangelist, nor a lead missionary, I'm just applying the rationale given.) I think it is unfortunate that this discussion needs to be repeated so frequently. We are not listening to what the Bible says, but rather warping it to suit our own set of values. I mean no offense, I merely state my opinion.

If you will not listen to dozens of crystal clear passages in the OT what difference would the NT make anyway? The OT is not any less the word of God than the NT. The NT is quite clear that if people will not believe and reject the truth found in the OT they will not believe the truth at all no matter who it comes from.

"John 5:46-47 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?"

"Luke 16:29-31 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."

"Philippians 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things."

Most of the people who object to C.S. Lewis do so for exactly the reason you acknowledge. His stories contain quite a bit of false doctrine. A half truth can be more dangerous than a complete lie sometimes. Why do you think false religions can be and historically have been so much more successful than pure atheism? Generally it is because they mix some truth and "spiritualism" with error. A little truth makes a lie more likely to be accepted. The less truth a lie contains the harder it is going to be to make it believable. Suppose I said I was 6ft six inches tall(which I am not). Without knowing or seeing me you might believe that statement were I to state that as a fact because you would known that it is true that some people are that height and you would have no reason to doubt me. However if I were to state that I was 20ft tall you would not believe that because it is a known truth that there are not any 20ft tall people. A lie like that would be difficult to get people to believe because it is getting even farther away from the truth. Thus it is with the devil. He is very fond of half truths or even twisting the scriptures to make his lies more believable.



It has been a long time since I have read those but I remember some pretty weird doctrine being mixed into those "letters". For example I seem to recall that it was taught that demons "ate" the souls of men and in turn were "eaten" by other demons. That sort of silliness is how errors in common thought gets started, such as the common perception of the devil as a horned creature with hoofs for feet, a pitchfork, a pointed tail, and a little pointy beard. Also such things as a long haired Jesus, people or angels having "halo's", angels being women, people become "angels" when they die and on and on... When doctrine and spiritual things are being taught it is a very bad idea to ignore a "little" false doctrine. At best it risks gradual acceptance of error as no big deal through familiarity, at worst it can mislead those who don't know any better into believing that the error is actually the truth.




The real question is such a thing pure? Is such a thing unrebukeable? Is it necessary or very smart to flirt with evil for the sake of a "story"? Not that any of us are or ever will perfect till we get our glorified bodies, but every Christian should be constantly doing their best to head more and more in the direction of the perfection of Christ. If that goal is persistently sought after out of a pure heart it results in many things. It results in a change of both actions and attitudes. Way to many Christians decide that since it isn't possible to be completely holy or perfect they are not going to make any effort in that direction at all. That is where many liberal elements of "christianity" are at. They attack anyone they perceive as having standards as a "legalist" since the thought or suggestion that a Christian really shouldn't be doing a whole lot of highly questionable things makes them uncomfortable. The other extreme is mistakenly and sometimes unconsciously deciding that holiness is important but that it is based mostly on Christ honoring "standards" such as the the way you dress, what you do or don't watch, what you do or don't read and so on. All the while putting a rather low emphasis on showing such things as biblical mercy, grace, self control, and so forth which are certainly every bit as important in being holy before God as holding Christ honoring standards(not that standards don't matter, they do, but they are only a piece of the picture rather than the whole picture). Few things bug me as much online as when I encounter people I generally agree with on doctrine and share their biblical standards yet they show very little or no evidence of self control, grace, longsuffering and so forth when they are arguing with people who don't see it. Of course this is subjective to a point, often times when someone disagrees they will claim they are being mistreated simply because there is disagreement when that really isn't so. Sometimes it really is so though. In such cases it unfortunately defeats the whole purpose of an argument over spiritual things even if one is technically right. It becomes a case of this: "Titus 1:16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate." When that happens it is quite sad and is the single greatest hindrance to the truth IMHO.

If you will not listen to dozens of crystal clear passages in the OT what difference would the NT make anyway? The OT is not any less the word of God than the NT. The NT is quite clear that if people will not believe and reject the truth found in the OT they will not believe the truth at all no matter who it comes from.

"John 5:46-47 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?"

"Luke 16:29-31 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."

Lets look at these accusations one by one.

"claiming the Gospel according to Matthew is for the Jews & therefore for the millennium & not the church;" (Not generally a true statement except concerning hyperdispensationalists which are a great minority and at odds with most other dispensationalists.)

"claiming the church is an interpolation in God's plans for Israel;" (True. Guilty as charged.)

"focusing on national Israel to the prejudice of the Gospel & indigenous Christians in the Moslem countries;"(If by this rather vague accusation you mean most dispensationalists generally support the right of the Jewish people to exist as a nation in their own God given land you would be correct.)

supporting 'aliya' of unbelieving, Christ-rejecting Jews, & the resultant injustice suffered by Arab Palestinian Christians & Moslems; (This would seem to be the same as the previous statement only re-worded. )

studying Scripture with an imposed 'system;' (Not really true any more than you study scripture with an "imposed system". The fact of the matter is that dispensationalists like myself start with the scriptures and believe dispensationalism fits them. Scriptures come first and any "system" is held to dogmatically only to the extent that it can be seen in the scriptures.)

treating prophecy as post 'rapture' so the Christians have a 'grandstand view' of tribulation, rather than taking the encouragement of Scripture as we suffer;(Nothing says Christians can't go through tribulation, certainly Christians throughout history have suffered much. Yes dispensationalists do tend to believe that the scriptures show Christians will be raptured out of the world prior to the"great tribulation".

encouraging Jews not to convert in this dispensation;(Totally and utterly false. Never heard anyone suggest or imply such a thing. If anyone did, they would definitely be way outside "normal" dispensationalist views. Even hyper-dipensationalists don't tend to hold to a position like that.)

teaching the slaughter of 2/3 of Israeli Jews;(Yes, during the great trib, but it isn't exactly an encouragement for someone to "slaughter of 2/3 of Israeli Jews". It is a belief that scripture teaches that that is going to happen during the great trib under the anti-christs persecution. Even if you disagree I am not sure exactly why such a position would rise to the level of "heresy".)

Lets look at these accusations one by one.

"claiming the Gospel according to Matthew is for the Jews & therefore for the millennium & not the church;" (Not generally a true statement except concerning hyperdispensationalists which are a great minority and at odds with most other dispensationalists.)

"claiming the church is an interpolation in God's plans for Israel;" (True. Guilty as charged.)

"focusing on national Israel to the prejudice of the Gospel & indigenous Christians in the Moslem countries;"(If by this rather vague accusation you mean most dispensationalists generally support the right of the Jewish people to exist as a nation in their own God given land you would be correct.)

supporting 'aliya' of unbelieving, Christ-rejecting Jews, & the resultant injustice suffered by Arab Palestinian Christians & Moslems; (This would seem to be the same as the previous statement only re-worded. )

studying Scripture with an imposed 'system;' (Not really true any more than you study scripture with an "imposed system". The fact of the matter is that dispensationalists like myself start with the scriptures and believe dispensationalism fits them. Scriptures come first and any "system" is held to dogmatically only to the extent that it can be seen in the scriptures.)

treating prophecy as post 'rapture' so the Christians have a 'grandstand view' of tribulation, rather than taking the encouragement of Scripture as we suffer;(Nothing says Christians can't go through tribulation, certainly Christians throughout history have suffered much. Yes dispensationalists do tend to believe that the scriptures show Christians will be raptured out of the world prior to the"great tribulation".

encouraging Jews not to convert in this dispensation;(Totally and utterly false. Never heard anyone suggest or imply such a thing. If anyone did, they would definitely be way outside "normal" dispensationalist views. Even hyper-dipensationalists don't tend to hold to a position like that.)

teaching the slaughter of 2/3 of Israeli Jews;(Yes, during the great trib, but it isn't exactly an encouragement for someone to "slaughter of 2/3 of Israeli Jews". It is a belief that scripture teaches that that is going to happen during the great trib under the anti-christs persecution. Even if you disagree I am not sure exactly why such a position would rise to the level of "heresy".)

The "exception" isn't really one at all. In three of the four gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke God says that to divorce and re-marry is "adultery" in his eyes. In only the book of Matthew, written to Jewish believers, is the "saving for the cause of fornication" clause mentioned. That is because as Dennis D alluded to, the Jews considered the betrothal period to be a time of where the couple was married but had not come together physically yet. Thus when the angel appeared to Joseph after mary was found with child during the betrothal period he said "fear not to take unto thee mary thy wife". We don't have that custom and "betrothal" is not a binding contract today as it was in the Jewish world then. If Jesus had meant it was ok to divorce because a spouse had committed adultery he would have used that word. Instead he used the word translated "fornication" which is different from the one for adultery. The greek word translated "fornication" is the same one the english word "pornography" comes from. It is an extremely broad word that literally could cover just about anything from improper relations before marriage to immodest manner of dress, to lustful looks. If you think the Matthew reference to "save for the cause of fornication" is a biblical reason to divorce as we define divorce today your not only mistaken your inconsistent by limiting it to adultery when the word is not the word for adultery in either the English or the Greek. If you stuck to the literal definition of "porneiva" as a legitimate reason for divorce as we know it the slightest form of unfaithfulness would be considered an acceptable reason to divorce. In short you could never claim anyone was biblically wrong to divorce if they claimed that as a reason. Technically a a wife could divorce her husband for an improper look at another woman, a husband could divorce his wife for dressing provocatively, etc. That "exception" would be so broad that it would make the prohibition meaningless in the first place.

As far as the "abandonment" by an unbeliever issue Paul mentions it does not give the "abandoned" permission to re-marry, it only states that if such a situation happens and the unbeliever leaves them they should allow the unbeliever to do so and states they are not under "bondage" in such situations and that they are called to peace. I think the issue there was that some people had converted and that their spouses absolutely detested Christianity and left them, but the new believers were afraid that they were guilty of something if they "allowed" such a thing to happen because they knew Gods views on divorce. Apparently some of the church had written Paul about this kind of situation. Paul replied and reassured them that if they had done what they could and were not the ones initiating the divorce it wasn't their fault and they should have no guilt. In light of 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 and the Lords direct command they should remain unmarried if being reconciled isn't an option for one reason or another.

Not everyone believes there are any "exceptions" given in scripture. As I said before, it is a matter of qualifications not a slam on anyone. A blind man isn't qualified to drive, a double amputee isn't qualified to compete in a foot race. It matters not at all how long ago they were disabled or whether their disability was their own fault or the fault of someone else. The fact remains that they are disabled regardless of the reason and can't do everything someone not suffering from that disability can do. Does that somehow make them "second class" citizens? No, of course not, there are other areas where their disability is not critical and there they can compete on a level field with others.

When a person has been married, and then that one flesh relationship joined together by God is put asunder by man contrary to Gods will it causes a spiritual traumatic injury and a resulting public and private disability of a sort that means there are a few things they can't do. David was a man after Gods own heart and was beloved of God yet God refused to allow him to fulfill his hearts desire to build the temple to the Lord because he was a "man of war" and had "shed blood". Was God slamming David or was he somehow not fully forgiven for his various sins? No, he had the "sure mercies of David" and was fully forgiven, he just wasn't qualified to do that particular job for the Lord because of the life he had led. Likewise Moses, certainly one of a half dozen or so men closest to God in all the scriptures was disqualified from leading the people across jordan and entering into the promise land because he had violated one of Gods pictures of Christ and smote the rock the second time when he was told by God to only speak to the rock on that occasion. As a consequence he disqualified himself and died without entering into the promise land even though at the time of his death "his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated.". In other words he would have been fully capable of leading them across Jordan and doubtless would have done so but for the fact he was disqualified from that role. David and Moses were both close enough to God that they did not attempt to rebel against his will and accepted that they could not do these things even though in both cases it was a strong desire of their hearts and they were in a position where they could easily have proceeded in the flesh had they wished. I can truly say one of the things that grieves me most is when I see someone that has a heart for God and a desire to do something good for God and the ability to do it well, yet they simply are not qualified for the job because of past actions. It grieves me that metaphorically speaking sometimes David can't build the temple and sometimes Moses can't enter the promise land but sometimes that is just the way it is sad though it be. I have also seen the other side of the coin where the metaphoric David or Moses desires to do the particular thing for God so strongly that they simply will not listen to his will and proceed to do it anyway in the flesh. That is even sadder. I really think in such cases where a man has a heart to pastor and the ability to do it but yet is biblically disqualified the best thing he can do is follow the example of Moses and David. Moses helped Joshua as much as he could and prayed for him, David encouraged Solomon and charged him in the building of the temple as well as gathered together a large percentage of the materials Solomon would need for the temples construction. I think God blesses the obedience to his word in such cases and I believe God often shows the individual the promise land metaphorically speaking and gives their heart joy and peace in what he does allow them to do because they don't fret about what they can't do or enter into a state of biblical denial and do it anyway.
.

Why? Sunday is not the Sabbath, nor do the rules for the Sabbath apply to Sunday. Now if someone wants to treat Sunday as a day of rest nothing wrong with that, but Christians biblically have liberty to observe the Sabbath or a Sabbath like day or not as they choose. Christians are not supposed to "forsake" assembling together, but there is no prohibition against working on Sunday in the NT like there was against working on the Sabbath in the OT.

"Colossians 2:16-17 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."

If you define fantasy as the use of "magic" in a story then I would have to say I disagree with that class of fiction. I do not believe magic is a appropriate area for the mind to dwell not because it isn't real, but because it can be real and is a work of the devil. Magic is a replacement for God and that is never appropriate in any context. I was defining "fantasy" more broadly as any type of fictional story. Something that never really happened. More specifically I was speaking of things like "historical fiction" or even things that are flat impossible yet not presented as "magical" such as story lines like "Doctor Dolittle" for example. When you start to get into the world of of "magic" I draw the line though and the deeper into that it goes the more serious it is. As I see it fantasy is presenting an alternate reality in a story line, while magic is supernatural forces other than God doing something outside the ordinary even in the storyline. For example in the right type of story a talking animal is not magic, it is simply a alternate reality where talking animals is normal. It is magic though if talking animals is not part of the norm in the story and it is induced by some type of spell, or other "supernatural" force. To me it isn't so much what as it is why something happens in the story that defines whether it is magical or not.

I would disagree. The "fairy godmother" is supposed to be a powerful supernatural being other than God even in the story line. She performs what are supposed to be supernatural "miracles" on the behalf of Cinderella and functions as a replacement for God. I do not think supernatural "gods" functioning as replacements for the true God are ever acceptable even in stories. There are only two supernatural powers, God and satan. If it is supernatural and isn't of the one it is of the other. The problem with books and what not that obscure that truth is that they can confuse many and lead to problems in the real world. According to the bible satan himself can be transformed into an angel of light. Stories where there are "good" supernatural figures other than God or his angels just makes it a little easier for satan to trick people in the real world. I have had people tell me with a serious face that they believed there are "good" witches and wizards and "good" spells as well as bad ones etc. All that is slowly absorbed from the wrong kind of stories where there are "benign" supernatural powers other than God. The supernatural world is real and it isn't something to be played around with lightly even in fiction.



A "unreal" story to me means simply that the story did not really happen and perhaps depending on the story could not have happened due to certain "facts" in the story that are not "facts" in reality.

We had a discussion about this a couple of years ago! I'm going to just repost what I said there.





The original thread was found here: My link
You should read it -- there were some excellent points made by other posters that are well worth reading. :thumb: