John UK wrote: I make you see the foolishness of believing what you believe
The use of a substitute word to present contempt and scorn as you do is expletive. This attitude of mockery you present towards God's Church and the work of the Holy Spirit is blasphemous and sinful. When you are frustrated in your polemics by another view your usual response is to mock. That is sin. However in this case it is God's work and Church which you apply your contempt and scorn to. That is the sinful art of blasphemy and disrespect of the Lord.
To disagree is one thing and we welcome debate. But to reduce debate to belligerent scorn can only stem from wickedness and thus the dominion of sin. By all means disagree. But seek not to sin or to assault the work of God. Criticize constructively but don't ridicule which is to seek only to offend, again a sin.
I pray for your heart that the Lord will direct your cause by His grace. May He always be your guide. We all have sin within us and it would be sinful to deny this fact. 1John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
Not sure if that first point is replying to me or not Neil, but I agree that correlation does not prove causation. However, we can see coin threads and speculate, and upon further examination of individuals (the greatest murderers in history for instance) we can see a pattern of correlation amongst many individuals that would suggest causation or at least the rational grounds of causation.
[QUOTE]... Is God glorified if justification is separated from sanctification?[/QUOTE]Hey Mourner, thanks for your response, some of it I got lost on where you were going. Justification and sanctification are two different things. However, you don't have one without the other.
Let us say am not advocating suicide, it is a totally selfish act. However it is NOT the unpardonable sin.
Saul committed suicide and Samuel said Saul and his sons would be WITH HIM.
Elijah, Job and Jonah all had desires to have their life taken away. So, it does happen to godly people.
Unless you can show me a verse that says that unconfessed sins at the time of death makes a person lose their salvation, you cannot say that suicide automatically sends a person to hell because they murdered someone.
If a believer gets drunk and is killed in an auto accident do they go straight to hell, the same verses one would use to say a murderer will not inherit eternal life says the same about drunkenness, adultery, being angry, covetous etc. ?
As a general comment, I believe we need to be sensitive is such a public forum, there may be those who read our posts who have lost loved ones to suicide.
cv wrote: The biggest sin is the cold cruel clinical theologizing of others pain. We should speak against suicide not because it will put you in hell, it won't, but because there is hope and help available. Our Lord is a Lord of hope for the helpless
The veracity of the Word of God is man's hope and help. Cold-hearted I am not, cruel not my intention, clinically I have worked as a health care professional and I've always been a data gatherer. There can be physical problems and there are spiritual problems, regarding mental health. In the world of medicine everything is physical because science is based on evolution.
Here's help 2 Tim.1: 7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind. 8 Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God;
Timothy was a ordained minister facing the very real terrors of death from false professors and a heathen Emperor, but by the grace of the Spirit of God he overcame and so can all of Christ's people. You have his Word on it.
Jim, I did read an article Ryan wrote defending his deal. I did like the keeping of 92% of the sequester. I am against government ran social programs that sick a lot of folks money and gives it to those who didn't earn it. BTW, what do you mean by " Sam's Club Republicans"?
CV, Amen to your post. Our hope is not in some spiritual "fire insurance", but in the amazing love and grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. These forums are challenging at times, but it is good. Iron sharpening iron is sometimes how it sounds.
Well, they could have another Ned Turner Rebellion as well except in SC this time. The main thing this group usually does is hide behind the Stars & Bars. Andy Jackson had to threaten to teach them what the Constitution says, and Abe Lincoln did it.
But first the bill has to pass, and then it has to get through the court system, which will determine it's Constitutionality.
Crying In Internet Wilderness wrote: "The Jesuits Are A MILITARY Organization, Not A Religious Order. Their Chief Is A General Of An Army, Not The Mere Father Abbot Of A Monastery. And The Aim Of This Organization Is Power-Power In Its Most Despotic Exercise-Absolute Power, Universal Power, Power To Control The World By The Volition Of A Single Man [i.e. The Superior General Of The Jesuits (&/Or THE 'BLACK-POPE')]. JESUITISM IS THE MOST ABSOLUTE OF DESPOTISMS - AND AT THE SAME TIME THE GREATEST AND MOST ENORMOUS OF ABUSES..."--NAPOLEON BONAPARTE Jesus Christ (#1) Was Referring To The..."Jesuits" When He Said: "BEWARE OF FALSE PROPHETS, WHICH COME TO YOU IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING, BUT INWARDLY THEY ARE REVENING WOLVES."--MATTHEW 7:15 THE "JESUITS" FOUNDER IGNATIUS LOYOLA's SURNAME WAS "LOPEZ" & COMES FROM LATIN: LUPUS & SPANISH: LOBO--HENCE LOPUS-LOPES OR LOPEZ & ALL MEANING IN ENGLISH: "WOLF" ! "JESUITS" ARE FALSE-PROPHETS & RAVENING-WOLVES !
**NO**, "Mike", BECAUSE: Napoleon Was THE ROTH$CHILD$ & "JE$UIT$" Stooge In The Early 1800s; Set-Up To Destroy BIBLICAL-LITERALIST-ROMAN-CATHOLICISM, aka "JANSENISM", In THE ROMAN VATICAN [1600s-Thru-Early 1800s] & RE-ESTABLISH SATANIC-"JESUITISM" WITH THEIR DIABOLICAL 1500s COUNCIL-OF-TRENT-HERESIES ! ! !
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Not trying to put words in your mouth, ..
I John 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. 6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. 8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
I have never claimed to know the state of any man's heart. That is God's part. My concern here has a number of facets. #1 If we are to make sin, not sin at the 11th hour, that may seem loving to men, then I hardly see why Christ had to die the painful, shameful death of the cross; if we are not overcomers. Is God glorified in the salvation of sinners? Yes, definitely. Is God glorified if justification is separated from sanctification?
Jim Lincoln wrote: I said that abortions may be lessen, because Obamacare (GOPcare) will pay for prenatal and birth expenses. Abortion by pill is so cheap now, women will be very tempted to go that route, with some help with footing the bill, remember? excerpt from, the Affordable Care Act finally makes healthcare affordable and accessible for women. ---
You keep posting the BBC link that says
"Fact: Before ACA, pre-natal care wasn't normal women's care. Some 87% of insurance plans on the individual market did not offer maternity or labour and delivery as part of their coverage package."
Now inhale deeply, and read it again: "The individual market did not offer maternity coverage..." Here comes the obvious, Jim. The individual market does not need to offer maternity care to all the insured in the individual market. See how easy? Obamacare does indeed fix that "problem" by requiring individual men to buy maternity coverage. See how stupid?
SteveR wrote: Sorry to stick a pin in yet another one of your deceitful accusations, but the concept of the 'invisible church' in the Reformed tradition is a prooftext against the popes leadership of the Church
You don't need a prooftext. An unregenerate cannot lead any church.
But I don't know why you're grumbling at me anyway, as I've never argued against an invisible church. The entire church is invisible to me at the moment - except me, of course.