'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)
Hmmm...so the scoffers think they have explained the plaques, what about the Israelites who were so close to the plagues yet remained untouched, by all plagues! And what is God's reaction to their scoffing? "He sits in the heavens and laughs!"
Psalm 2 Why are the nations in an uproar And the peoples devising a vain thing? 2 The kings of the earth take their stand And the rulers take counsel together Against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying, 3 ‚ÄúLet us tear their fetters apart And cast away their cords from us!‚ÄĚ 4 He who sits in the heavens laughs, The Lord scoffs at them.
Honesty wrote: 2 Peter 2:1 "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even DENYING THE LORD THAT BOUGHT THEM, and bring upon themselves swift destruction" In what sense did the Lord buy (redeem) them?
‚ÄúNow, this verse poses no problem if you understand two things. First, the word ‚ÄėLord‚Äô in the phrase ‚Äėthe Lord that bought them‚Äô is the Greek word despotes. Which speaks of sovereign Master and Lord. It‚Äôs strong emphasis on the, on the strength of God‚Äôs sovereignty and Lordship‚Ä¶However, this Greek word despotes, is almost never used in the New Testament to speak of Christ. It usually is an expression that applies to the Father. When it speaks of Christ as Lord usually the Greek text uses the word kurios. Now if these false teachers were Jewish false teachers, as it appears they were, than this might even be a reference to an Old Testament passage. Peter may have been paraphrasing Deuteronomy 32:5-6 ‚Äú‚Ä¶Is He not thy Father that hath bought thee?‚ÄĚ And in that verse, that Old Testament verse, ‚Äúthy Father that hath bought thee‚ÄĚ plainly refers to the nation‚Äôs temporal deliverance from Egypt..."
I see my point about King David "a man after God's own heart" who had multiple wives was ignored. Of course, it was, because nobody who is familiar with the Bible would call David a man living in continual sin, yet we know he had multiple wives (and children by those multiple wives, lest someone think these marriages were consummated.)
I don't see anyone arguing that polygamy is "wise". I think the Bible is clear that polygamy is not "wise" or "ideal", but it is adding to the Bible to call polygamy sin. The Bible is clear about what is sin, and polygamy isn't it. The New Test itself says that whatever isn't forbidden is allowed--although not all things are wise.
According to God, not all unwise things are sin, even if some of you would like to make them sin. Myself, I will try to live wisely, but I won't sin by adding regulations to the Bible which just aren't there.
Wow, this thread has grown since I last visited. The issue of polygamy may seem merely like an interesting academic debate to those of us in westernized countries where polygamy is illegal.
But it is more than a debate to the families in countries where polygamy is legal, and where some Christian missionaries are telling these families that their families must be broken apart in order for them to convert to Christianity.
Where in the Bible did God ever command a polygamous family to break apart? God didn't hesitate to call David to account for murder & adultery when he slept with another man's wife & than killed her, but God said *nothing* to David about his multiple wives. David was a "man after God's own heart" & one who "loved to study God's law", and yet there are those who are arguing that David was a man living in continual sin and ignoring God's law?
No, I think the evidence is clear. Polygamy, however unwise, was not and is not a sin. Christian missionaries who are attempting to break apart polyfamilies are no different than the Christian missionaries who thought they could torture and scare natives into faith. May God have mercy on the souls of those who have rejected Christanity due to a false characterization of it by Christian missionaries.
What about in the Old Testament when God commanded a man whose brother had died without children to marry his brother's wife and provide children for his deceased brother? Surely this commandment resulted in polygamy in some cases.
I do believe monogamy is the ideal, but you guys are being harsh in saying he is from the Devil. I don't see anywhere in the Bible where polygamy is called a sin.
For the last several hundred years, the church in America has been mostly Calvinist while Arminianism has been a minority position. All that has changed.
The evangelical church today is basically Arminian in its approach. For now, Arminianism has triumphed and Calvinism is in retreat. I don't mean that the Calvinist denominations have officially changed their doctrine. Most Calvinistic theologians have stuck with their five-points ‚Ä¶ But most of the ordinary people have drifted from traditional Calvinism toward the Arminian position. The average Christian today might claim to be Calvinist, but they function as a "practical Arminian." While many Calvinist pastors still ascribe to the Calvinist shibboleths, in their practical theology, they are functioning Arminians.
Arminianism has triumphed. This great theological battle was won without warfare, with few debates, with "dueling magazine articles." How ironic that in a day when theology no longer matters to most people, one of the great theological battles of all times seems to have been settled. Droves of Calvinists have become Arminians‚ÄĒat least in practice..
Keith Drury (teaches courses in practical ministry at Indiana Wesleyan University)
Lurker ‚ÄúNo, you can't see anything of value until the 1830's and Charles Finney's unveiling of the moral free agency of man. That is your heritage.‚ÄĚ
Actually Charles Finney got many of his ideas from Calvinists viz. the New England Theology or sometimes called the New Divinity (Jonathan Edwards Sr., Bellamy, Hopkins, Jonathan Edwards Jr. etc.)
‚ÄúThe Governmental Theory: God made Christ an example of suffering to exhibit to erring man that sin is displeasing to him. God's moral government of the world made it necessary for him to evince his wrath against sin in Christ. Christ died as a token of God's displeasure toward sin and it was accepted by God as sufficient; but actually God does not exact strict justice. This view was formulated by Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) and is subsequently found in Arminianism, Charles Finney, the New England Theology of Jonathan Edwards (the younger), and Methodism.‚ÄĚ