John UK wrote: I wouldn't want to make money out of religion, Frank. As for SC, I don't think she knows what she's arguing for or why. And now MS has gotten involved without knowing why, and there will shortly be other women all joining in, just to have a big argument, which women love having. The point doesn't matter, so long as they are all together having a go at it. Ask SC what her problem is, and I doubt she'll know herself. Ladybug may soon turn up, and then Dorcas will chime in. It's the womens' clique. They can't help it, that's just how they are. I put it down to that modern way of thinking - feminism. But it ain't Christian, whatever you call it. I'm off to church now, and what a relief that will be, because we try to go by the Bible and women have to remain silent in the church. There will be a brother teaching, a brother praying, and the sisters will behave like sisters. All to God's glory, that he has formed us into properly behaving men and women.
Sir, This is a news feed comment section...not a local assembly. You are not a SA mod.so your rant concerning ladies posting is diatribe. But no worries, when I see your name I will move on and let you pontificate to your hearts content.
Frank wrote: Well, I have never read an email with so many rabbit trails! I donâ€™t like Christ being depicted by any art work and when I see something like that I always have negative thoughts. You extended SCâ€™s thoughts to areas that she didnâ€™t go nor were implied. Rabbit trails! And how do you know what is in her heart?
I agree Frank. All and every part of God's instituted worship and ministering the gospel depends upon His sovereign will and pleasure.So that no man can appoint any part of it, but GOD ALONE, forasmuch as no man knows what will be acceptable to God, but God Himself. That, which is highly esteemed among men, is an abomination to God. When men invent new 'methods' of evangelizing, worshipping, etc., that is not appointed in Scripture soon the church is awash in superstition and idolatry that can rival the filth of the papists.
Mourner wrote: Appreciated your thoughts here. Clearly stated. From your last two paragraphs ...'pictorial language might have a place, though not foundational.' Whereas Ephes.4;12-16 states God has given pastor/teachers to accomplish his ends. Act 6:4 But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.
I also appreciated B. McC. and your comments mourner. Well stated.
B. McCausland wrote: While in agreement with your perspective, it should be considered that 'personal experiences' should not be *intrinsically* a means for teaching truth, as subjectivity may enter in. The Word is the only means for teaching. Please, do not take offence to this remark, because while understanding where you are coming from, the observation is brought up for the good of the casual reader who may be prone to misconception. Take care
I believe B. we are a minority on this particular thread who see it that way. May the Lord deliver His people from the influence of gross delusion, and carnal rubbish, and may our only rule be how we may glorify and enjoy God.
SC, I here you and agree. It seems to be human nature to want to make some representation of God that can be seen and admired; all idolaters do this. Having grown up in an RC household to this day I still see images in my minds eye of a long haired blue-eyed man pointing to his heart with little flames coming out of it..everyone crossed themselves or bowed their head while passing by it...rank idolatry! But you I'll never convince them of that... ---- We would do well to remember the admonition of Acts 15:20 "but that we write unto them they abstain from pollutions of idols"...,
Mourner wrote: biblehub.com MS, When I put in the link it was the first thing I saw. Many times I hit the Foxfire picture of a book to removed all the distracting pictures, and ads so I can concentrate to read. I didn't because I wasn't expecting it. Maybe it was an advertisement? it was about evangelism so I thought it part of the site.
I use a tablet not a PC. Must be different on yours as I have never encountered what you saw...I use the site for commentary purposes have never looked around it to much, but thanks for the heads up.
John UK wrote: Well if the Bible teaches the doctrine of original sin, I don't see any problem with applying that to other portions of the Bible. It makes perfect sense to me. We do that with other doctrines. Sure we do. We take Abraham's seed to be Christ (rightly so, that is sound NT doctrine) and apply that to Genesis 17 to get it straight on who really was Abraham's seed - his offspring, or Christ. BTW, I've never come across any Christian church which denied the doctrine of original or imputed sin from Adam. Seeing as you deny both, surely you know of one or two churches, somewhere in the world, that holds the same as you. Seriously, bro, it's only a question, not having a dig.
Concerning your last comment. Right here on SA. Jeff Trout..Family Bible 'Church' Bad Doctrine in the Church Read some of the PDF that are available...unbelievable!
Christopher, If you are looking for George Hutcheson as Mourner suggested, many of his works can be found on biblehub.com. --- Mourner, Appreciated your thoughts on 2 Kings 17. This chapter always brings to mind the papists, who claim to know God, fear Him only because of punishment, and continue on in rank idolatry...
Mourner, Indeed a privilege to corporately worship with no idolatrous images. When one has come out from Romanism, visible images are quite abhorrent. Quite a challenge when you visit RC family and have to endure it plastered everywhere in their home..
Romans 14:5 is not your 'prooftext' for celebrating popish festivals. Let's keep it in context, Paul was speaking about Jewish Holy Days that were instituted by Jehovah, not a pagan heathenistic ritual pretending to be the 'birth' date of the Eternal Son of God. "Pollute ye my Holy Name no more with your gifts, and your idols".(Ezekiel 20:39)