John UK wrote: Maybe bro it is the same sort of thing as redemption. After all, we are currently redeemed by Jesus Christ, by his precious blood, and yet we are going to be redeemed, in its entirety, at the last trumpet. And again, we are saved (justified), we are being saved (sanctified), and we are going to be saved (glorified). Just a few thought to kick around, brother.
Fellow Pilgrim and fellow Pilgrim/Ember. Here is the way I tend to look at these things. Please don't ask me to clarify this thought.
Lurker wrote: John, My position is the same as yours, Mike's and Frank's. Eternal life is the better NC promise (1 John 2:25) and a present possession of all born again Christians. 1Jo 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. However, I can't find anywhere that Paul laid claim to the better promise in any of his writings (nor the Acts) and I'm trying to reconcile (my understanding of) his writings with John's first letter without assuming anything. Th apostle John's claim to eternal life for himself and those he wrote to is clear. But, I can't find even an implicit claim from Paul..... only that he anticipated the promise in hope. . . . Mike, I don't believe Paul and John disagreed on theology. They wrote by HS inspiration. There's got to be another answer to reconcile the apparent contradiction. As I've written before regarding hermeneutics: 1) The bible is inerrent and free of contradiction. 2) If a contradiction is encountered, see rule one.
Hey fellow ember. I like your hermeneutics! I have always looked at Paul's use of "hope" in the sense you noted, as a certain expectation.
John UK wrote: Bongo, he say, "Have baby - another Christian." Just like the Catholics. Except it don't work. A Christian couple are not a Christian-making machine.
What if Bongo was truly converted. Which if any of his thousands of wives would have to go. The answer is none.
Now a short comment on Mark 4 that was discussed below. I have always looked at Mark 4 as one of the many proof texts for election. Notice what Christ said in verse 12. Is it any wonder why those in the RCC can't grasp the blessed gospel of our Lord and Savior. I argued those verses in Mark with a RC apologist who tried to use them to show we can lose our salvation.
 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all [these] things are done in parables:  That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and [their] sins should be forgiven them. (Mar 4:11-12 KJV)
Mike wrote: No, but it is doubtful Paul had a different theological view than John. Maybe he just looked forward to the time he would shed his body, and let an unfettered eternity continue. He also said he would rather be absent from the body, and be present with the Lord (2Cor5:8) though he knew Christ was present within believers already (Col.1:27) John 6:54 "hath eternal life.." John 10:28 "I give unto them eternal life.." not "I will give unto them" John 5:13 "that ye may know that ye have eternal life" Eternal life in possession presently, thus permanently!
Yes, you are correct! The below says at the moment we believe, we "have" eternal life; not will have.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
He 10:14 1 Pe 1:4 1 Co 1:8 2 Ti 4:18 Ro 11:29 He 7:25 Jo 17:15
John UK, you certainly have a creative mind brother. Can you loan me some of that.
Christopher000 wrote: Michael Hranek from Endicott, New York writes: Just a brief thought that has hit me. One I have a lot of learning and growing to do. I like to hear this thought coming from a seasoned, mature, born again Christian. What I hear in that is that you have an open mind and are willing to hear and consider the thoughts, opinions, theories, etc of others. What I hear in that is that is that you are open to discussion and thoughtful consideration of other views, even when they may collide with what you have been taught and your own preconceptions. I think an open mind is a great thing to have when so many have become hard as nails in the grayer areas, etc that can be argued. I think the "I'm right, you're wrong, and that's that" attitudes can lead people down wrong paths and even stagnate their spiritual growth.
Yes Chris, an open mind can be a great thing. Christians who don't dialogue with fellow Christians about their differences won't change regardless of the fronts they put up; iron sharpens iron.
John UK wrote: Frank, I'm impressed, you answered all my rhetorical questions. And I reckon you might have answered correctly. But it is all beyond me, bro.
In a simplistic way, I look at prayer this way. Let‚Äôs say God wants me to have 100 dollars, but if He simply gives it to me in some normal fashion, then my faith was not exercised. But let‚Äôs say that He places that request on my heart and I then pray for it and receive it in ‚Äúany‚ÄĚ fashion. Now in the first instance, God was glorified but my faith was not tested and strengthened. But, in the next instance, my faith was tested and strengthened. Now are there ways that he won‚Äôt give me the 100 dollars ‚Äď probably. If I prayed and suddenly in front of me 100 dollars appeared, what would be the result of that? I would then by like the Apostles and a normal life would not then be possible. I would become undone in a hurry!
Lastly, it is my responsible to go to Him in prayer. It is His responsibility to answer. If I say He doesn't answer prayers, I make Him a liar. If I don't go to Him in prayer, then my faith is worthless.
Hey Pilgrim! This is much more mysterious than I am making it.
They both arrive at their destinations safely and feel content.
Now did God grant special grace to the Christian and grant him a safe trip, and did God grant common grace to the non-Christian and grant him a safe trip?
Yes and yes
What difference did prayer make in their lives?
It showed faith in the believer which is pleasing to God and since God allowed the unbeliever to arrive safely also, it will add to his/her woes after this life.
Can prayer change God's pre-ordained plan?
No, but ‚Äúopen theism‚ÄĚ would disagree. And, if God has pre-ordained something for my life, I would NEVER want to change that anyway. His plans for us are perfect.
If I forget to pray before getting in the car, will God teach me a lesson and cause the engine to blow up?
If you did pray, God may cause your engine to blow up. But, all things work together for our good ‚Ä¶ And when things like that occur, our faith is simply being tested (James 1) because God loves us so much and wants our faith to be steadfast and immovable.
If the reprobate does just one act of kindness, will God let him live a bit longer and grant him safe journeys?
 My meditation of him shall be sweet: I will be glad in the LORD.  Let the sinners be consumed out of the earth, and let the wicked be no more. Bless thou the LORD, O my soul. Praise ye the LORD. (Psa 104:34-35 KJV)
 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,  Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.  And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. (1Cr 6:9-11 KJV)
 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. (Jud 1:7 KJV)
 The shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide [it] not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves. (Isa 3:9 KJV)
John UK wrote: Aha! I see. I've never really seen any of these tellyvangelists like what you have in the states. But I guess he would be like Benny Hinn, Oral Roberts, Peale, Morris Cerullo, Kenneth Copeland, Rodney Howard Brown, Shuller, Yonggi Cho, and a host of others. I've come across all of these because of their clever dicky media machine, books, DVD's etc. It took a while, but I gradually learnt of severe errors they all promote, and I sometimes witnessed the severe consequences to my friends of following their teaching - very sad.
I agree fully brother. I do want to comment on something you have said or alluded to several times recently about Christians being worried about or afraid to say what they really think about things. That is a very true and wise statement. I always remember when Christ asked Peter what folks were saying about Him, but then He asked Peter, "but who do you say that I am"? I believe He is asking that same question of all those who claim His name. And, He already knows what we think anyway, so why not simply tell the truth; to lie is silly.
John UK wrote: All interesting points Frank, my fellow pilgrim and stranger upon the earth. But then you're an interesting fellow, who retains his independence despite the thought police within christendom. If I knew anything about the seventh day, Lord's day or sabbath, I would reply, but I don't so I won't. Is Sid Roth a preacher? An angry man?
Amen brother! Sid Roth has a show on TBN that is called "it's supernatural". He is a charismatic to say the least.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Hey Frank, hope you and yours have a happy Thanksgiving and Merry Christmas. I did for a time stop saying God Bless you when people sneezed because I didn't believe the soul left the body and was afraid it would be snatched by some evil spirit or Satan. I then gave it some thought and realized what you said, the vast majority of people would NOT associate it with that thinking. So, am glad to wish God would bless people. Same with Christmas, most people don't do the association with the Catholic mass even though it is in the name, so with 1517 would wish people Merry Christmas, and no that is not dictating what type of day they would have anymore than wishing some one good day means they must have a good day. to mourner, where do you see sabbath observance after creation before exodus?
The same to you brother. Your posts have been a great blessing to me and others I am sure. Recently I became concerned about my neighbor because he didn't respond to an email and a phone call. When I finally saw him, he said that he didn't do those things on Sunday because he wanted to keep the Sabbath completely holy. I then asked him if he saw me on the ground on Sunday, would he call 911 for me. He said yes.
Dorcas wrote: Do hope that all who don't agree with us that do not celebrate certain festival days of the world are feeling much better now that they continue on in their rants against their fellow brethren .
Well sister, I agree with you in this regard. If someone celebrates Christmas as a Christian event or day, then whether or not they understand it, they are being influenced by RC. 1517 sounds a lot like SteveR at times and I think he simply enjoys the bantering.
Mike wrote: Have a good Wednesday, everyone. Oops, maybe I shouldn't have said that.
Well Mike, I personally never think of a holiday as exalting Christ or even causing me to stop and ponder my Lord and Savior. We celebrate holidays as simply a time when the family gets together and nothing more; like a birthday. Now with that said, I hope you have a very happy Thanksgiving and shortly a very merry Christmas!
Most people don't know this, but saying god bless you after someone sneezes is a "very pagan" ritual.
U.S., I was only referring to the following. In my opinion, clergy or churches if you will, should get the same exemptions that I get or any other tax payer gets. All of the below is from the internet and I am assuming it is accurate. In our country, the restraint isn't all that great, but there is a restraint placed on them.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
In 1954, Congress approved an amendment by Sen. Lyndon Johnson to prohibit 501(c)(3) organizations, which includes charities and churches, from engaging in any political campaign activity. To the extent Congress has revisited the ban over the years, it has in fact strengthened the ban. The most recent change came in 1987 when Congress amended the language to clarify that the prohibition also applies to statements opposing candidates.
Currently, the law prohibits political campaign activity by charities and churches by defining a 501(c)(3) organization as one "which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office."
SteveR wrote: I along with Rufus agree that 501c3 status made the Church too dependent upon the State. However, in the case I have mixed feelings as smaller churches & church plants without ownership of a parsonage will be the most impacted and still remain under the scrutiny of 501c3 status
SteveR, the below is from the internet.
Pragmatism is a philosophical approach that interprets truth based upon practical effects. According to pragmatism, truth is what is practical and useful. Thus, something is deemed ‚Äútrue‚ÄĚ if it is practical and it works and ‚Äúuntrue‚ÄĚ if it does not work. Pragmatists often view metaphysical speculations as irrelevant since they bring no practical benefits.
Pragmatism is one of the rare philosophical concepts that originated in the United States. This view is especially linked with C. S. Pierce (1839‚Äď1914), William James (1842‚Äď1910), and John Dewey (1859‚Äď1952).
I personally think there should be no tax exemptions for clergy. Tax exemptions for the clergy make them in some sense responsible or dependent on the state and of course that affects things they can say. So, they can easily become hirelings instead of those who proclaim God's word; unashamed and unafraid.
Romans 13:7. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.
Matthew 22:21. They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
Hey Chris! It is nice that you take the time to argue with JohnY. As you know, I simply think he is a troll that is seeking attention, but then I have been careful to say that I could be wrong.
I prefer to look at his testimony as not a catholic one, but of easy believism versus Lordship salvation. In other words, he uses Christ as some sort of vaccine that can be injected to remove his sins when needed. Most people don‚Äôt know this, but Christ is only referred to a couple of times as Savior apart from His position as Lord. In other words, if He is not someone‚Äôs Lord, then He isn‚Äôt there Savior. People who take the position of EB think they can pick and choose which of His commands to obey and to not obey. A good analogy would be the Judaizers who felt they could retain their Jewish religion and sort of plug in the parts of Christianity that would allow them to reside in both camps. They felt they could have the best of both worlds, but as you know, Paul condemned them thoroughly. Only the Holy Spirit can open his eyes.