Allie wrote: FB is evil. There is nothing godly about it.
Tell that to the overseas missionary who keeps those who are praying for his ministry informed through FB. Tell that the parent whose children and grandchildren are hundreds of miles away and they communicate with their loved ones and get to see their milestones that they aren't able to be there for. Tell that to the churches who use it as a ministry tool to the lost and their congregation. Tell that to those who use it for go fund me accounts to pay for their medical bills for cancer. Tell that to those who, like Paul Washer, have used it communicate urgent prayer request.
It is just a website run by a bunch of liberals. It is a communication tool and it can be used for good or evil purposes. There is no privacy there and they can censor anyone they wish, it is their website and they don't charge its users. Evil, the Bible reminds us, comes from within the heart of man.
B. McCausland wrote: 1. Identifying reality is not a sin. On the other hand, ".. jesting, (is) not convenient: but rather giving of thanks" Eph 5:4
You misjudged me in several ways in this thread by saying I was rude, had malice and a wrong attitude, yet you are entitled to your opinion. (btw, what pennelope posted was not agreeing with your assessment, see the word, if)
The Bible also states there is a time to laugh and that laughter does good like medicine. If you take the time to research the word jesting you will find it refers to being vulgar and graceless in one's speech.
I have no desire a thread be about me and will stop posting in it. I will say I am, by the grace of God, an undeserving saved sinner. I freely admit that there are, shamefully, things in my life that do disgrace to the great love of my precious Savior. I mourn daily for any unsanctified, and/or unmortified actions or thoughts that scar my struggle to forsake sin and live for God. I thank God that He is merciful to my unrighteousness and offers free pardon and cleansing for my shortcomings.
Although I no longer have interest, I did not think the comments after the dash referred to me personally, I had just wondered why you would post them.
B. McCausland wrote: 1. US, distasteful humour or malice does not fulfill "let your speech be also with grace' As much as you are trying to explain your words, your attitude was wrong. Someone else noticed: "... and they apologize if they are rude and aim to be honest and to handle the Word of God rightly ..." 2. Reformers gain this conclusion from a wholesome overlook of Scripture
It is amazing how you know what my wrong attitude was seeing I said nothing amiss. I actually stated a fact of what was about to happen. One wonders how does calling me rude fulfill loves thinks no evil?
Not sure who or how anyone is posting indirectly. I have said no ill of you and wonder why you would post your last two verses.
Even if we grant the reformers gained their conclusion correctly that still does not change the fact that to apply their thinking to a first century mindset is invalid.
John UK, my point is not to say whether or not the distinction is accurate, just that it was an unknown division of law at time Acts 21 was written. All Scripture is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction and instruction in righteousness.
B. McCausland wrote: Accepted. There should had been a better way of finishing off the conversation than sending off the opponent in a distasteful manner. Courtesy is the icing in the cake of Christian forbearance. Take care
ahhh, you do realize that I was taking a stab at the way we verify that we are not robots and not talking about you at all, I am sorry if my attempt at humor didn't go over well with you.
JuneAnnette, no matter how well you or BMac say what you believe, it doesn't change the fact that no one in the first century divided the law into moral, civil, and ceremonial. That is an invention of the reformers. God bless
Thank you brother Wayne for your more than kind and gracious comments. God's blessing to you too my friend.
B. McCausland wrote: US Above all things we are told to sustain love, which is the fulfillment of the law, of which good manners, kindness, and respect are part, but not rudeness. BTW, the distinctions you talk about derive from a proper understanding of the revealed truth as a whole Take care
my apologies, I don't see how I was rude, but express my regrets for coming across that way to you. God bless
B. McCausland wrote: US The commands in the law of Moses regarding how sin is meant to be appeased, should not be confused with God's expressed guidelines about right and wrong. The first are subsidence to the second. The first, we call the ceremonial/sacrificial 'laws'; the second we call 'moral law' because it has to do with the expression of God's character and his understanding of right and wrong. If there was no moral law to be accountable to, there would be no reason for the sacrificial laws. While the book of Leviticus details how our sin needs to be appeased due to our failure towards the demands of God's moral law, the book of Hebrews explains how the 'demands' of that moral law are taken care off in Christ. This is the reason why the ceremonial pack of 'laws' can be 'dismissed', but not the other. The OT ceremonies, along with Christ's sacrifice, are subsidence to the demands of his justice against us. This is why we can make the difference between the two. May cont
Thanks for both your responses and any with which you continue. The point is that these distinctions were not part of the 1st century mindset in which this conversation with Paul took place.
off to find street signs and store fronts now, good day!
Here is the problem I see John Uk and BMac with your interpretation of the passage in Acts 21. You are making a division of the law into moral, civil, and ceremonial. Do you have a verse in the Bible that makes that distinction? Also, the Jews, to whom the law was given, do not make that distinction. It is a man made distinction of the reformers and Covenant theologians. Your response doesn't stand upon Scripture but on the wisdom of men. God blessings to both.
BMacCausland, thanks for you response. I find part of it to be somewhat surprising as you are constantly complaining that people aren't reading through your posts and misinterpreting what you are saying. Yet your first point completely ignores the first sentence of my post.
Your also seem to ignore the basis for the Acts 21:25 is what was said in Acts 15 where Judiazers said that new believers should keep the law the law of Moses (15:5) Do you think they only believed in "ceremonial law"? The fact that it was a burden that none could bear (15:10) would suggest it would be the whole of the law of Moses. Plus there is no indication that Jews separated law into ceremonial, civil, and moral. You have no indication that forsaking Moses (21:21) and being zealous of the law (21:20) was only the "ceremonial" part.
Actually to hold the viewpoint in your response, then you are saying that when Paul kept the law (21:24) that did not include the "moral law" because the phrase "that they observe no such thing" according to your response did not include the "moral law" just the ceremonial.
I apologize i don't no what verb of which you are speaking about in your point 2.
Thanks John for your very kind words, and I agree none here are espousing keeping "ceremonial law"
The N.T. is clear on living a life of holiness which includes lie not one to another, honor your parents, steal no more, no adulterer or murderer has eternal life, etc. We have to look in Acts and see what was said to the Apostle Paul after his third missionary journey. So he has already written Galatians and we know he does not put faith in keeping the law for his justification. It is also after the events of Acts 15 to which it refers. Let us pick up the narrative in chapter 21. The believers stated there were many brethren who were zealous of the law (like some who post here) and they asked him to go with four men who had a vow for the purpose that, "all may know (v24)..that thou *keepest the law*" (just as has been espoused here) please note verse 25, because it immediately follows the phrase that Paul keeps the law "As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe *no such thing*"
Galatians 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law
I.E, not necessarily agreeing with all written before but definitely believe you might want to rethink or restate your 5th point as several verses (more than I can post) refute your claim. We stood justly condemned and Christ paid the penalty for our sins on that old rugged cross.
Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
I Cor. 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
II Cor. 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him
Gal.1:4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:
Heb. 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation
I Peter 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.
I don't believe I could say the power of sin is destroyed in this world
His false gospel of no repentance or change of life wrought by the Holy Spirit in the life of one that has been born from above would not be disturbing to false teachers as it is still part of the same broad road that leads to destruction. Walking an aisle due to an emotional plea and parroting a prayer is not the same as true Holy Spirit conviction and granting by Him of repentance and faith to those who's eyes and heart He has opened.
Gay Allen wrote: this just got wiped from reddit http://www.orlandosentinel.com/os-private-prison-deprived-inmates-of-heat-and-hot-water-for-months-lawmaker-finds-20170225-story.html https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/5w8g15/private_prison_deprived_inmates_of_heat_and_hot/ When are we going to take our nation back from the disgustingly rich ? Don't worry, we elected the disgustingly rich guy who promised us he's going to do what he can to basically shoot himself and his friends in the foot for the good of the people! He's... He's gonna keep his promise right? ... Right???? you have to read this if you are a humane person, they plan on making more for profit prisons, we were getting rid of all of them with the last administrations~!
While I admit I did not take the time to read your links, there are undoubtedly people in the billions who live here on this earth who know nothing about heat or hot water. Our troops often serve without either. Inmates shouldn't be mistreated, and I am not against them getting heat and hot water, but having heat and hot water is not something they need to be treated humanely. There is certainly nothing wrong with prisons not being a burden on the taxpayer.
There is a website that grades companies (from 0 to 100 %) on how LBQT friendly they are in their policies and practices. You would find that the vast majority of places you shop (and the people who supply the merchandise, even groceries) get 100% score. Your car manfacturer gets 100% score. The list of those with high or 100% scores includes your internet provider, the devices with which you access the internet, your cellphone, your insurance company, your local, state, and federal government, etc. etc.
The fact is this is just the world acting like the world. A leopard cannot change its spots or the Ethiopian his skin. One would have to literally move to a third world country (and fly on an airline that got the same high score) and live off the land to be consistent.
BJU has always been staunch anti-Catholic, you could ask Ian Paisley if he were still alive.
"The university‚Äôs founder, Bob Jones, was a fundamentalist evangelist who believed that the theory of evolution was an abomination. He called the pope the anti-Christ and dismissed Catholicism as a ‚ÄúSatanic counterfeit.‚ÄĚ He once said, ‚ÄúI would rather see a saloon on every corner than a Catholic in the White House.‚ÄĚ
Also, there are many articles confirming BJU apologizing for its racist past, just do a search for BJU apologizes for racism, the above link is one of them.