Michael Hranek wrote: Lurker Again an excellent comment One I again can say to in good conscience Amen! and Amen!
You're not a coddler of error and neither am I. But more importantly, neither is God.
"Who is God?" is a question every pastor should ask their congregations to see if they are awake or fast asleep sucking their thumbs. Who God is should be hidden away in our hearts so we sin not against Him and should flow freely from our hearts when asked like the living waters He is.
I know we don't agree on a some things but I rejoice in those things we do agree on which have eternal consequences.
Since John Y. seems to be ignoring my question.......... let's all help him out a bit. Who God is should flow from the hearts of all born by the will of God Christians as living waters. (Not what He did, does or will do. Not His attributes.)
Though the list is long, I'll start out with the most obvious...
God is love (1 John 4:8)
This pretty well debunks the RCC claim that Christians and Muslims worship the same God. It also tells me the RCC has no clue who God is (they worship a meaningless word) but that their claim to worship Jesus as God is just a conditioned response which a parrot could duplicate.
Whoever has a mind to, jump in and help John Y. out. Perhaps your contributions will be used by God to prick his heart.
John Yurich USA wrote: Lurker, I have never stated that because one recites the Apostles and Nicene Creeds that they are saved. It just means that they worship Jesus as God. That is all.
Either you are attempting to avoid my question or you've lost the plot. I have a tough time believing the latter, you being a highly intelligent fellow and all.
You say Catholics worship Jesus as God. Who/what does the RCC say God is? If you can't answer that, who/what do you say God is?
If you can't answer, how are you any closer to God than the Athenians of Mars' hill (Acts 17:22ff)? How can you expect to be known of Him if you don't know Him? How is it possible for you to be indwelt by God the HS yet you don't know who He is?
Perhaps you should consider that it takes more than logical and analytical thinking to answer the question. All the head knowledge in the world won't get you where you hope to go.
John Yurich USA wrote: Lurker, God is One and only Supreme Being mentioned in the Bible consisting of the Father, Son and Holy Sprit of which the Catholic Church worships in the form of worshiping Jesus as God.
Muslims and Jews reject the idea of a triune God. Yet the RCC states Christians and Muslims worship the same God.
So why am I to believe that because the RCC teaches its congregants to commit to memory and recite a certain creed that they actually know God or rather are known of God? If you know God and are known of Him, surely it should not be burdensome to explain, not what He has done (creator of heaven and earth, etc) or His attributes (almighty, omniscient, longsuffering, etc.), but who/what He is.
Follower wrote: Come on Lurker. What is a fool? Or, who is a fool? The fool says in his heart "there is no God." He is the one who talks to no one. Neither does he see anyone coming or going. He questions whether or not he has a brain because he has not seen it. But he suspects that others have brains. Lurker, do you or do you not have a brain??? Where's the evidence?
Since you seem to be new to the discussion board and I don't want to discourage you, I'll elaborate a bit.
John Y. states the RCC worships Jesus as God. The same RCC also states that Muslims and Christians worship and adore the same God.
Therefore, it seems a fair question: Who/what is God [that both Muslims and Catholics worship]?
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Brother Lurker, the apostle James quotes from Amos to show that God would call the Gentiles into His fold, something the Jews would have trouble grasping (see Acts 10:45; 11:3,17,18). Amos was a prophet to Israelites who lived in his day. (see Amos 1:1) God said (Amos 9:8) His eyes were on the sinful kingdom (the house of Jacob) He would sift Israel (v9) that they may possess the remnant of Edom and of the Gentiles which are called by My name. He then states that the plowman shall over take the reaper, the treader of grapes the sower of seed and the children of Israel shall build the waste cities and inhabit them. Dear brother will you please show how any of that happened in the days of Paul.
Can't do it. Your mind is closed by the hermeneutics of men.
But thanks for reminding me why I quit posting a few months ago.
John UK wrote: But you know I'm not at all up on relating prophecies from the OT to the NT, and it would take me years to grapple with such. However, if you can lay it out in simple enough terms, maybe you will be able to at least show me what it is you are saying.
The book of Amos (among others) is contextually relevant to the letter to the Romans for at least 2 very good reasons: 1) Acts 15:15-17 quotes Amos 9:11 and points to the time God took His Kingdom away from the Jews and turned to the Gentiles in mercy. 2) Paul died (Rom 7:9) when the commandment came which ties back to Amos 9:10. These 2 facts make it abundantly clear that the prophecies in Amos all find their fulfillment during the time Paul wrote to the Romans.
So if that be the case, why wouldn't we look to Amos to gain some insight of how to interpret what Paul wrote? In the case of Rom 3:23, we can subjectively say "all" means whatever we want it to mean or we can make our appeal to Amos and let God tell us what He intended it to mean.
In the case of bro. Mike's comment: "Rom 5:15 "many" must mean all here, for all have sinned and all be dead." Not so... All Israel sinned but not all of Israel are Israel. The gift abounded to Jacob, not Esau, through God's purpose of election.
John UK wrote: Bro Lurker, Wow! Before I think any further, can you elucidate what you mean by "all Israel". Romans 3 Paul seems to be saying that by the law, all men, Jews and Gentiles alike, have sinned and come short, and that there are none righteous, not one. Are you saying this is not right?
Gotta go for a while but.....
All Israel? What saith the scripture in context?
Rom 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
Jacob = wheat, Esau = tares.
Re: Rom 3:23. Doesn't matter what you or I think it means....... If its subjectively interpreted in its immediate context, there will never be agreement nor will God's intended meaning be revealed. Its meaning can only be rightly discerned by bringing the light of the relevant prophets onto it..... in this case the book of Amos. Amos's prophecy and the letter to the Romans are linked together by timeline of fulfillment and they must be interpreted together.
John UK wrote: Bro Mike, I agree with what you say, and there is no gainsaying it. There appears to be seeming paradoxes concerning the issue, and most folks seem to come down on one side or the other.
No paradoxes, bro. Just not enough light being shown on the subject. I hate to see brothers floundering for lack of light.
Amo 9:10 All the sinners of my people shall die by the sword, which say, The evil shall not overtake nor prevent us.
This is who Paul was talking about when he wrote "All have sinned". Who, then, is "all" in Romans 3:23? In God's words "all the sinners of **my people**" aka all Israel.
Now take this back to Mark 14:24...... Who are the "many"? The remnant of Israel who always belonged to the Father and given to the Son of which He was to lose none? Yes. Not all of Israel is Israel.
Need a means to tie Amos 9:10 to the time of Paul's letter to the Romans?
Amo 9:11 **In that day** will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old:
Compare that to Acts 15:15-17 in context and the timeline is established.
Take this understanding to other texts which seem to teach universal atonement and they will become clear.
pennnned wrote: Paul Washer had shared with some what persecution would look like. Persecution will come with accusations of being h@ters because they did not conform to the evils of the world.
Another possible perspective..... The prophets make it clear that it is not the secular powers which persecute God's people by leading them into error but rather those who ruled over them from Jerusalem. Revelation 3:9 makes it clear that Jesus would make the religious leaders bend the knee to Him and to those He loved, at His coming, which they persecuted believing that in so doing they were doing service to God.
A history lesson of what may be coming in the form of persecution can be found in the English Reformation during the reigns of Henry VIII and bloody Queen Mary although I doubt anyone will be burned at the stake. Freedom of religious conscience was not allowed then and today it is willingly and ignorantly given over to teachers with itching ears. Whether forcibly or willingly...... the result is the same..... persecution. The old paths are destroyed.
Isaiah 3:12 O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.
s c wrote: This info is easy enough to find if one is not hard headed and wise in their own eyes. And,I would love to know where the pagans got the name "Easter" if not from its babylonian celebration. Please explain that.
Who cares where the pagans got the word Easter from. God authored the bible and He used the Greek word "pascha" 29 times in the NT including in Acts 12:4. For you to insist it means a pagan Babylonian celebration is to thumb your nose at what God inspired to be written.
And for what it's worth, the days of unleavened bread and the first Passover in Egypt was not a resurrection feast but a feast of sacrifice..... a prefigure of the Lord's table and His sacrifice on Calvary. So your assertion that Acts 12:4 refers to the resurrection of Tammuz is absurd.
You are the one who is hardheaded but you're too hardheaded to recognize it. Pity.
John UK wrote: If anyone else would care to pray for a successful outcome tomorrow, and that the Lord would do graciously in his maidservant's heart, and wipe away her tears, do please do so. Thanks in advance, as I know many on here are filled with love of the Holy Ghost and are true friends in Jesus.
"If you carefully had read what I had posted in regards to Jim's comment regarding fast food and exercise,you would have figured it out. Maybe you need to properly discern before you assume"
I know exactly what you said you thought he said. How was it of any interest to you unless you can't resist a chance to meddle? If you don't care enough for a disabled sister to bother to understand her lot in life... butt out.
"I wouldn't have an idea of Jessica's condition unless I would read through all of what has been posted,which I don't"
Says it all. But you could have an idea if you cared. Did you read the article I posted? Jessica posted that quite some time ago and I care enough for her that I saved it.
"And sweet as she may be she did misinterpret what Jim had posted in regards to his fast food comment"
Misrepresent as in lie? Couldn't even give her the benefit that she may have misunderstood in her despair?
"I was merely pointing that out. She was upset, partially, because she thought that he had recommended that she eat more fast food, not less."
Really? You know nothing about Jessica and yet you are an authority of what she thought?
s c wrote: I feel compassion for Jessica but I'm not seeing where Jim was so cold in his previous post.
You have an annoying habit of speaking of things you know little or nothing about.
Jim has been on this forum for more than 10 years, most likely from its founding about 13 years ago, and Jessica was a regular poster here as well for many years. Her history dates back to 7/10 and I know she posted some years before that.
There was absolutely no excuse for Jim not knowing that dear sister Jessica is incapable of physical exercise and he needs to apologize to her for being an insensitive jerk.
Educate yourselves, both Jim and sc, about one in our midst who needs our compassion, care and prayers.
Jessica Dawson wrote: Jim, you are truly a 'Job's friend' to me... Your thoughtless comment giving me advice brought me much hurt and anguish. I was too devastated to even respond until now.
Dear sister Jessica,
I seldom post any more but I still read the comments when time permits and want you to know that Jim, a news junkie of unimaginable proportions, can be an insensitive............. well, I'm not going to say it. The old saying goes..... 'when the mouth opens, the ears close' and that seems to describe Jim perfectly. I know having his post removed won't erase the hurt but I'm going to see to it.
Along with the others before me, I was grieved to witness the hurt Jim's thoughtless comment caused.
Keep posting, Jessica, knowing that you have brothers and sisters here who love, care and pray for you.
"And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it." 1 Cor 12:12-26
tb wrote: Lurker: Certainly the elitist attitude (as you say) is both ironic and reprehensible, but my biggest issue doctrinally is... TULIP I have absolutely nothing against Neo-gnostic/Calvinist/Fatalism doctrine EXCEPT THAT IT POISONS EVERYTHING, and it does that while attempting to honor God, but failing at that too. Other than that I'm OK with Calvinism.
Since I make no claim to be a Calvinist I'll leave the defense of TULIP to another.
. . .
Thanks for your kind remarks. As for me, I'll be going back into hibernation.