Let me preface this by saying that I'm a Catholic, and I have absolutely no problems with this whatsoever. Letting a non-Christian into a Church isn't a bad thing, nor is letting someone pray in a non-Christian way a terrible thing, either. As long as these people don't change the way that actual Christians pray in a church, what's the big deal? After all, Christ came for all mankind, not just for Christians. And who knows, someone who might be on the fence about Christianity might end up converting after seeing how we Christians react when they set foot in a Church, how welcoming and happy we are.
Family Radio taught Hyper-Calvinism It's important to understand that Family Radio's gospel was what is known as Hyper-Calvinism. Family Radio did not bring a call to "come" unto Christ for salvation. Rather, the call was to keep begging "God" for mercy, and maybe He will save you someday, unbeknownst to you, apart from exercising faith in Christ for salvation. What was preached was basically a non-gospel. There was no call to "come" like we see that the Spirit and bride brings, in Revelation 22:17. No call to "believe..." like we see given to the jailer in Acts 16:31. Family Radio's gospel was a gospel of death unto death. There was no preaching the way of salvation, as Family Radio's view of God's sovereignty completely excluded man's responsibility to believe on Christ for salvation. If Family Radio ever did bring a call to "come" unto Christ for salvation, it was before i started listening in the late 1980's. There was no call to specifically "come" unto Christ...believe on Him for salvation.
Great Sermon! I am sorry but the Word of God will always be offensive to man and his nature. We must be very careful, in this day and age not to become fearful of those who are spiritually blind. It is very difficult to see things today through Christ's eyes because of how far our society has fallen, but we must stand strong and continue preaching the Word until we simply cannot any longer. But we cannot let them silence us.
Great Sermon! Am i wrong to say i was not bothered by his initial sermon? Are we not allowed to preach to our own congregation without fear of reproach by those looking to harm us. Christ came to divide, offense occurs because christianity is Very offensive to the nature of man. We have to be very careful that we dont become fearful of offense, comprimising the word of God. But, how do you possibly explain to people something they are spritually blind to? You cannot. So, we cannot cowtow to those who are offended. Again, am I wrong?
DAN wrote: "Liberty University, a bastion of evangelical Christians founded by the late televangelist Jerry Falwell." Oh, the power of the media, lies and lies, what do you expect from this University, Romney who believes with all his heart, mind, and money that their jesus is brother to satan, will make a speech...
Romney is speaking as a politician.
There is a far bigger problem with what passes for christianity within Liberty University!
Who cares? Its only facebook. Its not like they have stormed a church and took down the church's signage or something. You can't seriously think that God would care that a facebook group was hacked? Neither should we. There are more important things.
This sermon was....... It really did bring a whole new meaning to the word "humility". The movie that we were watching in the youth group "The gospel of John" helped a little bit with sermon. But when you broke it down it really showed the significance of not just feet washing but also forgiveness, Jesus said "Forgive one another, as I have forgiven you." And I took that passage as "oh yeah well thats obvious, of course" but it didn't just stop there.
Even though Judas sold out Jesus for 30 pieces of silver and Peter denied Jesus three times in the same night that He got arrested, Jesus still humbled Himself and washed his disciples feet washing off the filth of their feet and washing them clean (showing forgiveness). I was having a hard time forgiving some people and also humbling myself to athority and the sermon shows that it is what I HAVE to, its not an option. You were talking about how the disciples wanted to be the closest to Jesus, like who was the "best" disciples. And that's where I also fell. I wanted so bad to be the "best" christian that I stopped thinking about Christ and started thinking of self and how I could make myself better. Feel free to correct me where I was wrong.
God Bless, Give me a call anytime.
My first statement that you reference was poorly worded and an ineffective argument. You said that you have done no investigation before stating that there are no scientific facts. What do you know of these "formally fallacious methods?" The existence of stars, fossils, etc are facts that need no interpretation. How these things came to be is subject to interpretation. You formed your definition of scientific facts (hypotheses about nature ostensibly confirmed by experimental methods)to fit your argument. I prefer the more impartial: "In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation; in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts" Would you care to comment on Webster's definition of logic? "(1): a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration: the science of the formal principles of reasoning" Is it logical to say that there are no scientific facts bearing in mind the definition of logic? How and (more importantly) why did you arrive at this conclusion? I have to go back to work tomorrow and may not get back with you for some time, but look forward to your response. Thanks for the discussion.
Having the ability to use your vocabulary effectively is great evidence for intelligence.
All pleasantries aside, we are clouding the issue with extraneous information. My contention is that you cannot logically make the statement that you did.
Saying that there are no scientific facts is a scientific statement and carries with it the presupposition that you KNOW someting of science. Because the statement is absolute, it implies that you know everything.
As the arguement goes: Even if you only knew half of everything scientific, wouldn't it be possible that there are facts in the other half? You can't be entirely serious about your arguement. I'll ask my question with a little more clarification.
Is it a scientific fact that there are no scientific facts?
It is true that the interpretation of scientific facts can often be incorrect.
Neil wrote: Critics of Darwinism need to drop the useless pejorative "elitist." That term of abuse probably got popularized by Jacobins, Marxists, or Progressives, but serves no useful purpose in this debate. Illogical reasoning, not the existence of academic elites, is the problem. The term is also popular among critics of Calvinism. And even Stein needs to understand that there are no scientific facts. True science is an oxymoron.
You speak of illogical reasoning. Exactly what would you need to know to say: "There are no scientific facts." Logically, you would have to know literally everything.
Science deals with knowledge and can be defined as knowledge.
It surprises me that someone with the intelect to use words like "pejorative" would make such an obtuse comment, so I'll ask the obvious question.
Is it a fact that there are no scientific facts? Think about it...
Great Sermon! As an ex catholic and previous despiser of Ian Paisley I have to say he is absolutely right. Once God opened my eyes to the truth about the catholic church I see it as so necessary to expose their dark deeds and point out to dear people that Rome is the wrong way and also the Mystery Babylon spoken of in Revelation 17. I understand now why Dr Paisley was so caricatured in the press as his stance is against the luciferian one world government/one world religion plan.Let us take courage and stand for truth.