This is just to set an example,when Homosexuals want something from you you had better give it up,a Christian or anyone opposed to Homosexuality should not have to deal with Homosexuals in any way if they choose not to.
Homosexuals are one of the many useful idiots that have been used to gain power and control over America by the left,they cut a deal with the left,you cut a swath through society for us and force people to our will and we will vote for you in every election....the joke is on them when the go from being useful idiots to useless idiots,then they along with others will be tossed out to fend for themselves and their "rights" won't matter anymore.
Ok personally I think this is daft. I am a medical professional and if someone were dieing I wouldn't stop say mouth to mouth because they were gay. He's just being asked to make a cake - I actually feel this is discrimination. I think that it's different if a pair of queers were wanting to sleep in a double bed in your house because that's clearly violating your own area of personal Christian kingdom but a cake- I think I would just have baked the thing put white icing on it and told them to finish it off with whatever they wanted on the top. I mean will it get to the point where queers can't ride in buses or have to have their own tables in restaurants. I felt that this was discriminatory personally...
Yes! Indeed Witness to False Christians Brother Trevor, it is not just there is a movement to treat Mormons as fellow Christians BUT especially with Roman Catholics and the same comments in your introduction apply with Catholics as well.
Lurker wrote: Thanks, brother. You know me well and you know I'll dig on this matter till God reveals the answer. I recall a few years ago I read a commentary on Phl 3:6 where Paul said of himself: "touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless." Whoever it was who wrote the commentary said it wasn't possible because he was a Pharisee, trained in the law at the feet of Gamaliel. When I read that I couldn't believe it. I thought to myself; we can't believe Paul when he said he was blameless? What else can't we believe? At the time I didn't understand how Paul could have said that but since I've learned that he was right..... because he was not under the law till the commandment came, sin revived and he died. Where there is no law, there is no sin. He was indeed blameless. Anyway, the answer to Paul and eternal life may not be as easy but I'll keep searching. Blessings.
Bro, you may be right about ignorance of the law. Most people in the world do not see themselves as sinners. Yet it could have been referring to the Pharisees' law, which was possible to keep perfectly; these additions to God's law were black and white, and only physical, much easier to keep than God's laws which involved the heart motive.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: As to the birth of our Lord, I believe it should be a cause for daily thanksgiving. We should ever be thankful that the Creator of the whole universe, adored in heaven by seraphims and worshiped by the saints, would leave its glory and splendor and take upon Him the restrictions and limitations of human flesh. That He would voluntarily subject the free exercise of His divine attributes to His Father and live for over 33 years among the rebels of humanity. He suffered under manifold temptations, weariness, hungry, thirst, grief, sorrow, and much more. He was beaten, afflicted, mocked, spit upon, betrayed, and crucified but always kept the goal and joy of redeeming His sheep at the forefront of all He endured. He who knew no sin became my sin substitute because He willing became a babe in Bethlehem. May God give us grace to be ever thankful to Him for His unspeakable gift.
Wonderful words US about our Lord Jesus Christ, God manifest in the flesh, and his purpose and ministry.
Indeed it should be cause for daily thanksgiving, even a daily service; and I don't think the early church messed about with evergreens and fairy lights and baubels to enhance their worship.
John Yurich USA wrote: In fact if I attended a Protestant Church I would not make the minister cognizant of my beliefs either because it would not be any of his business what my beliefs are. It is no business of the clergy what the beliefs are of their church members.
John Yurich Sorry to disappoint you but it is the business of the clergy/leadership of a church to know "you" and what the beliefs (condition) of its members (sheep entrusted to their care) are.
Now while it is true they, the clergy/leadership are not to be a bunch of self-righteous hypocrites that Lord it over the people of their congregation and micro-manage their faith, they ought to know you and care about you, especially whether or not you truly know Christ or have a pretend, make-believe counterfeit for genuine saving faith,
And likewise they ought to be open with their faith and where they are at in their walk with Christ as well. Do they feed you the Truth of Scripture, do they help/encourage you to obey and serve the Savior, to they cover with their praying you and others, do they set an example of genuinely loving others especially of seeking the lost, the poor the hurting, are they truly servants?
Frank wrote: No JohnY, you are simply a troll who loves striving against the truth and who loves the attention he is getting. Now since folks define differently what a troll is, perhaps I am wrong, but I don't think so. I agree, "one nerve left"
I am not striving against the truth. I accept the truth that salvation comes only through trusting in Jesus alone for salvation. And it is no business of the Catholic Church that I don't subscribe to all Catholic doctrines. In fact if I attended a Protestant Church I would not make the minister cognizant of my beliefs either because it would not be any of his business what my beliefs are. It is no business of the clergy what the beliefs are of their church members.
John UK wrote: Maybe bro it is the same sort of thing as redemption. After all, we are currently redeemed by Jesus Christ, by his precious blood, and yet we are going to be redeemed, in its entirety, at the last trumpet. And again, we are saved (justified), we are being saved (sanctified), and we are going to be saved (glorified). Just a few thought to kick around, brother.
You know me well and you know I'll dig on this matter till God reveals the answer.
I recall a few years ago I read a commentary on Phl 3:6 where Paul said of himself: "touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless." Whoever it was who wrote the commentary said it wasn't possible because he was a Pharisee, trained in the law at the feet of Gamaliel. When I read that I couldn't believe it. I thought to myself; we can't believe Paul when he said he was blameless? What else can't we believe?
At the time I didn't understand how Paul could have said that but since I've learned that he was right..... because he was not under the law till the commandment came, sin revived and he died. Where there is no law, there is no sin. He was indeed blameless.
Anyway, the answer to Paul and eternal life may not be as easy but I'll keep searching.
I meant concerning Romanism ...your defense of it.
I am ex RC and I can tell you it is an apostate blasphemous religion from the bowels of hell.Hate the system...love those souls that are deluded by priest craft,sorcery,paganism and goddess worship.
The sacrifice of the mass is an abomination and blasphemes the Lord Jesus Christs finished work on the cross.
No need to respond...I hate this system and pray to God to tear it completely down before the watching world!
didactually wrote: John this article demonstrates how the Baptists are confused about Biblical Calvinism. Perhaps the misapprehension of the Baptist theory on the correct mode and definition of baptism highlights this problem. The best advice is to go to a good Calvinist Presbyterian church where the Biblical facts are taught and revealed.
From whence is your authority to baptize infant girls?
And what say you of Paul. Did he claim eternal life as a present possession? Was his concern of becoming a castaway real or a feigned show of humility?
Is it possible for you to adlib or must you stick to your prepared script like John Y.?
Why meditate on John Owen? A Christian friend asked me what I think is the biggest problem facing the church today? I said it is our comparing ourselves WITH ourselves and so we lower the standard. That is the very nature of desynthetization to think we aren't that bad after all. But when I want to undeceive myself and wake up out of my sleep, I read, meditate on, and narrate John Owen. It is never comfortable, but I feel it is always safest.
shane wrote: Frank... First off thanks for the prayers brother( and the other brothers and sisters). I am in full agreement. Just wanted to share my situation. Praise God for his saints! How desolate it would be without him. Take care.
Frank... First off thanks for the prayers brother( and the other brothers and sisters). I am in full agreement. Just wanted to share my situation. Praise God for his saints! How desolate it would be without him. Take care.
shane wrote: Frank...brother.. thank you. I have a thought. . If someone can't do Christmas without a Christmas tree, they should seriously contemplate whether or not they are worshiping it. I know in my case, it seemed like it wouldn't be Christmas without one. I read Jeremiah in a new way last year. No tree this year.
It is good seeing you posting! All I can say is good for you. If a tree becomes more than an ornament, then it would be wrong to put one up. We bought a small fake one that sits on an end-table about 10 years ago and it goes up every year, but to me it is simply something with pretty lights.
Now if I knew of someone who thought my little tree was sinful, then I would seriously consider not putting one up so they wouldn't be offended.
But, if you think it is wrong, then you are very correct not to do it. If we believe something is sinful and we do it, then regardless of what others may or may not think, it is sinful.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: I would be reluctant to say that a verse written in Jeremiah about 2 millennium before there was such thing as a Christmas tree, applies aptly to it. Not defending Christmas trees, just they are not the object of worship or affixed with hammers. I think if we are going to rightly divide the word of truth, we should not be saying Jeremiah 10 speaks against Christmas trees. What think ye? ---
For what it's worth, I agree. Rightly dividing ought to mean something.