Presidential contender and former Godfather’s Pizza executive Herman Cain was clear and concise when addressing his views on homosexuality.
Fresh off his keynote speech at the Faith And Freedom Conference in Washington last weekend, Herman Cain took a socially conservative hard-line stance on sexual orientation in an interview with CBS News.
“I believe homosexuality is a sin because I’m a Bible-believing Christian, I believe it’s a sin,” Cain said, adding, “I believe it is a choice.”
Michael Hranek wrote: CV John UK and everyone else who prayed Thank you so much for your prayers. Stephanie's knee surgery went much better than we expected. The doctor didn't have to cut the bone in her leg to bring her knee cap back into its proper position. He told us when he began the procedure and released the ligaments/tendons (?) on the side of her knee her knee cap shifted back into place sparing having to cut bone and relign everything to do so, leaving him to only have to tie and tighten up everyhing where it should have been since she injured it. I am very appreciative to God for His mercy and grace in His answers to prayer. Stephanie and my wife Sarah are as well. Again Thank You and Thank God
Sorry I missed yor call. I'm glad everything turned out well. The Lord bless as you and your family continue to seek your will.
Thank there Lord there are are people like Herman Cain who will speak the truth on issues.
Thank you so much for your prayers. Stephanie's knee surgery went much better than we expected. The doctor didn't have to cut the bone in her leg to bring her knee cap back into its proper position. He told us when he began the procedure and released the ligaments/tendons (?) on the side of her knee her knee cap shifted back into place sparing having to cut bone and relign everything to do so, leaving him to only have to tie and tighten up everyhing where it should have been since she injured it.
I am very appreciative to God for His mercy and grace in His answers to prayer. Stephanie and my wife Sarah are as well.
Michael Hranek wrote: John UK Michael won't respond tomorrow morning his daughter is having surgery. 2. Impossible for God to hate? I take it you don't understand love. example if I love children I would hate abortion.
Will be praying for you and your family. God bless
Michael Hranek wrote: John UK Michael won't respond tomorrow morning his daughter is having surgery. 2. Impossible for God to hate? I take it you don't understand love. example if I love children I would hate abortion.
1. I shall remember her before the Lord, bro. No doubt others will too, now we know. 2. I've no doubt God hates abortion too, but if your argument for John 3:16 is correct, he loves all three: the abortionist, the aborted, and the mother, as well as the receptionist, the nurses, the cleaners et al.
John UK wrote: Yes indeedy! So the answer is "yes"? I believe it is right. Michael will respond no doubt early tomorrow morning to one or two of my queries. MH is a good brother, who seeks to focus more of his attention on the person of Christ rather than hyper doctrine; and when he finally assimilates the doctrines of grace I trust he will maintain his focus on our Lord Jesus Christ, as that is most refreshing.
I love chickens. I doubt I could kill one even if I was starving to death.
John UK Michael won't respond tomorrow morning his daughter is having surgery.
2. Impossible for God to hate? I take it you don't understand love. example if I love children I would hate abortion.
John UK wrote: I love chickens. I doubt I could kill one even if I was starving to death.
You love chickens and hate Muslims.
Killing a chicken is now worse than killing a Muslim? Before you said it was just the same.
You hate the Muslims, their children, their families, their lifestyle. You kick them when they are down, mock them for having large families, say they "breed like rabbits" and that caring about these people and wanting to see the killing and persecution of them stop is akin to wanting to stop eating chicken eggs.
You and Zionist Jim Lincoln side with the antichrist Jews, the Queen and the Jewish Golem, aka the Military Industrial Complex, against Muslim families, and then speak piously about how you love Jesus.
And what kind of example or proof do you have that Muslims curse "your precious Savior" as you accuse innocent Muslims already besieged and persecuted. Answer: None.
Freemasonry is Satanism. You and Jim Lincoln are on the wrong board here. They have better boards for people who love the devil's world system of perpetual war against families and children.
And Muslims are not into homosexuality, but the Zionists sure are. The Bible calls Jerusalem in the last days "Sodom and Egypt" (Rev. 11)
CV wrote: You're points are a clear basis to have discussion. It's not to thump others on their views. It's to help see if we have a biblical basis for our beliefs...
John UK wrote: Michael will respond no doubt early tomorrow morning to one or two of my queries.
You're points are a clear basis to have discussion. It's not to thump others on their views. It's to help see if we have a biblical basis for our beliefs
CV wrote: ELECTION: Way back, God CHOSE a PARTICULAR pagan (ABRAHAM) to extend His grace & have a covenant relationship. Through whom also, God CHOSE a PARTICULAR people to be His. He was the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob. He was not the God of the Amelakites. Israel was just as unworthy, God said so. Yet God CHOSE Israel, PARTICULARLY.
Looking forward to see the response on the points you made before. Particularly #7 & #9 and "election"
Yes indeedy! So the answer is "yes"? I believe it is right.
Michael will respond no doubt early tomorrow morning to one or two of my queries. MH is a good brother, who seeks to focus more of his attention on the person of Christ rather than hyper doctrine; and when he finally assimilates the doctrines of grace I trust he will maintain his focus on our Lord Jesus Christ, as that is most refreshing.
CV wrote: now u offend chickens...)
I love chickens. I doubt I could kill one even if I was starving to death.
John UK wrote: "God loves me particularly," is that a theologically correct answer?
That's a very accurate assessment of Islam you've posted in another thread. (Don't get battery/egg though. First rabits, now u offend chickens) ---------
ELECTION:
Way back, God CHOSE a PARTICULAR pagan (ABRAHAM) to extend His grace & have a covenant relationship. Through whom also, God CHOSE a PARTICULAR people to be His. He was the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob.
He was not the God of the Amelakites. Isreal was just as unworthy, God said so. Yet God CHOSE Israel, PARTICULARLY.
Looking forward to see the response on the points you made before. Particularly #7 & #9 and "election"
Tell me, if a seven year old Christian girl was asked, "Why do you imagine that God will bring you to heaven?" and she answered, "Because God loves me particularly," is that a theologically correct answer?
Michael Hranek wrote: John UK Excuse me my dear brother but you are erring on this one. Refraining from treating "Calvinists" with same kind of treatment they give anyone they label as an Arminian is one thing, and refusing to be sucked into "Calvinism" where they have made themselves the "infallible unquestionable dicatorial teaching magisterium of the Protestant Church" is another. John, I find little grace in a system of theololife." John CV too Talk about refusing the grace of God isn't what they do who deny 'the world' actually means that because that is what Jesus said, not saying "the elect" as some insist.
Micheal I appreciate you articulating your position. FINALLY!! Whew!
Before this, I didn't know where you stood.
I had an inkling that "elect" made God unloving. You launched into defending your position albeit in vague terms, without telling me what your position was.
I'll let you tackle John's post. It's very well thought out and to the point. Looking forward to you response.
Michael Hranek wrote: John UK Excuse me my dear brother but you are erring on this one.
Dear brother Michael
I think not.
Besides, it is clear you would rather talk about John 3:16 than Romans 8:30. You post and debate in the arminist's position, and yet deny it.
Notwithstanding, if your difficulty is with John 3:16, let us proceed to understand what the Lord is saying in John 3:16.
1. It is a simple undeniable fact that "God is Love". The Bible says it, and I believe it. 2. With the character of God being "Love", it is impossible for God to "Hate". Hatred is a fruit of the sinful, carnal nature of man. 3. Does this mean that God loves every man? 4. If God is "Angry" with the wicked every day, does he still love them? 5. Does John 3:16 indicate that God desires the salvation of every man? 6. If God does not save every man, why not? 7. If it is because the man did not put his trust in Christ, does that put the man's salvation in his own hands? 8. If no-one put their trust in Christ, is then the Love of God shown to be rather pathetic? For none would be saved. 9. If man is spiritually dead, how is he to believe in spiritual things? He cannot see the kingdom of God, nor can he enter the kingdom of God. 10. Later....
John UK wrote: The end result of an enlightening discussion is that professing non-arminists discover to their horror that they have been holding to arminist doctrine all along.
John UK Excuse me my dear brother but you are erring on this one. Refraining from treating "Calvinists" with same kind of treatment they give anyone they label as an Arminian is one thing, and refusing to be sucked into "Calvinism" where they have made themselves the "infallible unquestionable dicatorial teaching magisterium of the Protestant Church" is another.
John, I find little grace in a system of theology that denies the very words of Jesus Christ actually meaning what he said, here is my example:
To some 'the world' doesn't mean at all every man, woman, girl and boy but only "the elect" in John 3:16
"For God so loved the world that He gave His Only Begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
John CV too Talk about refusing the grace of God isn't what they do who deny 'the world' actually means that because that is what Jesus said, not saying "the elect" as some insist.
CV wrote: I was looking for an enlightening discussion.
The end result of an enlightening discussion is that professing non-arminists discover to their horror that they have been holding to arminist doctrine all along.
So the closer you get to the truth of the matter, the more vague will their answers become.
Moreover, whom he did predestinate (in eternity past), them (and them only, inwardly) he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified (each and every one without fail, because they are all brought effectually to faith and repentance): and whom he justified, them he also glorified (in eternity future, a guarantee of acceptance in heaven). Romans 8:30 KJV.
REPENT= Repentance done as a onetime event of a lost sinner unto salvation
REPENT= Repentance that is ongoing whenever we sin
Bit disappointing when you could've come in much sooner and said you meant one & not the other & cleared any confusion.
Either way, it ought to have been clear that I was referring to " AT THE BEGINNING PLACE, where, GOD ACTS FIRST.
You never answered this question, & whether, in this place, man can reject Gods offer. I was looking for an enlightening discussion.
Instead you seem to have discovered where you can hide behind this word game, REPENT vs REPENT, and now seem to be saying GOTCYA! Really disappointing!
As to Mike's question, even without knowing what I know now, I HAD answered when I covered "changed nature from carnal to spiritual" & ongoing "CONTINUALLY seek after God." (We cannot lose our salvation (where do you stand?))
I could've clarified any misunderstanding raised from my posts if there was a clear bak & forth dialog. But you spent the whole time being at war.
Mike wrote: Perhaps when Michael refers to repentance, he's talking the biblical repentance unto life. (not the repentance of a believer who has commited a sin.) He probably wonders how this can mean a reversed life unto repentance, which your ordo pretty much does, for eternal life begins upon regeneration.
Mike NY Thanks for the post, you have put it into good words.
Your earlier question was excellent as WHY! Would someone aready regenerated (born again) need to repent of being a sinner?
Believers repent form sinning when we wretchedly sin and fail Christ but believers have no need to repent of being a lost sinner desperately needing salvation do they.
Chippy wrote: Michael The Reformed order of salvation comes directly from Scripture. Now do you know where in Scripture the Biblical order is found? Just to help you - here is the Biblical Ordo Salutis.... 1) election, 2) predestination, 3) gospel call 4) inward call 5) regeneration, 6) conversion (faith & repentance), 7) justification, 8) sanctification, and 9) glorification.
Perhaps when Michael refers to repentance, he's talking the biblical repentance unto life. (not the repentance of a believer who has commited a sin.) He probably wonders how this can mean a reversed life unto repentance, which your ordo pretty much does, for eternal life begins upon regeneration.
The "order" was in regards to 5 & 6, and it started from here-
Michael Hranek wrote: NOT sit like some bump on a log just waiting to be regenerated BEFORE and APART FROM repentance and faith
Is man an equal and necessary participant with God in the first of instance?
CV wrote: Hi Michael I'm sure you've covered most of this before but I'm not clear here.
Regeneration is something God does Repentance is something we do
In the order you presented, God doe's not act first, nor independently.
If in giving us Faith, Gods acts first (and by grace), doe's this faith produce repentance EVERY time?
Or doe's that faith leave it up to man to respond (repent), for regeneration to happen?
I take it that you don't believe in predestination? election? Thanks bro I may not respond because of my erratic schedule. But am following the thread. regards
109
There are a total of 128 user comments displayed | add new comment |
COMMENTS | 
