Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Jesus -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Berry Picker who wrote (3579)	12/30/1999 6:51:00 AM
From: monu	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 4775

I'll choose your response to Ezekiel first and then you can go into the Sabbath. I'm most concerned as what appears to be the "going back" to sacrificing of animals when we all agree that this is not needed under the new covenant. You should have read my line more carefully about the "predestined" and "backslidden". You would have saved yourself a lot of writing. What I WAS saying very simply (trying to speak in a Calvinist tone) was that the Non-Elect ( in reference to those you addressed in post #3532) could never be backslidden because they were never TRULY saved. Of course, Christians can be and are backslidden. Some are and don't even know it!! In 2 Sam.12:23 David is not talking about heaven and his confidence. You are reading too much into this statement. He simply is saying that if he goes to the child, the child will not respond. In the previous verse, David is saying "while the child was YET alive". From your position, David would have said the child IS still alive. To make it clear, I am not saying the child is or isn't in heaven. I am saying David wasn't talking about heaven here. BTW, let's keep these differences to a minimal here, as I understand and respect DCF's desire to keep this thread focused on Jesus. "2 Timothy 2:20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour." I don't see how this refers to the elect vs the damned. There will be some in heaven with higher callings (positions) than others. Some are of gold and some are of wood. They're ALL part of the SAME house. You and I are just going to have our differences. Thanks for the reply.

To: Berry Picker who wrote (3579)	12/30/1999 2:35:00 PM
From: Robert E. Hall	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4775

Greetings Brian and all who love the Lord Jesus Christ, <<< I really struggled with the thought that God may not save all of my children. After all Jacob and Esau were twins born into a covenant family yet God hated Esau before he was born and it was not based on anything Esau would do good or evil that God's Election would stand. Romans 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) 12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. 13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. >>>. I had struggled with the same verse until I was able to see that when the Lord said He hated Esau He was not talking about Esau's salvation but rather that Esau did not fit into Gods plans as far as the lineage of from whom the promised Messiah would come. When we study Abraham and his descendents we can see that God explicity has foreordained the lineage from whom our Lord would come. If you try and keep this in mind when reading these passages I believe it makes proper sense and casts the proper light on the character of God. Our North american understanding of this word is at best times very faulty. The word " hated " ( MISEO ) is translated several ways, the one I feel is correct in this scripture passage is " having a relative preference for one thing over another, by way of expressing either aversion from, or disregard for, the claims of one person or thing relative to those of another. ". How well that descibes the struggle of Isaac when he wanted Esau his firstborn to inherit the promises. God's election of Jacob as the lineage bearer was guaranteed but not without the struggle of man ( flesh ). Hope this helps you to see what I believe the scriptures teach. Grace and peace to you Brain. Robert

To: Berry Picker who wrote (3579)	12/30/1999 2:52:00 PM
From: Chris land	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4775

<<<In the end Jacob became the nicer of the two as Esau became bitter and hateful without God's grace....>>> Where do you see that Esau became bitter and hateful? From what I've read it was Jacob who feared for his life in the presence of Esau, who in turn received him gracefully and pardoned him.... take it from the words of Jacob "I pray thee, if now I have found grace in thy sight, then receive my present at my hand; for therefore I have seen thy face, as though I had seen the face of God, and thou wast pleased with me. Gen 33:10. I also recall that Esau, though dead to God became great in the eyes of men. Now as to Jacob being a nice man I must disagree because I've yet to find support of that in scripture. Isn't he the one who played favorites, choosing Joseph over all his other sons thus provoking them to envy? Esau wasn't bitter over Jacob because he didn't see any reason to be. Since he didn't value the promises of God anyway he couldn't be provoked to jealousy. Just like the Jews, they should be provoked that the Christians took their inheritance in God but are they? Not at all, they are dead to God and can't see what they lost. Chris