Thanks for the reply, Dave. However, my wife is off work for the next three days, so I will spend this time with her. I will have to catch up later.

In the meantime, take care. 

Greetings in the name of Christ Jesus, everyone. I wish to add my "two cents."

I was just wondering if everyone on these forums think that demons can possess people? I believe that they can. I realize if your religion is Catholic, you would believe in possessions. I guess this is more direct towards non-Catholics.

A cursory search of the New Testament will reveal many references to demons or demonic activity. Plus, as the possessor of spiritual discernment (ref. 1 Corinthians 12:10 [Greek]), I observe demonic activity daily.

A third of all the original angels are now demons (fallen angels) in Satan's domain (the present earth).  That's a lot of demons[...]

I disagree. The fallen angels (ref. Revelation 12:3-4) are imprisoned within hell (Jude 1:6, 2 Peter 2:4), which logically necessitates that demons are another type of being.

Demons are disembodied spirits. So being that they are spirits they can get into people.

Agreed. Nowhere does Scripture show a fallen angel possessing a person.

Some think they cannot possess a Christian and some think that they can.

During the New Testament Church Age, the Spirit indwells the believer's inner being (Ephesians 3:16), while utilizing the believer's body as a temple (1 Corinthians 3:16, 1 Corinthians 6:19). Now, how could a demon possess a believer, if God the Spirit controls the believer (Romans 8:9)? Moreover, why would God the Spirit share his temple with a demon, especially when 'Elohiym refused to indwell an unclean temple in the Old Testament?

We were made to contain God. It is said that in every man there is a God-shaped void. And God dwells in us as the Spirit.

Can you substantiate this assertion with Scriptural prooftexting? Throughout the entire Biblical timeline, only Church Age believers receive the permanent indwelling of God the Spirit.

There are actually many people who are possessed by a spirit and dont know it because they do not believe in that stuff.

Agreed. I have seen false believers that misinterpreted demon possession as the indwelling of God the Spirit.

This was the closure of a difficult teaching that Jesus gave earlier-

John 6:53-56
 53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.  54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.  55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.  56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.

Reading on down the above chapter, the disciples were distressed about this (since they knew that God had told them not to drink blood), and I think at the last supper, they sighed a sigh of relief about that since the Master clarified it.

I think overall, that Jesus wanted His disciples (including us) to understand that Passover was about him and that was the reason for calling the unleavened bread, wine, and by extension the lamb and other food, His body.

Perhaps another reason he didn't choose the lamb directly is because it is really flesh, and he didn't want people to think they were eating human flesh, or that eating human flesh was acceptable.

Any thoughts?

In John 6, Transubstantiationist and Cosubstantiationist apologists emphasize the literal reading of John 6:54-56. Specifically, these apologists see John 6:55 as representing the physical Eucharistic elements, while viewing John 6:54, 56 as representing the consumption of the physical Eucharistic elements.

However, this is non-sequitur reasoning, for while John 6:55 mentions real sustenance, John 6:55 does not mention physical sustenance. To the contrary, in John 6:27, Jesus instructs the crowd to seek food that does not spoil, as opposed to food that spoils. Likewise, in John 4:13-14, Christ Jesus instructs the Samaritan woman to seek water that permanently quenches thirst. This is significant, for all physical food spoils after providing temporary nourishment only, thereby indicating that the subject is literal spiritual food, not literal physical food. Christ Jesus verifies this interpretation in John 6:30-33, 49-50, 58, where he contrasts desert manna with bread from heaven.

With this in mind, notice that Christ Jesus parallels belief in him (John 6:29, 35, 40, 47) with eating him as the "bread of life" (John 6:50, 51, 58) throughout John 6. Each item results in obtaining eternal life, in and of itself, thereby indicating that these things are same thing. Otherwise, Christ Jesus would be contradicting himself by advocating different means of obtaining salvation.

This parallel reaches its full logical extension in John 6:53-56. Specifically, Christ Jesus parallels belief in him with eating his body and blood. This dual form of food describes a two-fold form of spiritual nourishment:
(a) The body is what bears the sins (ref. Leviticus 16:21-22), which is why Christ Jesus bore our sins in his body (1 Peter 2:24). Hence, Christ Jesus's body eliminates our spiritual burden of bearing sin (Romans 6:5-7).
(b) Blood, or lifeblood, is forfeited for the payment of sins (Leviticus 17:11, Hebrews 9:22), which is why Christ Jesus spilled his lifeblood for our sins (Matthew 26:28, 1 Peter 1:18-19, 1 John 1:7, etc.). Hence, Christ Jesus's blood eliminates our spiritual burden of sinful guilt (Hebrews 9:14, Hebrews 10:22).

At this point, remember that Christ Jesus observed Mosaic Law, which prohibited the drinking of blood (Leviticus 17:10-12). The Apostles followed this observance by teaching believers to abstain from drinking blood (Acts 15:20, Acts 15:29, Acts 21:25).

Further, God the Father prevents Christ Jesus from experiencing decay (Acts 2:27). However, in consuming transubstantiate or cosubstantiate communion wafers and wine, one's body digests or "breaks down" the said materials.

This New Testament imagery of consuming Christ Jesus to internalize his saving power (ref. John 6:50-51, 53-54, 57-58) parallels the Old Testament imagery of consuming God's words to internalize their meaning (ref. Jeremiah 15:16, Isaiah 55:1-3, Ezekiel 2:8, Ezekiel 3:1). Plus, this cross-Testament parallel includes the imagery of Matthew 5:6, where one's desire to intake nutrition illustrates one's desire for righteousness.

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus
Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are
to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from
prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of
our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which
the Father, in His goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift
of God are perishing in their disputes" (St. Ignatius of Antioch,
Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1).

"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake
of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has
been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for
regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as
Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we
receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by
the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so
too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the
Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change
of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the
blood of that incarnated Jesus" (St. Justin Martyr, First Apology 66).

"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be His own blood,
from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of
creation, He has established as His own body, from which He gives
increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and
water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the
Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our
flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is
not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal
life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord,
and is in fact a member of Him?" (St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against
Heresies, 5:2).

Please note that St. Ireneasu was a Bishop of the church in the 2nd century.

Id like to see the responses.

"Because they say so"? Why should I accept the theological authority of Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus?

We all know that the communion is a symbol linked to Passover which[...]

Many people believe that the "Lord’s Supper," or the "Last Supper" (Matthew 26:17-30, Mark 14:12-26, Luke 22:7-38, John 13), is a "Christian ordinance" established by Chirst Jesus. This assertion relies on interpreting the "Last Supper" as a "Christian Passover Seder Meal," which fulfilled the Jewish Passover seder meal (Exodus 12:1-30). However, consider the following:

(a) John 13 mentions two meals.

John 13 [NIV]
27 [...]"What you are about to do, do quickly," Jesus told him, 28 but no one at the meal understood why Jesus said this to him. 29 Since Judas had charge of the money, some thought Jesus was telling him to buy what was needed for the Feast, or to give something to the poor. 30 As soon as Judas had taken the bread, he went out. And it was night.

In John 13:29, when Judas left to betray Jesus, some of the disciples thought that Judas was going to buy the materials needed for "the feast," for he was in charge of the money. However, Jesus and his disciples had already consumed a meal, as shown by John 13:2 and John 13:26. Specifically, John 13:2 shows a meal being served, while John 13:26 shows Jesus's possession of bread.

(b) Unleavened bread, azumos (Strong’s #106), is required for a Passover seder meal. However, in Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22, and Luke 22:19, the term for regular bread, artos (Strong’s #740), describes the bread that Christ Jesus broke. Moreover, in 1 Corinthians 11, when Paul writes about how to properly carry out the "Lord’s Supper," Paul uses the same term, artos, in verses 23 and 26 through 28.

(b) The Jewish Passover meal was centered around the consumption of a slain lamb (Exodus 12:6-8). However, the "Last Supper" (John 13) occured the day before Passover (John 13:1, John 18:28, John 14:19, John 19:31, John 19:42), when Christ Jesus died as the "Passover Lamb" (1 Corinthians 5:7, John 18:38-40, etc.).

[this is my body]

Greetings in the name of Christ Jesus, everyone. I wish to offer a rebuttal.

I'm coming to this discussion somewhat late and I don't have the patience to read through 3+ pages of discussion.

I wholeheartedly agree. Starting with your post, I believe that this thread is starting over.

[...]but I believe that Christ is truly present in, with, and under the bread and wine.

In Holy Communion the crucified and risen Christ is present in word and action.  This presence is a mystery.

Holy Communion is a means of grace through which the crucified and risen Christ awakens faith, saves, forgives, unites, gives life, comforts and strengthens God's people for the work to which they are called in the world.

In Holy Communion the church is nourished and strengthened.

Can you substantiate these assertions with Scriptural prooftexting?

For those of you that believe in symbolic-only communion, how does "do this to remember me" erase "this is my body and blood", or change it into this is not my body and blood?

How does this phraseology evidence the conversion of any substance?

Let us re-examine the critical parts of the "Last Supper" or "Lord's Supper."

Matthew 26 [NIV]
26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."
27 Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom."

*Note: See also Mark 14:22-25 and Luke 22:17-20.

In interpreting these "Last Supper" passages, Transubstantiationist and Cosubstantiationist apologists claim that the words "this is," or touto estin, communicate a conversion of the bread and wine, otherwise Christ Jesus would have said "this symbolizes."

However, this is non-sequitur reasoning. The Greek expressions of the phrase "this is," such as . . .
(a) touto + esti,
(b) houtos + esti, or
(c) ho + esti,
. . . can communicate symbolic designations (ref. Matthew 13:37-39 [Greek text]) or literal truths (ref. Matthew 3:17 [Greek text], Matthew 14:2 [Greek text]). If Christ Jesus intended this statement to be unequivocally literal, then he would have said touto gignetai[*], or "this has become," not simply touto estin, or "this is" (cross ref. John 2:9 [Greek]).

A true literal interpretation of the words in question would be paradoxical. Bread is not human flesh, nor is wine human blood, otherwise the basic usage of these words is invalid. Instead, Christ Jesus recognized the presence of the bread and wine, even when making the said statements, as shown by Matthew 26:29. As a result, the reader does not see Christ Jesus offering severed body parts or bleedings for consumption, in any context.

Therefore, Transubstantiationists and Cosubstantiationists must appeal to extra-Scriptural presuppositions in reinterpreting Christ Jesus's words.

And then I think about some Christians who don't go to church as often as they shoud, or don't go at all because the bed is nice and warm, or because they are 'tired' from staying up too late the night before, I just don't understand.

Why is this hard to understand?

I pray for these Christians, maybe they don't realize that every sheep needs a shpherd.

'Elohiym is always with us, no? How are "the unchurched" without a Shepard?

If they are not attending church regularly, chances are they are not feeding their spirits with God's Word daily or maybe not praying regularly.

This assertion is a hasty generalization. Is it not presumptuous to approach "the unchurched" with this presupposition?

We'll have to agree to disagree then, and that's fine. I won't argue it with you.

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

I will respect your wishes, so I will offer no rebuttal. Perhaps we can discuss this issue another time.

God's Words is not only unapologetic, but also relentless in teaching God's complete sovereignty over all He created, every rain drop that falls, every lot that is drawn, every sparrow that falls, that none of these things happen contrary to His decree, but because he ordains them to happen.

You are missing the critical point. 'Elohiym desires what is genuine, not what is hollow. Specifically, 'Elohiym seeks genuine love (John 14:21, John 16:27, Matthew 10:37, Matthew 22:34-40, etc.) and genuine worship (John 4:23) from people. However, if 'Elohiym predestines people to do these things, then 'Elohiym would receive hollow, unreal versions of these things, for nothing would exist but puppeteered motions.

For instance, I choose to love 'Elohiym. Now, how can I genuinely choose to love 'Elohiym, if I cannot choose to hate 'Elohiym? Plus, how can I love 'Elohiym, if my love does not come from me? Love is a relational reaction. A loving relationship is a binding relational reaction between different parties. Both of these things are "two way streets," not "one way round trips."

Dave, I do not enjoy repeating myself. But, since you are avoiding this point, among others, I must do so. Please address this issue.

His word also teaches us, that man makes responsible choices and will be held accountable for them.

Under Total Predestination, 'Elohiym causes, or preordains, all moral evil or sin, yet 'Elohiym still punishes sinful beings for their sin. Now, how can 'Elohiym punish sinful beings for sins that 'Elohiym predestined them to do? And how does this assertion not slander 'Elohiym's character?

Who wrote the book of Romans? Was it Paul? Or was it God? If God coerced Paul to write exactly as He wanted, then how can Paul honestly say that he is writing this letter? Is Paul lying? If I tell you that both wrote the book of Romans, that it was 100% Paul, and 100% God, will you then say that this is "is a self-contradictory non-answer"?

Hold on a second. When did God the Spirit dictate a word-for-word message for Paul to write? How do you know that God the Spirit did not inspire a non-verbal message within Paul, but Paul expressed this message in his own way? This argument comes across as a "grey area" presuppositional argument, not an argument of substance.

We need to get rid of the idea that for man to make a responsible choice, that God must forfeit some of His sovereignty. This simply isn't Biblical and is nowhere taught in scripture.

Why is Total Predestination necessary for maintaining 'Elohiym's sovereignty? Is 'Elohiym not capable of influencing free will without nullifying free will?

Lucky, I wish that I had all day, because I would like to answer your whole post now in great detail, but time will not allow anymore today. See ya tomorrow, Lord willing.

No problem. Our immediate priorities must come first. Take care, Dave.

Greetings in the name of Christ Jesus, campanaro.

We have a lot of people visit our church, but very few return a second time. Maybe we don't know what they want, so I've decided to try and find out what people look for in a church.

So, if you were looking for a church, what qualities would you look for?

"Church" is a loaded term. What is "church"?

[I bring prosperity and create disaster]

Greetings in the name of Christ Jesus, Nana. I wish to offer a small rebuttal.

God created evil and His Word tells us that He does evil:

Isaiah 45:5  I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: 6  That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.  7   I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

God did create evil - His Word does not lie.  The word create in Isaiah 45 is the exact word that God uses in Genesis 1:1 to create [bara] the world.

I disagree. You are quoting the KJV's rendering of Isaiah 45:7, which is misleading semantically.

Isaiah 45:7 [NIV]
I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the LORD, do all these things.

Isaiah 45:7 [NASB]
The One (A)forming light and (B)creating darkness,
Causing well-being and (C)creating calamity;
I am the LORD who does all these.

Isaiah 45:7 [KJV]
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

*See also Isaiah 45:7 [Hebrew text].

Notice that this verse is structured as two antithesis comparisons. In the fist clause, the formation of light is contrasted with the creation of darkness, as affirmed by the NIV, NASB, and KJV's identical rendering. As shown by the Hebrew words used, this comparison could juxtapositon different parts of the day, the different luminousness of different locations, and/or light and darkness in general.

In the second clause, "prosperity" [NIV], "well-being" [NASB], and "peace" [KJV] is contrasted with "disaster" [NIV], "calamity" [NASB], and "evil" [NIV]. This cross-translation overview evidences a contrast between good fortune and misfortune, not moral goodness and moral evil. Otherwise, the KJV's contrast between "peace" and "evil" is illogical.

This interpretation is confirmed by the Hebrew text. The Hebrew word for "prosperity" [NIV], "well-being" [NASB], and "peace" [KJV] is shalowm (Strong's #7965). As demonstrated by Strong's Lexicon and Strong's Greek Dictionary, the word shalowm never refers to moral goodness. To the contrary, shalowm refers to wellness in multiple possible contexts. As a result, the comparison cannot contrast moral goodness with moral evil.

Job 42:11 Then came there unto him all his brethren, and all his sisters, and all they that had been of his acquaintance before, and did eat bread with him in his house: and they bemoaned him, and comforted him over all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him: every man also gave him a piece of money, and every one an earring of gold.

Job 2:10 But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips.

In Job 2:10 and Job 42:11, the Hebrew word for "evil" is ra' (Strong's #7451). The word ra' can refer to moral evil or misfortune, among other meanings. How do you know that these verses refer to moral evil, as opposed to misfortune?

Isaiah 54: 16Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy.

1Sa 16:14 But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him.  15 And Saul's servants said unto him, Behold now, an evil spirit from God troubleth thee. 16 Let our lord now command thy servants, [which are] before thee, to seek out a man, [who is] a cunning player on an harp: and it shall come to pass, when the evil spirit from God is upon thee, that he shall play with his hand, and thou shalt be well.

1Sa 16:23 And it came to pass, when the [evil] spirit from God was upon Saul, that David took an harp, and played with his hand: so Saul was refreshed, and was well, and the evil spirit departed from him.

1Sa 18:10 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the evil spirit from God came upon Saul, and he prophesied in the midst of the house: and David played with his hand, as at other times: and [there was] a javelin in Saul's hand.

1Sa 19:9 And the evil spirit from the LORD was upon Saul, as he sat in his house with his javelin in his hand: and David played with [his] hand.

So? How do these Scriptural references show 'Elohiym creating moral evil?

A really good example of this is found in Job. When satan came before God to inflict Job - satan asked God to extend His [God's] hand and cause destruction to come upon Job.
[Job 1:10-12]

So? How do these Scriptural references show 'Elohiym creating moral evil?

Because people do not understand the Infinite and Awesome Majesty of God, they do not understand that God created and does indeed do evil.  The OT states verse after verse that God did evil, sends evil, sends evil spirits, repents of evil.

There is also plenty of evidence in the NT that God does evil as well.

So 'Elohiym is evil? How can 'Elohiym create or do morally evil things, yet remain good? And how do you reconcile your assertion with Job 34:10-12?

God is Eternal - Forever.  He created ALL things, ALL concepts, ALL ideas.  He created evil for His purpose.  satan did not get an idea for evil himself.  satan cannot create, he can only imitate.  evil was present in the form of pride when satan [lucifer] was in heaven - he chose to act on it.  he became prideful and wanted to elevate himself over God.

I agree that 'Elohiym "created all things" (Ecclesiastes 11:5, Isaiah 44:24, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Colossians 1:15-17, Revelation 4:11, etc.). However, 'Elohiym "created all things" under what context? The original creations of Genesis 1 or all things for all time?

'Elohiym did not create everything that currently exists. For instance, 'Elohiym did not create airplanes. Instead, 'Elohiym created the raw materials which man used to build airplanes.

Now, let us apply this point to evil. The original state of evil is raw intellectual knowledge, which represents possible courses of action. Neither the intellectual knowledge of evil nor the capacity to do evil is inherently evil. To the contrary, sin or moral evil, evil natures, and corruption in general are produced by evil put into action, as demonstrated by the fall of Adam and Eve. Hence, one deduces that God created evil, but not evil in action.

Another example is the creation of Adam and Eve.  God said it was good when He created them, yet He created them with the propensity to do evil - hence the warning not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  When satan tempted them, that proclivity was acted upon and man sinned against God.

Really? How could Adam and Eve possess a sinful nature before obtaining the knowledge of good and evil?

Luckystrike, i'm out of time already. Sorry for the wait, but i'll need to try to get in here tomorrow. I'll see if I can print your post so I can go over it more thoroughly. Last time I tried to print something from this forum I only got the ads, but not the posts.

Sounds good. But before I discontinue my replies for today, I wish to add one quick reply.

Do you recognize your faith as a gift from God?  Are you thankful to Him for the belief you have?

My personal faith is a gift from 'Elohiym? I disagree. I assume that you are referencing the Calvinistic interpretation of Ephesians 2:8-9.

Ephesians 2 [NIV]
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

"Gift of God" under what context? Faith is a gift from 'Elohiym or salvation through faith is a gift from 'Elohiym?

I must refere back to the definition given earlier.

The compatibilist holds that every human action has a sufficient cause outside of the human will. Freedom in the compatibilist sense is the contention that even if every choice we make and every act we perform is determined by forces outside ourselves, and ultimately by God's ordaining guidance, we are still free, for we still act according to our desires."

This quotation is a self-contradictory non-answer. The claim that irresistible coercion by 'Elohiym can coincide with the individual's will begs the question, for irresistible divine coercion is irresistible divine coercion. And irresistible coercion by 'Elohiym precludes the existence of individual will, otherwise a paradox within the chain of causation results.

[...]every choice we make and every act we perform is determined by forces outside ourselves, and ultimately by God's ordaining guidance,[...]

Nobody has ever taken away the choice, but the ability to make the right choice is impossible unless God acts first.

Your replies are self-contradicting. Does 'Elohiym pre-ordain all of our "choices," or simply our good "choices"?

Again, we are not puppets, we are free to follow the desires of our hearts. But also keep in mind what was posted in the third and fourth post of this thread. Nobody has ever taken away the choice, but the ability to make the right choice is impossible unless God acts first.

Are you referencing the doctrine of Total Depravity? If so, then I ask:

Did Christ Jesus inherit a hereditary "depraved nature" from Mary (ref. Hebrews 2:14, 17, Hebrews 4:15)?

But so is the Trinity,[...]

This reply is a strawman argument. You are presupposing that Compatibilist Predestination is a valid "mystery." However, you have not explained why this paradox is a valid mystery, as opposed to erroneous illogical logic.

God providencially governs all things. He works all things according to His will (Eph 1:11), all things work for the good of those who love Him (Romans 8:28), etc. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

And where does Epeshians 1:11 and Romans 8:28 mention Total Predestination? For instance, how do you know that these versese describe Total Predestination, as opposed to the divine guidance of all earthly situations? The highlighted phraseology does not evidence Total Predestination, unless one appeals to semantical presuppositions inserted into the text.

In His eternal purpose, He chose to elect out of the world (John 17:6)

John 16:7 [NIV]
I have revealed you[a] to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word.

"Gave them to [Christ Jesus]" under what context? Pre-ordained salvation or delegated authority?

Yet, God, for His own glory, and to manifest the glory in wrath, chose to endure "vessels...prepared for destruction" for the supreme fulfillment of His will (Romans 9:22).

Romans 9 [NIV]
20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' " [a] 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
22 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?

Since this passage utilizes a potter-clay analogy, one must interpret this passage accordingly.

When a potter makes pots, he does not simply shape clay into pots. Instead, the potter starts by shaping clay, with a product in mind. After this, the potter puts the shaped clay into an oven, to harden the shape of the clay. However, while in the oven, some of the pots may break, distort, or take on bad colors, while others may turn out as intended. When the process of hardening in completed, the potter removes the pots from the oven, then inspects them. The rejected pots are shattered on the ground, then gathered into a discard heap.

Likewise, 'Elohiym shapes people out of certain materials (ref. Psalm 139:13), while having goals for them in mind. After this, 'Elohiym puts them into the world to develop them. While in the world, some people change for the better, while others change for the worse. When their time in the world is completed, 'Elohiym removes them from the world, then judges the person (ref. Hebrews 9:27). The people that 'Elohiym rejects are condemned, then thrown into hell.

Therefore, the potter-clay analogy allows for free will.

Now, Romans 9:22 says "prepared for destruction" under what context? Eternal torment or earthly punishment?

What desire do you have that is good that was not given to you by God. A simple list will do.

I choose to love 'Elohiym. Now, how can I genuinely choose to love 'Elohiym, if I cannot choose to hate 'Elohiym? Plus, how can I love 'Elohiym, if my love does not come from me? Is not love a relational reaction between different parties?

Here is the scripture used to support the five points. Can you show me which ones led you to believe that Calvinism teaches these things..

"Predestined choice"??  I don't believe that i've ever used those words or even implied what I think you mean by them.

Dave, you are denying the obvious with semantical gameplay. If you believe that 'Elohiym pre-ordains, or causes, absolutely all things, then you advocate Total Predestination.

I think that was the point being made.

No. We are saying "the same thing," but under different contexts, as demonstrated by this reply.

[99% of those who call themselves Apostles today are involved in a con game - the other 1% are insane. I think that just about covers the entire 100%. This brings to mind a host of people making money by misusing the precious name of JESUS CHRIST. They will all meet JUSTICE at GOD'S appointed time.]

Brothers and Sisters,

I would make this one real simple:  99% of those who call themselves Apostles today are involved in a con game - the other 1% are insane. I think that just about covers the entire 100%. This brings to mind a host of people making money by misusing the precious name of JESUS CHRIST. They will all meet JUSTICE at GOD'S appointed time.

I agree, yet disagree. Close-mindedness is equally erroneous as unquestioning gullibility.

To the contrary, the answer to counterfeit apostles is not a denial of Biblical apostleship in general, otherwise we unwittingly deny the power of God the Spirit. Therefore, let us test individuals on a case-by-case basis.

Greetings in the name of Christ Jesus, Allinall.

The number one problem with the concept of apostolic succession is the definition of an apostle.  An apostle was an apostle because:

1.  They personally witnessed the risen Christ.
2.  They were personally taught by Christ.
3.  They were personally called an apostle by Christ.

I disagree. You are equivocating the office of Apostle (Ephesians 2:19-20, see also Acts 1:21-22, 2 Corinthians 12:12) with the gift of apostleship (Ephesians 4:11-13, 1 Corinthians 12:28-31). Apart from the chosen Apostles (Mark 3:13-19, Acts 1:18-26, Acts 9:1-16, Romans 1:1, etc.), the gift of apostleship was given to James (Galatians 1:19), Barnabas (Acts 14:14), Epaphroditus (Philippians 2:25), Silas and/or Timothy (1 Thessalonians 1:1 + 1 Thessalonians 2:7), and two unnamed believers (2 Corinthians 8:18-23).

What does the word "apostle" mean? The Greek word for "apostle" is apostolos (Strong's #652), which means:

"1. a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders
a. specifically applied to the twelve apostles of Christ
b. in a broader sense applied to other eminent Christian teachers
b1. of Barnabas
b2. of Timothy and Silvanus" (Strong's Lexicon)

"a delegate; specially, an ambassador of the Gospel; officially a commissioner of Christ ("apostle") (with miraculous powers):--apostle, messenger, he that is sent." (Strong's Greek Dictionary)

In essence, apostolos simply refers to "one sent forth," such as a messenger, delegate, or representative. However, the nature of this spiritual gift depends on situational context. Specifically, who does the sending? And why is a person sent? If you survey the Scriptures, you will notice that James, Barnabas, Epaphroditus, Silas, Timothy, and the two unnamed believers fulfill varying functions.

However, at the same time, I would agree that the gift of apostleship is a rare gift, which is counterfeited by many cults.

My problem with this "succession" is that in order for it to meet the defenition, both historically and scripturally, Jesus is still giving us further revelation.  This is, biblically speaking, heresy.

Agreed. Apostleship cannot be passed down in any form.

Greetings in the name of Christ Jesus, piusx. I have two questions for you.

How do you know that Christ Jesus instituted "apostolic succession"? And do you have any historical evidence of undisputed "apostolic succession" in action?