Dolores L wrote: I was on facebook and afew minutes ago a notice pops up saying, that the NSA had just that very moment intercepted a terrorist attack plot through their surveliance..makes it better for me to see it's really helping..I'm not worried for myself because I have nothing to hide..if it saves lives then it's ok with me but don't abuse it!
Good timing, what with the latest flap about secret surveillance, don't you think? Was any evidence provided you, or just the notice, which as you know, has no meaning by itself? Maybe it's a joke, as NSA going on Facebook, trying to convince us it's all good, doesn't seem too likely.
Bible Helps wrote: --- WCF 8/1. It pleased God, in his eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, his only-begotten Son, to be the Mediator between God and man, the Prophet, Priest, and King; the Head and Saviour of his Church, the Heir of all things, and Judge of the world; unto whom he did, from all eternity, give a people to be his seed, and to be by him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified. 2. The Son of God, the second person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance, and equal with the Father, did, when the fulness of time was come, take upon him man‚Äôs nature ....
The Son of God is God, and his mission, established before the incarnation, was voluntary. Does WCF think that one day the Father said to the Son, "Here's what I want you to do"?
John 10:17,18 "Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father."
From the news: "In a Statement of Administration Policy, the president called the ‚ÄúPain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act‚ÄĚ (H.R. 1797) ‚Äúan assault on a woman's right to choose‚ÄĚ and said it shows ‚Äúcontempt for...the Constitution.‚ÄĚ
If nothing else, he has gall. The man who more than most despises the Constitution, and bypasses it when he needs to get his way, says others have contempt for it? Amazing.
The right to choose murder does not exist anywhere, Mr. "President."
Jim Lincoln wrote: --- I would suggest that you look over this chart about murders committed by youth by country, Murders committed by youths (most recent) by country. The U.S. is ranked 3rd, way high on the list like most Catholic countries, oh Israel is #69 on the list. If you want to blame anything, blame the Romish Church, ---
Murder totals by country are rather meaningless statistics, for they are not related to population numbers.
But if you need be fond of your data interpretation, Romish Church connection you try to make is not there anyway. Consider Spain is ranked #34 with 94% RC, and the US is #3 with 24% RC. Russia is ranked #4, with 0.1% RC population.
Miss Alabama is wrong. No terrorists will be stopped by tracking her calls. NONE. What is so hard to understand about this? Not surprising you would vote for her, Jim.
btw, any president who diminishes who we are as Americans is wrong, and not to be trusted. It doesn't matter what party he belongs to. Republicans, being naturally dumb, institute things and don't consider possible consequences. Democrats, being naturally corrupt, expand the unintended consequences intentionally.
John Yurich USA wrote: If I refrain from participation in the unscriptural parts to the Mass then I am not giving credit and merit to the unscriptural parts to the Mass. I have never stated that one who is Born Again can attend a church that does not worship Jesus as God....or any other religous organization that does not worship Jesus as God. It would be wrong for one who is Born Again to attend a religous organization that does not worship Jesus as God. One who is Born Again should only attend a church that worships Jesus as God. And the Catholic Church has always worshipped Jesus as God.
This is what you are in effect saying, John:
"If I refrain from eating the leavened parts of the loaf, then I am not giving credit and merit to the leavened parts of the loaf. It would be wrong to attend a church where no loaf at all is served. A believer should only attend a church where the loaf is served. The Catholic church has always served the loaf."
1 Corinthians 5:6 "Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?"
You can't separate the loaf of the Mass into acceptable parts, John. You are playing dangerous games.
Driscoll is nothing but a shock jock! His interpretation of signs, is seeing people in visions doing sexual things. He is not a true reformer. With his heavy metal groups, tattoo parties at his church and drinking parties. He is what God calls us to watch out for in Timothy. He is of the world. Their is no call to holiness in his messages.Or his life. He is a new-Calvinist all the way.
wonderfulsalvation wrote: --- Mike Have you time to listen to the two sermons (free downloads) Regeneration - a New Disposition Volume 2 ‚ÄĒ #7901 The New Birth Volume 2 ‚ÄĒ #7902 Both are sound biblical exposition of Holy Scripture re: Regeneration and worth hearing. Would be interested at what you find amiss in either and trust they would be edifying ---
Thanks, I shall look into these.
CV wrote: --- Mike from New York Your convoluted logic only gets better with every post.
Thank you. Better is good. But if you have an actual complaint, be more specific
John UK wrote: --- I am getting to like John Gill's commentary more and more. He was pastor of the same church as Ingleesi 100 years previously.
Gill also believes faith is the effect of justification. You might have to do some winnowing.
Jim Lincoln wrote: --- Most of the crooks have been Republicans (Yes, there have been Demos like Jesse Jackson Jr., as the latest example). But if Republicans want to win elections, they're going to have to think about what Dole said, Dole to GOP: Get some new ideasOne novel idea for the GOP is honesty in politics. They could keep many of their old ideas and win, if they adopted this idea.
1) Dole's ideas cost him a presidential election. That's what moderate ideas do. He's hardly the source to go to for advice.
2) If "moderate" establishment Repubs want to continue losing, they should continue trying to imitate Democrats. They may be more interested in becoming even better crooks, Jim. Maybe learning from the experts is the reason.
Ignoring Scripture wrote: No amount of Scriptural proof will change John for Jesus' thinking. He is exercising his free to fulfill the follow passage (I Corinthians 14:38) "But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant"
J4J has no free will to exercise. Everybody knows that. He's merely doing what his form of predestination requires. We shouldn't be concerned, for is this not God's will for him? It is his destiny. We shouldn't be fighting God now, by arguing with J4J, should we? Follow "Ignoring Scripture"'s fine use of Scripture and let him be ignorant.
Tiswell wrote: Mike. Are you afraid of 'hate' being the alternative here? --- I can find 'hate' in Scripture many times in opposition with love. But guess what I cannot find 'indifferent' in Scripture. "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you." Jn 15:18 = Should this be 'indifferent' too? "He that hateth me hateth my Father also" Jn 15:23 = "indifference" again??? Love is a powerful emotion and Christian love is only from God. Hate is equally powerful and opposite love. Indifference is neither here nor there and is not the opposite to love.
I concede the point. But surely you know hate in Scripture can also mean to love less, or improperly, else contradiction be had. Compare Exodus 20:12 and Mark 7:10 with Proverbs 13:24 and Luke 14:26. The Bible does make use of hyperbole.
Jim Lincoln wrote: --- Link: "NSA director says surveillance programs thwarted ‚Äėdozens‚Äô of attacks"
Dozens, meaning two, one of which was the bombing in India which killed some 160. If this is thwarting an attack, maybe the surveillance programs should be reconsidered. I don't think monitoring of Jim's phone calls is helping a whole lot. But NSA has promised to release...something... alleged info formerly derived in secrecy, but now ok to give away so as to demonstrate trustworthyness.
From the link: "President Obama last week said he would welcome a public debate over the surveillance, saying Americans will have to sacrifice some privacy for the sake of security"
Doublespeak, as well as nonsense. What is there to debate if he has already decided what "Americans will have to sacrifice.." and why? How much we're willing to give up, if any, for so-called security is up to us, not the head of the executive branch. That isn't his decision. Nor Bush's, Jim. (I'm trying to save your knee. )
Tiswell wrote: No. Jesus states "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad" Matthew 12:30.
Good verse. However, the opposite of love is still not hate, but indifference. The verse does not challenge that. If anything, it confirms it. He who is indifferent to the Lord is against him. Consider his view on the lukewarm:
Revelation 3:16 "So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth."
reminder wrote: --- Just a reminder to John UK and Frank - pilgrims joined at the hip. Unscriptural amount of favouritism shown to each other on this site. Which MODERATOR is abuse. All Christians esp. moderators of sites should read 'The Subtle Power of Spiritual abuse" You two are classics.
You feel abused because John and Frank agree on some things? Interesting.
Curious wrote: The verse says the carnal mind is enmity not that this is how God views it whether it is or not!! And if we follow your ridiculous logic Romans 1.30 must be utter nonsense when it says that sinners are 'haters of God"!!
Not at all. Romans 1:30 refers to those who hold the truth in unrighteousness, (v18) who have been shown that which may be known of God,(v19) who are without excuse,(v20) who when they knew God, glorified him not,nor were thankful(v21) who did not like to retain God in their knowledge. (v28) Yes these surely do hate God.
Curious wrote: Romans 8.7 What does 'enmity' mean?
Hostility. The Lord hold all that are not subject to him as hostile. The issue is not whether he holds them hostile, but whether they hate him whom they cannot relate to being it requires spiritual discernment to discern spirit. One must be able to discern God, who is a Spirit, in order that he may care enough to hate him. From God's perspective he is at enmity already, but the man may not even believe there is a God. That makes him at enmity, but doesn't require him to hate that which he does not believe in. He may not believe in the devil either, but we wouldn't then conclude he must hate the devil.
Tiswell wrote: --- The opposite to this God given power of love is hate governed by sin in the mortal.
Tiswell, the opposite of love is not hate, but indifference.