Mark M, I understand and appreciate the frustration, but calling these people names is not going to solve anything. They are sinners who need saved by grace through faith in jesus Christ just like we have been, but we are just guilty of different sins. I feel you would be better off praying for them rather than using those types of terms to describe people who practice homosexuality.
PNJG wrote: Who is the Protestant leader publicly opposing the Obama Administration stand-down from supporting DOMA & DADT?
The Protestant "Leader" which publically opposes the sodomite and their sycophantic Liberal followers Is HOLY SCRIPTURE.
The cry of the true Christians.
Just as Protestants have protested and fought against all who would turn against God, Christ and the Holy Spirit.
Just as Protestants raised up and fought against the idolatrous blasphemous papal antichrist and his Roman catholic followers, during the Reformation which God brought to His true followers.
Today the real Church, Reformed and Protestant stands against the same old enemy of Satan, Rome, Vatican, sodomite, idolater and heretic.
Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."
I doubt very much whether Obama will be too concerned about this quote; "conflict" considering his mind set up to now on the homosexual agenda.
Roman Catholics historically have always been Democrat voters anyway and that in all probability is not going to change any time soon. The average RC voter will simply see the DOMA dumping issue as inevitable and homosexuality as a minor problem in the life of Americans. Catholics tend to be socialists and this of course is one of Obama's little leanings too. They like him warts and all.
Earthquakes referred to in the Gospels are not about sent punishment - but signs of the times..... specifically end times.
9 But when ye shall hear of wars and commotions, be not terrified: for these things must first come to pass; but THE END IS NOT BY AND BY. 10 Then said he unto them, Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: 11 And great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and famines, and pestilences; and fearful sights and great signs shall there be from heaven.
Lurker, having built a whole doctrine on a single passage of prophecy I am going to ask you to flesh it out now.
Explain why Paul's letters to the churches are not addressed to 'the pastor'? Why they don't even mention him? Bit rude to say the least don't you think?
Then how is it that Paul instructs the Corinthians to "Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. If [any thing] be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted." (1 Cor.14:29-31) How is the single pastor able to be many people all of a sudden?
And when Paul wants to address a local church why does he insist on acting as if they don't have a single pastor? Such as "From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called for the elders of the church.... He said unto them... Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." (Acts 20:17-28)
And why on earth would Paul say to "ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee." (Titus 1:5) Doesn't he know a church needs just a single pastor to lead it?
Michael, with all respect stop being a pompous Catholic for a moment. Read through the entire NT for yourself without denominational glasses and you will not find the concept of churches with a 'single pastor and a mute audience'.
Frankly it is you that has learning to do on this point. It can be tough to admit that something you or I may have accepted without question all our lives is quite different to what God teaches. Question is are you willing to accept God's word without adding to it....
Lurker, you can build a whole doctrine on a single prophetic passage? Wow. But only because you WANT it to mean that....
As if. Angel means messenger, nothing more. An Angel of God is a messenger from God. Doesn't support your unbiblical 'one pastor' tradition at all.
What you are dealing with in Revelation is a prophecy. The Churches here are named as local churches in Asia Minor but, as this is a prophecy, most Christians believe this refers to the various denominations we have today instead of (now largely non-existent) cities 2000 years ago.
For your claim (that a pastor is an angel) to hold in Revelation we would have to read that these are not broad denominations and that God would have to speak to each and every pastor in every local church for a start.
In fact I suggest it simply means God is sending a messenger to address the issues in (the major denominational groups of) modern Christendom.
So you can't find anything in any of the church epistles to support your tradition and in desperation you tun to The Revelation which largely deals with prophecy. OK.... but then you claim your pastor is now an Angel?? Too much!
In the New Testament the Holy Spirit's use of the words 'elder' Greek~presbuteros) and 'bishop/overseer' (episkopos) show that they are simply different names for the same person - the former denoting their maturity, the latter their work and function. The following passages clearly demonstrate this:
Acts ch 20 - here Paul asks the Ephesian elders (presbuteros v17) to come and see him, and when they arrive he addresses them using the word overseers (episkopos v28).
Titus ch 1- when outlining leadership qualifications, Paul calls an elder (presbuteros v5) a bishop (episkopos v7).
I Peter ch 5 - here Peter exhorts the elders (presbuteros vl) to do the work of overseeing (episkopos v2).
Both Peter and John refer to themselves as elders in their epistles; they were also overseers.
There is no hint in Scripture of anyone claiming to be âThe Pastorâ of a local church and assuming a position of oversight apart from and superior to the work of the elders.
The Quran acknowledges that to Moslems 'Allah' is a _name_ for God, just as we would use 'Jehovah' as the English translation for the name of God. But there is no connection between the two names in any sense.
Thus when Moslems claim 'there is no God but Allah' (La ilaha ill Allah) they do not say 'there is no Allah but Allah' because they know that 'Allah' is a name.
The Quran & Hadith also give us a lot of information about Allah's position in the Ka'aba along with the multitude of other stone idols well before Mohammad came by and elevated him above the rest.
Having read the Quran and many of the Hadiths I would conclude that Clapp is correct on this one. In the PC western world of today unbelievers can't bear to hear the truth, they must suppress it by any means.
The claim that "Allah is the Arabic word for God" is a common one but does not stack up when examined carefully; 'Ilah' (various English spellings) means God in Arabic. The Allah of the Quran has many of the attributes the Bible ascribes to Satan. Indeed Mohammad acknowledged his demonic possession more than once. A detailed examination is here:
Lance, shame on you to discredit a widely respected book that you have not even read. Especially one that details such depths of faith and human suffering. You appear to brush it off as exposed Russell does the holocaust.
I wonder if you would say the same about the bible? For that matter have you read through all of Gods word?