Jim Lincoln wrote: Now, Frank, that is what I thought and was planning to say. If a person uses the Android app, to post a message he should use something like "colornote" Kingsoft, etc. to first write out the whole reply then paste that reply into the box, because the only way to correct something left by the Android app is just leave a reply immediately with what should have been said right after. So, I did notice much what you two gentlemen said later, and for once my laziness allowed for a much more fuller look at the article, for once my tardiness paid off. But there's still http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=118121637304 (The Inadequacy of Moralism) when either Liberal or Conservatives try to shove a particular morality system down other peoples' throats.
Well Jim, one thing is for sure; you don't mind ignoring comments that you can't answer and then setting up some type of rabbit trail or irrelevant thought process. But, I'm pretty sure that 99.9 percent won't agree with anything you say regarding "moralism"
Oh, homosexuality is immoral and unless you get to pick and choose the moral system you are objecting to; that should quiet you down.
Now I have never heard of a heterosexual male objecting to being called Mr., and I have heard lots of heterosexual females objecting to being called Mrs. So my guess is this is simply the results of the feminist agenda. Men made women what they are today and my guess is that women think it is due to being emancipated or something like that. No, they were simply manipulated by making them feel more relevant in unhealthy and unnatural ways. My thoughts are that men simply wanted to make women something that God didnâ€™t intend for them to be. That way women can share in the burdens that used to solely belong to the men; like providing for the family. And of the course the main reason was so that men can satisfy their lust almost with abandon.
Jim, perhaps you should have read the article, or read it more carefully. Often I post without reading them, so I understand.
Now to your point about The Inadequacy of Moralism. I know of know Christian who thinks because someone is moral, then they are Christians. But I know of no Christian who would say because that is true, then we don't have a responsibility to be moral. Have you ever heard anyone say what you are saying?
This is a Christian site, not a political one. Why you show your I.......e by continuing to post this link is beyond me. You are the only "primary" political poster that I am aware of? But, you are on a mission; that is for sure. But, it is not a mission to encourage or help the brothers and sisters who post here or who happen to drop by. Now if you truly believe that Christians should support Obama, then simply state that. If you truly believe that Christians shouldn't live moral lives, then say so.
Who cares what conservatives believe about moralism; Christians yes, but conservatives.
ladybug wrote: Well said Frank Greed and materialism engulf people of 'every stripe', including liberals as well as conservatives. Also, the meltdown of family is obvious in our society, and it's been progressive. When the institution of marriage is lessened in its importance, the rate of divorce increases. Then immorality of every kind increases, and the children are the ones who suffer the consequences. The family breaks down, and is dysfunctional at almost every level. The overall effects are devastating, as we are clearly witnessing in our day.
Thanks sister for your encouraging comment and especially for your additional thoughts. The societies of the entire world have broken down as they were supposed to do. I just don't want to be part of the degradation. But just think, this life disappears like a puff of smoke and then you and I will be in eternity.
The war against women is when society encourages women to be what God did not call them to be. Our holy God designed them to be helpmates to their husbands; to have children and raise them in a godly manner; to be keepers at home, study the word of God, cook and prepare their houses for their husband and children. NOT PREACH! This also gives them time for charitable work which when done by women is a wonderful act of obedience to our heavenly Father. Now our society and our churches have come far from these noble commands given by scripture.
Now the Palins of the world or those â€śsupposedâ€ť conservative women on FOX news are the ones that are held up as feminine heroes by conservatives and at the same time Hilary and the Pelosies are held up by the liberals. In reality, both sides are just as wrong as the others. They are different levels of the same shades of the same color. Both groups are those who can supposedly juggle their lives so that they can quote have it all. Our society has changed the natural roles of women for that which pleases the flesh of both men and women. Oh and a carnal man would have it no other way, so in my way of thinking they are the ones mostly responsible for this cultural change. Now their responsibilities are shared in an unhealthy way.
D. Porlile wrote: Satan's power over media, tv, Hollywood, theatre and soap opera is in evidence yet again. Anything to attack debase and degrade the Bible and its true believers. Gradually the Christians will be seen as the enemy of society and decency in western nations, violating the freedom of choice of normal regular homosexuals. Sodom and Gomorrah will be seen as the poor discriminated downtrodden folks trying to live out a normal life in their own way. Satan's Liberalism is a toxic mix of evil malevolence and iniquity poisoning every aspect of human life today. Job 1:9 Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought? 10 Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land. 11 But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face. 12 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.
Perfectly said, your comment was a blessing to me. Yes, genuine Christianity is already considered hateful and it will get worse and worse.
Dorcas wrote: One of the principal objectives of Vatican II was the promotion of ecumenism. The council stated that the goal of their religious strategy was the unity of all Christian churches through common communion with the RCC: "The results will be that, little by little, as the obstacles to perfect ecclesiastical communion are overcome, all Christians will be gathered,in a common celebration of the Eucharist, into the unity of the one and only Church, which Christ bestowed on His church from the beginning. This unity, we believe, subsists in the RCC as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time". ~Second Vatican Council~541 -------- There you have it, they will not rest till they have all the apostates worshipping their wafer god
Outstanding and I can add nothing to your comment and conclusion. Thanks sister!
s c wrote: The dead religion "pope" needs to dump his "father/vicar of Christ" title for starters before he can be taken seriously. As far as "J Y's"..."...It is not required for salvation for one who is trusting in Jesus alone for salvation to leave the Catholic Church and unite..." THIS IS ONLY A RECORDING ...lol ...not sure that there is a rational being behind it
I liked your comment and especially Dorca's comment below. I remember as a youth going to confession. I had to call the priest, father, and he called me son. It started off by saying "bless me father (and that was not my heavenly Father) for I have sinned" Then came the confession, the penance, and then the forgiveness pronounced by the fake father who was behind the little sliding door. No one has any idea of how many hail Mary's I have said.
And, if what the local priest taught, differed from what the husband said, guess whose exegesis won out; not scripture or the husband. So much for if a woman had questions, let her seek the council of her husband.
Now I wonder who is the most responsible, behind the scenes, for destroying the God designed marriages.
I agree that we should be kinder to each other. In fact, the love we have for each other should be the strongest love there is in this sinful world. However, as long as we are not saying when Jesus called the Pharisees blind devils and when He cleansed the temple, He was not kind and loving. We are told to love our enemies and it has always been my contention that He showed love for these folks when He did that and they were indeed His enemies. Therefore, I think it is safe to say that it all depends on our circumstances and who we are confronting. Are they in the body of Christ, are they outside the body of Christ,are they teaching and practicing heresy or are they confused brethren. All of these have to be considered and I personally address each of these groups differently according to my discernment, which I admit can be wrong and then we debate.
I have always been one who thinks that kindness, love, etc. are things of the heart, not necessarily in our communication skills. Paul was kind when he publicly confronted Peter.
One thing is for sure and I'm sure we would all intellectually if not pragmatically agree; only the Lord can change a heart. I encourage anyone to call me to task and correct me when I am being unkind as long as they do that in kindness.
Dorcas wrote: Ecumenists talk much about love toward man, but what about love toward God and His Word? They point their fingers at the strict Bible beliver and charge him/her with being judgemental/unloving because they exercise discernment and separation. To love a false teacher does not mean that we turn a blind eye to their errors and strive for unity with them, regardless of their doctrine and practise. We are to obey the Bible and mark & avoid them..Romans 16:17,18. and EXPOSE their errors publicly to protect those who might be led astray by their teachings. Some on this board have diligently done this, only to be lambasted, falsely maligned, ridiculed, etc. So be it...We ought to obey God rather than men!
Sounds like you are saying we should first and foremost love the Lord and the word that He has given us. Amen to that!
Dolores wrote: God Himself doesn't purpose to judge a man until he is dead. So why should you??
I think the issue most of us are considering and wanting you to see is what our belief consists of. In other words, is our faith pleasing and acceptable to our heavenly Father. If we donâ€™t have saving faith, then Christ said we were â€śalreadyâ€ť condemned. Now in your way of thinking anyone and I mean anyone who names the name of Christ is saved. In the minds of most who post here, they donâ€™t believe man can simply make up their own Savior to worship and follow. You view is similar to someone in the easy believism, ecumenical camp. Do you believe Obama is saved and if not, why not? I think that would answer a lot of our concerns. I remember Huckabee saying he didn't know and since Obama claimed to be then he wouldn't question him.The word for â€śalreadyâ€ť in the below is not in the future tense.
2235 ede ay'-day apparently from 2228 (or possibly 2229) and 1211; even now:--already, (even) now (already), by this time. see GREEK for 2228 see GREEK for 2229 see GREEK for 1211
John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Mike wrote: In NY you have to transfer funds either 5 or 7 years before entering a NH, (not sure which) or they still can legally go after it. NY is expert at squeezing the last nickel out of the people. It's called liberal compassion.
Thanks Mike. It has been years since I looked into anything like this, but I think Fla. is or was 2 years. Liberal compassion is very similar to liberal vote hunting and getting. I remember Romney got caught telling the truth behind the scenes and it probably cost him the election. Something like those who make their living from hand-outs wouldn't vote for him regardless of what he said or did.
I have always selfishly prayed my wife survives me. That way she will have to be the one who wrestles with that dilemma and not me.
Klem wrote: "Few people are aware that a nursing home can take such a step. Guardianship cases are difficult to gain access to and poorly tracked by New York State courts" I see the 19th century "Work House" idea is in America too. In the UK they do the same thing rob the elderly patients of their income, pensions and savings to pay for lousy food and sitting waiting to die in a TV room. But we live over here in a bureaucracy not a democracy. Getting old is penalised by the bureaucracy into a money making scheme and old age becomes a death sentence by slow incarceration in inadequately run profit focused work houses. What a civilised way to treat people who made the mistake of getting old.
I tend to agree with you! In my state, the average cost for 1 month in a NH is around 6,000 dollars and that probably isn't a good one. Few can afford that, so Medicaid sort of kicks in after they take all of your personal assets. Smart folks transfer their funds to someone else and then take advantage of Medicaid. I paid taxes for years and I would have no moral dilemma doing that versus giving any money I might have to the government, instead of someone or something else.
In years back, it was the family that cared for their elderly, but now?
Thanks for posting all the facts concerning the Grahams. Now here is what I will say, no one will argue against the facts you presented and I "doubt" whether anyone will dispute the obvious conclusion that his ministry should be avoided. If they don't dispute the facts, then how can they dispute the conclusion? IMO, following the Grahams or supporting the Grahams is no different than supporting the popes. So, if they say we should support the Grahams, they can't avoid supporting the popes. Or perhaps they can argue that conclusion?
But our responsibility on a forum like this is simply to present the facts and give our opinions of those facts and then leave it in the Lord's hands.
Anyway, thanks sister; well done. You are not a gullible ecumenicalist and I appreciate that.
s c wrote: Carl, you too are naive/ignorant in regards to the Grahams? Have you never heard his interviews with Larry King and Robert Schuller? Those who do not respect them (Grahams) are the Christians who have listened to them and have familiarized,even written to them so as to confirm their incorrect doctrinal stands and alliance with the RC church. It is best not to speak against workers of righteousness,as you say...you make my point. "Workers of righteousness" is the qualification. And please note that you are in company with "John Y" who calls himself a Christian, will not disclose to his RC church that he "believes in faith alone in Christ alone" which would make him an anathema there and who attends Mass regularly- the "offering up of "Christ"-their perpetually emaciated,inadequate savior"...and "the well known BG supporter on here who either refuses to listen to Graham's interviews and/or address the issue with her pastor who either refuses to further address the issue. Ignorance may be bliss in the world but it is should not be embraced by Christians.
Very well said sister and I couldn't agree more. Thanks for your faithfulness; not to man, but to our Lord and Savior. What a different thought that is to some.
quinary wrote: Yet there are folks out there who call Christ's atonement inadequate. deficient and defective. Their heresy of universalism undermines the terms atonement and propitiation. Why? - To bring the sin filled arrogance of man to believe he can save himself.
I believe that Christ's death on the cross, His atonement if you will, accomplished exactly what it was intended to do, efficaciously pay for the sins of all those who are drawn to His Son. What a wonderful and blessed truth that is. I'm glad you agree. I don't like BG, so I never would say he has influenced me in the slightest. See how much we agree upon. I have read a little about Calvin, none about Arminius except his 5 points that were debated by Dordt and have never read about Amyraldianism, but will do so today. I know Jim posts links regarding that position and it must be mine according to you.
Lastly, I have never called you any names, such as a reprobate or a heretic because of your position and yet my guess is your testimony is the same as mine? Both of us would say we are in Christ because of His sacrifice for us and because of our election into His family.
Perhaps we should concentrate on these points and leave Calvin, BG, and Arminius out of it.
heavensbeloved wrote: Gore is not only gorey, but, NUTS. Global warming, like all their politics, ALL LIES. Their new world order is based on ALL LIES and SO WICKED. I am GRATEFUL, Jesus is going to burn it all up and bring in His Righteous Kingdom. Come, Lord Jesus.
Well said and I agree fully! This earth will keep on turning until our Lord and Savior destroys it. Greed, fame and power are all these antichrists can envision and attain. But what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his own soul. The answer is absolutely nothing at all.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Of course brother Frank the given on the statement is that 5 point Calvinism and the assertions of the Synod of Dordt equals truth. Seeing that cannot be established without subjective interpretation of the Scriptures, we throw out the premise and say quinary will have find a different measure for determining if one is born from above. We have the words of our Lord why would we want a man made standard that was non-existent before the 17th century and made by a body whose members were not all Christians (many politicians) nor Bible scholars?
I agree brother, thanks for your input. I really don't mind someone disagreeing with me on most things, but when they use the truth of salvation to be synonymous with calvinism, I guess that is where I draw the line. Anyway, I hope your day went well and thanks for your thoughts.
Mike wrote: It doesn't get any clearer than knowing the unborn is a child, nor does it need to. btw, calling the unborn child a fetus may for some reason soothe your conscience, but it's quite as fully human as the mother. Have you ever heard of a pregnant woman as being "with fetus"? Try doing a search on "with child" vs "with fetus" in the Bible. Let me know what you come up with. Also, find the enormous data there must be that shows women dying because they chose not to have an abortion. Otherwise, your case is built on political sand.
Jim used the word fetus because medically a baby in the womb can be referred to as a fetus from 8 weeks until the end. That way he can argue somewhat that he is pro-life, but only from 8 weeks and on. But, I'm sure he would say it is okay to murder a 9 week old baby (fetus) if it is a financial inconvenience to the mother. I have never heard a woman say I am going to have a fetus. Of course he believes we can murder the baby in the womb from conception to 8 weeks because they will automatically go to heaven. So, even though as most know I agree with that, I don't think that gives me the right to murder them. If that is true, why not murder all who are born and have taken that first breath of life.
quinary wrote: Haven't you worked out yet who does the saving?
I'm glad you can see that. Limited Atonement is Biblical truth. Without it you are not obeying the Doctrines of Grace.
As I've taught you before Jim, four fifths of the truth is not the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God. It is a sign of the cults that they try to get by without the whole truth, but that doesn't work. All or nothing Jim.
Now my pleasant fellow I think you should read your comment to Jim from Lincoln and then repeat it while you look in the mirror. Yes, 4/5 of a truth is not the whole truth, but I still believe you can be saved and in the body of Christ even though you are missing the whole truth and only have 4/5. See how kind and loving I can be.
I also got a kick out of your comment that you "taught" someone something. What I mean is if you taught Jim that, then apparently he didn't listen very well.
Of course you realize. Thanks your comment was very well said.