N. T. Diluvian wrote: If Rivera was a 'proven fraud' where is the proof?
TrueHolyBibleChristianCatholic wrote: *BR. ALBERTO RIVERA Warned TRUE CHRISTIANS & NON-CHRISTIAN In The 1970s-90s: "Another Problem (For Satan) Was THE TRUE (2nd-CENTURY) CHRISTIANS In NORTH AFRICA Who Preached THE GOSPEL (ala Athanasius). ROMAN CATHOLICISM Was Growing In Power, But Would NOT Tolerate Opposition. Somehow THE [SATANIC] VATICAN Had To CREATE A WEAPON ...
There was no "Roman Catholic Church" in the second century and no "Vatican."
He who has eyes to see, has seen and known the Truth.
Paul wrote: You see my dear, you completely missed my comment and you are too irritated at me to even realize it. Frank was calling preaching the Gospel to fools, foolishness...tongue in cheek,I said it sounded foolish. Please understand the humour here. Why are you so angry? I didn't need Scripture to make a joke, and there is nothing more sad than someone casting stones at glass houses, especially when that person didn't deserve it. I don't have to continue to reply to you, but I do feel sorry for you. Please email me so we can discuss your problem with me further.
You know Paul,the funniest thing about everything you just said is,you're replying to one of your own posts that you made some time back.Isn't it amazing how we can judge others until we realize we ourselves are guilty of the exact same thing.
Paul wrote: I guess the point of using Scripture is if it's in context... you would know without a shadow of doubt that the above passage you have tried to pass over on me is so far out to lunch, I can't even begin to start with it... If you would actually open up your eyes ... You would see that you are the pot calling the kettle black and perhaps you should take a closer look at yourself before YOU call someone else self righteous.
I don't have time to argue with those such as yourself, I only comment when I see something absurd as what you have written here, hoping that you will put away your arrogance, pride and superiority complex long enough to realize that if you indeed represented Christ Jesus, you would come across with meekness, humility and love rather than calling everyone's comments foolishness. BTW, where's the scriptural references to back up your statements?
Paul wrote: Please tell me in what way am I self righteous. My comment to Frank was in a silly manner with absolutely no intent to convey a Christian principle. Do you understand what I was conveying? It looked like Frank got the joke. It's a shame you have wasted my time and yours over ANOTHER frivolous matter. BTW, unless you can back up your rebuke scripturally...
try Matt 23:13-28 maybe something in that neighborhood will stir your memory.
Paul wrote: Yeah, it's a bad habit of mine. Maybe I should become more compromising like you and others and accept man's word over that of God's and join the club, huh? BTW, my name is Paul, that's what my parents named me, and it would look rather funny to tell everyone to call me Revivalandreformation. That's my blog, I learned the importance of that distinction. That's for clarifying to S.A. readers the difference. Have a great weekend.
my,but aren't we self righteous. It must be nice to be as holy as thou art.
sounds like personal opinion to me "Paul",where's Your scripture to back it up.I know revivalandreformation would have one,cause he won't listen to man's word if man's word cannot be backed up by scripture.
Obamas education czar Kevin Jennings has a recommended reading list for elementary school children that is graphic homosexual pornography. But the pastors of the 501c3 church will not speak against this at the risk of the loss of his tax exemption. What happens when homeschooling is made illegal and Christian parents are forced to face jail or put their child into sodomite education? If I were a new parent I woulds be beheaded before I registered my newborn with the state in this day and age.
I enjoyed reading your post from earlier today. It is a comfort to hear someone else who is likeminded. I've heard it said that we read to know that we are not alone. I agree.
Today, as I sat with my mother-in-law, I viewed the webcast from FFPC in Greenville, S.C. It was a blessing to join in the service, and quieted my m-i-l who can be verbally abusive in her dementia. I prayed for her salvation as she repeated the words of Dr. Cairns in a mocking manner. I know that God who created the mind and spirit can redeem one even in such a state.
There is a song based on a poem found scribbled on the walls of a patient's room in an insane asylum after the patient's death. The third stanza goes like this:
"Could we with ink the ocean fill and were the skies of parchment made, Were ev'ry stalk on earth a quill and ev'ry man a scribe by trade To write the love of God above would drain the ocean dry, Nor could the scroll contain the whole tho stretched from sky to sky."
Beautiful, isn't it? It was thought to have been written by the patient during times of sanity. It comes from an ancient poem composed in 1096. The song is "The Love of God" - words and music by Frederick M. Lehman 1868-1953.
scarecrow wrote: Yet we Christians do sin, even if it brings no joy in the sinning. Is one who sins a sinner, or is there a new name by which the one who sins should be known?
Surely, calling a Christian a "sinner" is relatively new in church lexicon.
In the past, even to the common man, unlearned, a sinner was considered to be one who lived unreconciled to God. A Christian was known as a Christian and one whose life made a statement of faith.
In Romans 1:8 we see that Christians were known for their "faith being proclaimed throughout the whole world." So, that would indicate that they were not known for their sin being proclaimed throughout the world.
Have you read "Pilgrim's Progress?" What was Pilgrim called after conversion? "Christian" was his name. And that is what he was.
nomenclature wrote: I am not come to call the righteous, but "sinners" to repentance.
Of course. Only sinners need salvation. And, everyone is a sinner, until he is brought to Christ in saving faith.
That person is then a new creation in Christ Jesus. He is regenerated. It is not just a legal transfer of the sins to the Saviour, but it is a receiving of the Spirit of God within the heart.
Think on the verse about not putting new wine into old wine skins. They would burst. You put new wine into new wineskins - IOW, a new spirit into a new heart.
Christians are no longer called sinners, but, "a royal priesthood", "stewards of the mysteries of God", "ambassadors for Christ", "servants of Christ", "the temple of God, and the Spirit of God dwelling within", "full of goodness", "filled with all knowledge", "having this treasure in earthen vessels", "sons of God", "children of God", "heirs with Christ".
So, there is a distinction between the one who has been washed from his sins by the blood of the Lamb, and the sinner who is still in his sins.
One can rightly be labeled a Christian, and the other a sinner.
scarecrow wrote: But tattie, the invisible church is composed of visible sinners.
But, Scarecrow, Christians are never addressed as sinners by the writers of the N.T. They are called "saints", "beloved brethren", "fellow heirs", "overcomers", the "redeemed", "blessed of the Lord", "blood bought", "the bride of Christ".
Continuing to call Christians "Sinners" would indicate that the predominant characteristic of their lives is sin, uninterrupted. Not so. Christians are characterized by holy living, interrupted by sin.
There is nothing virtuous in declaring how perceptive one is as to the sin condition, and then staying there as a sign of humility.
There is something virtuous in praising the One who not only redeems us from our sins, but, transforms our lives and, "will present us blameless to God in the day of Christ Jesus."
A Democratic Conservative wrote: Have ALL U.S. Presidential Candidates, since George Washington, been required to physically produce Valid, Documented & Official/Authentic ORIGINAL Manuscript-Specie and/or Copies of Their Original "Signed-Sealed-&-Delivered" U.S. Birth Certificates in Order to Be Sworn in As President of The United States of America ? And if NOT in the Past; Why then NOW ? Hmmmm.
Did George W. Bush Produce a Genuine Authenticated "Signed-Sealed-&-Delivered" Copy of His U.S. Birth Certificate before he was Sworn in As The Chief Executive of These United States of America on January 20, 2001 ?
And how many U.S. Presidents Since George W. (WASHINGTON, that is) and before George W. Bush have we ALREADY Elected U.S. President before they PHYSICALLY PRODUCED any Valid, Documented & Official/Authentic ORIGINAL Manuscript-Specie and/or Copies of Their Original "Signed-Sealed-&-Delivered" U.S. Birth Certificates ? According to U.S. Federal Election Law; EVERY Certified NAME on EVERY Certified Federal General Election Ballot PRESUPPOSES that the Named Person on the Ballot is a GENUINE U.S. CITIZEN !
Did the previous candidates during their career provide their birth certs? I say yes. Your defense of Obama is hysterical.