If regeneration happens in order that we may believe,

Why did you stop at verse 6? I suppose it is because you use those 3 verses as a proof text in support of proving "the doctrine of election"!

HOWEVER, The context of Paul's statements includes verses 13 and 14, in which Paul switches 'from' talking about the Apostles who were chosen before the foundation of the world to bring God's gospel to the nations making disciples, 'to' the Ephesian believers whom he is addressing, declaring them to be fruit of the effort of those who are described in verses 3-12. And How did they become that fruit? Through hearing the message of the truth and the gospel, just like ALL OF US WHO ARE LIKEWISE BELIEVERS, HAVE DONE! We are "elect" through our FAITH in God!

People who live in glass houses should not throw stones! </font>[/QUOTE]How in the world could you conclude that the Apostle Paul was limiting the "us" to the Apostles only? This letter was written to the Saints at Ephesus, they were included in the "us". You and I were included in the us. I have heard a lot of screwball ideas but this takes the cake!

 

Old Regular,

You said,

 

You are of course entitled to your opinion. However, if you do a little better job at reading, especially John 17, you will begin to understand what Paul is saying in the 1st chapter of Ephesians.

 

OldRegular,

Turn to (All Christians) "Other Christian Denominations" on the Baptist Board to the subject: "Diverting the Atonement." Read the posts of Wopik which are relevant to the fallen archangel. I am not alone in this view from Isaiah 14:12-17 & Ezekiel 28:13-18.

Time for you to hit the Book.

 

The passage from Isaiah 7:14 obviously had a meaning for King Ahaz apart from the incarnation some 700 years after Ahaz's demise. However, the applicability of this passage to the Virgin Birth is verified by reference in the New Testament.

You are wrong about the passages from Ezekiel and Isaiah, neither can you justify your interpretation by other Scripture. Not only are you wrong you are insultingly wrong. I thought you dispensationalists interpreted Scripture literally. Since when does man mean archangel?

I have quoted the words of Jesus Christ regarding Satan which dispute your interpretation of these passages. You choose to ignore His words.

Wrong again. Isaiah is talking about the Church.

You would have done well not to write a response since the bulk of it is to make insulting remarks. There is certainly nothing in it that is enlightening except to confirm what I have heard for years: The Seminaries are graduating Biblical illiterates. Bye, Bye

 

Old Regular,

Please go to (All Christians) “Other Christian Denominations” on the subject: “Diverting the Atonement” and get enlightened by what Wopik has to say about the fallen archangel.

Also, if Isaiah 9:6 is speaking of the church, as you wrongly interpret, when did the church through Jesus have ‘His government on His shoulder?’ Jesus said that His Kingdom was not of this world while He was here on earth, and of course, this will be true in the eternal state in Heaven.

But during the 1,000 year reign of Christ in His earthly theocracy, [Revelation chapter 20] His governing will be on this earth and as He says, and His government will be ‘on His shoulders,’ where His reign will be from ‘the throne of His father David.’ [Isaiah 9:7] King David reigned in Jerusalem not in Heaven. Also, Zechariah chapter fourteen indicates that Jesus will reign from Jerusalem. [vs. 17] Jesus earthly reign of the 1,000 year Millennium [Revelation chapter 20]will reach to the ends of the earth, as duly stated by the Prophet Zechariah in verse nine.

Notice in verse nine ‘ . . . in that day . . . ’

It sounds like you have had no formal training in a Bible College or an evangelical seminary, or you would not be so critical of pastors, whose denominations and ruling bodies demand study and training from the doctors of their churches. What makes it bad is that apparently you are not willing to either listen and surely not to learn from what other men of God have to say about His Words of truth.

If you do not listen you will never grow in Christ.

 

ILUVLIGHT,

If what you are saying is correct, then we should not go to church on Sunday to hear our pastors because, after all they are just human beings.

I guess you are saying that each of us should read our own Bibles and determine what we believe to be true.

I guess we only have two choices.

 

Dr. Berrian
You only gave me two.

 

Dr. Berrian said to OldRegular:

It sounds like you have had no formal training in a Bible College or an evangelical seminary, or you would not be so critical of pastors, whose denominations and ruling bodies demand study and training from the doctors of their churches.


BrotherJoe:

Please allow me to humbly share with you how my church ordains and qualifies pastors.

"Primitive Baptists elders are chosen by the individual congregations from among male members who have proven to be faithful to the church and its principles. These men are given the opportunity to speak over a trial period to determine if they have a gift to preach. This trial period typically lasts from one to five years. Those judged by the congregations to satisfy scriptural qualifications for the ministry are then ordained by a presbytery of elders.

All Primitive Baptist elders are expected to be self educated in the Word of God and are expected to seek the counsel of experienced ministers about questions of scriptural interpretation and other matters pertaining to the church. Both young and old elders are expected to seek the aid of the Holy Spirit in the furtherance of their wisdom and understanding.

This system of education is preferred above ministerial training schools because: Elders in the New Testament were primarily self-educated in the scriptures. Elders in the New Testament learned under the direction of the Holy Spirit and other elders rather than academicians. The system makes the scriptures themselves to be the curriculum. The elder learns in the same setting in which he is expected to teach. Congregations taught by these elders will be expected to have the discipline to educate themselves in the Word of God. The elder should therefore prove himself to have the same discipline. The system is less vulnerable to the widespread propagation of error so commonly found when numerous ministers are trained under the same teachings of heretical academicians. "(http://www.pb.org/pbfaq.html#Seminaries)

Dr. Berrian, it is also noteworthy that, "The ninth mark of the Apostolic church was the possession of a humble, God-called and God-qualified ministry.. The qualifications laid down in the new Testament for a gospel minister are that he must be a regenerated, Christ-loving, God called and God qualified man- kind, gentle, humble, quiet, firm, virtuous, upright, just, sober, temperate, unselfish, not covetous, well-proved, exemplary, of good repute, sound in doctrine, able and apt to teach, and divinely impressed with the work of the ministry, not for ambitions or sordid ends, but for the good of men and the glory of God (Gal 1; Eph 3; 4:8-16; John 21:15-17; 16:13-15; Matt 10:1-6; Rom 5:5; 2 Cor 3:5-6; 1 Tim 3:1-7; 4:12-16; Tit 1:6-9; Acts 20:28; 1 Pet 5:1-4; 1 Cor 9:16)."

"After these plain, unmistakable statements of the New Testament, what shall we say of the ancient and modern unscriptural, proud, Pharisaic doctrine that human learning is indispensable qualification of a minister of the gospel of the meek and lowly lamb of God? What shall we say of the numerous and splendid structures known as "theological seminaries," erected in the 19th century,for the purpose of qualifying men to preach the gospel , by a course of study ranging through several years, and occupied with from 40 to 100 books of uninspired man's composition? What resemblance do these pretentious human inventions bear to the humble, spiritual, Divine methods of the Lord Jesus Christ and His lowly Apostles and other elders of the first century? What a world wide change, and, in the opinion of the carnal religionists of today, what a vast improvement has taken place in the methods of evangelization! And there is no precept or example of these fine religious improvements among the people of God in the Bible, the question arises where and how did they originate ? "(http://www.primitivebaptist.org/writers/hassell/history/chapter09.asp)

God bless,

Brother Joe

 

Right on Brother Joe. [Read my note.]

 

ILUVLIGHT.

I don't understand why you added 'all' to Ray's post. He was just saying that God gave us teachers.
Anyway, the scripture does not say 'all' either, "Cursed is the one who trusts in man, who depends on flesh for his strength and whose heart turns away from the LORD.
Where does your faith come from man?

johnp.

 

How does faith come from God's word? How does belief come from God's word?

No.

johnp.

 

What answer will satisfy you Johnp?

You've been told the process at least twice since you been lurking on this bbs and you do not accept it. So just what answer will you accept?

You continue to post your bible "favorites" that are intended to refuse man what God has given man through the creation, that is, all the "ilities" that gave to man in order for man to live life and learn and come to faith in God.

 

Lurking! Great!
You confused me Wes. I thought you had said the faith comes from God's word but you do not believe that do you? You believe that persuasion comes from God's word and faith comes from you in response.
I had not realised that it was only ILUVLIGHT that I'd been to speaking to. Please, butting in is fine in my book but let me know because I just spent 1/2 hour looking for where I'd asked you.

ILUVLIGHT has said that his faith comes from the bible which took me by surprise as he has said that his faith originates in him and I thought this contradictory so thought I would point it out to him because if he thinks that faith originates in him then he is trusting in man because faith saves.

"Cursed is the one who trusts in man, who depends on flesh for his strength and whose heart turns away from the LORD.
Where does your faith come from man?
Which if he had told the truth should have been answered yes.
To say that I believe in man is false but if I did I would be no different from him so there would be no attack against me by him on this point because he is doing likewise. Only with him he believes in himself and I would have believed someone else. Do you see this?

johnp.