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.
I understood your thoughts anyway. I have argued with this OEC fellow for years and he refuses to budge. They use their view of science to interpret scripture although many deny that charge. Many more do this then we can imagine; the RCC and others as well. The RCC does teach that the beginning chapters of Genesis are not to be taken literally (unless they make an exception)and that is why they don't have the doctrine of original sin with salvation by works a natural offshoot of that.
The fellow I argue with actually says "scripture" teaches an old earth which has always amazed me. Ankerberg and many others we consider to be YEC are not as an aside. I have seen a video of Ankerberg sitting side by side and agreeing with Hugh Ross in every detail.
A lot of our Christian brothers/sisters are YEC when interacting with other brethren, but OEC when they talk to outsiders. Gives them some sense of intellectual credibility, I guess?
John UK wrote: Well bro, you know what it's like. A teacher of Israel was once told, "Ye must be born again" and he had not a clue what the Lord was saying to him. Now how are you going to define "worship"? Can it be defined, or is it something so deeply spiritual and heartfelt that it cannot be described? Five people are in a church, two are weeping, one has his arms in the air and is expressionless, a woman is singing with a big smile on her face, and one is mouthing words but no sound comes out. So which one is worshipping? p.s. This is not a trick question.
Well brother, it was the one who had his/her heart steadfast on the Lord trusting in Him with a worshipful and thankful heart. I gotta go for a while, but I'll bet we agree.
Same old lie repackaged for our â€śenlightenedâ€ť society.
 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?  And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:  But of the fruit of the tree which [is] in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.  And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:  For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.  And when the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, and that it [was] pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make [one] wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. (Gen 3:1-6 KJV)
 And when the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, and that it [was] pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make [one] wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. (Gen 3:6 KJV)
Dorcas wrote: Well Frank, I look at it as God tearing down the old rotten harlot that poses as the bride of Christ. May we see many precious souls flee from that synagogue of Satan and hear the true Sheperds voice speaking to their heart.... "I, even, I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no Saviour". Isaiah 43:11.
Well said sister; you and I agree on this issue. I further believe they are the great whore spoken of in Revelations.
Describing homosexuals as people with "gifts and talents to offer the Christian community . . . is something that even a few years ago would have been unthinkable, from even the most open-minded of prelates -- that is, a statement of outright praise for the contribution of gays and lesbians, with no caveat and no reflexive mention of sin."
The RCC is simply a cult that is a reflection of the culture. The culture should be a reflection of scripture, not the other way around. Homosexuality is an abomination in God's eyes. So they are saying that an abomination can add to God's church? Their God yes, but not mine!
 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:  Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.  But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.  For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?  But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. (1Co 5:9-13)