1. In this thread, you acknowledged your comment was too harsh, but unlike Dave who humbly apologized for his statement to you, you continued to falsely accuse brother Lurker. Brother Dave gave you a godly example of walking back his words and apologizing, you would do well to study it.
2. In case you have not noticed, when you make a comment you have an small time period allowed by SA to edit or remove your comment. I trust you are not saying that SA is encouraging slyness, because they are not. So, if Lurker updated his comment you go by the edited version.
3. You were given an example from the Scriptures where God allowed a godly king to be moved by Satan to act in an ill advised manner, for the purpose of punishing His people. Lurker and others have stated that they see God is bringing judgment, that will be through whatever instrument He chooses even if it is Senator Cruz.
4. You say you bear no ill towards Lurker, and now several people are noticing that does not seem to be the case. You now have 4 comments removed by SA because of how you spoke about him. You might want to ponder your heart in this matter.
We will all do well to allow for differences in a kind and gracious way. God bless.
The article makes no sense. (apart from a "church" saying God's Word and His order of things is unimportant) From the best I can figure Unitarians practice affusion. So how would the location make a difference for the "transgender" individual?
1. I can get comments in from 2 different ip addresses by using my cellphone (not on wireless) for one comment and my computer (tablet) for the other. I am not saying that is what is being done.
2. Lurker, appreciate your graciousness with Geff, will agree with John UK, did not see you lying or changing your position.
3. Geff, it appears that you harbor bitterness in your heart toward Lurker. I pray that I am wrong, but your constant attacks on him tell a different story.
4. Given the long pattern of people posting under different monikers, GS may have jumped to the wrong conclusion but it wasn't like it was an unreasonable thought.
5. Finally, agree with those that say we are heading for the judgment of God and just as He used David to be the instrument of His judgment (II Samuel 24) for His people, He can use whomever wins the White House in the same way.
Ephesians 4:31&32 Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamor, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: and be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.
B. McCausland wrote: My apologies for this intervention, but it is not sure that the core of your premise above formed part of SC's original remarks. The original statements pointed to larger accountability/responsibility/guilt on a believer associating with amoral practice, than from an unconverted involved in inmorality. The reason is that the believer by reason of his new nature in Christ is accountable to godliness; the unregenerated is not. Actually, the remarks did not intent to state exclusion or admitance into heaven by any practice, as this would be a salvation by works. They rather centered on personal accountability. The line of thought revolved around the principle stated in Luk 12:48 "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." The believer is called unto holiness, not the unregenerated. So, there is not need to provide a verse to support the conclusion stated above. Just trying to be fair.
thanks for your thoughts, I have already stated I am dropping out from that discussion. God bless.
sc, I see you did not find any verses that show that (as more than one passage teaches about those who practice sodomy) those who have association with people who dress immodestly will not enter heaven . I also know nothing will convince you of that, so I will drop my part of that discussion.
I do wonder about some other things that you brought up. You stated that the two preachers that have messages here on SA more than likely are like you, they have not watched the show. You mentioned some things that allegedly happened on the show. One can only assume, and please correct me if I am wrong, that you got those examples from one of those sermons. Yet, according to someone who HAS watched the show, those statements are inaccurate. Best I can figure from the internet and comments here. the person who is seen in inappropriate apparel was seen so on another show, DWTS, and in a photo from a photo sharing app but possibly not on DD. She, sadly, put out a video putting down those who condemned her for dressing that way and stated that God sees her heart, so it is okay. (proof that her own statement went over her head, because the outward reflects the inward)
Keep up the crusade against immodesty as it is much appreciated.
Early start to the day. Just a quick thought. The church at Corinth had many issues including but not limited to carnality, compromise, belief in false doctrines, drunkenness, and lack of spiritual growth. Would someone please point to the verse in either first or second Corinthians (1 or 2 for our overseas brethren) where Paul said they could not speak out against the immorality of their day because of this?
Our lights shine brighter and clearer when we strive to obey and live for God but our sins, which need to be repented of and forsaken, do not silence the fact that we are to shine as lights in a crooked and perverse world to the glory of God.
more thoughts, Lord willing later, and just to stop the accusation I am not saying whether or not Phil Robertson knows the Lord, just saying we should not make up our own man standards to replace God's.
Frank wrote: Ah Jim, I guess that means you will vote for Bernie instead of Hillary. Bernie would probably agree that if you give thieves more money, they won't steal. Give drug dealers money and they won't sell drugs. And now you are saying that women are such a pitiful group that if you provide them with healthcare and paid maternity leave (I am guessing) they won't commit murder. What a silly and anti-christian comment.
Good brother Frank, another gem of great wisdom from you.
We have shown Jim that in a survey of woman who chose to kill their babies one of the reasons given that DID NOT make the list was it was due to lack of healthcare or paid maternity leave.
Brother Frank, what a blessing to hear from you brother. You are greatly appreciated and I and others learn much from you.
I believe that all sin is bad. As John Owen pointed out in his treatise on mortification of sin, "There is no man that truly sets himself to mortify any sin, but he aims at, intends, and desires its utter destruction, that it should leave neither root nor fruit in the heart or life. He would so kill it that it should never move nor stir any more, cry or call, seduce or tempt, to eternity. Its not-being is the thing aimed at." We should, as sc correctly states, not wink at any sin or consider anything that caused our Lord to go through His passion (Acts 1:3) as that which can be tolerated.
However, she has stated, twice in this thread and as far back as I can remember, that association with those who dress immodestly is WORSE than practicing homosexuality. Using the verses cited by her, we see practicing homosexuals in the list of those excluded from the kingdom of God. We don't see those who are simply ASSOCIATED (which I agree is not good) with others who are immodest or sexually immoral in that or any list as being excluded from salvation. But I am willing to change my mind if she can come up with a verse that supports her point.
s c wrote: U S,being an instrument of sexual immodesty is a "beam" compared to the "splinter" of sodomy because the one who is pointing his finger at the homosexual is guilty himself of sexual perversion. Both sins are sexual in nature but the accuser is blinded by his and because he professes to be a Christian,he is a hypocrite and cannot be light to the sinner. Sodomites don't get the double standard,in case some Christians have missed that. Again,it's interesting to see how some Christians will compromise or wink at or dismiss what God judges as hetero nakedness but will also be the first to have a problem with homosexuality. And to the other "anonymous" poster- Big difference between being in the world and of the world. Phil is definitely of the world. Never mind that Christians can witness and be a light without having to roll around in the mud with the swine. Sadly,some emergent church pastors would consider this an effective way of being "relevant".
Thanks for your response, still waiting for the Bible verse that backs up your position.
Immodesty is wrong. Which Bible verse states that being associated with immodest apparel is worse than being involved in the practice of homosexuality? Using the verse you chose, the association with those who dress immodestly is bigger *a beam* than being an active participant in sodomy *the splinter* One could list several verses that tell us that the practicing homosexual is destined for hell, would you list the verse that tells us that "being associated with those who practice immodest apparel" will do the same? Your "logic" would silence the apostle Paul who said in Romans 7 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me...O wretched man that I am. Who also acknowledges the battle between the flesh and the spirit in believers in Galatians 5. How many brethren would be "guilty by association" by going to a church that has young people show up in less than modest attire despite it being spoken against from the pulpit. Are they to keep silent about immorality in this world?
I have never watched the show, so I won't pretend to be an expert on something I never watched. I am not advocating for the show or any of its content.
Here you have an industry that is filled with producers, actors, writers, etc. who blatantly push the LBGT agenda. A friend of mine says there is a "gay" character on almost all sitcoms. (have no verification of that because I don't watch sitcoms) There is even an article in SA that reports the blasphemy of those who are putting forth such vileness in their programs. Here we have someone who is in the industry speaking out against what we are against, sodomite marriage. Now a new standard rises, if you aren't blameless you can't speak against the wrongs in our society. There seems to be a forgetting that all of us are sinners saved by grace and we all have unmortified areas in which we struggle. If we say we have no sin, the Bible says we are deceived.
If he was spreading his false doctrine of salvation, then it should be spoken against. If he was excusing the things pointed out that are issues on the show he is on as unimportant because everybody does it, then he should be rebuked. He is saying that sodomite marriage is wrong and the country is morally bankrupt, can't we agree with that?
Jim Lincoln wrote: Vile File, yes, no doubt that President Obama could probably made a better decision to visit the same mosque as Eisenhower and Bush,
Jim from Lincoln needs to acknowledge that President Obama has been president for 7 years and 15 days and is personally responsibility for his own actions. There is no precedent because no previous presidents went to a mosque with long ties to terrorism. Plus it does not matter what any previous president did better or worse, Obama is responsible for his own actions. Jim needs to apply to this administration the same standard he applies to previous ones, they aren't given any kind of pass due to what others have or have not done.
Hopefully he is also praying that God will save him, how many Christians may have wished Saul of Tarsus would meet an untimely demise but God had better plans to stop his assault on the Lord and His church.
As to imprecatory prayers, they are not ruled out in the New Testament
1 Corinthians 16:22 If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.
Galatians 1:8-9 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
Galatians 5:12 I would they were even cut off which trouble you.
2 Timothy 4:14 Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works:
Revelation 6:10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?
Geff wrote: JayJay writes: Lurker, So let me see if I understand you right. You sit there wineing and lecturing me on how offended you were that I would dare point out the fact you were being spineless in a jestful manner, but it's okay to call all that disagree with you fanatics? Where's your apology? Thanks JayJay!
Geff, I only address this because it seems like there is a bigger problem.
Multiple choice test. Wife steps on scale and makes a face. Husband says, "getting a little fat are we?"
Which would she accept as an apology
a. I was only kidding, sorry YOU took it personally. b. If I had known YOU would be upset, then I would not have said it. c. I am sorry I said you were getting a little fat.
Your post was removed by SermonAudio for being a personal attack, yet you chose to use it in allegation in 2 subsequent posts.
You then had another remark removed by SermonAudio for the same exact reason, it was a personal attack on brother Lurker.
Then you come back and demand what you are not willing to give?
Look at the humility exemplified by TMC and Lurker in their responses to each other, my friend, it is missing in yours.
To II Timothy 3:16, you would do well to study the Scriptures. The Bible says to speak the truth in love. In Eph. 4:29 we are reminded to "Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers." We are not to be false accusers. For you to say that brother Lurker, whom you don't know, has little value for the lives of the unborn and for women Trump exploits borders on slander.
Support for a candidate is not support for his lifestyle or religious beliefs. More than likely, whatever store you at which you shop or whatever manufacturer of the vehicle you drive has policies promoting the LBGT agenda and no rules against co-habitation on the part of their employees. Because they get your financial support does that mean you endorsing their godless policies?
Tell me, honestly, does this sound a tad proud to you
you were unable to answer my questions (he said he wouldn't) I am glad I was able to debate you, I did all I could
Brother Lurker is a godly man who studiously studies and lives the Scriptures. All of us would do well to learn from him. You don't have to agree with his political choices but you don't have demean him because he doesn't see things your way.
Trumpetsound wrote: There is a history of those making such a profession (the papal loving Bush?), even Obama says he is a Christian of some sort. Maybe Christians should stick to the good news of the gospel and not just vote for the best of a bad bunch, unless amongst that bunch there is indeed a 100% proven genuine believer who has the proven credentials of leadership and Christian character to match? Voting for Caesar (dictator) dressed up in a Christian suit might be politics to some, but it ain't wise as you may not recognise the real Caesar until it is all too late And one as believer voted for such??!!
I apologize for not understanding why you responded to my post the way that you did. I don't remember saying anything about any candidate being or not being a Christian. Our country needs the gospel, Christians should be diligent to give out the gospel, would to God we had a majority of people living here who were born-again blood bought believers!! Nevertheless, our country is supposed to be based on the Constitution not the gospel. The ability to freely share the gospel w/o persecution will be greatly curtailed by the continuation of the LGBT, pro-Muslim policies that Hillary clearly supports.
Geff wrote: U S, I appologized for any hurt it may have caused him. Though, I do believe that people who don't stand for principle, instead standing for convenience are spineless.
Geff, your apology was for Lurker's response to what you said, not for what you said. Then you still managed to get your little jab in. Brother, you seem to have a higher regard for your posts than you do for the brethren who post here.
Do right, your "candidate" only gets that list of things if we abolish congress and shut down the judiciary.
TMC, please bear with me I will need to read what you said, thanks.
The next part of my post is not with any specific person in mind but a general comment of the thread.
If you believe that righteousness exalts a nation but sin is a reproach to any person (Proverbs 14:34) but you willing choose to not support the person who best exemplifies that in a presidential election, then you are voting by your action for reproach and that which causes the people to mourn (Proverbs 29:2). You are choosing to love yourself more than your neighbor (Mark 12:31) who will suffer due to your inaction. You are guilty of what Paul condemned, doing "good" that evil may come. (Romans 3:8)