So what you are saying is we need to give women incentive to not murder their unborn children. With Obama Care, they can murder them easier and of course they could also avoid murdering them easier. You are still giving them the choice and since mankind is evil, guess what choice they will make. Remember, giving birth might result in having a headache. Pregnancy is not an illness even though you think it is. It is murder and prosecution would eliminate 99 % of this criminal conduct. Why donât you suggest prosecution or abstinence? Would you say that we should provide drugs to drug addicts so they donât have to buy drugs on the street. It could certainly be controlled better in that way. Or perhaps we should give money to thieves and then they would stop stealing. And of course my silly list of choices could go on and on. Jim, you are amazing and just like JohnY, you never argue against your logic, but simply keep repeating the same old tired arguments. Well you never argue as a Christian and your supposed Christian thoughts simply represent your pro-liberal agenda. Having a masters in psych doesnât mean you can manipulate that easily. And Jim, my guess is very few read your links.
Carl in Greensboro wrote: "The one who loves his brother abides in the light and there is not even a hint of cause for stumbling in him" (1 John 2:10). I love you Frank. I believe you are completely guileless in your assertions. And I agree with what I quoted from you above as I do with nearly all of your posts. My comments were not meant to cause harm. But before you "let it go" I do want to hear your opinion on what FG said in the article. Is not Obama and Holder passing and enforcing laws that are persecuting and oppressing God's elect? As I hinted at in my last post I have heard FG say some good things and some not so good things. But the thing that he said is this article is it not worthy of discussion and deep consideration? I would honestly like to read your comments on this even if FG is not legitimate in your eyes to sound the alarm.
Read my post to you again; I said I agreed with what Graham said. I never quoted or commented on what he said.
And thanks for your kind and loving response. My posts were for a different purpose than yours. If I deem someone to be "possibly" a false prophet, then I ignore anything they say spiritually and my guess is you do the same thing; such as Benny Hinn or someone like him.
Mike wrote: Carl- Frank- if an atheist says something that you know is objectively true, do you think it becomes less true because he's an atheist?
I was pondering only the spiritual principles of what someone says. Like I said to you before and you didn't respond, it is not like asking where the nearest MacDonalds is. I could care less whether the person was an atheist or not and I would probably never know. But, i do know about the Grahams so that makes it different. If you want to argue that what Graham is saying is similiar to where the nearest MacDonalds is then you are absolutely correct and we have no disagreement. My guess is the Holy Spirit wouldn't intervene in that discussion. I truly am arguing against the Grahams as representatives of Christ and you know that, so I don't understand your comment, and I believe I am on topic.
Besides, read my below comment to Carl and you will see that I actually agree with what he said. People who simply want to argue are confusing to me, so your comment is also confusing. I and everyone knows that you like the Grahams, so why not just say it? I personally would never listen to anything spiritual they say, but if I needed directions to drive somewhere, I wouldn't care.
Well you are insistent that the individual isn't important, but simply his message. The next time I listen the the catholic channel I will listen much more carefully. So you are saying that if someone says something, and they are not connected to the vine, then they can still tell us things that are spiritually good for us.
Staying on topic is largely in the eyes of individual readers, but I obviously thought I was more on topic than you are and still do. Now I will simply say this and then let it go. I could care less whether someone is reformed, liberal, conservative, or middle. The only thing I tend to observe is if they are in Christ and walking with Christ.
What did you think of the verses I provided. Were they on topic? I took the time to look them up for you. Are you pro Graham and don't think that he is an ecumenical that leads people to false religions like the RCC? Who don't you to? That will help me understand.
Please don't think I am upset with you or being unkind in any way. You and I think differently about these things. My guess is most will agree with you, but then I can't read their hearts.And just so you know, I actually agree with the things Graham said, but IMO it was more about him.
Can either of you come up with an instance when God said to follow anyone or âspirituallyâ listen to something that a false prophet says. This article isn't discussing Christ, but FG. I am of the impression that in order to bear fruit, someone would have to be in the vine and no one can do anything outside of Christ. Now, this isnât to argue the Grahams, but your comments appear to say the messenger isnât important. I canât imagine anything more untrue. What if the pope said it?
 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,  And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;  Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.  Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. (Deu 13:1-4)
2 Timothy 3:1-7 is an even better reference than the above. I am using this one because Dolores has entered into the conversation.
John UK wrote: Does "perceptive" have a practical application of what he has written?
I have a favorite expression that theology is so simple when we leave it on the pages of our bibles, but it becomes soooo much more complicated when we put it into practice. But assuming that TULIP is the same as perceptive, then perhaps he has answered me when he referred to my earlier post.
perceptive wrote: "Arminians detest the doctrine of predestination as presented by Calvinists. Since the word itself is Biblical, Arminians are forced to define the term in a manner consonant with their assumptions. In order to do that, they must recast the traditional doctrines related to God's knowledge. Most of us have no problem saying that God knows all things; but this has vexed most Arminians. Many evangelical thinkers are promoting what is called "free will theism" or "the openness of God" theism. Such is the direct result of Arminian theology pushed to its logical tendencies.5 Gregory Boyd, who himself is an Arminian, has argued that "Arminian theologians have not generally followed through the logic of their insight into the nature of creaturely freedom to its logical (and biblical) conclusions."6 Their view is astounding." (Rev. M.Herzer) This is what happens when man decides to concoct and contrive his own version of religion. Satan is very happy to sell this blind and ignorant religious philosophy to the masses - If they will buy it. Calvinists are people who do not accept this counterfeit religion and fight the good fight against it.
Do you have a practical application to what you have written. What should I do then?
Dorcas wrote: John Y wrote... None of the Protestant Reformers believed that... Here's a few names for you to study about what they believed concerning satanic Rome. ------- John Wycliffe John Huss William Tyndale John Hooper Rowland Taylor Bishop Ridley Bishop Latimer All were martyred by your religion that you come on here to defend and lie about.
Thanks sister, excellent information. Your list is great and we could add millions of the common folks who simply refused to cave in to their demonic religion. Only a child or troll would parrot what John Y is parroting, but he keeps on going. It is hard to imagine him denying what his church has said and done, but go figure. Hope you and your husband are doing well.
John UK wrote: Thanks Pilgrim, I had not come across the term before, and it seems to be gaining adherents in the last couple of decades. It's a bit beyond me, like a lot of these theological theorisings.
And of course there are nuances to open theism as there is with Arminianism or Calvinism. An extreme open theist would simply say that "nothing" has been determined by God in eternity because God gave mankind free will to thwart anything He does. He must always react to us in our dynamic time because He doesn't appeal to His foreknowledge or sovereignty, although some of them allow for Him to use His foreknowledge.
By the way, it also confused me and I did a study of it. I don't mind theorizing about things as long as we realize it is theorizing and we don't try to force our blocks into holes they don't belong in.
John Yurich USA wrote: Frank, Enough with the lies that the RCC has a different god then the God of the Bible and that the Graham's support the RCC and Islam. The Apostles and Nicene Creeds state "We believe in One God the Father Almighty. We believe in One Lord Jesus Christ the only begotten Son of God. We believe in the Holy Spirit the Lord and giver of life."(The God of the Bible).
This is almost funny, but I will respond one time. I have a photo of the pope kissing the koran and there are lots of quotes from the vatican that says the Muslims and Christians worship the same God. Now my trollish friend, the Christian God is triune. That means 3 in one. Is that the same God that Islam worship.
I of course am only responding to you in case an occasional reader may not be familiar with you. But and I am saying this with kindness and love so don't be offended, I do believe you worship the same God the RCC and Islam worship. Out of the mouth of the vatican; they are in fact the same.
Wayfairer pilgrim wrote: Irregardless what we may or may not agree with Franklin's perceived theology , what he is doing is either to wake up the "entertain us church crowd", or actually forewarn the nodding, amen crowd that a storm is here and is about to get worse. I generally don't question the guy waving a orange flag in a construction zone, but do tend to pay attension to what the condition the road is ahead.
Well just for the record, I canât read his heart so I agree with you on that. I am only going by what he says and writes. According to those things, my comment was right on. Now we arenât talking about a construction site, but I donât object to that analogy. In spiritual terms, I would say if I saw the pope waving a sign saying to do something and he was dressed in his religious garb so there was no mistake as to who he was, then I would ignore him and could care less what the sign said. To me, the person holding the sign is just as important as what the sign says. The Grahams wouldnât ignore the popeâs sign since the sign is pointing to the same God in their opinions. If satan or one of his emissaries were holding a sign, Iâm sure you would ignore it also.
John UK wrote: Is this an example of open theism? Revelation 2:1-7 KJV (1) Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks; (2) I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: (3) And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name's sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted. (4) Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. (5) Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.
If God doesnât know what we are going to do and is dependent on what we do before He can act, then that is open theism. In other words, He chooses to work only in dynamic time and has forfeited the right to act against what His creation does. He becomesâdependentâ on us for His ultimate decisions.
The verses you quoted would not be the best, but they certainly would be used by them to support their thoughts.
Deborah Jackson wrote: Dear Frank, you are absolutely write....
Well my dear, if I was right than you are right as well. Thanks for your encouraging remark. And I looked through your "few" posts and thought they were good as well. And I will listen to Pastor Holland when I hit the reply button. But I have Piper on ignore since he pushes Rick Warren.
Michael Hranek, Thanks for the kind response. I think our faith walk is absolutely amazing. Theology is certainly important, but we often donât understand what we are espousing and we often live lives that donât reflect the genuine holiness, power and sovereignty of our heavenly Father. These discussions are helpful because iron does indeed sharpen iron and there are truths He wants us to know. The more I reflect on God, the more I realize I donât understand. The most wonderful part of all this is He certainly knows our hearts and our motives, so we may fool ourselves, but not Him. I think that open theism is heresy, but I often find myself praying and conducting my life according to its principles. âLord if I do this, then You must do thisâ sort of thing. But there are certain truths that should never leave us. One is that all things will work together for good to those who belong to Him. Also that He loves me with an infinite love that nothing can dissolve or lessen in any way. Even when He chastises me, He is still showing me His parental love. How amazing is that and one day all of His children will gather with Him in His heavenly kingdom. Then we will know and love all of His truths and His decisions that took place in our lives.
I have said before and will say again, the media talks about a war against women. The real war against women is when we make them or allow them to be something that God didn't intend for them to be. Feminists and in particular evangelical feminists will support this sort of thing openly or quietly in their hearts and they are really going against their own gender and don't even realize it.
As I heard Sarah Palin say one time in response to the question as to should a woman stay home with her children if she has something she can contribute to society. She said, no, only a Neanderthal would believe that. When she was governor, she went back to work within a couple of days of giving birth to her last child. So, she certainly practiced what she preached. In God's kingdom our choices should be what He says His choice is - period.
âWhen our country was birthed, its foundations and laws were based on biblical laws and principles,â he said, writing on his personal
We used to be âone nation under God.â Now weâre a nation that has turned its back on God. History shows that when nations do this, their end is near
Bluntly, Graham also remarked how Obama âdefends Islam and chastises Christians, rebukes our allies and befriends our enemies and fully supports gay marriage and abortion but denies the religious freedoms of those who donât agree,â
The above are from the article. Letâs see we attempted to set up a country based on biblical principles, but we conveniently left out the part about Christ being the only way to salvation. We set up a pluralistic nation and Graham supports that thought. And he said that we were one nation under God, but which God is he talking about since the pope said the Muslims worship the same God and the Grahams support the papacy. So by logical extension, he must support the God of the RCC and Islam.
The fact that Fox news channel often has him on there means he canât be offensive against RC. But his million dollar a year income will certainly not go away. It takes no courage to deny or I should say water down the real Savior and be paid to do it.
Well Michael, if God called me from before the foundation of the world, remember David and Jeremiah and others gave the same thoughts, then He must have known I would exist. In order for me to exist, He would have had to control the literally trillions of smaller events that would have been necessary for me to be here. That is true election.
What you seem to be espousing is a concept called open theism that basically says that even though God is all knowing and all powerful, He must or chooses to wait and see what His creation is going to do and then responds to His creation and then goes from there. Now remember, the Lord told people to cast lots, but He certainly controlled the outcome. I could list dozens of verses to support His sovereignty that does not require foreknowledge of what His creation is going to do in response to His decisions. Since you can cite other scriptures to support your thoughts, then it becomes a matter of the way we view God. Is He truly sovereign and predestines and controls all things according to His will or not; I think He is and does . Does that negate my responsibilities, of course not. I have written about Open Theism, If you want it, let me know. It is a complicated subject
John UK wrote: Bro, there is no doubt that a very godly woman can have no joy in seeing her husband saved. But there is also no doubt that a backslidden wife is hardly likely to see her husband saved. This is why I posted the passage of scripture which I did. I realise that I appear to be saying I don't believe in God's sovereignty, but that would not be true. What I have been clearly saying all along, is that God's elect do need "winning", which is why the Apostle Paul was willing to suffer so much - to save God's elect.
Well now I am not attempting to just be argumentative. But a godly wife may or may not see her husband saved and an ungodly wife may see her husband saved. You and I would both say that a Christian wife should follow what scripture teaches concerning her husband, but you appear to be saying that "she must" do that or her husband won't be saved. Now if you are saying that her husband's salvation can only be obtained through his wife's obedience to scripture, then we are really not on the same page.
I used to say I was a soul winner, but I now would never use that expression.
Oh and your first sentence probably didn't come out right? I never said that a very godly woman wouldn't have joy seeing her husband saved.
question wrote: For those who have the intelligence
1 Corinthians 1:26 For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; 27 but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, 28 and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, 29 so that no man may boast before God.â
Sorry, I don't have time to look this up in the KJV.
John UK wrote: Brother, that is exactly it! And any woman who lives such an exemplary life before her husband that he becomes converted must be living so close to God and full of his Spirit, that she will know without any doubt that it is God's work not her's that saw him saved. But if ever she says that she won him to the Lord, that is also biblically correct. I have met plenty of arminians in the course of my life, and some of them do make pseudo-converts, as we recently discussed about crusade meetings. Wow, we need a work of God in the heart of the sinner!
As long as she knows that it was the Spirit of God using her to win her lost husband then okay. The most spiritual person that walks this earth cannot quicken a dead spirit. Only the Lord can do that and He normally uses His children to accomplish that. See how semantics are playing a part even in what you and I are saying.
Hyper-calvinist play God even if they don't realize it and Arminians do the same thing even if they don't realize it. Semantics again.
Oh and I am also guilty of doing that; playing God. I do that mainly when I am praying and I pray for the Lord's will to be done, but deep inside I want my will to be done. I really am playing God when I do that.