John Yurich USA wrote: Where do I twist scripture? I believe about salvation the way that Baptist Church I attend on Sunday mornings believes about salvation as it states in their Statement of Faith that salvation comes only through accepting Jesus as ones Savior and putting ones trust entirely in Him alone for salvation. Look up the Statement of Faith of that Baptist Church to shut you up that they don't preach the biblical doctrine of salvation. The website address for that Baptist Church is www.rolchastings.org.
So are you saying you attend this church and are personally known to the staff and congregation?
Does Senior Pastor - ¬†Steve Schoenwald hold to your ecumenical views and does he even know about them? Does he know you are seeking a RC wife? If so what does he advise out of interest?
Stever, you do realize that you are a modern day phariseed, yes? You seem to be a student of the law, but devoid of love, compassion, or an understanding of the transforming nature of the light of Christ within a believer. You seem to be a very angry, militant style pharisee whose sole purpose is to divide and mislead. The worst part of it is that you (seem) to be completely blind to it and too far above correction to ever be brought back down from the perch you look down from. I hope you see clearly one day soon.
"‚ÄúYou are now going to die to sin,‚ÄĚ Robertson told Richards beforehand. ‚ÄúYou‚Äôre going to be buried ‚ÄĒ the old you ‚ÄĒ and the new one will come forth. God will seal you with his spirit and you will be guaranteed to be raised from the dead one day and live forever. Good news, you know?‚ÄĚ"
John UK wrote: Thus Catholics, Orthodox, Baptists, JW's Mormons, Hindus, Islamists, Sikhs, Baha'is, Methodists, Anglicans, Lutherans, Krishnas, TM's, Family of Love, Moonies et al, MUST DIE!
Read Calvin's sermons that Observer linked to and you will discover that even members of your own family have to be given over to judgement if they err in the faith. We are not even to let our natural emotions get in the way of what he deemed God's just judgement on heretics.
Natural outcome I guess of a theocratic church/state view!
CAS wrote: I didn't until recently realize how extensive execution was in that day for alleged heresy- which included believers baptism....
I read the link Observer provided. Durrant says of Calvin,
"He argued, if we believe in the inspiration of the Bible, then we know the truth, and all who oppose it are enemies and blasphemers of God. Since their offense is immeasurably greater than any other crime, the civil authority must punish heretics as worse than murderers; for murder merely kills the body, while heresy accepted damns the soul to everlasting hell. (This was precisely the Catholic position.) Moreover, God Himself has explicitly instructed us to kill heretics, to smite with the sword any city that abandons the worship of the true faith revealed by Him. Calvin quoted the ferocious decrees of Deut. 13:5-15, 17:2-5; Exod. 22.20 and Lev. 24:16, and argued from them with truly burning eloquence: "Whoever shall maintain that wrong is done to heretics and blasphemers in punishing them makes himself an accomplice in their crime.. There is no question here of man's authority; it is God who speaks, and it is clear what law He would have kept in the Church even to the end of the world...."
Great Sermon! Interesting sermon, I never knew these facts, while I studied a lot about WO2.
Maybe because Germany is my neighbor country and happily The Netherlands never came under communism.
'Led by the light of faith serenely beaming, With glowing hearts by His cradle we stand. O'er the world a star is sweetly gleaming, Now come the wisemen from out of the Orient land. The King of kings lay thus lowly manger; In all our trials born to be our friends.
The lyrics seem a bit ambiguous as though the wisemen are visiting the manger?
Even worse note how O'Holy Night was fashioned: In 1847, a French Catholic Priest commissioned a Christmas poem from local winemaker Placide Cappeau de Roquemaure, who later left the Catholic church and became a socialist?
Is that true?
Also we need to remember: Jesus is not a baby. He is the risen and exalted King of Heaven and Earth. He was a baby, but is not anymore. Therefore we cannot worship "baby Jesus." Any attempt to do so would be to erect a false deity based on Jesus when he was a baby. This is exactly what many of the Carols associated with Christmas/Nativity call us to do ("Come and worship, worship Christ the newborn King").
Great Sermon! If there are 66 books are in the Protestant Bible, why are there 73 books in the Gold Standard, the AV, and all 73 of these books are "Appointed to be read in churches"? If these 73 books were self-authenticating in A.D. 1611, why wouldn't they be today? Perhaps you can address this in another broadcast. Thank you!
John UK wrote: What gets me is that they don't seem to be able to discern believers from unbelievers. I wonder what evangelist Philip would have said to that ridiculous argument? "Er ... I won't baptise you ... er, I don't know if you believe or not." Night
Act 8:12-13 "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. (13) Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done."
John Gill's commentary:
"Then Simon himself believed also,.... With an historical and temporary faith, as that Jesus was the Messiah, &c. or at least he pretended, to believe this, and professed that he did believe"
"and when he was baptized; upon profession of his faith, which he so artfully made, that Philip could not discover his hypocrisy: but taking him to be a sincere believer, admitted him to baptism: after which,"
"he continued with Philip; kept close to him, and got into a familiar acquaintance with him; and constantly attended on his ministry, as if he had been a sincere disciple and follower of Christ:"
elaros wrote: GOD SAID... "11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."
* "[Women are to] learn in silence." * "[Women are to be in] all subjection [to men]." * "I [do not allow] a woman to teach [a man]." * "[I do not allow a woman] to usurp authority over the man." * "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."
How does your denomination explain these verses to lost female executives?
dc wrote: Deut. 29:29 "The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law." From that text I conclude the Scripture is sufficient, to instruct God's covenant people and their posterity in those doctrine necessary, for their better understanding of all that is written. NT Scripture teaches that foundational apostolic/prophetic teaching or doctrine, where Christ is the Head of the corner is usually communicated through Christ's gifts to His body the Church. Prophetic Scripture and History indicates that means is not as fruit bearing at certain periods of Church history. That said; God does execute His decrees in the works of creation and providence so that all men are without excuse Romans 1:20 My thoughts and yours?
Thank you. You and John UK did deal with that point. I'm afraid what John said was true. After you guys posted, the thread went right back to the same old discussion as before.
Thanks though for your awareness and insights. It shows that there are a few left on these threads that are able to think objectivley.
I realize this is an older thread, but I thought I might want to add something to it.
It took a while to look through all the posts. Many of the 200 plust comments were informative, but, it seems that no one touched on a very important consideration. It was found in the Title of the article: "PHYSICS" Ends the Free Will Debate "???"
It seems no one delt with the question; Is it the role of Physics, or of Special Revelation, to solve such questions?
Just thought I would bring that up, for what it may be worth.
John UK wrote: translators were aware of what "pas" means
"pas" - All:
"radically means "all." Used without the article it means "every," every kind or variety. So the RV marg. in Eph 2:21, "every building," and the text in Eph 3:15, "every family," and the RV marg. of Act 2:36, "every house;" or it may signify "the highest degree," the maximum of what is referred to, as, "with all boldness" Act 4:29. Before proper names of countries, cities and nations, and before collective terms, like "Israel," it signifies either "all" or "the whole," e.g., Mat 2:3; Act 2:36. Used with the article, it means the whole of one object. In the plural it signifies "the totality of the persons or things referred to." Used without a noun it virtually becomes a pronoun, meaning "everyone" or "anyone." In the plural with a noun it means "all." One form of the neuter plural (panta) signifies "wholly, together, in all ways, in all things," Act 20:35; 1Cr 9:25. The neuter plural without the article signifies "all things severally," e.g., Jhn 1:3; 1Cr 2:10; preceded by the article it denotes "all things," as constituting a whole, e.g., Rom 11:36; 1Cr 8:6; Eph 3:9. See EVERY, Note (1), WHOLE." (Vines)