Observer wrote: --- ---------------- Mike NY Difference being that Romans didn't expect Judges to judge in matters of belief. Presbys and RCC do. Convenient that, eh when they're appointed to uphold their beliefs?
That's why the religious phrased it in terms to which Rome would be sympathetic.
Luke 23:2 "And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King."
SteveR wrote: --- In general, Reformers like Luther, Zwingli, Calvin , Rhegius, Osiander, Bucher, Bullinger, Bicknell and John Knox did not take vengeance into their own hands. They lawfully petitioned the magistrate to execute judgement on the evildoers. They would argue it was the anabaptists motivated by lust, greed, mayhem and a false sense they had divine authority for rebellion took violence into their own hands. ---
Reminds me of the religious who lawfully petitioned Pilate.
I take it you don't live in wrote: Wow a poster on SA has more information than the intel community, they should be consulting her before taking any action. She knows it just fake, amazing. I take it you don't live in El Paso either. And you are "named" poster????
The intel community? And one has to live in El Paso to know about what's going on around the border? Tell it to the state dept, or hs, or the white house.
Pen's right. But the timing is because an important election is nearing. Incumbents are in trouble.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Remember, Mike, I'm thoroughly against, The Christian Right Movementis a disaster for the mission of Christians! ' "The Reconstructionist movement and its allies and offshoots, by substituting political and cultural action for the proclamation of the Gospel, by substituting eschatology for soteriology, and by mangling the Gospel itself, have become tools of Romanist political action" (3/02, The Trinity Review).' excerpt from, Notes on Reconstructionism. Conservative Christians are overlooking The Inadequacy of Moralism and of political action. Dominion Theology/Kingdom Now/Reconstructionism is an anti-Biblical curse.
Whatever, Jim. I suppose there is something in these irrelevant links that has something to do with the goodness of Common Core, but only you have the deep insight to know what it is. btw what does it matter what you're thoroughly against, if what you're for is govt and corporate backed corruption?
I wonder why Nicodemus came to Christ, having not been born again, and therefore having no interest in the things of God, unable to see, and not wanting to, loving darkness rather than light, lover of sin rather than lover of God?
Governments are always offering up proposals of "balance" when they promote darkness and want to appear conciliatory toward those who oppose it. Obamacare continues to show its true colors. Maybe Jim will come along soon, and tell us why anyone should pay for anyone else's contraceptives. Better yet, offer up some small biblical support for government control of individual healthcare, which is the real issue, buried in the fight over contraception.
works dont work wrote: --- The elect do not get faith until AFTER they are born again. The ordo salutis is 1) election/predestination (in Christ), 2) Atonement 3) gospel call 4) inward call 5) regeneration, 6) conversion (faith & repentance), 7) justification, 8) sanctification, and 9) glorification. (Rom 8:29-30) ---
You really should stop promoting this stuff, works. Do you mind if I call you works?
Thanks for the link, Jim. Good for Bobby Jindal. At least one politician has seen the dawn.
PS I did view the video, the one where Jindal is for Common Core. Sure glad he woke up from the stupor. Maybe the rest will take a bit longer. Jeb Bush and Jim in the same pod? Who would ever have thought Jim would support a Bush?
Observer wrote: How are sinners supposed to repent of something they don't feel bad about? And since we all have different sensitivities the convicting work of the Spirit of God will differ from person to person, even in the case of those who are converted. In their case sufficient to bring them to a sense of their need to turn from sin to the Savior. The focus is not on the level of conviction, just a plain statement of fact that each will be thoroughly convicted of the evil of sin, whatever level may be appropriate to them. The evil we face with easy believism, besides other things, is that there is no insistence on a thorough going work of conviction by the Spirit. Any such work is stifled by the need of a premature decision based on a false appeal not an exercise of faith born of true conviction of sin. ---
Agreed, Observer, there are differing levels of conviction, as everyone has different sensitivities, as you say. I was just questioning why Pink did establish the level of self loathing as the level required for Christ to be a Savior to them, and "a Savior to no others.", though it be subjectively assumed, thus not biblical. As I wondered before, where are we told to feel real bad so we can be saved?
ladybug wrote: From A.W. Pink, "Christ's salvation is a salvation from sinâ€”from the love of it, from its dominion, from its guilt and penalty. The very first thing said of Him in the New Testament isâ€”"You shall call His name Jesusâ€”for He shall save His people...[not "from the wrath to come," but] from their sins" (Matthew 1:21). Christ is a Savior for those realizing something of the exceeding sinfulness of sin, who feel the awful burden of it on their conscience, who loathe themselves for it, and who long to be freed from its terrible dominion. He is a Savior for no others. Were He to "save from hell" those still in love with sin, He would be a minister of sin, condoning their wickedness and siding with them against God. What an unspeakably horrible and blasphemous thing, with which to charge the Holy One!" ---
Mr. Pink brings up a question. How bad must one therefore feel about their sins in order to feel bad enough to be saved from them? "Feel the awful burden," "loathe themselves for it," are fairly subjective requirements. The question "What must I do to be saved?" was never answered "Loathe yourself sufficiently, and you will be saved" That sounds more like a form of self salvation.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Marty, it has to do with the fact when Baby-face Bush was President, and people who felt they had the right to complain about a rotten President refused to do so! Now that's what I'm pointing out. ---
If that's a complaint, then I must remind you that you have said it is wrong to complain about a sitting president. Or does that only apply to the present one?
pennned wrote: Mike, do you seriously think when they send see I A to turkey border and arm these guys, send them in as a faction against assd, and debate it as an agenda at congress, while mac cain goes to Syria and does photo shoots with them and calls them "freedom fighters" while the press plays calls for wore everyday on the news against assd...... that that is just sweet well wishing liberals who don't know better? the answers are staring you right in the face and you don't want to see it.
Well wishing doesn't include manipulation of circumstances and events, so no, I don't see liberals as sweet well wishers. I also don't see them or their neocon friends smart enough to con the world with some vast conspiracy to take over. They're doing what their fallen natures require of them, why give them credit for such deep intelligence? They are run of the mill wacko lusters for power, and seeing their name in print, saving the world for democracy, etc.
Supposing all you say is true? The base cause of it still remains the sin nature. It doesn't really matter what path they take, it's the wrong one, and results in chaos. This will continue until then Lord says "No More!"
pennnned wrote: I know I'm a broken record around here. Mike, if the US strong arm pays jihadists in Syria how would they be on opposite sides?
It happens because the govt tries to manipulate outcomes by "helping" those who are perceived at the time to be less of a problem than those they fight against. It was once thought Russia was the baddest in Afghan, so the nut case al qaeda was helped. Wrong again. Stupidity seems to run rampant at the highest level. I don't think it on purpose, I think it the result of unbelievers running things. They do not get it that there is the fallen nature, thus they think man can be improved in his thinking by arms, food, meds alone, and not take into account basic worldviews and religious foundations. Which is also why they never learn from previous failures from doing the same thing. Doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results...?
Jim Lincoln wrote: --- I also have nothing against Protestant, Christian schools! Of course parochia schools are inspired by the devil and I wouldn't support any sort of voucher program. you and Mike shouldn't even be interested and common core. I just wanted to see that the majority of children who come from secular household get the best education. And the more they contribute to the economic system of the United States the better it is for everyone. As I've always said also parents who homeschool, can choose some, none, are most of the common core curriculum if they decide to do that. They can skip the non-Christian parts of it. the John Birch Society has always had an unhealthy interest in education. it is a radicalorganization that I have no use for.
You're the only one keeps bringing up the John Birch Society in this thread, Jim. Need an imaginary enemy? Common Core needs a lot more than that, so keep trying.
fyi, the purpose of education here is not to contribute to the economic system of the US. That comes as a result of educating the students to the the best of their individual ability and capability, not to make them have the same "standard" outcome with every other child. You want automatons? Move to North Korea.
"State Dept Rejects ISILâ€™s Claim It Is At War With America"
This State Dept is as confused as ever. The group at war says who they are at war with, and State says no they aren't. Isn't this the same outfit that said, as part of administration excuse-making, that the attack on the mission in Benghazi was a spontaneous reaction to a video? And kept saying it until it became ridiculous to do so?