Michael Hranek wrote: --- God gave (placed him) in circumstances where intially he was a zealous Catholic priest but also where He would be thoroughly brought into contact with Scriptures and that was the deciding factor, the word of God changed him I would consider if he were living today that ultimately No, he would not be ecumenical (imperfectly) that he would be outspoken that we must obey the word of God and not the traditions and teachings of man (again imperfectly but there) I also believe he would have a hard time of it (standing against the RCC and the ecumenical compromisers) because Satan has used prominent religious celebrities to blur the irreconciable differences between genuine Biblical Christianity and counterfeits of it
So we might then suppose that if Luther were to nail his 95 Theses today, he would have to first remove the things that are clear Catholicisms? Otherwise it seems he would surely be seen as a compromising and ecumenical religious celebrity. Interesting how we see him then as a man of God, but today the very same work would bring him a different label.
S.Taylor wrote: This is not a new revelation, this has been known for years. Schools that had the guts to establish a dress code saw an immediate improvement of not only their students' behavior but also their grades. We do our children a disfavor by letting them wear whatever they want. Clothing is tied closely to identity and strange as it may sound, in a sense we become what we dress like.
Then we have politicians and gangsters wearing suits, which doesn't seem to improve their behavior at all.
s c wrote: An "ethicist" who says "...it is ‚Äúreasonable‚ÄĚ for healthcare providers, insurance companies, and government programs such as Medicare or Medicaid to kill mentally disabled babies." -ethical murderer- an oxymoron The world is better off with the mentally disabled babies than one who makes such a statement in support of murder and yet disregards his,obviously,twisted faculties.
Indeed, the truly mentally disabled are those like this "ethicist." But he has the credentials recognized by other mentally disabled "ethicists," so he gets to jabber.
pennned wrote: they orchestrate these events off of a real problem in US, police brutality, which is a result of new training, which is NEW LAW! not constitutional indvl rhgts. but they reframe it as a racial issue using racial baiters like Sharpton who works for the feds? http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/04/30/sharpton-calls-for-doj-to-take-over-policing-going-to-have-to-fight-states-rights/ "Rev. Al Sharpton called for the Justice Department to 'take over policing in this country' and stated ‚Äúwe‚Äôre going to have to fight states‚Äô rights‚ÄĚ in comments recorded by the Baltimore Sun on Thursday." they set their goal which is a commnst takeover and then roll the events out as planned. centralize everything!
If police brutality is a problem in their own cities, imagine the brutality if the police depts were federal outsider run.
1984 wrote: --- This "subjection" does not exist in man in his natural estate. ONLY when God provides the gift of faith can man be subject to God. The idea that man can "decide" for Christ does not exist in the unsaved sinner. He is dead in sin. He cannot discern anything in the spiritual realm such as his need of salvation and a saviour. He is at enmity with God therefore will not obey or subject himself to anything of God.
When Jesus said to others, O ye of little faith, was he saying he didn't give them enough? When he said to Peter, O thou of little faith, was he apologizing for not giving him enough? When he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace, did he mean to say, the faith I gave you has saved thee? When he said to the blind man, Receive thy sight: thy faith hath saved thee, was it just a slip of the tongue?
John UK wrote: Hello bro. Yes I think there could be a compromise, if I said that I recognised SSM with my lips, but in my heart I denied it. It is always best for the tongue to relate perfectly with the heart, otherwise it makes one a double-tongued hypocrite.
Does this mean you would go along, or disobey? How about a practical example: If a homosexual couple asked you to do a painting of them getting married, would you do it or disobey the law?
1984 wrote: Mike. Can I invite you to listen to the first few minutes of this sermon on Armininism and how it took the side of Rome against Covenanters and Puritans. In doing so the Arminians martyred Christians. And in fact they quote a report against the famous Arminian Methodist John Wesley and his vicious attacks on A. Toplady - and more!!! Here it is;- Arminianism Another Gospel 1/2 - http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=106071354170 Perhaps then you will appreciate my position against the (dangerous) Arminian heresy. Thanks.
I have listened to the first 6 minutes, perhaps I will continue, or not. If I do, for your sake, not mine. I'm not Arminian, so it isn't an issue. Further, since you indicate great dismay at the demise of the churches, yet hearing what you have said previously, it brings up the question of why you are concerned for them? False churches don't need concern, for according to election theory, all will turn out precisely as was determined in the beginning. What difference does it make by which process the chaff is blown away? The point is the true church remains. That's good, right? You worry over that which according to your theological view, cannot matter.
John UK wrote: Galatians 5:15-18 KJV (15) But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another. (16) This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. (17) For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. (18) But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. It is good instruction. I am always led of the Spirit not to be involved with any ecumenical endeavour which includes non-Christians such as Roman Catholics, liberal churches, modernist churches, apostate churches, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Adventists, etc. etc. Therefore.... NO COMPROMISE!! And as always, I tell people..... Ye Must Be Born Again.
Bro, ok no compromise. What would that mean if you were an American having to deal with the ramifications of a Supreme Court decision that required recognition of "same-sex marriage" in all ways? Which would you do? Obey or disobey? Which would be compromise? There is no third way, either we go along, or we don't.
1984 wrote: Oh Mike? The visible church is being killed off as we speak. The Roman Catholic church is dead. The Anglican/Episcopalian church is dead. The Liberal church is dead. The Jehovah's Witnesses are dead - Who BTW are committed to the Arminian cause. The Arminian churches (all the above) are dead. All dead in sin. ---
So? Why all the concern for what you call the visible church? Doesn't TULIP take care of everything anyway?
1984 wrote: The Antichrist is said to be the Pope by the Reformed Church. One of the Antichrist's deceptions is salvation by works which has been adopted by the Arminians in the Protestant and semi-Protestant churches. Heresy will gradually kill the churches. indeed heresy "IS" killing many churches today. ---
So you think the true Church can be killed? Even by dreaded Arminians? The true Church is not killable. And when *the* Antichrist appears will the Reformed church even recognize him? Or will it continue looking for him to be a Pope?
SteveR wrote: 1) A strong dollar has a negative impact on exports, so we lose the multiplier effect of domestically produced goods in return for a one time benefit of cheaper imports 2) Without the increase of jobs in the domestic oil industry driven by high oil prices, we have a net LOSS of jobs with the current administration. Since many of our wells have $60+/bbl production costs, oil companies are shutting down rigs and laying off. This has a ripple effect in the service economy. imo- The govt wants a weak economy. A stronger economy with higher interest rates would make our 18 trillion in Debt impossible to service. We can barely make ends meet in a 2% US Bond world...we would BK at 5-7%
Too much missing the picture. A strong dollar is good for people who buy goods or services. It tends to lower the cost of imports. That's good for people who have modest income. Lower oil prices are also good for people who buy gasoline and heating fuel. If they are spending less for fuel, they have more disposable income available for other things. Why is this bad for the economy? If this is an economic stall, may we have more of it. Of course keep in mind that some people see "the economy" differently than they see your economy.