Lurker wrote: Agree completely, brother. I trace my resistance to organized religion back to my deeply rooted conviction that we are strangers and pilgrims on the earth. Where the Puritans which emerged from the reformation worked to reform and purify the ungodly RC machinery (like putting lipstick on a hog) for their own and cling to the doctrines which eminated from Geneva; I cast my lot with the Pilgrims who cling to the free from the dictates of church and state bible which first emanated from Geneva.... the crown jewel of God's work 450 years ago, IMO. Here is an excellent link if you've never read it. Blessings, bro
The article was great. , thanks Luker. It did seem to leave out that those same Puritans founded Harvard to train their ministers.
Observer wrote: Let's make a clear distinction here about Spurgeon. He himself was glad to have providentially missed an interview with a College head..
Ah, yes I find the story of Spurgeon and the college interview quite a lighthearted one. He sat in one part of the house and the college person in another part of the same house, both there to meet each other and neither knowing the other was there.
Mr. Spurgeon was a unique individual, it is doubtful we will every see another servant of God like him. He came from a family of preachers and was well taught in Scriptural doctrine long before his conversion. God gave him an appetite for books and learning from his earliest years and one could aptly say he was self-taught far beyond most if not all seminarians today.
I believe you see in him a person who meditated much upon Scripture and had a gift to communicate his gleanings in the most practical ways.
Most of your ivy league schools were started as colleges to train preachers for the work of the ministry. They did not want the masses to be deceived by that old deluder Satan. It makes little sense to lament public schools and then also disdain Bible schools.
Mourner, I was not trying to imply that you were being insensitive, my apologies. That is why I said as a general comment. I think DanUSA might do well to heed the admonition. I actually wrote that much earlier in the day and had not posted it due to the direction of the thread at the time.
DanUSA, please note you have yet to show in any post, verses that back up your position. You speak in general platitudes. Did you take the time to read the quote from Owen? Do you know anything about striving against sin? The psalmists even said who can know his error, cleanse thou me from SECRET faults and keep back thy servant from presumptuous sin and let them not have dominion over me. (Psalm 19:12,13)
Job despaired of life, God had called him the most outstanding saint of his day on the whole earth, yet he also abhorred himself in dust and ashes.
A walk with God is not platitudes. Read the psalms and see the struggles of a man after God's own heart. Note the confession of Paul in Romans 7. Read the biographies of any of the eminent saints of the past and see if they share your attitude.
You are getting a lot of great counsel from seasoned believers, I am just adding my poor mite.
DanUSA wrote: Because Christians are more than conquerors!
Thanks for your response, and we would all do well to ponder John UK response.
We are also overcomers!!
But alas, there is a daily battle between us the world, the flesh, and the devil. (unless you think we conquer something besides these) .
As quoted before, John Owen's quote is timeless,
‚ÄúTo mortify a sin is not utterly to kill, root it out, and destroy it, that it should have no more hold at all nor residence in our hearts. It is true this is that which is aimed at; but this is not in this life to be accomplished. There is no man that truly sets himself to mortify any sin, but he aims at, intends, 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 anymore, cry or call, seduce or tempt, to eternity. Its not-being is the thing aimed at. Now, though doubtless there may, by the Spirit and grace of Christ, a wonderful success and eminency of victory against any sin be attained, so that a man may have almost constant triumph over it, yet an utter killing and destruction of it, that it should not be, is not in this life to be expected.‚ÄĚ(Phil. 3:12)
SteveR wrote: I wouldnt use Saul as an example of a suicide going to Paradise 1) There is strong evidence he wasnt saved 2) An Amalekite claims to have killed Saul after his suicide attempt failed(2 Sam 1) 3) The response from 'Samuel' is unclear a) Did he mean 'with him' as in entering the grave or Paradise b) Since a meduim with a familiar spirit was consulted for this interaction, some have argued that it wasnt Samuel.
Thank you SteveR, points will be taken into consideration
[QUOTE]... Is God glorified if justification is separated from sanctification?[/QUOTE]Hey Mourner, thanks for your response, some of it I got lost on where you were going. Justification and sanctification are two different things. However, you don't have one without the other.
Let us say am not advocating suicide, it is a totally selfish act. However it is NOT the unpardonable sin.
Saul committed suicide and Samuel said Saul and his sons would be WITH HIM.
Elijah, Job and Jonah all had desires to have their life taken away. So, it does happen to godly people.
Unless you can show me a verse that says that unconfessed sins at the time of death makes a person lose their salvation, you cannot say that suicide automatically sends a person to hell because they murdered someone.
If a believer gets drunk and is killed in an auto accident do they go straight to hell, the same verses one would use to say a murderer will not inherit eternal life says the same about drunkenness, adultery, being angry, covetous etc. ?
As a general comment, I believe we need to be sensitive is such a public forum, there may be those who read our posts who have lost loved ones to suicide.
Observer wrote: The result of a survey is more important than the Bible! Shame the Holy Spirit didn't think it important enough to insist on it in the NT. But members of the Chimera church don't care for that. The NT pattern is clear in 2 Tim 2.2 "....And the things that thou (pastor Timothy) hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also..." Notice what it does not say viz. start a Seminary with paid professionals to teach NT doctrine! ...
the assumption in your statement is that the seminary was not started by a church to teach others also. Notice too is does not say it cannot be done in a seminary.
Do we not see in thread after thread here on SA, people lamenting men of God who are not rightly dividing the Word?
Even Spurgeon started a college for his preacher boys and others he admitted to the college. Most of the teachers in seminaries have experience in the ministry.
The Scripture may not speak specifically FOR a seminary but it certainly does not speak against it either. We have men learning the Word of God, and there is a problem with that?
Neil wrote: You are totally misunderstanding me. The Apostles, being the foundation of the church, set the precedent for how the NT church is organized & run, but since we aren't Apostles, we are not at liberty to add to what they established & do any crazy thing we like in the name of expedience. This is called the Regulative Principle of Worship; look it up. Since I believe the Bible establishes the autonomy of the local church, it follows that there is no place for denominational entities like seminaries. And I am not speaking of weekly adiaphor√¶. Why must I point this out?
Thanks again for your response. I am sorry that I am misunderstanding you, I can only go by what you post. Your last sentence went over my head. I see that you will not be persuaded concerning this matter, so we will respectfully disagree. Seminaries are used by God to teach men to rightly divide the Word of truth, if you don't like them fine but that my friend is simply your opinion, don't try and bind the consciences of the brethren with what is just a private interpretation.
Things change with time as we find more efficient ways of doing things. You won't find a Biblical warrant for driving to work, but it is a more efficient use of your time. You won't find a Biblical warrant for buying groceries but not all people have the ability or in many cases the space to grow their own food. (jpw reminds us of that all the time) You could find a Biblical Warrant for foot washing but we understand that was part of the culture in which they lived that in our day and age, for the most part it is not applicable.
If you don't like seminaries that is your position and you are welcome to it. Men of God teach the truths of rightly dividing the Word of truth to those who will be preaching it. That helps fulfill the Scriptural admonition for a pastor to be taught in the Word.
When they had a dispute about serving the needs of widows, did the disciples say there is no Biblical warrant for deacons?
When they had issues about eating meat offered to idols, did Paul say we have no Biblical warrant?
When they asked Paul and Luke to throw the tackling off the ship, did they say we can't there is no Biblical warrant?
When Paul asked Philemon to return Onesimus to him, did he say, sorry there is no Biblical warrant?
Really, there were a lot of things that preachers use nowadays that were not available in the early church. We have the internet, a great resource, there are countless books (2 Timothy 4:13) that are available that were not in those days. Most preachers use a sound system when preaching. The list could get long.
One could needlessly argue there is no Biblical precedent for these things, but there are Bible principles from which we can ascertain a Scriptural use of such things.
I would say, quote me the verse that speaks AGAINST schooling people in Scriptures. Timothy was to commit the same to faithful men who teach others, now it is unbiblical that they be gathered together for such a purpose?
Without seminaries putting stuff out, there would probably be few if any who post here who would be defending covenant theology's trio of the Covenant of Grace, Covenant of Works, Covenant of Redemption. No Confessions would be sited, no Calvinism, Arminianism, Semipelagianism, lapsarian, etc.
Now, there are some obvious benefits from no seminaries but they are outweighed, imho, by the positives.
SteveR wrote: Maybe its jealousy, maybe an affront to the Patriarchs, I dont know Abraham married Keturah, David Abishag and of course Boaz married Ruth If the LORD has a Ruth in store for you, it will happen despite the naysayers.
okay, SteveR, you're the "Bible Scholar"
how old was Keturah? how old was Boaz? how old was Ruth?
SteveR wrote: The findings of a Congressional Investigation into an election is hardly 'propaganda.' Using that fake oath for wicked purposes is worse than propaganda, as propaganda is a distortion of truth. That fake oath was found not to be a distortion, but an out and out fabrication. Its stunning to witness so many professing Christians willing to repeat the ridiculous libelous lie
I would tend to agree with he is quoting Catholics, here is the link for SteveR 12/10/13 3:10 PM comment, it is a Catholic site (don't take my word for it look it up, there is a reason SteveR didn't quote sources)
It can also be found in the book entitled, "Subterranean Rome" by Charles Didier translated from the French and published in New York in 1843.
In fact in going through several pages of Google search the ONLY sites that claim it is false, are Catholic sites. So, we are in essence taking the word of a Catholic site that the oath was debunked. Sure, that makes sense.
Unless SteveR can gives the link to the Congressional Record page that they site.
Neil, not sure why you keep giving 1517 a hard time. He has been a true gentleman in this discussion. Your points are well taken, but from the article:
"But now a team says that this way of speaking is becoming more frequent among men.
The findings were presented at the Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America in California.
"We found use of uptalk in ALL OUR SPEAKERS, despite their diverse backgrounds in socioeconomic status, ethnicity, bilingualism and gender," said Amanda Ritchart, a linguist at the University of California who led the research.
"We believe that uptalk is becoming more prevalent and systematic in its use for the younger generations in Southern California," she added."
It doesn't say that this is they way NORMALLY speak, which is what you are talking about, it is saying they are adopting this style of talking (which is why they made a point about happening in such diverse groups), which is 1517's point. He is obviously objecting to people taking on the mannerism of the homosexual community and trying to make them the norm. I know you don't support that. But again your points are well taken, some people are just wired that way and it has nothing to do with their lifestyle choice.