Calvinist Understanding wrote: I am not going to address the question of "free" will, because this is another issue altogether. I just do not have the time to go down that alley. What some calvinists say is that if one does not accept that faith is a gift, then it makes the exercise of faith a work. This has always seemed ridiculous to me, but I have read it many times, and this is why I wanted some explanation from any Calv. as to what "works" are and how "faith" in particular could sit comfortably with any biblical definition of "works".
It is my understanding that works are any that are attempted to justify one's self to God. This includes those works that result from the presumption that faith itself is derived from the will of man.
The works of the Pharisees are given as an example of self justification through extreme measures of obedience to the law. None were so meticulous at the Pharisee. Nevertheless, the Lord said that "except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven." This essentially indicates that the best has been tried and it was not good enough. Therefore, another righteousness must be found outside of ourselves to be justified.
In all due respect gentlemen, these arguments are irrelevant. If the government steals, which it does, it does not provide the grounds for another to break the law which states "Thou shalt not steal".
But, that being said, I am certain the government will handle this case of theft the same way that it has handled the many cases of Roman Catholic priests charged with pedophelia. The only redeeming thing about this is that the money these priests stole will not make its way into the hands of the Anti-christ of Rome (at least for a while until he gets some of this bail out money). This will certainly bring pressure on OB1 to deal with this in severity. You can rape children and the Anti-christ will pardon, but let us see how he feels about robbing from his money belt.
John UK wrote: R.K. Don't forget that Adam was a man with a totally free will. Until the fall, this was the state of the human race. Also you are in error with your words (taken from a hymn). God FORCES no-one. His way is far more gentlemanly. Apart from that, yes I agree with Cowper.
Neil wrote: Chris Lowney, Managing Director of JP Morgan, admits to having been a Jesuit, so I assume this is the basis for the charge. But what exactly is a "Jesuit bank?" One that practices high finance according to Jesuit doctrine? If so, how is that even possible, given the Jesuits' obsession with Social Justice (shared with many alleged "Protestants")? I cannot imagine lending money to fund an ostensibly charitable activity. For what it's worth, J.P. himself was a devout Episcopalian.
You pose some thought provoking questions. Given the fact that the Jesuits are the espionage branch of the RCC, their motives for undermining the US economy must be directed by the Anti-christ, Ratzinger, himself to bring the US under his complete command. Such idiots; do they not know that if the US goes, they will loose over $100 million/yr. in contributions to the Pope's vault. No other country comes close to this; consider all the countries of the world under RCC domination and the poverty associated. It was the economy that rose up from the doctrine of separation of church and state that has caused the US to succeed. Do they think that communist China will take up the slack?
Neil wrote: FYI: International Christian Embassy These folks are scary. Note how they misapply Is. 40:1-2. These Zionists (I hate to use the term "evangelical") should beware: if an Iranian Prez can be thus indicted for such a "thought crime" by the UN, so can an American! I question the wisdom of the UN having such powers, which could as easily be used against those who teach the Gospel as the only way man can be saved, or against Israeli treatment of Palestinians. Remember how slippery the terms "genocide" and "terrorism" have become. This is only one more example of "ends justifies the means" thinking among people who claim to respect God & His Law.
This is ironical Neil, wasn't this the same thinking employed by Adolph Hitler and the Nazi's, the Jewish exterminators?
If vegetarianism shrinks the brain, then why is America so enamored with it and the Hinduism behind it, and why is India so gripped with fear that if they eat a BLT they may be taking a bite out of Uncle Patel? Have our brains shrunk that much?
Locke wrote: This is a lie from the pit of Hell. To hear partisan talking points on an ostensibly Christian website is absolutely disgusting. Every liar will have his place in the lake of fire, so I warn you to stop libeling Barack no matter how much you may not like him. I see we have many here who are selling their "conservative" souls to a partisan devil. Oh, normally you would agree with the Bible, but no that has to be thrown under the bus cause Sarah has stimulated your libido and the "alternative" just doesn't appeal to your personal tastes. Great excuse. "Dr." Phil. . . .
Sorry it has taken me this long to respond, Locke. I have had serious problems and I still continue to have serious problems recovering from Hurricane Gustav. Now, we are bracing for hurricane Ike, if the Lord has willed that he come to Louisiana.
Then again, your graphic adhomenim attacks do not provide any logical alternatives to voting for a Roman Catholic VP and Muslim Potus. I have considered voting for the Constitutional Party Candidate, but he is a minister turned politician. His first priority is to be a minister of the gospel, not be an advocate of church and state government. In such a case, he has no argument against the RCC control over the US.
Moonwalker wrote: Locke is telling the truth anyhow! Sarah Palin needs to stay home and take care of her hurting baby!
Ordinarily, I would agree with you, but given the alternative, I think I would rather go with a gun toten, conservative woman than a representative of the beast (Joe Biden, RCC) and a representative of the false prophet (Barak Obama, Muslim). Don't worry about the baby; people of her socio-economic means don't raise children anyway - the nanny does.
In times of national rebellion, God raises up women to rule over the nation because that is what they deserve.
ENGINEER wrote: . . . it gets better. The next clip is Biden being interviewed on The Daily Show where he says, ‚ÄúI would be honored to run with or against John McCain, because I think the country would be better off.‚ÄĚ . . .
Mike wrote: Hey, everywhere you look, you can find bibles with King James' name all over them. Ain't that just like a long dead king, still getting glory rightfully belonging to the True King?
I appreciate your point but I don't think that I would make too much of it. I don't think there are many people who know who "King James" was nor do they take the time to study anything about him. His name is essentially generic as far as that goes. It is like calling tissue paper by the name of "Kleenex" - it is just name recognition. It has become so familiar by that name that the name has become synonymous with the thing it is referring to.
Wayne wrote: . . .I have both an undergraduate and graduate degrees from two well known Bible College & Seminary (Talbot & Dallas Seminary). You can't get any more evangelical and conservative as those schools! . . .
Well this explains a lot. First, neither of these "schools" are evangelical or conservative. They do not teach justification by faith alone and like John Hagee they promote dispensational heresy.
Therefore, this explains why you must be supporting Obama. You want to assist in ushering in the "great tribulation".
Wayne wrote: ". . .the best that they can come up with is 'he is un-American, un-patriotic, he has a funny name, he is a muslim, he has no experience, his wife doesn't love America,' etc." This is laughable!
If this is the best that they have, it sounds like enough to me (except for the "funny name" unless this goes with his being a Muslim). Neither does it sound like anything to laugh about, because if this type of individual gets to be elected to the highest office in the land, he could bring us to sorrow.
the metal-urgist wrote: I have to admit, Lance, that's a pretty funny coffee mug. Dr. Phil: Two questions: If you are the real Dr. Phil, how do you trim your 'stache? And, what does empiricism have to do with anything?
To the RC (and Pentecostal) empiricism is everything. They walk by sight and not by faith. Faith is belief of the truth of the Bible, not belief in a picture, miracle, icon, or dramatic misrepresentation - empiricism. Empiricism underminds the need for the propositioanl truth of scripture. Thus empiricism lays the groundwork for revision of faith according to the ways of men.
PS: I have no mustache nor is my head bald. Empirical assumption.
Why is it that you assume that one has bitterness if he raises a logical argument against the irrationalism of the RCC?
Lance Eccles wrote: "The other danger is that people will think that by wearing a "Jesus is my homeboy" t-shirt, that that by itself makes them a good Christian." I don't think I'd wear one of those, but at least you can say that the wearer is witnessing to his faith. (I don't know how effective this sort of witness is.) I'm reminded of the ad for a coffee mug I saw on an RC website. It had on it a picture of a woman helping her husband barbecue sausages. As she helped him, she was thinking: "I'd rather be burning heretics."
Interesting ad on the RC website, Lance. Does this mean that she is "witnessing to her faith"?
Regardless, this "what would Jesus Buy?" question yields to the irrationalism of the subject. It implies that a)God is in need of something to buy it, and b)he would have to give up something to get it. This is particularly ludicrous in the light of "He that spared not his own Son but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things."
"Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?"
But what can those in the RC say when empiricism is common practice as they buy and sell trinkets as part of worship because they believe this is how truth is imparted?
Jethro wrote: I know Evangelicals, of which I am one, are not renowned for paying attention to the original Bible languages, but it isn't rocket science to discover that the two Greek words 'arsenokoites' and 'malakos', imported into some modern English translations of the Bible as meaning 'homosexual', don't actually mean that at all. Even if they did, singling out homosexuality for special treatment is not only unfair, but misses Paul's point completely. Having done that elemetary homework, I fully understand why Rowan Williams believes the Bible doesn't forbid all same-sex relationships. Surely, he MUST be faithful to what he believes Scripture genuinely teaches, and not be swayed by what men try to tell him it teaches, even if these men are the Evangelical establishment.
You would be wise to listen to your son-in-law (Moses) and believe what Scripture genuinely teaches, and not be swayed by what men (e.g. Rowan Williams) try to tell you it teaches, even if these men are the Evangelical establishment.
Daniel Lee Ford wrote: why vote McCAIN Kevin Swanson The Democrat candidate is the first pro-infanticide candidate to run for political office. And NOW we see he's pro-killing Christians. (SA story above)
Kevin Swanson tries to assemble a few reasons to vote for John McCain but has a hard time whipping up much enthusiasm in that order. It's sort of hard to figure out who should preside over the continued amassing of political tyranny and the breakdown of a society. But more importantly, what does God think about our political priorities? How does God want us to vote? (2) 'issues' lead to the LORD God wiping out a nation: a. shedding innocent blood McCAIN is not Pro-life b. support of sodomy McCAIN dont ask don't tell illegal view John McCain's repeated and mistaken defense of "don't-ask-don't-tell" . . .
I agree. McCain is not much of a next choice in this contest, but at least he is not a Christian killing Muslim (that we know of yet).
KK wrote: . .............................................. ... You're 110% Right !!! I only posted that link to show where "User Comment #36" came from ------- I don't believe Obama is affraid of himself, but I do believe he is the most unqualified, puffed up, arrogant, dangerously twisted, damnably perverse, anti-American, agenda driven individual "We" have ever seen run for the seat of the Presidency ... it says a great deal about the condition of America ... it says a great deal about the Democratic Party !!! "We The People" best wake up !!! --- How much more will "We" take ??? When I look at Obama, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton and so many others in DC I just get visions of Hitler, Satan and Hell itself... By no means do I think McCain is the right man for the job, but in light of the alternative he will have to do --- AND "We" MUST BE EVER WATCHFUL TO SEE THAT McCain WALKS THE STRAIGHT AND NARROW !!! Have a great day !!! "IN" Christ, KK
I knew that was what you were doing. I apologize if it appeared that I was responding to you. I appreciated the post. Also, you are right about McCain.
Dan Finney wrote: . . . Your Pharasaic hatred and fear is overshadowing your Christian love.
Pardon me, but it appears that your "Christian love" is overshadowing your better judgment and discernment of Barak Obama. He has expressed enough of his mind to indicate where his true loyalties rest, and where he intends to take this country. He only says enough of what people want to hear to gain their confidence. It will be too late to do anything about it once he is in the White House.
"MARK THEM WHICH CAUSE DIVISIONS CONTRARY TO THE DOCTRINE WHICH YOU HAVE LEARNED; AND AVOID THEM." ROMANS 16:17
Barak Obama's Black Liberation Theology is contrary to Biblical Doctrine.