Mike wrote: When you bring up the so-called "Christian Right Movement" you aren't talking about whether churches are Christian or not, you are talking about whether Christians ought to be involved in politics. I merely pointed out you don't tell the "Christian Left Movement" the same thing. I would suggest it's not because you don't think them Christian, for you think that of the "right." I would suggest rather, that you approve of the agenda: government involvement in everyone's personal business, health, security, etc. You've promoted it enough that you really can't deny it. btw, your response reminds me of Bill Clinton for some reason.
Your thoughts on Jim and Bill reminded me of Bill's strategy when running for governor. He would sit on the porches of the unsuspecting and tell the common folks how much he abhored abortion and wished it would never be necessary, but he said it would be worse to deny a woman the right to have one. So, he was the compassionate one; not those who would deny a woman the opportunity to murder her unborn baby.
That sort of thing does remind me of Jim from Lincoln. Good comment.
Troll Spotter wrote: Thank you very much Frank! Absolutely perfect. I knew I had read that, but could not for the life of me remember where it was located to be able to quote it.
No problem, I have a large list of their heresies. Brother John UK I think sums up JohnY the best. He admittedly takes communion from someone that says he is anathema. And then he defends what he is doing. Anyway, I agree with you, JohnY is simply a troll.
I truly believe that the RCC is satan's church on this earth; not number 2, but number 1.
Troll Spotter wrote: The Pope claims that the Protestants caused schism in the "church" and as erring children he wants them to come back to the fold in repentance. Why would he say such a thing if he did not still see himself as their continuing head who is still pining with unrequited love for his errant children?
Vatican I pronounced that all the faithful of Christ must believe "that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold primacy over the whole world, and that the Pontiff of Rome himself is the successor of the blessed Peter, the chief of the apostles, and is the true [vicar] of Christ and head of the whole Church and faith, and teacher of all Christians; and that to him was handed down in blessed Peter, by our Lord Jesus Christ, full power to feed, rule, and guide the universal Church, just as is also contained in the records of the ecumenical Councils and in the sacred canons."
Mike wrote: Sorry for butting in, but you got me confused, Frank. If Christians are called by the Lord to obey the laws of the land, how is it the president taking an oath to do so is taking an oath to disobey the Lord?
No problem. I am on my way out the door to go to the dentist.
Anyway, my thoughts were from (Acts 5:29)--"But Peter and the apostles answered and said, We must obey God rather than men." I'm sure you and I would agree that if there is a conflict between man's law and God's law, then to the best of our abilities, we should obey God's law. But the oath that most politicians take simply say they are going to obey the law of the land and they are swearing to God to do that.
H B Stowe wrote: Frank, I think you need more study about oaths. An oath is sworn to God. So when one takes the oath of office he is making a promise to God to uphold the constitution and the law insofar as those laws are in accord with God's law. Those who violate their oath are also affirming that they deserve the curse of the law breaker. Now if the oath breaker escapes the punishment of man he will not escape the punishment of God,primarily because this is a violation of the 4th commandment, taking the Lord's name in vain.
Perhaps, but the oath that I noted is the correct one; I just looked it up. Now where does it say what you are saying it means?
I was not pondering whether Christians should take oaths at all. My goal was to show that if someone takes the oath I noted, then they were actually taking an oath unto the Lord to disobey the Lord.
But we are probably in agreement on Christian oaths; that was just not the issue I was addressing.
The constitution is a manmade document and its words were not dictated by our holy God; everyone should agree on that point. When someone takes the oath of office (state ones are very similar) they are in effect saying they are swearing unto the Lord to not obey Him but men. I say that because there will always be a conflict between scripture and the constitution or the laws of the land and they have solemnly sworn to uphold the constitution or the prevailing laws. So Obama, like Reagan, took an oath to disobey God if the culture wanted certain things at the expense of the word of God. How many politicians have we ever seen resign because of a conflict between manmade law and Godâ€™s law. How many executive level politicians have we ever seen that said they would obey our holy God at the expense of the constitution or the laws of the land? The below is the oath the president took, or very close to it.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
s c wrote: C Aervon wrote: "Obama has led the people of America into the wrath of God and into worse and worse depravity. Satan will not give up the US easy now..." America has the leaders which it has sown to. An anti-Christian administration is fitting for an anti-Christian country. Depravity is not selective; all abominable things, including killing/sacrificing babies and children in the name of abortion or in the name of "entertainment" reaps Judgment. This country thrives on carnality and now it is becoming mastered by it.
I agree fully with your comment. Our elected officials are simply a reflection of the culture that elected them; no more, no less. Well said!
John UK wrote: Quite. A man of God repents of his "personal views" at conversion, and comes wholly over to God's side, loving and accepting what God says on every subject, having his mind transformed by the power of the Spirit. Those that do not, nor cannot, reveal that they are still in their sins, and in darkness spiritually. In other words, they are not born again.
Well said Pilgrim and all I can add is amen! The issue is whether or not we have been born again from above and that not of ourselves; it is a gift of God and from Him alone.
I agree Chris; good comment! In my opinion political correctness is simply a form of pluralism and it will be the only thing allowed as time goes on. Anyone who says the wrath of God will fall on non-Christians will be guilty of hate speech.
Here is what pluralism really means. If someone says that faith in Christ is essential for their individual salvation but not necessarily for someone elseâ€™s then they have logically said it wasnâ€™t essential for them, but was simply a matter of personal choice. The world has told us to think this way in all spiritual matters. So it is not uncommon for someone to apply a moral standard to their own lives, but not to the lives of others. That is moral hypocrisy of the highest order and simply deludes the lost into reducing Godâ€™s moral standards and requirements to personal choices, and if a personal choice then they canâ€™t be binding on anyone. This personal choice fallacy is one of the characteristics that separate the true church of Christ from all others. Pluralism is simply spiritual polygamy. There are lots of worthy husbands and Christ just happens to be the one I chose. But, Iâ€™ll sleep with whomever I want!
pennned wrote: isn't that what you would want them to do?
I would want them to renounce catholicism and embrace Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. If they were mormons, I would want them to renounce Joseph Smith and do the same. If they were Muslims, I would want them to renounce Mohammed and embrace Jesus as Lord and Savior. etc., etc.
Perhaps I shouldn't have used the expression "the faith"? What I meant by that was the catholic faith which apparently Richard Wurmbrandt thought was saving faith. But remember, I am only going by what VOM told me.
I simply cancelled my subscription and never thought about it again until today.
I know from personal experience that Voice of the Martyr's accepts Catholicism as a genuine expression of the faith; they told me directly. Here is just one of the internet links that says the same thing. When I questioned VOM as to how they could do that; they said that Richard Wurmbrandt was imprisoned with Catholics who didn't deny the faith and suffered for it. And since he accepted them, they did also. Everyone can draw their own conclusions as to what this means.
Carl in Greensboro wrote: Excellent questions all!!! I (or you) do not know the particulars of this woman's ministry so I don't know if she ever teaches men (though I wonder if Priscilla kept her mouth shut while her husband did all the talking to Apollos to help correct his error). But as a husband whose business is a marriage chapel I can see her ministry very valuable especially if she is teaching the young brides in accordance with Titus 2:3-5 which is a very important ministry I would think. I don't have enough historical info to know if women were ordained in the early church to teach women but I do know that as a group the sisters who were widows and virgins had a very important ministry in the early church that would probably be of great value today. It is obvious that both Paul and Jesus had no problem with women working alongside them in support of their ministries. I think there is a lesson to be learned in Jesus SENDING Mary Magdalene with the message of His resurrection to the unbelieving cowardly men knowing that she would be laughed at.
Thanks for the response Carl! As long as we don't say "I don't know" and then build doctrine around what we don't know, that contradicts what we "do know", then we are okay.
Hischappe wrote: Spot the mistake. The truth is that quote "Christian denominations and congregations" - Do not have a "struggle" with Homosexuality because the Bible states the true position of all authentic Christians. (
I can fully understand how someone can be a faithful Christian and tolerate a particular sin; such as homosexuality. To me tolerate means that I donâ€™t illegally prohibit or hinder the act in question. However accepting something is altogether different. If we accept it, then we are in agreement with it. So, in your â€śspot the mistakeâ€ť quiz, I would say that yes, the Christian church does have non-practicing homosexuals in it, but they must in fact be non-practicing. John said that whoever practices sin is not saved nor has ever been saved. So, if a Pastor stands up and says that someone can join their church if they are married homosexuals, (that would make them practicing homosexuals and would make the Pastor accepting of their conduct) I would say that Pastor isnâ€™t saved and I would run from that congregations as fast as I could.
Carl in Greensboro wrote: We should be careful in revealing our biases.
Carl, yes we should be careful in not simply stating our biases. Now, how do you know that Phoebe had the same spiritual duties as this lady who is noted as a minister in the article? If you say she was a minister (Phoebe) in sense that we use the term minister then that would contradict all of what Paul taught regarding women being church leaders. I donâ€™t know exactly, and neither do you, what Phoebeâ€™s duties were, but to say that her duties â€ścould beâ€ť the same as those we refer to as a ministers in todayâ€™s church is stretching things to the limits.
In today's jargon, a minister is someone who was ordained to be some type of church leader.
Pepe wrote: Looks like in the immediate future, marriages will only have to be performed in a church that doesn't have 503c tax exempted status, and by someone one who is not registered as-for-profit-status. Looks like the option for Christians is to get legally married down in the court house by a judge, and then go get married in the forest by a man-of-God Robinhood style. When He comes we will behold Him as He truly is.......both the saved and non-saved. He will set all things right again forever!
Well said Pepe, I agree fully. Churches should have never signed up for 501C3 status. I'm sure they didn't have a clue as to where that would lead them when they first began to do it, but as I have said before, a little leaven does leaven the whole bunch. Anyway, thanks for your comment.
John UK wrote: Well bro, when we are aged and counting down the seconds to our death, why not use that short time to go spread the gospel in the sort of places that even missionary minded people will not go. You could head down the coast to Colombia to witness to the drug barons, and I could get a hold of some tracts and spend a few hours in North Korea as a witness for Jesus before being arrested and imprisoned.
Well brother, the Colombians probably worship Santa Muerte, which is an aberrant form of Catholicism and the North Koreans worship a man. My guess is I would live longer than you if you went to North Korea. I have often thought that if for some reason I outlive my wife, then I would pack up and move to Pakistan or Iran. In either country I would probably end up dead in a very short period of time. I think that would "rightfully" accuse me of blasphemy against the prophet whatever his name was.
John UK wrote: I reckon Frank, that if there were three born again Christians, one had only the Coverdale, one had only the King James, and one had only The Living Bible, if those brethren read and studied their Bibles every day, praying for enlightenment, and obeying every word of God, and repenting of anything amiss, then just maybe each one of them would become a mighty fine Christian, serving the Lord and being salt and light in this world, bringing others to know and love the Lord Jesus Christ, worshipping in spirit and in truth, being loving and kind and gracious to all that they meet, holding God as the supreme love of their heart, and looking forward to being with Christ in heaven for all eternity, having the evidence of good fruit brought about by a connection to the True Vine, for, as Jesus said, "Without me, ye can do nothing." Some thirtyfold, some sixtyfold, and some an hundredfold.
I agree Pilgrim. What an excellent statement and it blessed me.
John UK wrote: "For many people within the Church of England and others it has been a process full of frustration when looked at from the outside." Archbishop of Canterbury. I'm sure that for many people within the Church of England, this will be the final straw.
Pilgrim! I told my wife that if the U.S. elected a female president or vice- president that we were leaving the country. So, I guess the UK isn't the place to go. Are there any countries left in the world where that would be considered unwise?
Alien. I enjoyed your comment as well and I like your moniker. Reminds me of being a Pilgrim in a lost and fallen world.
1. John Wycliffe (c. 1320-84) 2. Johannes Gutenberg (1396-1468) invented the printing press. The Gutenberg Bible was published in 1455. 3. William Tyndale (c. 1492-1536) 4. Miles Coverdale (1488-1569) 5. Thomas Matthew (c. 1500-1555) John Rogers, under the name Thomas Matthew, published his own version in 1537 6. The Great Bible (1539) 7. The Geneva Bible (1560) 8. The Bishopâ€™s Bible (1568) 9. The Rheims-Douai Version (1609-10) 10. King James (â€śAuthorizedâ€ť) Version (1611)
John UK wrote: I reckon Job was a good example of a worshipper. He worshipped God for who he is, the Great Creator Spirit, the awesome one, the sovereign Lord of heaven and earth. The devil could not see that about Job, and thought he only worshipped God because of what God had given him, material wealth, good health, a large family. It is when we worship God disregarding such, that we truly worship him. Otherwise it is merely mercenary.
Well said brother! The church of our Lord has a tendency to worship the things He provides rather than He who provides. So, if He gives them much they feign loving Him much and if He gives them little they really do love Him little. We should avoid this tendency as much as is humanly and spiritually possible.
On another occasion, I acknowledged that I was just as guilty of doing this as others and the Lord is working on me with this issue. And I must admit correction can be painful.