Biglugs wrote: ...Pastor's stance on homosexuality
I am 100% sure...
1. Matthew Henry is a commentator, NOT scripture. If you forget that, you will find yourself in Pastor Chuck's shoes, given to man's opinion over God's. Who knows? You might be the next one to burn Servatus at the stake or sue someone $500,000 for defaming YOUR character.
Look at what Jesus says in the Gospel of Matthew in the Bible (not commentary) 18:21-35 When Peter asked Him the same question you just did.
I also appreciate the Mormon stance on Homosexuality, but the Gospel they preach is poison.
For you to be 100% sure, would mean you have "inside information". Interesting. You quote M. Henry like C. O'Neal does, and you have insider information too to match your ego BigLugs.
If you aren't C. O'Neal you could be his twin.
Gal6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
May God continue His Mercy on us and not give us what we deserve, and we truly understand the Grace He gave which NONE can earn.
londonderrry wrote: ...I find Julie Anne's numerous insinuations of sexual sin very disturbing and worthy of condemnation. I certainly think that if someone was making unfounded accusations of this heinous nature against me or a member of my family...
What/who is the Body of Christ? It's not Biblical to counter attack (in this case what bodily damage did she do?), and his $500.000 law suit has brought reproach to Christ. The eyes of the American Public clearly see this attack against free speech as reproachful. Plain and simple. It is.
I do agree with you in some degree, and I do find several of her posts repugnant as well. How often we see God bringing judgment on his own people by those equally ungodly. There is bad news all the way around when we reject Christ and the Word of God.
londonderrry wrote: ... If these accusations are only malicious lies, than Julie doesn't appear to be much of a Christian and the prohibitions in 1 Corinthians 6 wouldn't apply. BTW, what is a 'Dispy'... a dispensationalist?
Well then, Love your enemy does apply then! Why are you so bent on accusing her and finding her fault londonderrry? I've been reading her blog today, and following her links and reading the material on those linked to sites.
This Pastor lied about being "told to bring legal action" on these people by Grace Community Church or... the people ((a Pastor at Grace Community Church) who "told him" he should bring a law suit are lying about it now.
Also, I'm not saying this lady is a Rose Parade, and I am concerned when I don't see clear and distinct evidence of her "point being" leading others to Christ, not just pointing out a wolf.
Yes Dispy = Dispensationalist. Reason I cry cult? Classic Dispensationalism is anti-Trinitarian.
Why? Since the Holy Spirit leaves the earth at the pre-trib Rapture, and then later many people are saved during "the tribulation", then they are saved without the Holy Spirit (who already left). This =Trinity Fail. And suggests Salvation is possible apart from God all 3 Persons = Cult
londonderrry wrote: Hi Westy. I don't know the Pastor or church in question, ... her numerous public attacks on this church and it's pastor.
She did not bring a law suit against the Church or the Pastor. The Pastor is suing her and others, after proclaiming that he was advised to bring the case to Law, which is clearly against scripture and... according to what I read, not at all the supposed advice of GTY. I quote Her blog... "Phil Johnson from Grace Community Church (John MacArthur's church) reached out to me yesterday and we had a lengthy conversation."
blog found here; http://bgbcsurvivors.blogspot.com/
However, I will say this, that church was the only one I have ever been to, that a member actually approached me with the express purpose to see if I was "saved". On the first visit. We've been in a lot of churches and I can't remember any at all anywhere else that has happened. (it was that reputation why we wanted to go there)
What is interesting to me about this, is the amount of genuine disgust and even anger about this hypocrisy from the gay Savage, that I notice welling up in me.
I'm not sure why this story "strikes a nerve" more than similar stories, but it does and it's almost like it has been engineered and well planned to do so.
Usually I think something along the lines of pray for their salvation and just remember the eternal Hell they will face if they die in this sin. It wasn't my first thought this time, something is wrong, and it's probably with me.
nicole wrote: Folks, before we start in with the same old same old of criticizing everything... How about being challenged by what this man is doing! How much Scripture do YOU have memorized? What are you working on right now? We can all grow in this area, I'm sure.
God have mercy. Cos he is a God of mercy right ? A forgiving God right ? A loving God right ? A God who's son came right ? A God who made a way right ? Naaa can't be from what I see peeps saying we are all ...........
"God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;[a] yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin,[b] nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.[c]
[a] Rom 9:15, 18; 11:33; Eph 1:11; Heb 6:17. [b] James 1:13, 17; 1 John 1:5. [c] Prov 16:33; Mat 17:12; John 19:11; Acts 2:23; 4:27-28.
"Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions,[a] yet hath he not decreed anything because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.[b]
[a] 1 Sam 23:11-12; Mat 11:21, 23; Acts 15:18. [b] Rom 9:11, 13, 16, 18.
WCF ch.3 ------
Jonathan Edwards does an excellent job in his book Freedom of the Will showing that the concept of ultimate human self-determination is philosophically contradictory and thus impossible.
4 "According as he hath chosen us in him BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: 5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will," Eph 1.
John UK wrote: #2 Read more slowly, and take it all in, rather than making your doctrine from just one section. e) Who are his ELECT, eh? f) Answer - Only the Lord knows
John me ole stack o'beans
John Calvin said on Acts 2:39
"This place, therefore, doth abundantly refute the manifest error of the Anabaptists, which will not have infants, which are the children of the faithful, to be baptized, as if they were not members of the Church. They espy a starting hole in the allegorical sense, and they expound it thus, that by children are meant those which are spiritually begotten. But this gross impudency doth nothing help them. It is plain and evident that Peter spoke thus because God did adopt one nation peculiarly. And circumcision did declare that the right of adoption was common even unto infants. Therefore, even as God made his covenant with Isaac, being as yet unborn, because he was the seed of Abraham, so Peter teacheth, that all the children of the Jews are contained in the same covenant, because this promise is always in force, I will be the God of your seed."
Aahh such a godly preacher of the Truth, Calvin was.
Candle Lit wrote: Oh, I see that you are *westy* now.
No, my dear; He is not Westy. I am! You appear to be a little confused. My posts will be good solid Biblical Presbyterian Calvinist Truth's which may emanate from the Westminster Confession of Faith - Hency the moniker "Westy" OK.
John UK wrote: The John UK Confession is even better: "Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word." Praise the Lord!
And where did your mob 'COPY' this from John?
wrote: Baptists like myself believe that God's election is never based on DNA, but on his sovereign choice alone, and this is shown in the fact that in any family group there will be Christians and non-Christians and there will be some enmity between such.
So John you don't believe the Bible when it states
Acts 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
JD wrote: The calvs on this forum have had the wonderful opportunity in the last few days to witness a major plank in their doctrinal platform taken up and exposed as false doctrine......
Now, it is going to be interesting to see where their loyalties really are. Will they ignore the proof and continue to say one must be regenerated in order to believe? Will they forsake the tulip as false
JD You are an Arminian!! We can observe this in your posts.
The Doctrines of Grace (TULIP) are Biblical and the Holy Spirit is the teacher of these doctrines to the Elect. We will not forsake the Spirit and His guidance.
The alternative means of salvation, (by works) which you the Papists and others have taught, have been rejected as heresy down through the centuries.
God is Sovereign. Total Depravity is a deterrent factor in the human condition. Regeneration is only by the Spirit. Faith is the GIFT of God.
Jesus said we are to judge them by their fruit.
Your fruit ("proof")is not of Christ, not of the Spirit and plainly not Biblical. Sorry!