True Believer Wrote: "The postings I have read on this sight are just as bad. How about some GOOD news for a change? There are plenty of believers who are out there preaching the Good news of Christ and changing lives."
Hi TB, yes, we're so overwhelmed with all of the bad, that it's sometimes easy to forget that there's also plenty of good, and positive things to point out and discuss. The mainstream media reports on plenty of good news, but the problem is that it's all good news, as they see it, like the wild success and turnout of the pride parades, Trump being caught in a lie, a Christian baker losing a lawsuit, or whatever. The bad news of a world waxing worse and worse, is rampant, and getting darker and darker, for sure, but we were warned that these things must come first, so I don't tune out, I look up as His coming draws ever closer, and the end of days approaches.
Anyway, I do agree that a mix of some more uplifting and positive news coming out of a darkening world would be a good thing to offset the bad. There's a whole lot of bad, but so much good that gets trumped by the blood, gore, and crimes of mankind.
@Gay Allen- Being a woman is a difficult trade, since it consists primarily of dealing with men.
Ouch!ūüėä Well, we can be reckless, and stubborn at times, that's for sure, and the woman comes with her own set of challenges for the man, but we can sure compliment each other when it's God who draws the two together.
"...And if denying 'gender identity' really did cause suicide, why are suicide rates of young people, especially girls, dramatically increasing, at this time when they are finally able to be their ‚Äėauthentic selves‚Äô?"
Woe, woe, and woe, to the parents, guardians, and those who are suppose to protect and guide the young ones, yet have confused, used, and abused them, in order to promote their own diabolical agendas.
Children as young as 3yrs old are seeking gender reassignment??? They aren't confused and seeking out reassignment...their wicked, delusional parents are. How utterly disgusting, and yet, it isn't child abuse or endangerment, it's tolerance, understanding, and allowing a child to decide, and be who they feel they are. Problem is that it's the adults convincing them that their gender just may have been a mistake. Sickening.
Then, there are the pronouns...the non-binary nonsense, where the kids claim to be neither male, female, or even, both, depending on how they're feeling at the moment, and their teachers are ordered to refer to them, using their pronouns of choice, even if they flip every five minutes. Unreal and unnerving that the kids are being used to further the sodomite/LGBTQ agendas.
DT wrote: 8 So then they that are in the flesh ***cannot*** please God.
Thanks again, Darren. I read through Romans 7 this morning. Whether it's this topic, or any other, it's always interesting to see how everyone arrives at their particular view. When I said, "Sure is amazing...", it was because the same exact Bible is used to arrive at those differing views.
Thanks Darren...I just read through the passages, and Romans. In order to process it, what do you think about Cornelius being looked at as a type of Old Testament Saint at the time, in order for any deed to be considered righteous? I was thinking that he, like the Old Testament Saints, had faith in the future forgiveness that the prophesied one to come would make possible through His death, and though he believed, he just wasn't aware that Jesus was the one who would come, until Peter got to him with the good news(?)
Like the Saints of Old, he had faith in the one who would come, and because of that, was basically already saved, so his deeds could be considered righteous by God(?)
Or, his faith in the one to come had already been credited to him, but Peter's good news sort of sealed the deal?
To John's benefit, he said his mind is open on it now. Not sure if it was when this first came up or not.
"Here's the question for you, Christopher: "Before the new covenant finally took off, how was a Gentile (who was a sinner like all other men upon earth) made right with God?
Or, if you prefer, "how could an OT man get to heaven?" [If you wish, you could use Abram as an example.]"
John, this will be quick, and basic, but I think the answer is ultimately, Christ's death. Animal sacrifice was substitutionary, and covered sin temporarily, but had to be done over and over, until Christ's work on the cross was finished, but what about New Testament saints having to believe in Christ to be Heavenbound, when the Old Testament saints lived before His time? I think that's what you were asking. I'd say that Christ was still the answer...their faith in the forgiveness, and the sacrifice of the Christ who was yet to come; the prophesied one. They were sort of saved on credit...not sure if that's a great way to put it or not.
Maybe Cornelius could have been being considered along the lines of an Old Testament saint, I guess, in order for anything he did to be considered righteous(???) No, he didn't yet believe, in ignorance, but God already knew he would, once Peter brought the good news(???)
I can't see how a lost Cornelius could do anything acceptable.
Thanks Darren. Putting everything together is making more sense of things to me. So important to study, study, study, whether it's this here, or any other passages/portions of scripture. How many false doctrines/views, have been born from single, out of context verses, and it's some of these very verses that set many apart, and the Charismatics are a fine example of what can go wrong when proper context is disregarded and dismissed, but many fall prey.
Anyway, I'll be thinking about all of this.
John, I'll have to get back to you on your question...my time has about run out for right now.
John, Corneilius was already of the elect, from before the foundation of the world; from before time ever was. Though he believed in The Living God; The Creator, no, he didn't believe in The Son, the prophesied one who was to come; The Savior of the world, the Christ, Jesus. Corneilius, however, unlike the Pharisees, who should have known better, yet fought against, hated, and murdered The Savior, was innocently ignorant, and just needed the information that Peter brought to him; the good news, to come full circle, and seal the deal. Corneilius was a good, and upright man, who basically already belonged to Him, but his lack of belief in The Son, was due to a lack of information, and nothing more. Peter brought the good news to him, and he believed, immediately, sealing the circle, and filling the void.
Taking the above into consideration, I can better process how a good deed can be considered pleasing, acceptable, righteous, because Corneilius was innocently ignorant, searching, a good man, and whose unbelief in The Son, was only due to a lack of information about The Son.
Make any sense, or am I giving Corneilius too much wiggle room, since technically, he didn't yet believe in The Son when trying to figure how his works could be considered pleasing, acceptable, righte
"Re: Isaiah 64 - don‚Äôt forget that the majority in Israel were always unbelievers but because of the national covenant the godly would nevertheless lament when the nation as a whole left off obeying God. Who is it that felt the national judgements of God most keenly? It was always the godly and they lamented when the ungodly did not. The ungodly only did so when the judgements were calamitous.
So for instance v7 none calleth upon they name would be an absurdity if it meant literally no one because the person lamenting is doing exactly that. So it doesn't mean literally no one, just by comparison they were so few."
Excellent, thanks. Gave some more clarity on this.
...by the way, I'm not too proud to admit that I'm one of those who always mis-understood Isaiah 64:6, until studying the context much closer, yesterday, and this morning. I think much of Christendom uses it as a stand-alone, go-to, "prooftext" to show that anything we do, is still filthy in His sight. While it's true that there's just no comparison between our most righteous of deeds, and His own righteousness, He can still find our deeds acceptable unto Him.
I never realized that it was the pleas, and laments of the backslidden:
5 Thou meetest him that rejoiceth and worketh righteousness, those that remember thee in thy ways: behold, thou art wroth; for we have sinned: in those is continuance, and we shall be saved.
6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
7 And there is none that calleth upon thy name, that stirreth up himself to take hold of thee: for thou hast hid thy face from us, and hast consumed us, because of our iniquities.
8 But now, O Lord, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.
You can just ignore this if you'd rather not resurrect the topic, but Corneilius has been on my mind. After perusing through the thread, and relavent scriptures, wouldn't you say that Corneilus (not sure I'm spelling the name right), was already a believer; a Gentile believer, rather than an unbeliever; an enemy of God, whose works still pleased God, regardless?
I can't make any sense of God being pleased with any efforts of an unbeliever, because, aside from other reasons, it seems to me that He would have been pleased with those of the Pharisees, etc., as well, and all the more. They were filled with selfish pride, and though they didn't believe that Jesus was He who would come; The prophesied One, they were believers in God, The Creator, whereas, an unbeliever; a hater of The Living God, can do works pleasing unto God?
Any chance you could be mistaken on that? Not a huge deal if you'd rather pass on it, but I've been trying to process, and reconcile viewing this any other way.
Will do, Michael. Really horrifying what's been going on over there. Living in relative peace and safety, makes it impossible to comprehend what you all have had to experience. Difficult to stomach the things that mankind is capable of doing to each other, and for such non-sensical reasons.
Osteen drew criticism in 2013 when he told the Huffington Post that God accepts homosexuals without also mentioning the requirement of repentance.
‚ÄúYou say [in your book] ‚Ä¶ ‚ÄėIt doesn‚Äôt matter who likes you or doesn‚Äôt like you; all that matters is that God likes you. He accepts you; He approves of you,‚ÄĚ host Josh Zepps stated. ‚ÄúIs that true for gay men or true for homosexuals?‚ÄĚ
‚ÄúAbsolutely,‚ÄĚ Osteen replied. ‚ÄúI believe that God‚Äôs breathed His life into every person. We‚Äôre all on a journey. Nobody‚Äôs perfect.‚ÄĚ
‚ÄúThe Bible says that sin is pride, sin is selfish ambition,‚ÄĚ he continued. ‚ÄúWe tend to pick on certain things, but I believe every person is made in the image of God, and you‚Äôve got to accept them as they are as they‚Äôre on their journey.‚ÄĚ
Mr Olsteen reminds me of Pope Francis' response to basically the same line of questioning: "Who am I to judge", and it was that very answer that the LGBTQ community ran with the very next day, to say the church was finally welcoming them with open arms.
Ok, I'll read the rest of the comments in this thread to see where things were going. Again, I was just making a simple contrast, but I want to see if I'm mis-understanding anything when it comes to how God Himself views it all, when it comes to our own "righteousness".