Deu_24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
Deu_24:2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.
Deu_24:3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;
Deu_24:4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife , after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
Calvary and I will be representing the Pre-Tribulation Rapture position, which is also the official position of the Online Baptist Forum. There are a number of things that we agree with Pastor Totten on. We agree that there are good men who hold to both positions and that it is not necessary to separate over this issue. We also agree that the chief task given to us is to evangelize the lost world. Calvary, Pastor Totten, and I have agreed to keep this debate in a civilized manner. We have also agreed that when we get to a position where we must agree to disagree, the debate will be over. We agree that this is not about winning or losing, but about showing a clear presentation of when the rapture will occur.
Old - You cant ascertain the context either, at least not on this post, I don´t know what youre bellyaching about.
Calvinism is a rotten heresy and it's promoted here all the time.
OB doctrinal statement includes a pre trib pre millenial position, MIke does not hold to it, though he is certainly free to choose his eschatology, this board has a stated position, so....
Talebearing is repeating a lie told by someone else, it's also called gossip. Mike did not find those quotes himslef but relied upon a secondary source and fell into the trap of publickly stating a matter to be thus when it was not so, as any reading of the context of those quotes would have shown, IF HE HAD ACTUALLY READ THE MATERIAL instead of merely quoting a slanderer.
I also know that Mike is not malicious about it, but I was simply making a point.
Mike, I have to concurr with Steve, he is spot on. I have the book you quoted, or should I say, requoted...
Dr Ruckman has made clear time and time again in context exactly what he means when he uses the term "The Greek", it is a text that merely exists in the minds of Bible correcting fools as they can no more produce "The Greek" than you can. There is no such thing. If you actually read any of his books you would have known that. Stick to your own personal study and leave old Cloud out in the clouds Mike.
So this is it?? No context whatsoever, no answer to me whatsoever and pr OB ably no apologies for slandering another Christian.
Matt, this is why your site is dead. You allow blatant heretics to teach their rotten calvinism and to the praise of several here who should know better and you allow a mod to operate who does not accept the doctrinal position of this board. You either need to get a spine Matt or change the doctrinal statement.
Thanks Steve, you hit right on the head.
No need to find any context Mike, since that book you re quoted from someone else (which the BIble calls tale bearing or gossip) isn't available any more in that edition. That was 1970, and has since been edited down in 1997.
Bye now - you stop telling lies Mike, you are a mod don't ya know!
Stop mischaracterizing Dr. Ruckman's position. I get so tired of uniformed people putting a doctrine in the mouth of a man. And it isn't just "Ruckman" he has earned his doctrates unlike many pulp mill professors in the IFB colleges.
Can you please post the context of your information where, when and why he may have said the AV was better than the "originals" which no one here has ever seen yet seem to act like they exisit.....
MIke, you started with " " on your opening statement, thereby atributting your statement to Dr Ruckman, I for one would like to see that direct quote from Dr Ruckman.
I think the idea is form this, Isa 9:7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.
No end to it. To limit it to this earth alone is to limit the increase. That being said, Isaiah 45 would not be negated if other worlds were to be populated. The population of another planet does not necessaarily mean the disoccupation of earth.
Besides, I know this man well, he would harldy have an issue with you if you disagreed with him on this extremely minor point.
I will say this, I cannot imagine the Lord employing any means to control the population since his stated purpose to Adam was to be fruitful and multiply. It doesn´t seem to suggest anywhere in the Bible that Adam´s race should only multiply until such time as there is no room
He simply is referring to the scope of the Kingdom through eternity - not too difficult. If the kingdom of Christ has no end as it says in Isaiah, where does that take you if Adam had not sinned and with the population never ceasing with there being no death? It´s not a convoluted idea..... and again, one line out of a 50 minute session is not the foundational ground that it all stands or falls upon..... what about the entire session in general???
So where would the population of earth ended if there had been no sin and no death coming into the world? after 6 or 7 thousand years we´d be piled up upon each other with no room at all.... sort of makes sense that God never intended to confine man to this earth alone.....
I remember that chart, I used to drag it out every Thursday night and set it up with Dave Arnston - seeing that video was great and it all makes perfect sense to me, as that man was my mentor and trained me and sent me out to do the work of an evangelist in Mexico.
Someone said he got Abraham origin wrong, but lots of preachers say a thing in passing and it is a simple mistake, Abraham´s origins are not foundational to what the teaching session was dealing with. He is simply saying that Goid is doing a whole lot more than just seeing folks get saved and in fact there are and were different dealings with different peoples at different times. Hebews 1 tells us that much.
Amen Pastor Blue!! You were a great teacher of that book and I am glad that much of your talks are recorded for future students of God´s word.
I did - in this thread in fact. Piper is absolutely main stream thought - he is in fact a TULIP based theologian, reformed theology most definitely. I quoted him as winman to demostrate that main stream calvisinm does in fact teach that the souls salvation by limited atonement
Winman may not be my theology as far as his ideas about Christ go, but his conclusion on no one can know oif they are elect is in fact spot on.
John 81, you are a fence sitter brother - always riding along in the middle, not making any waves.
If you cannot speak conclusively to what calvinism teaches, in the main, then perhaps you should refrain from speaking about it all. Or educate your self and stand up and be counted on one side or the other. We are speaking to doctrine here. Not personal relations or experiences.
Calvinsim - is it Biblical or not? A plain yes or no should suffice, and then present your evidence.
I am convinced that this thread has demsotrated Calvinism in the main is a false and heretical teaching.
I make no recommendations, but I listen to music that I like.
I like Phillips, Craig and Dean.
I like Rend Collective.
I like West Coast Baptist College Choir
I like Jesús Adrian Romero.
I like Los Voceros de Cristo.
I like many blue grass artists.
First of all, no one ordered you to do anything. An secondly, I wasn´t responding to any question form you. I was stating my opinion. And if you´re gonna get snippy about it, sounds like a personal pr OB lem, not mine.
And SFC, the disrespectful comment was about the last few personal jabs thrown out on the thread, learn to read with some contextual comprehension. Always with the myopic statements this one.
The sin nature thread? Closed? Why?? If you ask me it was getting interesting and was no where near being finished.
Chispas! I tell ya, some times you mods are too hasty.
You´re only contribution is to come after a few days and not like the gist of it?? Really brother!!??
Open it back up.
No one was out of line, and if we can´t handle a poor doctrine we should close up shop. Some of us can´t answer every day, so every few weeks we come in and want to to say soemthing.
If you ask me, it was John81 and NN that were getting silly and disrespectful. It wasn´t winman.
These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners;
He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
And this is the record , that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He 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.
Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not , lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.