SteveR wrote: I felt it was quite prophetic that SF quoted Eli in this thread about Calvinism and Arminism and the children that stray from the truth 1 Samuel 4:18 And it came to pass, when he made mention of the ark of God, that he fell from off the seat backward by the side of the gate, and his neck brake, and he died: for he was an old man, and heavy. And he had judged Israel forty years.
1 Kings 2:27 So Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being priest unto the LORD; that he might fulfil the word of the LORD, which he spake concerning the house of Eli in Shiloh. 1 Samuel 2:12 Now the sons of Eli were sons of Belial; they knew not the LORD.
I can see why almost everyone on here loves you. Must be your overwhelming piety. What an example of godliness to everyone here. I am sure that The Lord must look upon you with great pride for representing him so worthily. You always post to edify and all your words are seasoned with grace. You put us all to shame. You bring great honor to the Reformed Church as exemplifying its doctrines and practices.
SteveR wrote: I dont feel the low wage will lead to corruption, but rather has led to corruption. If this continues, we will become more of a banana republic each term. Man is a fallen creature and will seek personal gain, the low wage gives him that justification. Our Reps are accountable to us at the voting booth, yet they actually represent a handful of special interests. Why? Because the voting public doesnt care as long as they get what they want. If they actually represented the people, we wouldnt have a 17 trillion dollar debt. Unless we can get voter participation to New Zealand type levels, we must consider a change in compensation. A change where the politician relies on the public for ALL his compensation, rather than the current supplements from special interests
Man needs justification for his corruption?! If paying a fantastic salary makes one a hard worker then the very richest in the world must be the most conscientious and hard working?
John UK wrote: Yes, if that is what he meant, agreed. Note particularly the "dark ages" of Roman Catholicism and mysticism, when there were very few converts. However, if you note, he gave the text and then gave only two alternatives as to why there were so few conversions. Besides which, "goats" never did respond to the gospel. "My sheep hear my voice...." As I see it, some sinners are regarded as sheep by the Lord before they even hear the gospel. This is into the realm of predestination and election.
John UK wrote: Now if "faith" came to everyone who heard just one verse of the Bible, we could have the whole world saved in a short time. But it don't work like that, and "faith" does not come to all who hear God's word. So the text has to be correctly interpreted.
True John UK, but JSC also has a point that if the gospel (let's not kid ours here: many don't have a clue what gospel doctrines are or how to preach them) is NOT being preached then we cannot be surprised that we do not witness conversions!
John UK wrote: Thank you RK, So the "days" referred to in the text are the OT Jewish "holy days", which some unregenerate Jews were trying to impose on the liberated Christians, seeking rather to remain Jewish and under their yoke of slavery.
Like the modern Judaizers (viz. Roman Catholicism and Presbyterianism) who insist on unity of covenants to impose OT Jewish views onto Christianity!
Lurker wrote: And this is the cause why Joshua did circumcise: All the people that came out of Egypt, that were males, even all the men of war, died in the wilderness by the way, after they came out of Egypt. **Now all the people that came out were circumcised:** but all the people that were born in the wilderness by the way as they came forth out of Egypt, them they had not circumcised.(Joshua 5:3:5) When were all circumcised? Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were **all baptized unto Moses** in the cloud and in the sea. (1 Cor 10:1-2) Paul called Israel's circumcision baptism; one and the same. Both are of the flesh, as opposed to the heart, and cause the subjects to become debtors to the Sinai covenant, separated from God's grace. The reward is reckoned of grace, not of debt. Baptism is the antithesis of grace. God's covenant of life is in circumcised hearts.
I don't agree brother.
1 Cor 10 refers to the crossing of the Red Sea - they were 'baptized unto Moses', not Joshua!
John Yurich USA wrote: My Non Denominational brother accepts that I am saved. By only participating in the scriptural parts to the Mass I am worshipping Jesus. And the reason why I still attend the Catholic Church is that I like to attend Saturday Vigil Mass to do other things on Sunday. Another reason why I am still attending the Catholic Church is that I like liturgical worship over the non liturgical worship of Evangelical Protestant Churches.
Yes, as I had expected, the standard scripted reply.
a List wrote: "Church Logo Tattoos?" Arminian church - "In god we trust only when HE asks our permission first." Liberal church - "In me I trust because I am as nice as god might be if I knew him." Baptist church - "In deep dunking I trust since sprinkling doesn't reach all the parts." Reformed church - "In God we trust because He elected us." Presbyterian church - "in God we trust because the Holy Spirit guides us."
Reformed and Presbyterian should read:
"We trust in the water used for sprinkling in our baptism to save us because it turns into pixie water and makes us and our children the elect of God.
Who needs God when we can determine our own election.
Get Calvin or get lost."
(Look up Sacerdotal and compare with the WCF. An element of Romanism that was retained. )
For Baptists, it is just a memorial and a testimony to the Lord's goodness in converting the person being baptized. Hence no pixie magic!
John UK wrote: Acts 15:1-2 KJV 1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. 2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question. Please notice that even if you read the whole context, there is no mention here of "baptism replacing circumcision". Funny that the apostles didn't mention that, when confronted with the issue. The claim that the early church held the Presby version of things is a false claim and ought to be looked at in all sincerity, in seeking out the truth and rejecting the lie.
Presbys like to fill in the blanks where Scripture is silent. They call it 'just and necessary consequences'.
John Yurich USA wrote: ....Evangelical Protestants on here state erroneously that unless one who is Born Again leaves the Catholic Church that they are not really saved.
Rev 2 12 And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write....14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. 15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. 16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.
Now here is a genuine church amongst whom the Lord Jesus walked. But he warns of a few that held to false doctrine and caused some to stumble. He says that he would fight against them if this was not sorted.
Christ as head of the church hates false doctrine! In this case only a few were infecting the rest. In the RCC the whole is corrupt. Do you suppose that Christ is even present there? You worship in a 'church' where Christ would not be present and still think that you are a Christian? The whole point of worship is to be where Christ is and raise our hearts in adoration t
mourner wrote: Since I'm usually more cryptic then clear, it is easy for me; however to be clear and not to sin isn't so easy. I need to hold fast to the word of God and not waiver trusting he will do as he promises giving me the grace to endure, which to date he has done. Sadly the whole situation (division) was stirred up a year or two ago related to food stamps. I am not free to take them related to my convictions and for that reason there was much manipulation to press me to do so. I have held out this long. The last few years have been most interesting to see the many ways the Lord provides daily bread and or heat. He has straightened me, but has never left me without my needs, He is very creative. It was told to those who disagree with me (division) by those who were dispensing them (food stamps)that I could not be forced to take them, and they would step in only if necessary. What does that when necessary look like? ergo questioners. I am in the refiners fire and holding to convictions that others don't share. The others are in the vast majority. That is refining. I barter.
Thank you. Be assured of my prayers for you. God bless.
SteveR wrote: Even those of faith can be weak creatures John 12:42 Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: John 12:43 For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.
And you think that condemnatory verdict indicates a saving faith?
John 15:19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
1 John 2:15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.
SteveR wrote: Can not the LORD come to him, or anyone, in an RCC and save them as well? Is their error so deep even God cant save them?
And how does The Lord save someone in the synagogue of Satan who refuses to leave the place? One can hope to dress a dog ever so fine so that it don't look like a dog, but the dog's true nature will always betray itself when it returns to its vomit.
JY is addicted to RCC vomit, as are you. Neither of you have spiritual tastes, which is why you both are against those on here who have had an evangelical born again, change of heart experience and not just a mental assent conversion.
MG wrote: Apostle B, I've wondered the same thing concerning when and how to keep the 7th day Sabbath. I've now gone back to what we call Saturday, after decades of only Sunday "observance". There are a lot of teachings and books on how we can change the original command to a Sunday but in the end it was just (I believe) the Holy Spirit's prodding and the teaching of Scripture that led us to going back to the 7th, rather than the 1st day. I must admit Rome's direct teaching of swapping days and wanting everyone to follow also clarified (to us) that it was man's doing and not GOD's. Please note that nothing I've said on this post is to condemn anyone, but simply to challenge. I had the same view as most no too long ago!
You've reverted to obedience of the old covenant requirement because you cannot bring yourself to believe that The Lord of the Sabbath had the right to change the day of observance under the New Covenant. Sure that makes sense.