Dolores... All of us are born into this world hating God and his law. Luke 19:14. How can such a sinner have faith? It is not man's will but God's Grace that must be thanked for giving a sinner a new heart. Unless God changes the heart,creates a new spirit of submission,truth and peace,man will never choose to receive Jesus Christ and obey His gospel. Salvation is of the Lord!
Dolores...we have several nieces and nephews that are living the same sex lifestyle.one even "married" her partner..so we know the pain of that sin. Only the true gospel of Jesus Christ can deliver one from his or her sins and restore them. It is the power of God and not man made ideas or a "celebrate recovery program". Which many are turning to today.
Dolores.... All that has been pointed out in these posts( mine included) that all the methods devised by man to "accept" Jesus as Saviour are unbiblical and are not found in Scripture. It is our duty as Christians to expose unbiblical doctrines and traditions of men. I judge no one.But we have to as faithful disciples of Christ to herald truth and decry false and unbiblical practises in the modern church. Thou hast given a banner to them that fear thee,that it may be displayed because of the truth.Selah Psalm 60:4.
b4real...your answer to Dolores was very biblical and spot on. We also attended SBC and independent BC that had many unbiblical methods to get people up to the "old fashioned altar". As you stated many Baptist congregations care more for their numbers and adding to "their" church instead of preaching the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ and allowing the Holy Spirit to convict sinners of their need for such a merciful Lord and Saviour! All of Gods best.
Asking Jesus into your heart.walking an isle,shaking the preachers hand,repeating a sinners prayer..et al..are all man made methodologies and are no where to be found in the Bible. If that is your idea of being born again you are clinging to something YOU DID and not what Almighty God has done for lost sinners.You are deceived folks!
John UK wrote: Certainly not! You really need to think more seriously about your visits to the GP. Why do you go? To alleviate symptoms which God has placed upon you? To lengthen your life? For example, if your GP says that he can give you a better chance of survival if you take some of his magic pills, do you accept his judgment, or do you tell him that God has already determined your health, and that you will leave yourself in his hand?
Psa 31:15 My times are in thy hand: deliver me from the hand of mine enemies, and from them that persecute me.
"The time of life is in God's hands, to lengthen or shorten, make bitter or sweet, according to the counsel of his will. The way of man is not in himself, nor in our friend's hands, nor in our enemies' hands, but in God's."
I will go to the doctors, I will take the medicine prescribed and I will pray because I know that God uses means but whether I am healed or not or whether I live or not is entirely in His will.
John UK wrote: It was that the atonement itself was SUFFICIENT for ALL, but EFFICIENT only in the elect. I have always believed that, as Calvin did.
Thomas Aquinas (About 1225-1274), theologian of the Roman Catholic Church believed that too!
"1 John 2:22 He is the propitiation for our sins, for some efficaciously, but for all sufficiently, because the price of his blood is sufficient for the salvation of all: but it has no efficacy except for the elect because of an impediment. Thomas Aquina, â€śCommentaria 1 Tim. 2:1-6a,â€ť in Omnes D. Pauli Apostoli Epistolas Commentaria. (Liege: H. Dessain, 1858), 3:68."
"Aquinas also observes (Quest. disp. de grat. Christi. art. 7, reap. ad 4,) The merit of Christ as to its sufficiency equally regards all men, but not as to its efficacy; which arises partly from free-will, partly from the election of God, through which the effect of the merits of Christ is mercifully conferred upon some, but is by his just judgment withdrawn from others. [Source: John Davenant, Dissertation on the Death of Christ, 543.]"
Jim Lincoln wrote: Throw out --any-- books that mention unicorns in them. Hmm, I've be advising to do that for one in particular for quite some time now!
"...it is important to understand that the definition of the word â€śunicornâ€ť has changed over time.
If you get an old 1828 Noah Websterâ€™s Dictionary, which is the very first edition dictionary that Webster came out with about 200 years ago, and look up the word â€śunicornâ€ť it says:
Unicorn â€“ An animal with ONE HORN; the monoceros. this name is often applied to the rhinoceros.
Notice how this 200-year-old definition of the word â€śunicornâ€ť says absolutely nothing about a horse. It says nothing about a horse-like animal, or a mythical animal, or a fictitious creature. It says absolutely nothing about mythology whatsoever. But rather, it says that this is a name that is often applied to the rhinoceros..."
Perhaps sermonaudio will update their duplication of this still CHOICE news story ................. Per the link above:
EDITOR'S NOTE: In a follow-up story published April 7, police say the robbery and assault of a 78-year-old Toledo man by six juveniles were not racially motivated and his account of what happened might have been exaggerated. READ STORY: 'It's causing issues here that shouldn't be here'
contra dwellology wrote: Another reformed second blessing man: Exposition of Acts Alexander McClaren
Alexander McClaren was a Baptist minister and was a member of the Baptist Union. He did not stand with Spurgeon in the Downgrade controversy.
"Glover points out plainly some of the problems involved: The dishonesty of the Councilâ€™s position lay in the fact that the vice-president and several members were themselves in fundamental disagreement with Spurgeon on the specific issues involved. Clifford and his chief supporters, Alexander Maclaren and Charles Williams, had rejected the doctrine of inerrancy of the Scripture and were well aware that one distinguished Baptist minister, Samuel Cox, has made himself one of the best known exponents of universal restoration."
Neil wrote: " the United States had a duty to protect all religious groups (that included American missionaries)" Where is that in our Constitution? Or in Scripture?
It is effectively one of the duties of occupying military powers under international law which the US government signed and ratified.
The duties of the occupying power are spelled out primarily in the 1907 Hague Regulations (arts 42-56) and the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV, art. 27-34 and 47-78), as well as in certain provisions of Additional Protocol I and customary international humanitarian law.
"In 2006, the most recent year for which on-line statistics are available, 118,741 of the 364,826 baptisms in the Southern Baptist Convention (32.5%) were of children age 11 and below. 4,179 of these were of children age 5 and below. Some have suggested, as churches are increasingly reporting baptisms of even pre-school children, that we come to grips with the practice among us of â€śsemi-infantâ€ť or â€śtoddler baptism.â€ť