Mike wrote:
Mike wrote:
B.O. will bring change. Change will bring hope. Hope will bring change. And change is not staying where we are but moving forward with hope. Hope is not hopeless, because hope is hopeful. And it brings change, which is not hopeless because it brings hope.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Neil, Erasmus did a very poor translation of the Greek, [URL=http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=665]]]Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today[/URL]. Dr. Wallace's comments on Erasmus begins in the second paragraph. With due respect to Ian Paisley and to KJV only types, many knowledgeable people agree with him. The KJV with Ryrie notes to explain antiquated terms (especially for Americans) The English are more acquainted with Elizabethan English, makes the AV acceptable to people knowledgeable about the Bible.

Matthew Henry's Bible commentary on 1 Cor. CH14 explains what the Apostle Paul said about speaking in an unknown tongue.

"Prophecy preferred to the gift of tongues. (1-5) The unprofitableness of speaking in unknown languages. (6-14) Exhortations to worship that can be understood. (15-25) Disorders from vain display of gifts; (26-33) and from women speaking in the church. (34-40)

Verses 1-5 Prophesying, that is, explaining Scripture, is compared with speaking with tongues. This drew attention, more than the plain interpretation of Scripture; it gratified pride more, but promoted the purposes of Christian charity less; it would not equally do good to the souls of men. What cannot be understood, never can edify. No advantage can be reaped from the most excellent discourses, if delivered in language such as the hearers cannot speak or understand. Every ability or possession is valuable in proportion to its usefulness. Even fervent, spiritual affection must be governed by the exercise of the understanding, else men will disgrace the truths they profess to promote."

Charlie Miller wrote:
I did listen to:
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=12240114484
Rev. Ian Goligher
Why We Are Not Charismatics!
But as I listened to Goligher I kept thinking...
If all good things come from above, and if the charisms come from above isn't it wrong to preach against charisms?
Really, if gifts from God, are offered to those of His then isn't it somewhat of an insult to The Giver to decline His offer? He hasn't reneged on His promise.
Please give this a listen.
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=9280215524
Who Is the Holy Spirit and How Can We Know Him?
A.W. Tozer

Lance Eccles wrote:
..Believers always have the freedom to reject what God offers. He doesn't force anyone.
Obviously I don't believe in Irresistible Grace.

When you say you don't believe in irresistable grace, are you saying what God predetermines to do can fail to be accomplished? Seems like you believe in a weak God if He cannot accomplish what he determines to accomplish. If God ordains that a particular individual's heart will be changed, can God bring that to fruition?

MurrayA wrote:
...But Paul has a much grander conception. God is using the very evil that men and Satan produce for the working out of His purpose. They think that they are acting in defiance of Him. But in the end they find that those very acts in which they expressed their defiance were the vehicle of their punishment." [Leon Morris, 1&2 Thessalonians, in loc]

Lance Eccles wrote:
A belief that one is definitely saved is (in my opinion) an almost certain sign that one has given up and will not be saved.

"...why is it that true believers cannot fall from grace? Is it because of something in the power of the believers themselves? Or is it the power of God that prevents this? The answer again is unmistakable. True believers "are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation," says Peter (1 Peter 1:5). Here we see the vast difference between the Reformed faith on the one hand, and Roman Catholicism and Arminianism on the other hand. For these latter systems agree in teaching that it is the power of man as well as that of God, yes, even more than the power of God, which keeps the saved from being lost. And this is true not only at the beginning of the process but all the way to the end.

Mike wrote:
If you would be so kind, please apply this to the "Gunman Slays 6 at N. Illinois University" thread.

G.I. Williamson explains this in his Study Guide of the WCF. "God does not force men to do what they do not want to do (in the way of sin). It is part of God's sovereign plan. Although we, with our finite human minds, cannot reason or understand why evil would happen if God is sovereign and ordains everything that comes to pass, we trust that all things will work out according to His plan. "The free actions of men are also predestined by God. Please note: these acts are both free and predestined."

"Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!" Matt.18:7

Lance Eccles wrote:
Actually, Michael, on this point of Jesus Christ being Creator or the world, I'm out of my depth.
I'm not sure what either the RC or the traditional Protestant view of this is, though I was under the impression that the Creator is God the Father.

"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." Col. 1:15-17

These verses are speaking about Jesus Christ, God the Son. This is shown by verses 13 and 14.

"Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

Lance Eccles wrote:
Gluten-free hosts are not permitted, though low-gluten ones are. There is probably no change of substance in a gluten-free host, as it is most likely invalid matter.
Regarding the metaphors, "I am the door" and "I am the vine" are perfectly obvious and understandable.
If "eat my flesh" and "drink my blood" are metaphors, they must be among the most bizarre and incomprehensible ever uttered.

Saint terry evans wrote:
Hi Wayne
Try asking instead, a little reverse psyc. They may want to answer your questions on salvation but not want to hear it from a young whippersnapper
You know, that pride thing, wisdom comes with age

DJC49 wrote:
It's understandable that there is an agreement among the *Coffee Club* not to talk about their respective "religions." No one would want to break up a *good thing* over such a trivial matter as eternal life and death. (/sarcasm)
You have a very difficult mission field there, Wayne M. Men can be quite intractable about their "religion," especially older men who are set in their ways and habits.

I did print out a verse on a business card a couple of times and gave it to several of them. The second one raised quite a controversy, but I may have exhausted that avenue for now as I was told to keep quiet about it.

Michael Hranek wrote:
Wayne M
I might say that is an understatement. And first may we all keep you in our prayers as you seek to witness to these Catholic men btw it is possible and I don't know these other men but they might also need to be saved.

There were about about eight or nine retired men at the table this morning. Three are RCs, three from reformed churches, and the others possibly non-church people. In a couple of months there will be two additional RCs returning from winter in Arizona. One would think on the surface that this is an opportunity, but I have found that it is not so.

I have a difficult situation. I know a group of retired men who drink coffee together almost daily. Two are from reformed churches, and two are from RCC. These guys have been drinking coffee together for about 20 years. They have apparently agreed not to talk about religion, except the odd light-hearted comment.

I talked to one reformed gent privately. He is in his eighties. I think he spent most of his life in a reformed church which the last number of years became quite liberal, but he recently switched to a more conservative reformed church, where I joined.

Lance Eccles wrote:
That's an interesting question. It probably has something to do with the rise of capitalism under Protestantism.
Incidentally, the Reformation seems to have utterly reliquished its hold in most of those countries you mention. The USA is the one exception.

Lance Eccles wrote:
Absolute nonsense. If the Reformation had never happened, today Europe would be Catholic instead of agnostic, and Islam would be kept firmly in its place.

Can you explain why that is the case in those RC countries and not so in the countries like Germany, the Netherlands, Britain, Canada, and the U.S.A. where the Reformation took hold.