Lurker wrote: --- What is missing from this line of reasoning is that God turns the hearts of kings and rulers to accomplish His will in His time. It matters not a whit who sits in the oval office..... God's will shall be done.
Unless we see that it is God's ultimate purposes that will not be thwarted, we might conclude there should be no complaint over the antics of the present prez, nor of any leaders anywhere doing whatever is done by them.
Fosdyke Wallingford wrote: --- God's (Total) Sovereignty will always be contemporary and extant. WCF3/1. God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;a yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin,b nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.c a. Rom 9:15, 18; 11:33; Eph 1:11; Heb 6:17. â€¢ b. James 1:13, 17; 1 John 1:5. â€¢ c. Prov 16:33; Mat 17:12; John 19:11; Acts 2:23; 4:27-28.
None of the verses support the contradiction built into WCF3/1
sf from TX wrote: Mike your testimony brought Matthew 10:37 to mind. Very encouraging to read of your trip out of Rome despite how hard it was. And so glad your relationship wasn't ruined with your dad. God is gracious to us when we obey Him. Will add your dad to my prayers.
I thank you for your kind words, sf. But pray not for my Dad, he has passed on.
John UK wrote: Mike, it is always wonderful to read testimony of God's quiet grace in the heart, especially that grace prior to conversion. It must have been quite an upheaval for you at the time, with all that pressure on you to remain in the RCC. I don't think many of know just how difficult it must be to just walk away and never go back, especially if you were bombarded with the "iron grip" teachings of "depart the church - depart from Christ".
Thanks, bro John. The worst part was the hurt it brought my Dad, perhaps the kindest, hardest working, most honest man I ever knew, and a rock in my growing up years. We talked about it, and I think it was because he had integrity, that the bond we had never got broken.
When God's wrath comes to the Earth, it won't be that which we think of presently as God's wrath on this country. If this is God's wrath, there are multitudes who haven't noticed. They're still eating and drinking and facebooking. His wrath won't be a fuzzy theological position, but an actual physical happening, as when the cup was filled long ago:
Matthew 24:38,39 "For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be."
nothin is free wrote: 1)So God wasn't involved? 2)Does that mean you were guided by sin to make this decision?
1)God was certainly involved. I didn't know it at the time. It's called grace, the early work of the Holy Spirit. The decision to eventually leave the RCC was mine to make or not, and there was much pressure to stay. We could get into the misconception of either/or again, but there would be no point.
2) Sorry, this statement makes no sense, as it implies every decision made by those not reborn must be sinful.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Good brother Frank, another gem of great wisdom from you. We have shown Jim that in a survey of woman who chose to kill their babies one of the reasons given that DID NOT make the list was it was due to lack of healthcare or paid maternity leave. https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf But the facts don't seem to matter.
s c wrote: Mike,listen to one of the pastors on SA address it. ...not trying to gossip just to explain why Phil Robertson is not a good endorsement for anything Christian. Saying things like "what the f ",sexual innuendo,hanging out at bars,and having women wear short shorts,etc. would not be examples of Christian behavior.
Have watched the show many times. I must have missed the episodes to which you refer.
Frank wrote: Actually, even though I attended the RCC throughout my childhood, I wasn't baptized and confirmed until the age of 14. I was given a baptismal name confirmation name at that time. But, after entering into a real discussion with a real catholic apologist, he informed me that I had "excommunicated" myself. He said, you truly understand catholicism and still reject it, so you are excommunicated. THANK GOD. ---
I didn't get excommunicated, I used that pesky free will and left voluntarily.
sc wrote: Phil advocates lewd behavior and teaches heretical baptismal regeneration. A carnal Christian is never a good endorsement against sin.
Robertson advocates lewd behavior? You know this how? Have you seen or heard him do this yourself, or is this a form of gossip disguised as righteousness?
Jim Lincoln wrote: Rodney K., excellent job in looking up Phil Johnson's religious beliefs. Yes, they do believe physical water baptism is necessary for a person to be saved, a work's salvation, q.v., Martin Luther's Sacramental Gospel Politically, I won't hold that against him, but after reading the article and Mr. Johnson's idea that the Canadian Cruz can do anything about queer unions is complete nonsense. Queer unions now can only now be stopped by a change in the U.S. Constitution. Mr. Johnson or Cruz don't seem to understand (The Deadly Dangers of Moralism)
At least try to rightly identify the ones you wish to cause people to doubt, Jim.
PS, the Constitution was denied when the Supreme Court changed the definition of marriage. No constitutional authority to do that whatsoever, so no, it doesn't need to be changed, just followed by the Congress to nullify the decree.
John UK wrote: If I prophesied that we are going to get this sort of news item most every day for the next several months would that make me a true prophet?
Sure enough, bro! But if you were to prophecy that the content is necessarily and fully true, you'd have to be a false prophet. A thing to remember in this particular story is that it originated with CNN, fondly called by some the Clinton News Network. Cruz would have taken Iowa anyway. If Carson lost some votes due to the false idea that he was leaving, it wasn't much; he still got the percentage expected.
just wondering wrote: appreciate the link, thus it is good not to follow his doctrinal teachings. Probably he has other issues when you think of the entertainment business, still doesn't explain the sc comment about sexual immorality, especially when the thumbnail bio has him speaking against it. Just wondering
Doesn't matter. If one doesn't meet 100% of the requirements of the religious correctness check off list, he's put on the undesirables list. And from what we see on SA, it gets longer day by day.
perforce wrote: That's free will for you Mike. Some people actually believe that it can influence religion too???
I'm sorry to bring this news to you, but what people do matters. Why do you think God disciplines his own, and punishes people for what they do or don't do? God will certainly not be thwarted by men, his plan will not be modified by men, but that is hardly a reason or excuse to twiddle thumbs and wait to see what will happen, while being certain that nothing you do matters anyway. Apparently fatalism wears more than one face, but all the faces are blank.
John UK wrote: --- It would be right handy to know what Ted Cruz's theology actually is.
It doesn't matter what it is, it wouldn't be to the standards assumed by certain Christians for them to get off their duffs and vote. Besides, if they vegetate as in 2008 and 2012, and Hillary gets elected, they can always comfort themselves by saying God put her there.
aint we be saying wrote: he isn't running for pastor but political office? Jimbo didn't care about Obama's religious views and affiliations.
Whether or not someone's religious views matter depends on whether you support them or not. The president of Liberty University is supporting Trump, so to him, Trump's religious views don't matter. The old song about not electing a chief pastor is brought up when the one you want has weak or non-Christian beliefs. Except for the ones who insist the candidate should be a 5 point Christian, in which case they won't vote at all. Or in Jim's worldview, the candidate shouldn't be Christian, for Christians shouldn't be involved in politics. I guess Christians are as confused as the secular world.