Darkman wrote:

>
> The Hebrew word for "tribulation" literally means
"labor pains."

And there are two sorts of "labor pains" when birthing comes to its
moment of fruition.  The "Great Tribulation" as mentioned by Christ and
the OT prophets refers to the period of "transition."  If you have had
children you would appreciate the distinction.
>
> Compare Deuteronomy 4:29-34.  Moses specifically points towards the
> end-time Great Tribulation in verse 30, then follows it up with
asking
> if ever God had tried to bring a nation out of the midst of another
> nation.  Why connect these two concepts?  Because that's precisely
what
> the end-time tribulation involves as well.
>
Here one must study the later OT prophecies as well, say, Zephaniah.
Therein it is revealed that the Tribulation, that 70th week of Daniel,
occurs for the express purpose of purifying Israel.  It is the "Time of
Jacob's Trouble".  After Rev 5, there is no mention of the Church on
earth until its return in ch 19.
>
> Also look at Revelation 12.  Although this primarily pictures the
birth
> of the Messiah, it can also apply to the new birth of any believer.
>
And don't forget, the Messiah is the son of David.  The Messiah came
out of Israel.  The Messianic hope is through the loins of national
Israel.  He was "to the Jew first."
>
> The relationship between Adam and Eve was damaged when Adam
> pointed the finger of blame at Eve for eating the forbidden fruit.
>
Well technically, it could be stated that it occured when Eve allowed
herself to be deceived.  The scriptural record of the chronology of
events is never questioned.  The dilemma of Adam was whether or not he
was to remain inclined toward his Creator or by a self determination of
the will, follow the already alienated "help meet."  Finger pointing
only revealed the already intrinsic alienation.
>
> I agree that the actions of Adam and Eve precipitated the
difficulties
> of themselves and all mankind. Without the fall there is no
indication
> that there would have been any children. Birth and its attendant
curse
> came together as a result of the fall.
>
No.  There is no scriptural support for this.  This is very much like
the old RC view holding that sexual union was only sanctified when
legal procreation was in view.  There is no record or inference that
Adam and Eve gained the ability to procreate only after the fall.
Being made in the image of God plays into this.  If the parents had not
inclined themselves away from their Creator, if they had had children,
then their children would have faced equal temptation.  It would only
be upon eating of the fruit of the tree of life that their "fates"
would have been sealed.  That the parents had fallen, they were ushered
out of the garden specifically as a guard against their eating of the
tree of life which would seal them in their fallen state, thus negating
any hope of redemption.
>
>
> Evidence is never the issue with God. Trust\Faith is always the
issue.
>
But this begs the nature of faith.  Faith is always based upon
knowledge.  It never operates out of a vacuum.  So "evidence" is very
much an issue.  Rom 1:20.
>
> Even though our circumstances today aren't that bad (for most of us,
at
> least), our ability to love and trust is still compromised to some
> degree in the absence of baptism.
>
This is a really vague  analysis.  It isn't the absence of baptism (if
you mean water baptism as opposed to Spirit baptism) which closes the
door.  All men are alienated from their God, their neighbor and
themselves, conceived in sin.  It is only the ministry of regeneration
which opens the door for man, recreating within him a capacity to love.
But it is only a capacity.  It still requires a "filling" inorder to
animate it.
>
>So, having an end-time Great
> Tribulation is, in part, God's way of proving to us that we're unable
> to love Him and trust in Him in our own strength.  We can't do it
> unless He Himself brings us to Him through baptism.
>
But that is evidenced by every true believer as evidenced in the
Pauline account of Rom 7.  The primary purpose of the Tribulation, for
the unsaved, is not salvation, but wrath.  For the unbeliever, it is
not about what is illustrated in "Shawshank Redemption," and the parole
boards questioning regarding "rehabilitation."  Red's answer is
priceless.  No, the purpose of the Tribulation is the meeting out of
punishment for a crime.  However, in regards to the believing remnant
of Israel, and to those few Gentiles who believe in the Messiah of the
prophecies, they are purified by the wrath.  Yet it is wrath which is
poured out upon the nations.
>
>
> We'll have and end-time tribulation because people will have grown
> insensitive to one another (and also to God).  The only real way to
> break through the barriers that people put up so that they won't have
> to go to God is to show them just how hurtful being insensitive can
be
> by putting them through the results of being insensitive:  the Great
> Tribulation.
>
But here you fail in recognizing the fact that the Tribulation is not
primarily about reformation.  It is about wrath.  Like those who stand
on the precipice of eternal damnation, it is not reformation which will
be exhibited, but the revelation of unrepentant evil.  A "giving over"
only leads to further degradation, not upward evolution.
>
> While the people you are referring to are insensitive I would
> characterize that as a symptom of a more fundamental problem. The
> problem is still one of faith or more precisely the object of that
faith
> themselves or God. The Trib. allows them to test the value of/merit
the
> object of their faith.
>
But fallen man is incapable of such objectivity.  Just because you have
the 144,000 witnesses plus the 2 witnesses, only evidences further
declaration/exhibition of the truth, not a greater capacity to accept
it.  As in the OT, it is only through the ministry of the HS that one
is regenerated and thus capacitated to come to repentance.  The great
revelations given during the 70th week will only serve to heap further
guilt upon the unbelieving of those days.
>
> The Holy Spirit not only gives man spiritual life at baptism, He also
> gives man physical life at birth.
>
However, the scriptural record is:

There is none who understands
There is none who seeks for God.

Faith is based upon some appreciation of the Truth.  How can physical
water baptism regenerate the unbelieving?  Rather, man must first be
regenerated before he can appreciate his need of Savior.  Water baptism
is an effect of having already been regenerated, not a lock-step
causality of it.

>Look at Genesis 2:7.  What was it
> that God breathed into Adam's nostrils?  THE HOLY SPIRIT.  Also, look
> at John 1:4,5 and 9.  What "light" was it talking about?  The Holy
> Spirit, which lit up like a star when God said "let there be light"
in
> Genesis 1:3!  (And by the way, what do you think the Star of
Bethlehem
> was, given what I've just said?)
>
> I believe that interpreting neshamah as the Holy Spirit along with
> pneuma will engender an multitude for theological problems that will
> take us far from the topic at hand. Consider for a moment by way of
> example the consequences of the Holy Spirit inhabiting the body of
> unregenerate man until his Salvation experience.
>
A clear illustration of the difficulty of distinction is to open before
you all your various versions to Rom 8.  Notice the differentiation of
one version capitalizing Spirit while another does not.  That is
because the Spirit of God and the spirit of man, after regeneration,
are to be indistinquishable.  This was the "mind of Christ" in Phil 2.
>
> This Spirit gives man the ability to have natural love and affection.
> (2 Tim. 1:7)  However, circumstances can dampen or sabotage that
> natural love.  (That's in part what 1 Thess. 5:19 is a reference to.)
> What you're saying is correct, but it seems that you haven't realized
> that ALL love is a gift from God, not just the love that we have for
> Him as a result of being baptized.
>
> I appears to me that you re confusing the human spirit with the Holy
> Spirit.
>
THAT is a theological necessity.  The problem usually lies in the
effort to so distinquish them.  This too is part of regenerative aspect
of the Spirit's ministry.
>
> > This verse is referring to a salvation other than eternal; as you
seem
> > to be suggesting in your second parenthetical statement above. Or
have
> > I
>   > misunderstood you?
>
> No, having enduring love will result in eternal salvation.

Nothing in us merits eternal salvation.  Salvation is a free gift.
Love, that is true love, is an outworking of God in our lives.  1 Cor
13.  1 John.

>
> I am going to have to disagree with you eternal salvation is achieved
by
> a single act of blind faith in God.
>
effectual faith is never blind.  In perceives the True object and
understands why it is in need of what that object offers.

> He says he will save us and we
> without any ability to determine the merit of His offer accept.
>
And what of Abraham's faith?  Rom 4  Our faith, based upon
regeneration, now has the illumination of the Spirit to guide us into
truth.  Again, "blind faith" is as much a misnomer as is "dead
orthodoxy."  In truth, neither exist.
Orthodoxy which is dead is no orthodoxy, hence "faith without works."
Blind faith is no faith because faith always perceives the truthfulness
or worthiness of the object.  You cross the street based upon some
appreciation of both the law of red light and the operation of a cars
braking system.  Faith is ALWAYS based upon knowledge.  The internal
ALWAYS preceeds the external..

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group.  All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
(((   Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post.   )))
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 12/24/04 12:19:56 AM