Calvinism--TULIP

[Petro]

Reply #58 posted by pnotc    

posted by petro
" yet, you seem to ignore the commandments of the Captain of the Army of God (Jesus), who made the battle plan when He appeared before Joshua, actually, you ignore Him, because you are unable to discern the Lord.."

And you are clearly unable to discern his Word since I showed that the Captain of the Hosts of the Lord is not the Lord of Hosts. To back up your argument, all you said was that a whole lot of commentators agreed with you, and then refused to provide a reference to any of those commentaries. A reliance upon those commentaries would also be a reliance on the traditions of men, which you reject. At least, you reject them when they don't agree with you.

pnotc,

I don't have to quote commentaries, the scriptures themselves are sufficient to prove the written word true.
The fact is, you showed nothing, it is evident to any reader of this passage, that the Commander of the Hosts of the Lord, is not the Lord of Hosts, you simply cannot see that the vision of Joshua not that of a mere angel at all, but was that of Jesus as The Angel of Jehovah..

Your vision is blurred, because you seek to worship, angels and saints.

Conclusive proof that it  was the Lord Jesus in one of His preincarnate appearances is found in verse 14 and 15.

Joshua 5
14  And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the LORD am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my lord unto his servant?
15  And the captain of the LORD'S host said unto Joshua, Loose thy shoe from off thy foot; for the place whereon thou standest is holy. And Joshua did so.

These same words I have italicized are  written in the account where Jehovah appeared unto Moses in Exodus 3.  

And then Jehovah goes on to say to Moses, I am that I am, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. when commissioning Moses to bring His people from bondage in Egypt.

Jesus said,  Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. (Jhn 8:58; and then they took up stones  to cast at Him (vs 59),  and again, Jesus said;
color=Red] I that speak unto thee am he.[/color]  Jhn 4:26.

Nowhere in scripture does a mere angel ever accept worship, but here the Angel of the Lord commands worship, thereby proving His divine nature.

The Host of the Lord, which Jesus came to command was not that of angels, but  the armies of children of Israel, whom Jehovah had brought out of bondage to the house of Egypt, and  have at this passage in Joshua,  now come about to enter the promised land after 40 years of wonderings in the desert, and begin the campaign of releiving the inhabitants of the land given to Abraham by God.

So, these verses leave you with no grounds for believing angels can be worshipped.

It never ceases to amaze me the pious excuses idolaters use to excuse the things they do, contrary to the word of God.  

Using their misunderstanding of passages like this one, claiming that angels may be worshipped, because Joshua worshipped an angel, justifies, praying/worshipping saints, and asking thru them intercessory prayers.  

They are used to better worship God, according to their claims, this is a lame excuse.  

Your understanding of this passage of scripture, springboards you into, a wresting of the scriptures to your own damnation, you call them tradition, and you are accurate at least herein, they are the traditions of men.

As for your credentials, what good are they if you, worship God not in accordance to His known will , and encourage other to do likewise;

This what secularism and the teaching produces in wannabe christians; I simply am not impressed..

Later

Petro

[pnotc]

Petro-

Welcome back!  I hope your absence was not related to your recent surgeries and that you are recovering speedily.

“I don't have to quote commentaries,”

Then why did you refer to them as a way of bolstering your argument?  

“the scriptures themselves are sufficient to prove the written word true.
The fact is, you showed nothing, it is evident to any reader of this passage, that the Commander of the Hosts of the Lord, is not the Lord of Hosts, you simply cannot see that the vision of Joshua not that of a mere angel at all, but was that of Jesus as The Angel of Jehovah”

I cannot see it because scripture does not support it.  I really don’t want to re-hash the argument, but I think its important that we recognize that both you and I are relying on English translations of a very ancient tongue.  As such, we have to take into account the hermeneutics of our translations.  What are the underlying principles that guided the translator?  In this instance, the word that the KJV translates as “worship”, the NASB (the translation I happen to use most of the time), translates it as “bow down.”  Which is actually the more literal rendition of the Hebrew word.  This bowing is done in different circumstances in the OT.  Sometimes it is done as a sign of respect for a superior, in others it is in idolatry and in yet others, it is a sign of worshiping the Lord.  You are basing your entire argument on that one word, and yet that word is identical in all of the situations I just mentioned.  How do you know that it is to be translated worship here, and not to respectfully bow down?  The fact is, you don’t.  You are basing this on your own circular presuppositions that are not supported by the text, and then accusing me of blindness because I can actually think logically and without presumptive bias.    

”Your vision is blurred, because you seek to worship, angels and saints.”

Negative.  I think your vision is blurred because of your hard, bitter heart and small, closed mind.  

“These same words I have italicized are  written in the account where Jehovah appeared unto Moses in Exodus 3.”

Moses taking off his sandals is not a form of worship – it’s a sign of humility and awe.  Nor does the text imply that it is only in the presence of God does ground become holy.  One can easily make an argument that the Captain of the Hosts of the Lord is certainly an incredibly powerful being, one who acts intimately on behalf of God and would likely radiate God’s glory and divinity, thereby consecrating the ground he stood on.  Or, one could easily argue that the mouthpiece of God – here in the form of an angel, elsewhere as a burning bush – sanctifies the ground or place around him due to the glory of God’s words and commands.  Or is Jesus a bush, too?  

Of course, you bring up an interesting point with the “I AM” references.  If that angel is Jesus/God, why doesn’t he identify himself using God’s normal honorifics?  And why is his statement so short?  Very rarely in scripture is God ever known for his brevity.
 
”Nowhere in scripture does a mere angel ever accept worship, but here the Angel of the Lord commands worship, thereby proving His divine nature.”

Actually, this knife cuts both ways.  If an angel never accepts worship, and this angel didn’t accept worship, then it could be because Joshua was not worshiping him, but bowing respectfully.  And if he was bowing respectfully, it must be because this is not Jesus, but an angel.  


“The Host of the Lord, which Jesus came to command was not that of angels, but  the armies of children of Israel,”

Scripture please.  

”So, these verses leave you with no grounds for believing angels can be worshipped.”

You’ll have to refresh my memory as to when I ever said this.  

”It never ceases to amaze me the pious excuses idolaters use to excuse the things they do, contrary to the word of God.”

Hmm, I could point out quite a few things that you believe and do that are contrary to the word and will of God.    

”They are used to better worship God, according to their claims, this is a lame excuse.”

Really?  Whats your excuse then?  

”Your understanding of this passage of scripture, springboards you into, a wresting of the scriptures to your own damnation,”

And now I remember why I was half-way glad to see you leave the forum.  You can judge and condemn all you want, Petro, but all it really does is propel you deeper and deeper into sin.  Or don’t you remember those verses about not judging, praying for your enemies, gently correcting a brother, etc, etc, etc?  Your actions and words clearly show they have slipped your mind.  

”I simply am not impressed..”

Well, a debate is only as engaging as the points presented by both sides. I can’t help it if your contentions lack any credibility or cogency.  

[Petro]

Petro-

Welcome back!  I hope your absence was not related to your recent surgeries and that you are recovering speedily.

Thanks, I am revcovering very well,
No, Actually I had family in as one of my sons, graduated from an engineering program, and spent wonderful time with them all.

“I don't have to quote commentaries,”

You can take a hint... thats good..

I cannot see it because scripture does not support it.  I really don’t want to re-hash the argument,

I can understand why...

but I think its important that we recognize that both you and I are relying on English translations of a very ancient tongue.  As such, we have to take into account the hermeneutics of our translations.  What are the underlying principles that guided the translator?  In this instance, the word that the KJV translates as “worship”, the NASB (the translation I happen to use most of the time), translates it as “bow down.”  Which is actually the more literal rendition of the Hebrew word.  This bowing is done in different circumstances in the OT.  Sometimes it is done as a sign of respect for a superior, in others it is in idolatry and in yet others, it is a sign of worshiping the Lord.  You are basing your entire argument on that one word, and yet that word is identical in all of the situations I just mentioned.  How do you know that it is to be translated worship here, and not to respectfully bow down?  The fact is, you don’t.  You are basing this on your own circular presuppositions that are not supported by the text, and then accusing me of blindness because I can actually think logically and without presumptive bias.    

Because to me the scriptures speak clearly that this was Jesus, God himself spoke to Joshua, and gave Him the Battle Plan.

And, it doesn't surprise me you cannot see this,

You shopuld take time to read the book of Deutoronomy, especially at Chapter 31 it precedes the Book of Joshua, at verse 14,

The Lord said to  Moses; Behold, thy days approach that thou must die: call Joshua, and present yourselves in the tabernacle of the congregation, that I may give him a charge.

and down at verse;

23  And he gave Joshua the son of Nun a charge, and said, Be strong and of a good courage: for thou shalt bring the children of Israel into the land which I sware unto them: and I will be with thee.

Do you suppose, Joshua, was anticipating the Lord, upon entering the land??

We read at Joshua 6:2, the same Lord that gave Joshua this charge, spoke to Him, and not only set the host at the battle stattions, but delkivered the plan of attack.

Don't bring up the proskuneo vs proskynesis, issue again, it wont fly at these verses.

And inspite of your NASB, translation, that translates the word as,  "Bow Down" remember the commandment??,

here let me post it again.

Ex 20
5  Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;


Is this the same word?

“These same words I have italicized are  written in the account where Jehovah appeared unto Moses in Exodus 3.”

Moses taking off his sandals is not a form of worship – it’s a sign of humility and awe.  Nor does the text imply that it is only in the presence of God does ground become holy.  One can easily make an argument that the Captain of the Hosts of the Lord is certainly an incredibly powerful being, one who acts intimately on behalf of God and would likely radiate God’s glory and divinity, thereby consecrating the ground he stood on.  Or, one could easily argue that the mouthpiece of God – here in the form of an angel, elsewhere as a burning bush – sanctifies the ground or place around him due to the glory of God’s words and commands.  Or is Jesus a bush, too?  

Of course, you bring up an interesting point with the “I AM” references.  If that angel is Jesus/God, why doesn’t he identify himself using God’s normal honorifics?  And why is his statement so short?  Very rarely in scripture is God ever known for his brevity.
 

Hey you ask me?,  you are the theologian, remember..

What is interesting is that when the Lord commissioned Moses to bring the nation out of Egypt, He told Moses;

Ex 3
14  ........................................, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

I suppose you might have your own theory, but it is obvious to me, the nation had no problem accepting whom Moses spoke of when he told them who had sent him.

Is it because, they anticipated being delivered out of the house bondage by God??

”Nowhere in scripture does a mere angel ever accept worship, but here the Angel of the Lord commands worship, thereby proving His divine nature.”

Actually, this knife cuts both ways.  If an angel never accepts worship, and this angel didn’t accept worship, then it could be because Joshua was not worshiping him, but bowing respectfully.  And if he was bowing respectfully, it must be because this is not Jesus, but an angel.  

Unfortunately, for your theory;  the word makes it clear Joshua, worshipped the Angel..

“The Host of the Lord, which Jesus came to command was not that of angels, but  the armies of children of Israel,”

Scripture please.  

What you missed it??  Try reading Joshua 6:2-5,

The Host that encircled Jericho, is the fighting men of the nation, who are refferred to as the armies of God, whom God delivers from Egypt.  Try ;

Ex 7:1-5 "mine armies, and my people the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great judgments."

for this one..

”So, these verses leave you with no grounds for believing angels can be worshipped.”

You’ll have to refresh my memory as to when I ever said this.  

Try your first post, where you entered in at the conversation, where the worship of angels were being discussed, at the Orthodox thread.

”It never ceases to amaze me the pious excuses idolaters use to excuse the things they do, contrary to the word of God.”

Hmm, I could point out quite a few things that you believe and do that are contrary to the word and will of God.    

Please do, feel free to do it..

”They are used to better worship God, according to their claims, this is a lame excuse.”

Really?  Whats your excuse then?  

”Your understanding of this passage of scripture, springboards you into, a wresting of the scriptures to your own damnation,”

And now I remember why I was half-way glad to see you leave the forum.  You can judge and condemn all you want, Petro, but all it really does is propel you deeper and deeper into sin.  Or don’t you remember those verses about not judging, praying for your enemies, gently correcting a brother, etc, etc, etc?  Your actions and words clearly show they have slipped your mind.  

You are to sensitive, to someone pointing out sin to you, you should be so sensitive to Gods word.

”I simply am not impressed..”

Well, a debate is only as engaging as the points presented by both sides. I can’t help it if your contentions lack any credibility or cogency.  

OK..

Blessings, Petro

[pnotc]

“Thanks, I am revcovering very well,
No, Actually I had family in as one of my sons, graduated from an engineering program, and spent wonderful time with them all.”

I’m glad to hear your recovery is going well and congratulations to your son!  What are his plans after graduation?  

"I don't have to quote commentaries,
--You can take a hint... thats good..”

I’m not sure what you’re referring to here.  You’re the one who posted something referring to the agreement between your view and those of many commentaries and then refused to provide a link or hardcopy reference.  And now you’re stating you don’t have to quote commentaries – so my question still stands:  why did you reference them in the first place?

”I can understand why...”

I don’t think you do, actually.  I don’t want to re-hash it because it is quite clear you have your mind made up and aren’t willing to enter into a rational dialogue about it.  Were you actually willing to listen to any one else’s arguments with respect and to give them an honest evaluation not tinged by your obvious bias, then I’d happily delve back into that discussion.  As it is, I don’t have time for what is certain to be another round of misunderstandings and insults.  

“Because to me the scriptures speak clearly that this was Jesus, God himself spoke to Joshua, and gave Him the Battle Plan.”

If it is truly spoken clearly by the scriptures, then there is no doubt that I should see it.  Since I, and others, do not, then it is evident that this declaration is not as clear as you believe it to be.  You will, of course, chalk this up to my spiritual blindness – but that too proves that it is not “clear.”  

”23  And he gave Joshua the son of Nun a charge, and said, Be strong and of a good courage: for thou shalt bring the children of Israel into the land which I sware unto them: and I will be with thee.
--Do you suppose, Joshua, was anticipating the Lord, upon entering the land??”

Certainly, but it wasn’t in the form of a man!!  That’s alien to the entire concept the Hebrews had of God at this point.  No doubt Joshua was anticipating aid, succor and assistance, but do you honestly believe he was expecting God to show up saying “How you doing?  Can I get a hand with my luggage?”  And yes, God spoke to Joshua in 6:2, but he spoke to a lot of people, are we to expect it was always in the form of a man?  No.  People had visions, dreams, felt the leading of the Spirit, etc, etc.  There is no indication that the being in chapter 5 is the same producer of the commands Joshua receives in chapter 6.  In fact, the titles are different and there is no indication that the angel said anything to Joshua after telling him to take his sandals off.  

But let me bring up another verse – Matt 28:20.  Here, Christ tells us His disciples He will be them, always.  Does that mean Christ is still here physically?  Is He still walking around somewhere, helping out at soup kitchen or something?  Of course not!  Obviously this is figurative, metaphorical language.  Christ does not mean He will be physically present any more than God meant he would be physically present with Joshua.

”Don't bring up the proskuneo vs proskynesis, issue again, it wont fly at these verses.”

Only because its in the Hebrew.  Otherwise, the concepts fall right into line.  

”And inspite of your NASB, translation, that translates the word as,  "Bow Down" remember the commandment??,
--here let me post it again.
--Is this the same word?”

It is, and I see the point you are trying to make, but it is a frail one.  I’ll let you make it though.  So yes, it’s the same word.  Lets hear your argument.  

”I suppose you might have your own theory, but it is obvious to me, the nation had no problem accepting whom Moses spoke of when he told them who had sent him.
--Is it because, they anticipated being delivered out of the house bondage by God??”

The discussion of whether or not the people of Israel accepted Moses as being sent by God has nothing to do with whether or not the being that appeared to Joshua is Jesus!  I was pointing out to you that when God has appeared to others in the OT, he was clearly identified as such, by titles like “I AM”.  So I asked you, why aren’t those titles present if this is truly an appearance of the pre-incarnate Christ?  Their absence does not necessarily prove either of our points, but it is an interesting facet of the argument.  Other times when the preincarnate Christ appeared in the OT, those appearances were markedly different from the one we have in Joshua.  In my mind, this is yet another reason to call your argument into question.

”Unfortunately, for your theory;  the word makes it clear Joshua, worshipped the Angel..”

So its an angel now?  And once again, what is “clear” to you is not that clear to others.

In the NIV:
14 "Neither," he replied, "but as commander of the army of the LORD I have now come." Then Joshua fell facedown to the ground in reverence, and asked him, "What message does my Lord [1] have for his servant?"

NASB
14   He said, "No; rather I indeed come now as captain of the host of the LORD." And Joshua (1) fell on his face to the earth, and bowed down, and said to him, "What has my lord to say to his servant?"

NLT
14"Neither one," he replied. "I am commander of the LORD's army."
At this, Joshua fell with his face to the ground in reverence. "I am at your command," Joshua said. "What do you want your servant to do?"

Some translations render it “worship” while others render it differently, as you’ll note above.  The only thing that is truly “clear” in the discussion of this verse is that the meaning and intent of that one word is not clearly defined by the passage itself.  Bowing down before kings, guests or someone you regarded as socially superior to yourself was, and still is in some parts of the world, a common practice throughout the Levant.  I should hope you at least have enough integrity and honesty to admit that other people might get a different reading from this verse without being spiritually blind.  

“What you missed it??”

Nope, I wanted to make sure you weren’t making more mistakes, and you are.  The army of Israel is certainly a host, but it is not THE host.  God has an angelic army, as well.  Or was Jesus referring to a legion of Hebrews when He said he could be rescued from the cross if He but called?  Obviously the Lord’s Host extends into heaven, as well, and there is little reason to think that host was not also present on the fields of Jericho.  

“Try your first post, where you entered in at the conversation, where the worship of angels were being discussed, at the Orthodox thread.”

Unfortunately, your comrade-at-fundamentalism Juan deleted the original Orthodox thread, so we’ll never know exactly what I said.  I am, however, quite sure that I never said angels should or could be worshipped.  I have not a single doubt that you got that impression from your obvious misunderstanding of veneration vs worship.  

“You are to sensitive, to someone pointing out sin to you, you should be so sensitive to Gods word.”

As should you.  Many here have found your posts personally judgmental – not judging an activity or belief you see as sinful, but judging them as people and children of God.  You have called us liars, hypocrites, fools and even the enemy of Christ.  Somehow, that doesn’t sound like you are correcting us with love or avoiding the hypocrisy of judging us without first removing the plank from your own eye.  So, physician, heal thyself!

[Petro]

 posted by pnotc
Certainly, but it wasn’t in the form of a man!!  That’s alien to the entire concept the Hebrews had of God at this point.  

pnotc,

I haven't had alot of time to watch for your posts, but nevertheless, here I am answering the points s you raised which are worthy of comment.

Above, what may be foriegn to your understanding of the Hebrew nation, matters very little, we know God, commissioned and sent a man, Moses to bring them out of bondage, he was a real man, the "man" spoken of in Joshua 5:13, was not, so, your point isn't even valid.

But let me bring up another verse – Matt 28:20.  Here, Christ tells us His disciples He will be them, always.  Does that mean Christ is still here physically?  Is He still walking around somewhere, helping out at soup kitchen or something?  Of course not!  Obviously this is figurative, metaphorical language.  Christ does not mean He will be physically present any more than God meant he would be physically present with Joshua.

Well this is the reason why you and I are miles apart, I believe I have a personal relationship with Jesus, and since He lives within me, and empowers me by his very presence, in the spirit.

His words are the final authority, He said;

Jhn 14
16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17  Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
18  I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.
20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

Are these words true to you??

The discussion of whether or not the people of Israel accepted Moses as being sent by God has nothing to do with whether or not the being that appeared to Joshua is Jesus!  I was pointing out to you that when God has appeared to others in the OT, he was clearly identified as such, by titles like “I AM”.  So I asked you, why aren’t those titles present if this is truly an appearance of the pre-incarnate Christ?  Their absence does not necessarily prove either of our points, but it is an interesting facet of the argument.  Other times when the preincarnate Christ appeared in the OT, those appearances were markedly different from the one we have in Joshua.  In my mind, this is yet another reason to call your argument into question.

Jesus claimed to be the I AM of the OT, ;

Jhn 8
58  ...........Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

“What you missed it??”

Nope, I wanted to make sure you weren’t making more mistakes, and you are.  The army of Israel is certainly a host, but it is not THE host.  God has an angelic army, as well.  Or was Jesus referring to a legion of Hebrews when He said he could be rescued from the cross if He but called?  Obviously the Lord’s Host extends into heaven, as well, and there is little reason to think that host was not also present on the fields of Jericho.  

He referred to the Host of the Lord Israel in this context..you simply want to argue form the sake of arguing.

“Try your first post, where you entered in at the conversation, where the worship of angels were being discussed, at the Orthodox thread.”

Unfortunately, your comrade-at-fundamentalism Juan deleted the original Orthodox thread, so we’ll never know exactly what I said.  I am, however, quite sure that I never said angels should or could be worshipped.  I have not a single doubt that you got that impression from your obvious misunderstanding of veneration vs worship.  

So what..you stepped in defending, the worship of angels.


Petro

[pnotc]

Petro-

I'm sure you are quite busy posting responses to SOA on the other thread.  However, I don't think you've adequately defended your foolishness on this one, so I suggest you take a little more time over here.  

"Above, what may be foriegn to your understanding of the Hebrew nation, matters very little, we know God, commissioned and sent a man, Moses to bring them out of bondage, he was a real man, the "man" spoken of in Joshua 5:13, was not, so, your point isn't even valid."

My point is most definitely valid.  You said that it was Christ who came to Joshua and gave him the battle plan.  You based this on Joshua's action, the verse you cited where God told him he would be with Joshua in the promised land.  You asked if Joshua did not anticipate the Lord as he entered the fray against Jericho.  I agree that he did, but that he would not have expected God to take on physical form and appear to him as he did.  To the Hebrews, God was not something or someone you could look at, not even something you could visualize.  No God-fearing Hebrew would have ever expected God to appear in the form of a man.  An angel, sure.  Through the assistance of other people, definitely.  But not in the form of a man, which is exactly what Joshua saw.  Aside from the angel identifying himself as such, it is quite clear that Joshua viewed him as a human being.  

"Well this is the reason why you and I are miles apart, I believe I have a personal relationship with Jesus, and since He lives within me, and empowers me by his very presence, in the spirit."

This is not the reason we're miles apart.  I believe I have a personal relationship with Him, too.  But that does not mean He is still physically present on Earth, does it?  And you just validatd my point, when you said He is with you in the Spirit.  That is the kind of presence Joshua would have expected.

"Jesus claimed to be the I AM of the OT,"

Yeah, I know.  My point, which I'm assuming you didn't even read due to your response, was that the angel that Joshua saw was identified by a title not ascribed to God anywhere else in Scripture.  Furthermore, none of the usual titles for God were mentioned, lending weight to the fact that the angel was not Jesus.

"He referred to the Host of the Lord Israel in this context..you simply want to argue form the sake of arguing."

No, I'm pointing out that the Host of the Lord is not limited to the people of Israel, as you implied.

"So what..you stepped in defending, the worship of angels"

No, I stepped in showing you why your posts were wrong.

I noticed you failed to comment on several of my points, including but not limited too:

1)  The fact that you referenced commentaries, only to deny that you need to use them.
2)  The fact that the verses you site aren't as "clear" as you'd like them to be.
3)  The hermeneutics behind the translation of these verses.

The first one doesn't matter to me, but I'd especially like a response to the latter two.  

[Petro]

Petro-

My point is most definitely valid.

For you it may be. To me it is not.

You said that it was Christ who came to Joshua and gave him the battle plan.

Yes I did say it.  Verse 2 of Cahpter 6, is where it occurred., Notice the verse;

And the LORD said unto Joshua, See, I have given into thine hand Jericho, and the king thereof, and the mighty men of valour.

You just assume, this is someone else.

You based this on Joshua's action, the verse you cited where God told him he would be with Joshua in the promised land.  You asked if Joshua did not anticipate the Lord as he entered the fray against Jericho.  I agree that he did, but that he would not have expected God to take on physical form and appear to him as he did.

So, this is your opinion, I have given you mine, with references.

Joshua, was there when the Lord fought for the nation at the crossing of the Red Sea, I think you limit Joshua, and assume he thought the way you do.  I think not.

To the Hebrews, God was not something or someone you could look at, not even something you could visualize.  No God-fearing Hebrew would have ever expected God to appear in the form of a man.

You might try reading Ex 33, and while your are at it, pay particular attention to verse 11, you will even see Joshua, present, I say perhaps within ear shot, of God speaking to Moses.

So, I simply reject your presumption, that all Hebrews ever expected God to appear in the form of man.

And then you have the Passage at Ex 18, where the Lord appeared to Abraham, and please don't tell me, Abraham, didn't know it was the Lord, look at verse 25, Abraham knew he was speaking to the "Judge of all thre earth."

So your presupposition is all it is, and it is based on how you view the truth.

"Well this is the reason why you and I are miles apart, I believe I have a personal relationship with Jesus, and since He lives within me, and empowers me by his very presence, in the spirit."

This is not the reason we're miles apart.  I believe I have a personal relationship with Him, too.  But that does not mean He is still physically present on Earth, does it?  And you just validatd my point, when you said He is with you in the Spirit.  That is the kind of presence Joshua would have expected.

We are miles apart, friend, you take liberties with scripture, I  do not.

"Jesus claimed to be the I AM of the OT,"

Yeah, I know.  My point, which I'm assuming you didn't even read due to your response, was that the angel that Joshua saw was identified by a title not ascribed to God anywhere else in Scripture.  Furthermore, none of the usual titles for God were mentioned, lending weight to the fact that the angel was not Jesus.

You were complaining in your last post, when I used the word angel, now you are using it.  It wasn't an angel, it was a man, has been your premise from the begining, are you saying it is an angel now??

"He referred to the Host of the Lord Israel in this context..you simply want to argue form the sake of arguing."

No, I'm pointing out that the Host of the Lord is not limited to the people of Israel, as you implied.

I never said anything that would contradict, what you stated, the Host in view here, is the Armies of Israel.

"So what..you stepped in defending, the worship of angels"

No, I stepped in showing you why your posts were wrong.

Well, this is the point you brought up, to beef up the argument put forth up, that indeed men, in the OT, worshipped angels.

And by the way, I think it is a cop out, to declare yourself a consicienctious objecter while in the middle of your contract with the military, A man who volunteers to serve his country, ought to serve the time he agreed to, you could have changed your duties, perhaps to that of chaplains assistance.

I served my country, as an infantryman in Vietnam, and willing would have given my all, for people like you, I suppose you your change of heart is do to your secular liberal studies, I'm telling you, Christians need to reject, liberal humanistic philosophies, they have a way of undermining the word of God in people.

I noticed you failed to comment on several of my points, including but not limited too:

1)  The fact that you referenced commentaries, only to deny that you need to use them.
2)  The fact that the verses you site aren't as "clear" as you'd like them to be.
3)  The hermeneutics behind the translation of these verses.

The first one doesn't matter to me, but I'd especially like a response to the latter two.  

I answer what I decide to answer not, what I am compelled to for the sake of argument.


Petro

[pnotc]

“For you it may be. To me it is not.”

That’s ok, I find most your points irrelevant as well.

“Yes I did say it.  Verse 2 of Cahpter 6, is where it occurred., Notice the verse;
--And the LORD said unto Joshua, See, I have given into thine hand Jericho, and the king thereof, and the mighty men of valour.
You just assume, this is someone else.”

And you just assume that this is the same being that spoke to Joshua in chapter 5.  And you just assume that being was a pre-incarnate Christ, despite the many indications that this is not the case.  You base that assumption on just assuming that the KJV has the correct translation and assume that there is no need to even acknowledge that other translations render it differently.

”So, this is your opinion, I have given you mine, with references.”

Finally you at least admit it is your opinion!  I will count that as a victory in and of itself.  

”Joshua, was there when the Lord fought for the nation at the crossing of the Red Sea, I think you limit Joshua, and assume he thought the way you do.  I think not.”

How am I limiting Joshua?  When the Lord “fought for the nation”, did he do it in the form of a man?  Did he take on a human shape and part the sea?  

“You might try reading Ex 33, and while your are at it, pay particular attention to verse 11, you will even see Joshua, present, I say perhaps within ear shot, of God speaking to Moses.”

Perhaps within ear shot of Moses, and perhaps not.  Are you really stating that God has a face in this verse and that Moses saw it?  And I’ll direct your attention to verse 2:

And I will send an angel before thee; and I will drive out the Canaanite, the Amorite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite

Surely you see the relevance to our discussion…

“So, I simply reject your presumption, that all Hebrews ever expected God to appear in the form of man.”

Aside from the verse in Joshua which is under contention, show me the other times that God appeared to them, on earth, in human form.  Exodus 33:11 says that Moses and God spoke face to face, as a man speaks to his friend.  It is easy to assert that this is a figurative statement that demonstrates their spiritual closeness, or the love with God displayed for Moses.  But I would love to see other times that God appeared to people, on earth, in human form.  

”And then you have the Passage at Ex 18, where the Lord appeared to Abraham, and please don't tell me, Abraham, didn't know it was the Lord, look at verse 25, Abraham knew he was speaking to the "Judge of all thre earth."”

I think you will regret bringing this chapter up.  Kindly direct your attention to verse 7:

And Moses went out to meet his father in law, and did obeisance, and kissed him; and they asked each other of [their] welfare; and they came into the tent.

Now, I know without saying you know exactly what word “obeisance” is translated from.  Yup, “schachah.”  So, was Moses worshipping Jethro?  Or might he have been honoring him with a great degree of respect?  Hmmmmmmm…   Oh, I think you have the wrong chapter.  Exodus 18:25 has nothing to do with what you said.  

“We are miles apart, friend, you take liberties with scripture, I  do not.”

Yeah, right.  Tell me, what does 2 Peter 3:9 mean?  Does it actually mean that God is willing for no one, not one single person to perish, as the verse plainly states?  Or does it mean something else?  Something more in line with your Calvinist beliefs?

“You were complaining in your last post, when I used the word angel, now you are using it.  It wasn't an angel, it was a man, has been your premise from the begining, are you saying it is an angel now??”

My premise has been that it was an angel from the original post back on the Orthodoxy thread!  Now I know you haven’t understood any of my arguments.  No wonder your arguments aren’t making sense.  

“I never said anything that would contradict, what you stated, the Host in view here, is the Armies of Israel.”

You stated it was the humans of Israel only.  Tell me, were there no angels present at all?

 ”Well, this is the point you brought up, to beef up the argument put forth up, that indeed men, in the OT, worshipped angels.”

No.  Others were using it to demonstrate the difference between veneration and worship, a distinction clearly beyond your understanding.  You attempted to discount their argument by stating this angel was Jesus, when, in fact, it wasn’t.  
 
”I answer what I decide to answer not, what I am compelled to for the sake of argument.”

My points aren’t there for the sake of argument.  They are there because they show the holes in your argument.  Come on, I dare you.  Give ‘em a try.  

”And by the way, I think it is a cop out, to declare yourself a consicienctious objecter while in the middle of your contract with the military, A man who volunteers to serve his country, ought to serve the time he agreed to, you could have changed your duties, perhaps to that of chaplains assistance.
--I served my country, as an infantryman in Vietnam, and willing would have given my all, for people like you, I suppose you your change of heart is do to your secular liberal studies, I'm telling you, Christians need to reject, liberal humanistic philosophies, they have a way of undermining the word of God in people.”

How did I know you would not fail to comment on this!  I wish I had put a bet on it.  First, your psychic powers have failed you yet again.  I’m not in the middle of my contract, I’m at the end of it.  And I’ve already served the time I agreed to.  No, I could not have changed my duties.  One, I’m in intelligence and my unit is an intel unit.  They will not pay to make me a medic (a chaplain’s assistant is still armed, by the way) since my unit has no slots for a medic.  Additionally, since I’m at the end of my contract, no other unit will pay to re-train me, since I would likely get out immediately upon exiting training.  Especially since medic training lasts about a year.  By then, I’ll be way over my contract date.  

No, my change of heart was not due to my “secular liberal studies.”  It was due to my biblical studies.  As a Calvinist, I can understand why this does not make sense to you, so I will not attempt to explain it beyond that.  My decision was a calling, not from liberal humanistic philosophies, but from God.  I’m sure you’ll quickly rebut that I’m wrong, but I really don’t think you’re qualified to comment on what God may or may not do.  If you really want to get into a debate on Christian participation in war and violence, I’ll oblige you, but only after we’ve finished up this thread.  I simply don’t have the time to be juggling two debates at once right now.  

[Petro]

 posted by pnotc as reply #67

"You might try reading Ex 33, and while your are at it, pay particular attention to verse 11, you will even see Joshua, present, I say perhaps within ear shot, of God speaking to Moses."

Perhaps within ear shot of Moses, and perhaps not. Are you really stating that God has a face in this verse and that Moses saw it? And I'll direct your attention to verse 2:

And I will send an angel before thee; and I will drive out the Canaanite, the Amorite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite

Surely you see the relevance to our discussion…

So, are you saying this man was an angel?? And NOT the Angel of the Lord??

"So, I simply reject your presumption, that all Hebrews ever expected God to appear in the form of man."

Aside from the verse in Joshua which is under contention, show me the other times that God appeared to them, on earth, in human form. Exodus 33:11 says that Moses and God spoke face to face, as a man speaks to his friend. It is easy to assert that this is a figurative statement that demonstrates their spiritual closeness, or the love with God displayed for Moses. But I would love to see other times that God appeared to people, on earth, in human form.

"And then you have the Passage at Ex 18, where the Lord appeared to Abraham, and please don't tell me, Abraham, didn't know it was the Lord, look at verse 25, Abraham knew he was speaking to the "Judge of all thre earth.""

I meant Gen 18, God appeared to Abraham on the plains of Mamre; Abraham knew it was the Lord, the judge of all the earth. vs's  21-25.

I think you will regret bringing this chapter up. Kindly direct your attention to verse 7:

And Moses went out to meet his father in law, and did obeisance, and kissed him; and they asked each other of [their] welfare; and they came into the tent.

Now, I know without saying you know exactly what word "obeisance" is translated from. Yup, "schachah." So, was Moses worshipping Jethro? Or might he have been honoring him with a great degree of respect? Hmmmmmmm… Oh, I think you have the wrong chapter. Exodus 18:25 has nothing to do with what you said.

Only you would believe Moses worshipped his father n law.

Notice worship is one of the meanings of the word "shachah" it probaly meant prosterated himself, not full blown worship.
I wouldn't press it to mean, what you by necessity,  need it to mean. And even it if meant Worship;

The law was given, at Ex 20, and where there is no law, there is no, trangression (Rom 4:15), I doubt Moses, ever worshipped his father n law as he did God. Prosterated himself before Jethro, perhaps, I don't worry about Moses, since the NT, gives a good testimony of Him.(Heb 3:5) he was faithfull to God.

"

We are miles apart, friend, you take liberties with scripture, I do not."

Yeah, right. Tell me, what does 2 Peter 3:9 mean? Does it actually mean that God is willing for no one, not one single person to perish, as the verse plainly states? Or does it mean something else? Something more in line with your Calvinist beliefs?

It means what it says.

"You were complaining in your last post, when I used the word angel, now you are using it. It wasn't an angel, it was a man, has been your premise from the begining, are you saying it is an angel now??"

My premise has been that it was an angel from the original post back on the Orthodoxy thread! Now I know you haven't understood any of my arguments. No wonder your arguments aren't making sense.

Well now.. perhaps Now,  you remember what you have been trying to prove from the begining that men worshipped angels.  So you can be justified in worshipping saints.. right.??.

"I never said anything that would contradict, what you stated, the Host in view here, is the Armies of Israel."


You stated it was the humans of Israel only.

You simply assumed,  I, was refering to the human army, ONLY which was present, I simply stated the Armies of Israel.  At this point and time, the generation which had finally died off, after 40 years of wondering was the one which God swore by his name they would not enter into the land because of unbelief. The nation which was about to enter in and possess the land, was not a cursed generation.

"Well, this is the point you brought up, to beef up the argument put forth up, that indeed men, in the OT, worshipped angels."

No. Others were using it to demonstrate the difference between veneration and worship, a distinction clearly beyond your understanding. You attempted to discount their argument by stating this angel was Jesus, when, in fact, it wasn't.

So you say.  What makes you think I should take your word for it, I have Gods word, and it speaks for itself, to me.
After all you are wrong in praying to dead saints, for intercession, contrary to the command, if your in error there, you are off here also.

"I answer what I decide to answer not, what I am compelled to for the sake of argument."

My points aren't there for the sake of argument. They are there because they show the holes in your argument. Come on, I dare you. Give 'em a try.

You dare me?,  aw.. come on.. no double are??

The holes you refer to, are between your ears, you simply want to be contentious.

"And by the way, I think it is a cop out, to declare yourself a consicienctious objecter while in the middle of your contract with the military, A man who volunteers to serve his country, ought to serve the time he agreed to, you could have changed your duties, perhaps to that of chaplains assistance.
--I served my country, as an infantryman in Vietnam, and willing would have given my all, for people like you, I suppose you your change of heart is do to your secular liberal studies, I'm telling you, Christians need to reject, liberal humanistic philosophies, they have a way of undermining the word of God in people."

How did I know you would not fail to comment on this! I wish I had put a bet on it. First, your psychic powers have failed you yet again. I'm not in the middle of my contract, I'm at the end of it. And I've already served the time I agreed to.

Friend, I served in SI at the division level, Intelligence falls under S2, S3 Operations, and so, on, you can deceive, some people some of the time, but you can't deceive all of the people all of the time, if you were at the end of your contract, there is not need to submit, Conscientious Objector Status application, part of your previous agreement would authorize the government to extend your contract for a specific period of time, if their is a national interest to do so,  if you hold such an important position, which requires your services, you have an obligation to serve your country in its time of need.

God today, seeks faithful men, faithfulness begins by honest men keeping commitments they make, to honor their word;  and,

to use, service to God as an excuse to bail out, after having taken advantage of all the country gave you, does not honor God.  

Of course this is my humble opinion, as I am from the Old School, where a man's word defined who he is.  

You sound as if you don't see things this way, are new from the new school??

And furthermore, it isn't as if,  you came to know God recently and came to the realization your are supposed to be agai because now you are a chirstian isn' supposed to be involved in violence (as SOA, says)  the nation didn't become godless after you the joined the service to obtain benefits; by your own testimony, you are a practically a man of the cloth, the godlessness of the nation should not be a surprise you, causing you to run for your life this late in the game.

Blessings,  

Petro

[pnotc]

“So, are you saying this man was an angel?? And NOT the Angel of the Lord??”

That’s what I’ve been saying all along!  Holy crow, have you not been reading my posts?!  I have said from the get-go that the being Joshua sees with a drawn sword in his hand is an angel.  In all likelihood, an incredibly powerful angel, but an angel nonetheless.  How have you missed that?

“Only you would believe Moses worshipped his father n law.
--Notice worship is one of the meanings of the word "shachah" it probaly meant prosterated himself, not full blown worship.
--I wouldn't press it to mean, what you by necessity,  need it to mean. And even it if meant Worship;”

For the sake of clarity, I’ll break it down for you, nice and simple.  In the Orthodox thread, you stated there was no biblical example of veneration of a saint, angel, etc.  The Orthodox referenced Joshua 5 to disprove that claim, stating Joshua venerated an angel.  You claimed that Joshua worshipped Jesus.  When I entered the debate, I disagreed with you on two points.  One, this was not Jesus, and two, it was not worship.  I have stated, repeatedly, that Joshua was bowing before that angel out of a great deal of respect.  Hence, he was not worshipping the angel, but venerating him, holding him in high regard, honoring him.  Which is the exact same thing that Moses did to his father-in-law.  He bowed before him, the same bow that Joshua made, out of respect and honor.  You’ve stated that schachah means worship.  Well, here in Exodus, we have an example where it does not. Here we have an example where the non-worship definition of the word is employed.  I pointed it out to show you the alternate meaning, the meaning I believe Joshua actually employs.  This will likely not persuade you of your point, but here you cannot deny that a word, with a distinctly religious overtone, is used in a relationship between two people.  Could this be a biblical example of veneration?!
 
Yeah, right. Tell me, what does 2 Peter 3:9 mean? Does it actually mean that God is willing for no one, not one single person to perish, as the verse plainly states? Or does it mean something else? Something more in line with your Calvinist beliefs?
--It means what it says.”

So then why do some perish?  If its up to God who gets saved and who perishes, how can God desire that none should perish and yet send many to hell?  
 
Quote:

"Well, this is the point you brought up, to beef up the argument put forth up, that indeed men, in the OT, worshipped angels."

No. Others were using it to demonstrate the difference between veneration and worship, a distinction clearly beyond your understanding. You attempted to discount their argument by stating this angel was Jesus, when, in fact, it wasn't.

"So you say.  What makes you think I should take your word for it, I have Gods word, and it speaks for itself, to me."

Really?  It speaks for itself to me, also.  And my position is at least logically consistent and doesn’t do violence to scripture.

“The holes you refer to, are between your ears, you simply want to be contentious.”

And isn’t that statement by itself completely contentious?  You’re the one who frequently resorts to insults and petty innuendos.  That seems much more contentious to me.  

”Friend, I served in SI at the division level, Intelligence falls under S2, S3 Operations, and so, on,”

Division?  Really?  Wow, I’m impressed.  Except that I’ve served at the tactical level and the MACOM level.  But thanks for the lesson on military organization.  

“if you were at the end of your contract, there is not need to submit, Conscientious Objector Status application, part of your previous agreement would authorize the government to extend your contract for a specific period of time, if their is a national interest to do so,  if you hold such an important position, which requires your services, you have an obligation to serve your country in its time of need.”

When I submitted it, I was under an indefinite stop-loss order.  That has since been changed to a year past my ETS, which will put me out by November.  So actually, if I didn’t want to go take part in the murder of a bunch of innocent people at some point, I had to submit my application.  My MOS, along with about 13 others, was stop-lossed immediately after 9/11.  Intelligence is certainly important, but no one from my unit has been deployed so far in support of combat operations, so I’m really not weakening the US any.  And the funny thing is, I feel like I’ve got more of an obligation to follow God’s call then my country.  

”God today, seeks faithful men, faithfulness begins by honest men keeping commitments they make, to honor their word;  and, to use, service to God as an excuse to bail out, after having taken advantage of all the country gave you, does not honor God.”

Well, I guess we’ll just have to disagree.  I would have to say that God seeks faithful men who will be faithful to him and his call.  Tell me, should Paul have continued persecuting the Christians, even if he had made a commitment to do so for a certain period of time?  And yes, the country has given me a lot, but I would have to say that the three deployments I’ve done in the last few years has fulfilled my obligation to the Army, seeing as most reservists never get deployed once.

”Of course this is my humble opinion, as I am from the Old School, where a man's word defined who he is.  You sound as if you don't see things this way, are new from the new school??”

Yup, you certainly do sound old school – seeking the praise and honor of men.  I don’t think I’m new school, but its obvious we had different classrooms.  See, to me, my relationship with God defines who I am, and my obedience to his call in my life, is much, much more important than my word.  But wait a minute – weren’t you confirmed and raised in the Catholic Church?  How can you now be a Protestant?  Isn’t that violating a commitment you made?  I’m sure at some point you stated you believed in the teachings of the church and would submit to its authority.  Why did you go back on your word?

”And furthermore, it isn't as if,  you came to know God recently and came to the realization your are supposed to be agai because now you are a chirstian isn' supposed to be involved in violence (as SOA, says)  the nation didn't become godless after you the joined the service to obtain benefits; by your own testimony, you are a practically a man of the cloth, the godlessness of the nation should not be a surprise you, causing you to run for your life this late in the game.”

So now you admit that I know God?  Wow, that’s quite a step up from heathen heretic!  Let’s use the Catholic Church again – why did you leave?  Probably because you became convicted of its error – correct?  I, too became convinced of my own error.  Personally, I take it as a mark of manhood to be able to admit my mistakes and to pursue the truth and righteousness.  No, the nation didn’t become godless, but my eyes were opened to some things.  Without going into too much detail:  I worked in a MACOM level intel center, where we had access to a great deal of information, not everything our government knew, but quite a bit.  Lets just say, and this was before I became a pacifist, I did not agree with the decision to go to war with Iraq, primarily because I didn’t see the evidence.  Which is now, thankfully, coming to light.  So, in my eyes, the nation was headed towards war for a political motive, not because we were actually threatened.  How could I honor that?  How could I support that?  

And no, I didn’t join the service for the benefits.  You actually don’t get too much in the Reserves.  And no, I’m not “running for my life,” – I’m following my conscience.  I’m in intel, not a grunt – the likelihood of my actually seeing combat are slim to none.  The likelihood of the analysis I provide leading to someone’s death is actually quite high in a war-time situation, and that is not something I could do with a clear conscience.  

[Petro]

[quote posted by pnotc,
And no, I didn’t join the service for the benefits.  You actually don’t get too much in the Reserves.  And no, I’m not “running for my life,” – I’m following my conscience.  I’m in intel, not a grunt – the likelihood of my actually seeing combat are slim to none.  The likelihood of the analysis I provide leading to someone’s death is actually quite high in a war-time situation, and that is not something I could do with a clear conscience.  

You have no credilbility in my book, according to the story, you have been a christian for many years,

You said;

"The likelihood of the analysis I provide leading to someone’s death is actually quite high in a war-time situation, and that is not something I could do with a clear conscience."

That likelihood, has always been there, what did you think, soldeirs train for, when you joined??

You got a lot of revelation, when you went from a calvinist to one who prays to dead saints,   wow..

So, what you never objected to while believing in eternal security, now you conscienciouly object to, without so much as giving the commandment and second thought..

That is a good one...


Petro

[pnotc]

Petro-

I don't much care about your book or my status in it.  I do, however, see that once again you have failed to answer many of my questions.  Its very telling how you refuse answer the points that undermine your argument.  Perhaps because your argument is without merit to begin with?

And yes, the likelihood that my analysis would lead to someone's death has always been there.  But exactly what that means and precisely what war did to a nation and a people was never made clear to me until I did my tour in Bosnia.  There I saw the long-term effects of war, the terrible spiritual, physical and economic impact.  And I found myself unable to participate in such a horrible activity.  Just so I have it clear - the experiences we have and the things we see should never have any impact on us?  We should never change or seek a different path?  Because that is exactly what you are saying.  You are saying that once I became a Christian, I should never experience any kind of growth or change.

Also, I've never been a Calvinist.  Not ever once even came close to that horrible doctrine that makes God the author of sin.  If Methodists are Calvinists, that was never really made clear in my 3rd grade Sunday school class.

"So, what you never objected to while believing in eternal security, now you conscienciouly object to, without so much as giving the commandment and second thought.."

As I stated before, a Calvinist can never understand pacifism.  It makes no sense, since it views every human as inherently evil and worthless.  If they are, whats the problem with killing them?  Furthermore, God's already picked who's going to heaven and who's going to hell, so killing someone isn't going to affect their eternal condition any.  If they're elect, you'll see them in heaven and have a good laugh about putting a round in their head.  If they're condemned, well, what else do they deserve, those sinful bastards?  Eternal security really doesn't factor into it - irresistible grace is what makes pacifism incomprehensible to Calvinism.  And I'm really not sure what commandment you are referring to and how exactly it relates to your points.  I'm relativley certain, however, that you will not answer that question as you've so artfully dodged my other inquiries.  

[Petro]

Petro-

I don't much care about your book or my status in it.  I do, however, see that once again you have failed to answer many of my questions.  Its very telling how you refuse answer the points that undermine your argument.  Perhaps because your argument is without merit to begin with?

And yes, the likelihood that my analysis would lead to someone's death has always been there.  But exactly what that means and precisely what war did to a nation and a people was never made clear to me until I did my tour in Bosnia.  There I saw the long-term effects of war, the terrible spiritual, physical and economic impact.  And I found myself unable to participate in such a horrible activity.  Just so I have it clear - the experiences we have and the things we see should never have any impact on us?  We should never change or seek a different path?  Because that is exactly what you are saying.  You are saying that once I became a Christian, I should never experience any kind of growth or change.

Also, I've never been a Calvinist.  Not ever once even came close to that horrible doctrine that makes God the author of sin.  If Methodists are Calvinists, that was never really made clear in my 3rd grade Sunday school class.

"So, what you never objected to while believing in eternal security, now you conscienciouly object to, without so much as giving the commandment and second thought.."

As I stated before, a Calvinist can never understand pacifism.  It makes no sense, since it views every human as inherently evil and worthless.  If they are, whats the problem with killing them?  Furthermore, God's already picked who's going to heaven and who's going to hell, so killing someone isn't going to affect their eternal condition any.  If they're elect, you'll see them in heaven and have a good laugh about putting a round in their head.  If they're condemned, well, what else do they deserve, those sinful bastards?  Eternal security really doesn't factor into it - irresistible grace is what makes pacifism incomprehensible to Calvinism.  And I'm really not sure what commandment you are referring to and how exactly it relates to your points.  I'm relativley certain, however, that you will not answer that question as you've so artfully dodged my other inquiries.  

pnotc,

Ohh..........


To point out how dishonest you really are, you said you attended a non denominational church and you even held teaching positions there, if I recall.

During your attendance there, did you confess these thoughts, you have revealed herein, that is to say about, not believing in eternal security, or where you ignorant of the statement of faith this fellowship ascribed to;  

Don't you think the parents would have been, interested in knowing about your personal feelings about such an ungodly doctrine, most all non denominational  churches hold to;   more likely, you never expressed these horrible feeelings about Calvinism, while you taught sunday school.  Uhh..

This is the epitamy of decit, to withold your repugnant feelings towards doctrines, these  parent  wanted their children to know, learn, and understand.

Somehow I've  come see you as a deceitful person.

It is useless to ask any questions, since I see plainly that your motive is to deny what the truth of scripture teaches, to further your own Orthodox leanings.

I am amamzed, you and SOA, do not recognize, that you are supposed to believe in the Semi-Pelegian doctrine, embraced by Orthodoxy at the Council of Orange (529),  I assumed you guys knew this, SoA, even denies it, while admiting there are serious questionable tenets, ascribed to it.

It might also, surprise you that it was at this council, the Augustianian views on faith and grace were also embraced, for show, I am sure...

Petro

[pnotc]

Petro-

Your ignorance and arrogance are just astounding!  Yes, I attended a non-denominational church and I led college aged and senior high Bible studies.  But that church has never even come close to accepting any of your Calvinist garbage!  So how am I being dishonest in denying its tenets?  Why should I have divulged to the parents of the youth I taught that I didn't buy into Calvinism's lies, when they didn't believe it either?  Are you really so ignorant as to think that every non-denominational church believes as your church does?  The church I attended was affiliated with the Church of God out of Anderson, IN, which falls distinctly into more a Wesleyan-Arminian perspective. Furthermore, my church wasn't in full agreement with the Church of God's position on many pietistic issues.  Look it up for yourself and see how far off your beliefs about me really are.

"This is the epitamy of decit, to withold your repugnant feelings towards doctrines, these  parent  wanted their children to know, learn, and understand."

Really?  Then I guess the youth pastor, senior pastor, worship arts pastor, children's education pastor, small groups pastor and every other volunteer and leader at my church had best quit.  The epitome (get a spell checker!) of deceit?  Hardly!  No one wanted their children to know, learn and understand those doctrines: the parents didn't believe that nonsense themselves.  

As for your statements on exactly what councils did or did not teach, you'll excuse me if I call into question your ability to accurately interpret their pronouncements, since you obvsiously rush to judgment in areas where you are completely devoid of knowledge.  

For your research, here is the Church of God website:
www.chog.org

And my former church's site:
www.mountainpark.org (but the link appears to be down right now)  

Take a look for yourself.  I won't hold my breath on an apology.

[Petro]

Petro-

Your ignorance and arrogance are just astounding!  Yes, I attended a non-denominational church and I led college aged and senior high Bible studies.  But that church has never even come close to accepting any of your Calvinist garbage!  So how am I being dishonest in denying its tenets?  Why should I have divulged to the parents of the youth I taught that I didn't buy into Calvinism's lies, when they didn't believe it either?  Are you really so ignorant as to think that every non-denominational church believes as your church does?  The church I attended was affiliated with the Church of God out of Anderson, IN, which falls distinctly into more a Wesleyan-Arminian perspective. Furthermore, my church wasn't in full agreement with the Church of God's position on many pietistic issues.  Look it up for yourself and see how far off your beliefs about me really are.

"This is the epitamy of decit, to withold your repugnant feelings towards doctrines, these  parent  wanted their children to know, learn, and understand."

Really?  Then I guess the youth pastor, senior pastor, worship arts pastor, children's education pastor, small groups pastor and every other volunteer and leader at my church had best quit.  The epitome (get a spell checker!) of deceit?  Hardly!  No one wanted their children to know, learn and understand those doctrines: the parents didn't believe that nonsense themselves.  

As for your statements on exactly what councils did or did not teach, you'll excuse me if I call into question your ability to accurately interpret their pronouncements, since you obvsiously rush to judgment in areas where you are completely devoid of knowledge.  

For your research, here is the Church of God website:
www.chog.org

And my former church's site:
www.mountainpark.org (but the link appears to be down right now)  

Take a look for yourself.  I won't hold my breath on an apology.

pnotch,

You said non-denominational, if you would have said, Weslyan, or Methodist, with another name, then we would have understood.

There are churches today who hold the name Chruch of God, which have roots in Mormonism, just as the Catholic chruch has churches, which have Christian Charismatic Fellowships, or Assembly of God churches with names like Christian Centers.

These try to pass off as non-denominational, but their theology, make them denominational..

So, you should have used more precise words.



Petro