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?
Jim Lincoln wrote: http://www.businessforcore.org/videos/ (U.S. Chamber of Commerce YouTube Videos Supporting Common Core) . if you are using a tablet or phone, the browser you use maybe rather fussy with these videos. it's interesting to see the politicians who have turned tail, on this topic butignorance as the upper hand, when the Tea Party, John Birch Society, and the Koch brothers are involved. the first video that comes up I think really covers the needs of common core. You are going to have a uniformed educational program because businesses will demand it. So, if your children want to have, they had better see what businesses want which will be based on common core
Education isn't primarily about training for the workforce, but the mindset that thinks it is explains why the Chamber is for it. They, like government, love the idea of mindless automatons fitted into the machinery, unable to do much else because they have been so fitted. Corporate greed is one reason behind the push for common core, which should be obvious.
MS wrote: There is no "right"solution for Christopher to be found on a news forum board. Prayer to God by him and his brothers and sisters in Christ is the biblical way. I agree with Observer this is not a matter for a public forum debate. This is not God honoring for Christopher or his wife to be discussed like one of Sermon Audio's news clips. Do hope that Christopher will contact one of his brothers in Christ by private mail. If s c is female, she is way out of bounds in giving marital advice to a man.
If there is no "right" solution to be found on a news forum board, perhaps we might consider taking a radical position, and allow Christopher to decide what he is willing to discuss openly, rather than deciding it for him.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Mike, they use different names because as the article that SA put up itself, people wanted common core, they just wanted it under a different namebeing the United States of America, the citizens want a united standard. I don't think any commentary I put up on common core was gushing over it except for they United States Chamber of Commerce videos. this article controversies in the common core program,ballotpedia.org/Understanding_%22Common_Core%22:_Standards_and_Backlash> (Understanding "Common Core": Standards and Backlash)some of the r the kiddies weren't that brilliant--and neither were some of their teachers. colleges and businesses are just getting fed up with getting ignoramuses who should have been educated properly through the years, and it isn't something they are supposed to give remedial education.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Hello sc, hope all is well. Proverbs 25:28 He that hath no rule over his own spirit is like a city that is broken down, and without walls So, yes boundaries are important. But the Biblical principle for winning the lost spouse is one of living the right kind of life in front them not demanding they live it for you. The article you referenced does not in any way address what Christopher has posted. I agree with Watermelon your examples are not in the same ball park as what our dear brother referenced. Things don't always fit into neat little packages with abc solutions. Your emphasis might work for you but not fit another. Your boundary was for Christopher to tell his wife to stop watching whatever show it was. So, the question is, stop watching the show or what? The article clearly teaches that boundary violations have to have consequences. What consequences do you suggest Christopher have for his wife if she ignores (as he implies she would) his boundary?
Thanks, US for bringing the discussion back to Christoper's situation. May it stick.
The pres did say a lot of right words. A shame he had to read the part where he stated he spoke to the Foleys earlier and expressed how we all were heartbroken at their loss. Seems like if something was actually heartfelt it shouldn't need be read from a script.