JuneAnnette wrote: Peter was no pope. Peter was an Apostle. The pope is persona non-grata with true Christians. The Reformers boldly affirmed that the Lord Jesus Christ is the church's true and living head . . â€śThere is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the pope of Rome in any sense be the head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God.â€ť â€śFor the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church, and he is the saviour of the body.â€ť (Eph. 5:23) Standing with the Reformers for Christ and against POPERY! JA
Hi Dolores, So sorry concerning your little furry companion. We had to put down two of our furry friends, one was 15 the other 14 years old and my husband said it was one of the hardest things he has ever done, so our thoughts are with you. So glad that you are on the grace gems site.I have been greatly blessed over the years by the writings of so many of the dear saints of past times. J.C. Philpot is a favourite of mine. Blessings to you and yours. MS
Louise wrote: Every time I see this man's face all I can think is John 8:44 "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." He has been on a relentless mission to wage war on God and God's people. His whole corrupt presidency cannot end soon enough.
Disease called liberalism wrote: No matter how much we insist, along with scripture, that holiness is a matter of the heart, the pharisees want to make it prescriptive in terms of the outward observance. Which is why we even have legalist churches that prescribe the length of dress that women are to wear, what sort of fashion and fabric they may wear etc. It's absurd that the same women who claim to allow the Holy Spirit to guide are the ones that insist we should prescribe a list of what should and what should not be allowed because of their personal skewed views.
Frank wrote: Well Chris, since the topic of immodesty has come up ad-infinitum with no resolution, let me change the narrative slightly. I wonâ€™t call SC or BM Pharisees, but I will say they are evangelical feminists whose goal is to teach men. I have often learned from women posting on this forum, but those whose â€śgoal or purposeâ€ť it is to teach me or any other male, have stepped over the line and I simply put them on ignore. They like verse 9, not 12 1 Timothy 2:9, Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, 10 but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. 11 A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.
I am not receiving the grace gem daily devotional in my in-box, even though I had an email confirming that I was subscribed to grace gems. Anyone else having this issue? Have checked all my folders, spam, etc...nothing.
It is indeed as Connor and US stated...a heart issue. I have been around professing Christian women who are dressed in shapeless denim skirts touching the ground, who pride themselves that they are not like others, but seem void of a work of grace in their hearts. It's all about the outside of the cup...sad.
Ignominious Emirakan wrote: A "bicycle built for two" Sung of Daisy(girl not flower) If a dumb engineer Let Both peddlers steer Well,the bike's navigation would sour! 2 can't "lead" one way Back and forth it'd sway And that bad design glitch It'd crash in a ditch And there the dumb drivers would lay. Daisy Daisy give me your answer true! I'm half crazy all for a mate like you! It won't be a "Zale"ish marriage Because we both disparage A "non-help meet mate" So We'll buy rings on a date At a store that has our worldview.
connor wrote: s c my problem is that you and B.Mc are so concerned about modesty that I fear you forget that the greatest commandment is to love the Lord with all your heart, soul, mind and strength. And I don't overlook immodesty, being immodest is a sin, you should consult the word of God with what you wear. And can you define what you mean by "highest standard of modesty by God's Word"
Good afternoon Connor, You ask very thought provoking questions ... Hope you are having a blessed day in the Lord.
B. McCausland wrote: It has been often the case that those 'policing' this forum along their personal preferment, not only are bias, and guilty of intolerance, but also, with their antics, derision, bulling, defamation and insults, are often responsible for driving away from this Forum people of value.
I totally agree with you on this regarding the resident romanist sympathizing pest. Great insight, btw.
connor wrote: MS wrote, " BMc, Your continual 'correction' of Connor. "Be not righteous over much; neither make thyself over wise"...Eccle.7:16." Thank you for defending me, I would put the quote but I might run out of room, I like that quote and ladybug I like that Matthew Henry commentary on the verse I'll have to save that one. BMC what I was saying is that a Christian can dress perfectly modest and be worse than a Christian who isn't as modest, our first Christian (the super modest one) can be a whore in his/her heart having eyes full of adultery (watching pornography or just lusting after people) and not really spending all his/her time seeking God because he/her is seeking something else. And the second Christian who isn't as modest can have clean eyes, and seek to fear God. Out of the heart comes blasphemy, adultery, lies, covetousness, and if you don't pray for said people who you think are in serious error, you might not care as much as you think.
Your welcome. I enjoy reading your posts. You are a breath of fresh air on this forum. God Bless you and lead you Connor. MS.
B. McCausland wrote: Sorry, MS "Open rebuke is better than secret love" Scripture says It is a fact that excessive 'correction' on topics as free will, abortion, politics, feminism and the Papacy for instance, can go on and on here in an endless trail of contention between participants, but yet other opinions, trends of thought, or observations are resented and not respected, or tolerated. Are you not partial? You are free to present your take on the topics if you wish, while not denying others their chance. It has been often the case that those 'policing' this forum along their personal preferment, not only are bias, and guilty of intolerance, but also, with their antics, derision, bulling, defamation and insults, are often responsible for driving away from this Forum people of value, therefore making this Forum totally monochrome. "The discretion of a man defers his anger; and it is his glory to pass over a transgression" Pr 19:11 ____ Alrighty then. feel better?