www wrote: By leaves "the church" do you mean the people of God or a building?
You really Have swollowed the whole Emergent Error. I was going to ask why you keep asking questions when It's obvious you don't want answers. But it's obvious. You are being dishonest by asking. People reply, but you just ask questions of their replies. You are under the impression that your questions are irrefutible statement of fact. The way you reply to people's statement evedence that you cannot follow closley reasoned arguments (or even compound complex statement for that matter), and that your responses are based upon the Emotional Ferver you feel at the moment, rather than reason, or scripture. I'm afraid you will never, in this life, find out how totaly wrong you are. You have been given more than the first and second admonition, by people who have a level of spiritual maturity you don't. Yet you arrogantly question anyone who doesn't follow your emergent view. You seem to believe that anyone that is old and doesn't go chasing after the latest religious fad. Bottom line. There are only two approaches to church: Give God what He has required in His word, or give people what they want. I will not reply to any more of you argumentative questions.
www wrote: Young people primarily interact with the world via handhelds and flat screens. When your pastor uploads his core content, don't be surprised if your youth don't feel compelled to "be there" every Sunday. They can tune in throughout the week. When your sermon catalog is available 24/7, why get legalistic about seeing your youth face to face? The church is not a building, it's the people of God.
Forsake not the assembling of yourselves together, as the manner of some is. Real corporate worship and felowship cannot be accomplished via electronic devices, from miles away.
As to Young People; the church is to minister to people of all ages, not just Young People.
OHM wrote: does it really matter if we call them real human beings, or, rather, did Moses include them so that, instead, they would teach us important biblical concepts? Is our salvation predicated on Adam's and Eve's bones literally being buried somewhere or on Christ alone through faith by grace alone? If the First Couple were vital for faith, why are Adam & Eve omitted from every creed?
Very simple. If the First Adam was allegorical, and the fall fiction, then the second Adam (Christ)and his death would either be allegorical and/or unecessary. The need for the Atonement is predicated on the fact that a real hisorical person, who was the first man, and all of us proceeding from him, and partaking of his fallen nature, were in need of one perfect sustitute.
As to why Adam was not mentioned in any confession of faith; if a confession were to mention everything, it would be the size of the Bible itself. Also, confessions are a guide, and not infallible revelations from God.
Christian Atheist wrote: Once again the Dispensationalism of the new world order colonialist take over another sovereign country and American's think that it is a good thing. Even a wild donkey's colt has more common sense.
I didn't realize the Muslim Brotherhood were Dispensational Christian Colonialist. May the Emergent God, as we feel him to be, at the moment of our ongoing, ever morphing conversation, deliver us.
The statement: "All kinds of activities deemed vices by mothers everywhere have been adopted as badges of Calvinist identity and thus "redeemed": tobacco, tattoos, gambling, mixed martial arts, profane language, and lots of explicit talk about sex." has Never been indicative of Historic Calvinism. This sounds much more like the Emergent church that likes to refer to itself as Reformed.
Bibliophile wrote: Was in the PCA prior to converting into the Roman Catholic Church. They (and every other conservative Presbyterian denomination I know) recite the Gospel Summary (Nicene Creed) regularly and have never removed nor quibbled at all with its baptismal phrase.
Still up to your obsession of turning these threads into pro catholic threads eh? After your Apostacy into catholicism you should have gone to a catholic webite, and quit involving people in turning every article into debates over catholisism.
Please be honest. You don't really want an answer. You just want to defend your position. If you spent half as much time listening to the sermons on this; Protestant, Reformed, conservative, Fundamentalist website, you would not only have your answers, you would not have time to fill up all these threads with pro catholic arguments. [that was 2]
fromold wrote: You sure??? "The first information about the heliocentric views of Nicolaus Copernicus were circulated in manuscript. Although only in manuscript, Copernicus' ideas were well known among astronomers and others. His ideas contradicted the then-prevailing understanding of the Bible. In the King James Bible Chronicles 16:30 state that "the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved." Psalm 104:5 says, "[the Lord] Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever." Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose."" (Wiki)
Read the Whole comment I wrote my myopic friend. Your selective editing is very close to misrepresentation.
Book of Science wrote: The Book of Scripture reads as follows: 1 Chronicles 16:30 tremble before him, all earth; yea, the world stands firm, never to be moved. Psalms 93:1 The Lord reigns; he is robbed in majesty; the lord is robbed, he is girded with strength. Yea, the world is established; it shall never be moved. Psalms 96:10 Say among the nations, "The Lord reigns! Yea, the world is established, it shall never be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity." Before Galileo's 16th Century scientific expertise, how would you have interpreted these verses? Geocentrically? Heliocentrically? Relatively? Most would have interpreted them in a literal sense. If so, would that have made you non-Christian?
Wow! You had best stay with your so called science and not attempt Hermenutics. You obviously don't know what you are doing in that area. None of those scriptues say the earth is the center. Not to mention the most basic element of sound interpretaion, have for 2,000 plus yrs. recognized when poetic language is being used and when literal language is being used. You believe the T.V weather don't you. The weather man said Sun Rise would be at such a time. Yet we know the sum does not rise, the Earth spins. It's the language of Phenomena.
Book of Science wrote: Didn't similar dissenting words fall from the pope's mouth as Galileo demonstrated that the Earth is not the center of the Universe? I'm sure that 9 out of 10 16th Century Europeans agreed with the pope's literal interpretation of the Bible text that the Earth is the center of the Universe. Are you sure you want to tie your salvation to a literal interpretation of Genesis? However, if your faith is based on a literal interpretation of Genesis, and a scientist proves that's genetically (etc.) impossible, what's left of your faith? Finally, how do you know, for certain, that the Earth is only 6,000 years old?
As to number one:No. The Pope was not getting his idea from the bible, and Gallaleo was a Christian that belived the literal six day account of Gen. 2. I'm sure Jonh and myself would be glad to base our cetraint of salvation on the Literal Interpretaion on Gen. Jesus said 'If I have told you eartly things and ye believen not, how shall ye believe if I tell you heavenly things. If we can't trust Gen. hoe can we trust jn. 3:16 3. What If; as frequently happens, further research disproves former theories and backs up the Bible? What will you tell God? 4.A simple chronology, coupled with what Jesus called the begining.
John Yurich USA wrote: Why do you capitalise the A in anti-christ when referring to individuals who are not the Anti-Christ who will come onto the scene at the time of the Great Tribulation Period. There will only be one Anti-Christ but there are many anti-christs. And no Pope has been the Anti-Christ.
If you are quibbling over the capitalising of a word, to denote the introduction and definition of the term,then you have missed the point altogether. Read carefully again what I wrote, and you will find that I made the same distinction you are trying to make.
If you capitalised the word "The" in antichrist, maybee people would understand you meaning better.
Bibliophile wrote: How can the Pope be the Antichrist when he's the most pro-life leader on the planet even protecting the embryo -
I'm sure someone has already given this answer already. But here is the answer again: Anti, in Antichrist, can mean either; against, or, in place of. As in the case of a copycat. Of course it can mean both. So, if a man is an Antichrist, we would expect that he would exhibit many positive charachtaristics. The Antichrist (the man of sin)will convince many that he is the True Christ. He could not do that by being outwardly immoral and evil.
As to your many posts of why you left the PCA to become catholic; I'm truly sorry for you. Todays PCA sadly is going into accomadationalism. However the WCF is a much closer representation of scripture than the church of Rome. But if you have a problem with the WCF, the 1689 confession, the Savoy, ect. Then why not just take the New Testament and read it several times, without running it through the grid of what you are being taught in catholisism, then compare It with you new found catholic experience.
Many of us are praying for your Spiritual conversion Nicodemus.
John Yurich USA wrote: Therefore NO POPE HAS EVER BEEN THE ANTI-CHRIST. The Bible states that there are many anti-christs.
You might want to resarch Pope Innocent III (very inappropriate name)He had several French Monks killed for Street Preaching out of Bible texts. And when He said that the Pope was the final Authority, they said the Bible was their authority. Source: Christianity Through the Centuries. By Cairns
PCA wrote: What is our theology on homosexuality? Example: A 20 year old baptized Christian man is seriously tempted by same-sex attraction and occasionally gives into it for the next 50 years of his life. Questions: (a.) Is he saved once-and-for-all, by faith in Jesus, regardless of the number of subsequent homosexual acts? (b.) Does he lose his salvation each time he gives into a homosexual act? (c.) Is salvation even possible for him?
Here is another possibility: Was he saved to begin with? I don't ask that lightly, or in a detached manner. After giving my life to the Lord, I had a recuring problem with a sin, that eventually dominated my life. I had to seriously ask myself the question:Had I ever really been saved to begin with.
Looking back after many years, I believe the marks of salvation were there: Conviction and chastizement, and that the Lord did bring me out of it through repentance. Yet, I would not presume on such a thing. Many may be presuming on a Decision once made, but with no eveidence of regeneration, or repentance.
CV wrote: Jim, good sermon by Dr. Gil Rugh. He does a good job of developing it from Abraham. There's no such thing as "free will". When sinful man is presented with a choice, he "wills" subject to what he is enslaved to.
Very well put. Many people think we are denying the existence of the will when we say we do not believe in Free will. The will exists,but not in a totally, free, or even in a neutral state.
BTW. Sorry it took so long to get back to you. I understood what you were saying on the post yesterday. I was responding to something someone had posted a few days back, when they thought that Calvinist were teaching that salvation came without reference to Repentance or Faith. Only the Hypers teach salvation apart from Gospel Means. Have a good night.
Dopey wrote: Joe, my good friend, Do you think God before the creation of the world was willing to "elect" every human being born with a sinful nature?
Hello again. The best I understand to teaching (mind you I'm still studying this, even after 10 yrs.) God, in the begining,had a free choice (His will being soverign and subject to no one)to either create, or not create. Having chosen to create, he could have created any type of reality He chose. He could have created in such a way as that none fell. I suppose He could have chosen to elect everyone, so that none would have gone to hell. What seems to throw people, is they think God's electing was based on something good he saw, or foresaw in the elect. That would be Conditional Election, and would indeed make God a respecter of persons. However, all the documents and commentaries I've read concerning election, say that election in Unconditional. For reasons known only to God, he elected some. It would not be based on any goodness in them. Why did God do it this way? I don't know. This teaching seems foreign to many people today, but if we had lived a hundred years ago or more, we would take it for granted because it was preached much more then. CV:I'll have to get back to you.
God is not unjust to provide salvation for some and not all.
God would not be unjust if He provides salvation for no one. Salvation, for anyone, is wholly of grace. He would have been just in letting the whole world go tho hell.
Lost people are lost, not because they despratly want to get saved, but can't because they are not elect. They are lost because, by nature they love sin, and are averse to coming to God. Instances where God provided salvation for some, and not all: * The Flood. How big was the ark in comparison to the population of the world? * Sodom. How many people did God send the angels to?
As far as whosoever will; it is God that makes one willing. Left to ourselves, none of us would ever choose to turn to the Lord.
As far as Regeneration apart from repentance and faith; that is the teaching of Hypercalvinism. Salvation apart from means.
Evangelical Calvinism teaches that Repentance and Faith are also gifts from God, and that all are present and necessary in salvation.
CV wrote: Joe this is actually a quote from this article, It should've been in quotes. ""texting is people engaging,‚ÄĚletting folks know the church is the people," said Pastor Schreiner. It's more like what we do here at SA and call it a Sunday Service.
Thanks for clarifying that. It didn't sound like anything you would have said. Obviously technology can ba used for Godly purposes. I guess that old saying There is a time and a place for everything, applies well.