SITE NOTICE | MORE..Outreach Business Cards. You can now order our popular outreach business cards in the Spanish language as well! Ordering is extremely straightforward and the quality is second-to-none! .. click for more info!
B. McCausland wrote: God 'does not see wine as a sin in itself' but we are accountable for any word, thought or action that a substance may displace in our frame, or in any of those we affect, family members included, because of a postion taken.
Then in that case a glass of wine has zero affect upon the human frame. Excessive consumption does. Therefore being accountable as you suggest we know the point at which we should stop and refrain from that point. That is what God has provided in the mortal an ability to choose and make regular intelligent decisions on these matters. The adverse effects of wine come when excess and abuse is chosen, which is the sin of the matter. But what you are advocating is that we don't have the brains to know when to stop. To force others to accept your quote, "moral" unquote, standing on human choice and decision is bad judgment. God provided and created wine in this world and refers to its use in the Bible. Your idea that people 2000 years ago only drank fruit juice to prove their perfect and sinless character is way off. GOD blesses and causes wine for man, with wine to quote, "GLADDEN THE HEART" Psalm 104:14/15.
B. McCausland wrote: If the verses were a command to observe in normal life as you attempt to say there would be an intrinsic contradiction of terms
The simple fact is that the Bible is the Word of God.
Clearly God does not see wine as a sin in itself nor the normal consumption of it.
Thus do you disagree with God.
Jesus DID turn water into wine and the church has known that since that particular wedding.
Wine and the consumption of it in reasonable form is NOT Sin!!!
What you are doing is forcing a moral position on people that is NOT from the Bible. Is NOT Christian.
Attitude to wine is that it is an everyday reality..... Matthew 9: Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.
B. McCausland wrote: 1. The concept of integrity and purity 2. The excess: fools mock with misleading issues. 3. The denial of any value is to one's disadvantage.
Is this the Word of God? "Proverbs 31:6 Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts 7 Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more."
Does this advice of God lack integrity and purity?
Do you consider God to be foolish in declaring this advice?
Do you judge the Lord to be denying your ideal "value" in this Proverb?
Do you receive and accept God's advice in this Proverb?
Wayfarer pilgrim wrote: The killer bought his guns legally. Most likely by his mom, as did the Sandy Hook killer. Mental health background check as well as any local crime violation needs to be part of a background check. But, we've entered Nutland when people " talk "of gun violence and how best to deal with this.
The age of onset of mental health disorders is mixed and various in the community. Diagnosis is invariably later on in life in many cases. Many MH cases do not necessarily suggest a danger to the general public and therefore may go unheeded by patient as well as family and medical professionals. For example you may have no obvious indication of MH problems today but tomorrow you might suffer a break down which might not be diagnosed as a danger to self or others. However down the line somewhere you could move into a psychotic and unstable area where you loose contact with reality. Nearly one in five Americans it is reported suffer from a MH illness - Do you suggest removing their guns? If so on what basis?
John's witness is Roman Catholic in that he accepts the place of idolatry, blasphemy, worship of dead people and relics, iconolatry etc etc - As a place where he can worship God. Question is, Does God accept the sins idolatries and transgressions of man in conjunction with and in communion with the worship of HIS people?
Or should we respect and praise God for providing the true Church after the Reformation and thank HIM by attending what God has providentially ordained and provided. And join with God's true believers worshipping Him according to His Scriptures?
John's example is that you can attend anything that is vaguely religious and expect God to accept your views over HIS providence and Bible instructions. Thus people who attend RCC, JW, Mormon, Mosque or synagogue are religious enough to get by???
""the American church no longer bears any resemblance at all to the one that in the past proclaimed ‚Äúthe faith which was once delivered unto the saints.‚ÄĚ (Oops, I quoted from the KJV, high on the new evangelicals‚Äô mockery list)""
Socialism and its sister (PC) Liberalism got Obama and the Democrats elected. This partially derives from a socialist type immigrant increase in recent decades.
Liberalism is polluting and destroying church and morals in western society.
The establishment versions of 'church' are of course being gradually influenced by Liberalism and have been since the sixties. Their policy is ditch the Bible and keep the sin - eg. homosexuality.
By removing God from the authorship of Scripture - and subsequently blaming Moses and man for the "mythological" parts of Scripture, they remove God and embrace the politically correct religion of modern man.
Liberal idolatry is the worship of man containing the conviction that he is much more educated today therefore better able than previous generations to construct a Bible which does not discriminate against anybody. Viz. All sinners are equal whether they belong to church or not, thus their god receives everybody into heaven.
Punishment of sin and hell are therefore no longer entertained in religion.
Anybody can read and regurgitate the english words John. Even Mormons, Roman Catholics, JW's, cults, Arminians, socinians, antinomians, atheists, etc etc etc.
But as the Calvinists and the Puritans always teach and say; It is God who in Sovereignty elects and provides the indwelling Holy Spirit - which makes all the difference between the dead and alive.
As for "loving" John - God commands that we Love our neighbour and our enemy.
"13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come."
John UK wrote: You really shouldn't argue against the word of God. That makes you an unbelieving rebel.
You are the one who put forward that verse as a premise to prove what you had previously stated in relation to evidence of a true Christian.
I demonstrated that your premise is faulty.
My original statement then stands that YOU cannot tell from the outside who is a true believer or not. Which fact shows that your Baptist hypothesis of so called "Believers Baptism" - Is evidently and obviously flawed.
Perhaps it is time for you to go back to the strong Biblical Christians - the Puritans - and learn the facts.
Jim Linkon I think it is John UK who needs your advice.
John UK wrote: Observe: 1 John 5:1 KJV 1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.
John. This was taken from a Mormon site. Quote; "Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world and the Son of God. He is our Redeemer" Mormon Site
Question is the Mormon a true Christian according to your premise? ------ This is one from the Roman Catholics, Quote; "but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son." Christ, the Son of God made man, is the Father's one, perfect and unsurpassable Word." Roman Catholic site
Question; Does this declaration make Roman Catholics fit into your designation of true Christian?? -------- What about the folks referred to by Jesus in Matt 7:21-23? Are you convinced they are true Christians? After all they sound as though they fit the bill.