Because John's response changed what my next post was going to be I ask his forbearance for a later response.
To clarify, I trust that all would realize I was trying to throw a little humor into the thread.
I hope Frank, MS and ladybug in particular would realize how I thank the Lord for His grace that has produced in them a godly character and wisdom that I admire and even desire to emulate and that I would not want it thought that I spoke disparagingly of them in anyway as they are dear to my heart. I count it a privilege to have them and others here as my brothers and sisters in Christ as fellow warriors and strangers and pilgrims in this world.
May all of us be a testimony to the great grace of God and bless His holy name for such undeserved mercy. God bless.
p.s. just saw your post Brother Christopher, want you to know you are definitely a brother beloved and all your posts are greatly appreciated
John, will say more later on a more serious note later, the good Lord willing.
Even the meeting you describe has to have order. We come in and and Dave and Christopher are debating the good, bad, and ugly of vegemite. Brother Rodney is telling about his latest skeeter adventure and SC's word of exhortation is always about cheerleaders and football. Meanwhile B. McCausland is trying to explain to her what Americans call football isn't right, but alas it goes over her head. Brother Lurker and yourself are constantly saying opposite things on the doctrine of original sin and nobody is quite sure what Ignominious Emirakan is trying to say. In the mean while John Yurich is is testifying in favor of the RCC and others are pushing the greatness of the WCF. I am sitting there puzzled as to why anybody would choose wicked Haman from the book of Esther as their moniker. Jim from Lincoln is pushing his liberal agenda (but no one is listening) and MS, ladybug, and Frank left after one meeting telling themselves once again it was confirmed it is just better to stay home than to attend church.
There is no distinction for any believers as to the pursuit of holiness, the need to love God supremely, obey Him implicityly, and serve Him unreservedly.
One also must remember that our Lord said His leaders in the work were to be servants even as the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto but to minister.
You assume that because there was exhortation amongst believers in the church that there was not an elder who also delivered what we term a sermon. We know that Paul, Silas, Apollo and Timothy were the main church leaders in Corinth for the span of a year and a half. We know that Paul and Barnabas were the main ministers in Antioch for a number of years. We know James headed up the church at Jerusalem, we know that Timothy was the leader of the church at Ephesus.
Not necessarily trying to get a discussion on proper church government (you are more than welcome to go there if you wish), just stating in the positive that there is a difference between church leaders and the vast majority of the congregation that gathers. That that group all have responsibilities as members one of another as a local body of believers to perform by the grace of God and for His glory the work God requires of them to do.
Sister BMac, will read your post and respond later
penned wrote: 501c3s are incorporations of the state. the free church is another matter, the headship belongs to Christ there. this isn't going to be pretty. 501c3s are holding on to their status as is for as long as they can. and will have to not make waves as lgbt/sharia replaces Christian influenced law... and ostriches are not aware of the times... because their head is in the sand... what's an ostrich? one who hasn't a clue. because the sun already went down, but to them the sun is still in the sky because when they put their head in the ground the sun was in the sky. but when one's job depends on believing the sun is still in the sky even though it is midnight, one must keep their head in the sand. hence the ostrich is a good role model for those who must remain married to the dismantlers of human decency to institute a new order, for to be sly as a snake and innocent as a dove, one must see that the sun has gone down.
Just to let you know, there are no 501c3 churches in the U.K.
James reminds the brethren to be not many teachers because teachers receive greater judgment. There are specific qualifications and even non qualifiers in the N.T. for positions of church leadership that are not given as requirements to those not in leadership. Even deacons and bishops had different qualifiers. Look at the instructions for those who aided Moses in the work of leadership. There is indeed a difference between leadership and laity.
A stark contrast can be given between the two in I Timothy 3:6 where one was not allowed into leadership who was a novice, but Peter said to new converts to desire the sincere milk of the Word as newborn babes in Christ. The pastor/elder should be apt to teach, a instructor of those who oppose themselves, able to exhort and convince gainsayers, an example to those younger in faith, etc. This was not a requirement for all worshipers who gathered as a church.
I dare say, John, you would be hard pressed to find a pastor who thinks that the congregation are not to have an active role in the church and just be mere spectators as you assert. It is the job of pastors, teachers, evangelists to equip the saints for the work that each does in the ministry to the edifying of the body of Christ.
John UK, I cannot address all things hitherto discussed in one post, so please bear with me.
I must say that I agree with my brother Rodney and say your judgment is lacking by saying that a pastor preaching through the Scriptures will not address the issues of the congregation with which God has entrusted him. (see Acts 20:28, the pastoral epistles of I&II Timothy, and Titus, I Peter 5; Acts 15 among the many passages that show a congregation lead by specific church leaders) You should realize the prayer, preparation, and passion of pastors to minister to those for whom Hebrews says they must give an account. Many ministers have use expository teaching and preaching of the various books of the Holy Writ to instruct the church. They must because they are not only to reprove, rebuke and exhort, but to teach, comfort and be an example to the fellowship of believers over which God has made them overseers. Many a preacher here on SA has undoubtedly done so, but I think in particular of Albert N Martin. I am not the only one that can testify that his messages are very piratical.
You seem to overlook the fact that what was practiced in Corinth caused confusion, plus one could point to Acts 20 where one man preached with no congregational input.
In spite of claims it does not support abortion, the Gates Foundation has funded various abortion organizations, including varied Planned Parenthood affiliates worldwide and Marie Stopes International. It has had a close partnership with the United Nations Population Fund (UNPFA), which has provided support for China‚Äôs one-child policy.
At a 2013 ‚ÄúNo Controversy‚ÄĚ conference hosted by the Gates Foundation in Ethiopia, workshops for the nearly 3,000 participants prominently featured abortion! Sessions led by representatives from Planned Parenthood, Marie Stopes, and Ipas included ‚ÄúEfforts to Implement Policies that Expand Access to Safe Abortion,‚ÄĚ ‚ÄúAccess to Safe Abortions,‚ÄĚ ‚ÄúAbortion and Quality of Care,‚ÄĚ and ‚ÄúAbortion: Before and After.‚ÄĚ
pro-life groups also contend that the Gates Foundation promotes not only contraception, but also abortifacients that end human life at its earliest stages.
It‚Äôs clear that the Gates Foundation is inextricably linked with the global abortion industry. Until they repudiate their funding of Planned Parenthood, Marie Stopes, and Ipas; and cancel their support for abortifacients in the Third World, it‚Äôs impossible to claim that the Gates Foundation is free from the stain of abortion.
John Yurich USA wrote: Pastor Steve accepts that I am saved.
Because you deceive him and don't let him know you faithfully attend a RCC and faithfully partake in RCC sacraments including the godless mass and you hope to have a RCC wedding and raise your pipe dream children from your pipe dream wedding as RCC. Tell the elders that, because as a church member you have a responsibility to be open to church discipline for the lifestyle you live, so it IS their business. Then lets see if the non-denominational church still votes you into its membership. You already inferred they don't have an issue with these things.
But remember the Bible says
Providing for honest things, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men.
The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.¬†Let us walk honestly, as in the day
John Yurich USA wrote: It is funny but Luther believed there are scriptural aspects of the Catholic Church because the Holy Spirit guided Luther to believe that there are scriptural aspects of the Catholic Church. And if I was not really saved and under God's guidance then I would never had started to attend that Baptist Church last September.
Ok John you want to trust the word of men over the Word of God. Afraid that will fail you in the last day as you stand in the judgment. Plus someone who says you put no merit in church attendance for salvation, you have written several posts saying that your church membership in a non-denomination church proves your salvation. You can't have the best of both worlds.
Greetings to sister ladybug, been praying for you and hope all is going well. Thanks for all your posts here on SA, they are a blessing.
John Yurich USA wrote: I only promote the scriptural aspects of Roman Catholicism as being Christian...
II Corinthians 11:14
And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
It is a common practice of almost all cults and false churches to mingle truth with error. One would not take as money something from a Monopoly game but the counterfeits must appear to be the real thing. There are no Scriptural practices of the RCC. The only reason they say the so called Lord's prayer and quote from the Bible is because it is part of their sacramental works based system to gain them entrance into heaven. Thus it is also an abomination to a Holy God.
I Corinthians 5:6
Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the WHOLE lump?
John UK wrote: e psalms will take on a whole new meaning and most precious. Yes, I love hymn-singing Christians, but I lament that the psalms, which are clearly ordered in the NT, have been virtually dropped in favour of the words of men.
John UK, thank you for your response.
The psalms were written by men. The Holy Spirit would not say, For Thy names sake, O LORD, pardon mine iniquity for it is great.
The New Testament believers did not have but portions, at best, of the New Testament, their Bible was the Old Testament. When Apollos expounded the Scriptures, when Stephen preached to those about to stone him, they quoted and preached Scriptures from the Old Testament. That is the pattern found in the New Testament. Yet no one is advocating that sermons should only be preached from the O.T. Scriptures because that was the pattern found in the New Testament.
The early church even in the first and second century authored hymns about our precious Lord. They did not see it as a violation of the teachings of the Word of God.
Again, you don't answer to me but to God and should live in light of what you have discerned to be God's will for your life. I still would be cautious about binding the hearts of all believers to your thinking.
John UK wrote: especially when the psalms are authored by the Holy Ghost and therefore profitable for doctrine.
I estimate that 95% of songs today contain false doctrine; the psalms are 100% true doctrine.
The Psalms, which written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, were authored by men.
----- please note in the Psalms (more could be cited)
Psalm 10:11¬† He hath said in his heart, God hath forgotten: he hideth his face; he will never see it.¬†
Psalm 50:21¬† These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself
would you not call those beliefs (which are not advocated by the psalmist), found in the Psalms, false doctrine ----- The regulative principle is whatsoever you do do ALL to the glory of God. There are many hymns written that have a God glorifying message. You are welcome to your beliefs brother and should live in light of them, as you have to answer to the Lord, but I would very cautious about binding the conscience of all believers to it. God bless.
You will notice he has no examples, to use his words, of Trump preying on the most vulnerable. Besides his own blatant hypocrisy as those he supports; Hillary, the NAACP and the Democrats; are those who advocate for abortion rights and do prey on the most vulnerable by supporting baby killers like the misnamed murderers called Planned Parenthood.
Brother John UK, there is not enough characters to "convince" you about brother Lurker's thinking about the Scriptures plus what he has shared with me about his beliefs came via private email. I will say you characterized it correctly when you basically said his perspective is unique, you cannot peg it into any camp per se. As to God dealing with things "differently", he is only saying that there is a difference between the Old and New Covenant which according to Hebrews 8-10 and II Corinthians 3 (and many other passages) is a Biblical position. Even our Lord operated under the Old Covenant while He walked this earth, as for one of many examples, He told the cleansed lepers to go offer the sacrifice that Moses commanded. Obviously according to His statements at the last supper the New Covenant did not begin until after His atoning sacrifice on Calvary and His dealings with people during His earthly ministry need to be understood in that light.
As you noted this is is a been there, done that topic, thus I am not trying to join the discussion. I am not even saying you have to apologize to brother Lurker, that is up to you, just asking you trust me on this issue one thing he is not is dispensational.
Will withhold comments on this discussion except to say, brother Lurker is definitely NOT a dispensationslist and John UK would do well to remove that from his thinking. God's blessing to His redeemed posting here.
Jim Lincoln wrote: ".the Republican Party's concern for human dignity ends the moment someone is actually born. After that, it's the coldness and cruelty...
One wonders if Jim reads the articles to which he links (he has used this one several times).
For one, children are not the reponsibility of the government. A laissez-faire attitude of government is far more helpful than one of control.
The author of the article "demonstrates" the Republicans don't care because they don't shut down coal power plants, they support the death penalty for criminals, they want to curtail welfare waste, and are anti-illegal immigration. Not exactly proving his point, but is furthering his liberal agenda.
Furthermore, one being pro wealth distribution (another point for his argument) is not a good definition of compassion or caring for others. All it shows caring for (by those who support it) is getting reelected by bribing voters with someone else's wealth and the desire to gain power. The one thing the vast majority of liberals are NOT noted for is the giving of their own wealth (something most conservatives practice) to help the less fortunate.
As usual if you start with wrong premise you reach wrong conclusion.
Jim Lincoln wrote: But the Greedy Old Party wants to get some of the LGBTQ support. They know the home folks who had voted for them can barely read, so they aren't worried.
This is a good lesson on so called independents like Jim claims to be.
Even though only 15% (ladybug has it right neither party is to be trusted, so this is not intended as a defense of Republicans but a point about so called Independents) of the Republicans voted for the passage of this bill compared to 100% of the Democrats look who he criticizes. He can't even say he is trying to provide balance as the article is critical of the Republicans and because John Yurich hasn't chimed in, no one here is defending them.
"Independent" = liberal democrat trying to hide who they really are.
The 2 so called Independents in the Senate vote consistently with the liberal Democrats. No such thing as an Independent, just people who are not willing to admit who they are and are just trying to cover their true identity.