Dr. Tim wrote: Anglicanism is generally corrupt and apostate in these latter days, JUK, but I do believe Ryle was an evangelical in the true sense of the word. Said he, ‚ÄúIf you desire salvation, and want to know what to do, I advise you to go this very day to the Lord Jesus Christ, in the first private place you can find, and earnestly and heartily entreat him in prayer to save your soul. Tell him that you have heard that he receives sinners, and he has said, ‚ÄėHim that comes unto me I will in no wise cast out.‚Äô Tell him that you are a poor vile sinner, and that you come to him on the faith of his own invitation. Tell him you put yourself wholly and entirely in his hands: that you feel vile and helpless, and hopeless in yourself: and that except he saves you, you have no hope of being saved at all. Beseech him to deliver you from guilt, the power, and the consequences of sin. Beseech him to pardon you, and wash you in his own blood. Beseech him to give you a new heart, and plant the Holy Spirit in your soul. Beseech him to give you grace and faith and will and power to be his disciple and servant from this day forever. Oh, reader, go this very day, and tell these things to the Lord Jesus Christ, if you are really in earnest about your soul.‚ÄĚ
The discipleship curriculum needs to bring back prayer and fasting, so that today's disciples will have more power and spiritual energy to deal with evil spirits, which are still roaming this earth and dwelling in people.
Of course, those who have never read the KJV will not have any idea what I'm talking about.
Frank wrote: Well I don‚Äôt think the forum should be used as a social platform; I use emails for that. So your post indicated that Anglican literature in those bookstores simply showed they were apostates. I was under the impression that some Anglican identified themselves as Lutheran so I felt I was somewhat on topic? And I have never run across a religious church that actually said the things I noted on their web page. So, I just thought you would find it interesting. No ulterior motive brother!
No problem brother Pilgrim.
Yes I did find it interesting, and no, I never heard that any Anglicans identified themselves with Lutheranism. That was a puzzlement to me. That's all bro.
Of course, not all Anglican writers were or are apostates. My all-time favourite writer, to whom I turn whenever I need help with a passage, especially in the gospels, is that amazing Anglican Bishop, J. C. Ryle, whose warmhearted expositions of scripture always delight the soul and give great encouragement. Liverpool was very blessed to have him there, but I doubt many, if any, of the modern Anglicans would read him today.
I rather think that if a sinner turns to God, he's turning away from something else, as in verse 9 below.
1 Thessalonians 1:6-10 KJV (6)¬† And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost: (7)¬† So that ye were ensamples to all that believe in Macedonia and Achaia. (8)¬† For from you sounded out the word of the Lord not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place your faith to God-ward is spread abroad; so that we need not to speak any thing. (9)¬† For they themselves shew of us what manner of entering in we had unto you, and how ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God; (10)¬† And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.
To my mind (as Connor has already mentioned) faith and repentance go together, and if you have the one you have the other. God will not work faith in you, without causing you to hate sin, and see God's wrath on sin at the Cross.
As I said, the unregenerate love sin, and will not let go of it, till God works repentance in them.
"The Archbishop of Canterbury is being asked replace a new ambassador to the Vatican after reports surfaced that he doesn't believe Jesus physically resurrected from death."
Go into any large second-hand bookshop in the UK, go to the religion section, and you will inevitable find some very old, musty books written by Anglicans, about religious subjects. You won't have to read very much before coming to the conclusion, "This man did not know the Lord Jesus Christ."
sc wrote: We are not to be physically exposed ourselves nor gaze upon others who are. Most of what passes for entertainment,including sports, is applicable. We shouldn't be surprised that our youth are confused with the double standard.
Some don't call the west decadent without good reason.
sc wrote: I think that we shouldn't call sodomites and homosexuals "gay" either. "Sodomite" and "homosexual" suffice. The word "gay" is in Scripture and it certainly doesn't mean homosexual.
Absolutely, SC. I thought about your post, and came to the conclusion that I never use the word gay at all, not in any context. The word meaning joyful has been lost.
And if ever I refer to homosexuals or lesbians, I usually refer to them as sodomites, which is a good word to remind one of what God did to those cities of the plain. And not forgetting Lot's wife either. One brother yesterday at Bible Study mentioned that Lot's wife looked back and was turned to a pillar of salt, and that was a good example to us never to look back with yearning to our old life of sin, but press on, following Jesus, having put our hand to the plough. It was a very sobering moment.
If Steven Anderson has been a blessing to you in your Christian life, then of course it will be difficult to hear anything said against him. That is perfectly normal.
However, it seems to me, from what I've read in this thread, that he is a most odd fellow. For example:
Do you believe that God would save a sinner who was unrepentant? (Answer = No)
So that to say the gospel has no mention of repentance is most odd, to say the least. (cf. Acts 20:21)
And then there is his concern that repentance would be a work, making salvation works-based. But then he will have to tell me where the repentance comes from. Is it from God, or from a man's heart? If he says the latter, then he is not believing the scripture which tells us that a sinner is dead in trespasses and sins, that he is bound in sin, that he does not seek after God; he has no spiritual discernment, being unregenerate.
But if it comes from God, or should I say, God works it in his heart, and gently changes his will so that he becomes submissive and desirous of salvation, then if it is a work at all, it is a work of God. And Jesus being the author of faith, he also works that in the heart; thusly, no man may boast of his decision.
Dr. Tim wrote: Do I want to have a go at answering the question, John? No. I want to start obeying Titus 3:9. I want to stop wasting my time on such fruitless endeavors as debating those who know a lot about what the Bible says, but have little understanding of what it means. I want to do something worth doing‚ÄĒwhich pretty much eliminates posting comments on SA (Schismatics Anonymous).
Doc, what's up? Let's look at this.
Titus 3:9 KJV (9)¬† But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
Sure, we are to avoid FOOLISH questions, and GENEALOGIES (no longer relevant), and CONTENTIONS, and STRIVINGS about the law. Why? Because they are unprofitable and vain.
However, the question I asked was not foolish but sensible. It can set your theology straight, if you will but accept what the Bible teaches.
Do you accept that Genesis 17:7 is talking about all Abram's descendents? I know a lot of people accept that as true.
But the NT gives us a completely different understanding of it, this eternal covenant which God has made with ".........". Can you fill in the gap?
J4 wrote: John UK... Sounds like a tithe to me. However, if you want to say they came together on the first day of the week to give to charity, I suppose that is alright too. I think they were storing it at the church, as they also did in Galatia, on the first day of the week.
John, Paul had instructed the churches in Galatia already, it was all about a collection for the saints in Jerusalem, not a tithing.
You may be right about it being collected and held at the assembly room, John Calvin agrees. But the translation "first day of the week" is clearly incorrect. It should read Sabbath, or one of the Sabbaths.
"On one of the Sabbaths. The end is this ‚ÄĒ that they may have their alms ready in time. He therefore exhorts them not to wait till he came, as anything that is done suddenly, and in a bustle, is not done well, but to contribute on the Sabbath what might seem good, and according as every one‚Äôs ability might enable ‚ÄĒ that is, on the day on which they held their sacred assemblies." JC
Thank you Christopher for your post and life experience. The article is a good example of comparing the cult and the true.
I wish I still had the little JW's discipleship manual which I acquired in the 80's from a junk shop. In it, they are very cleverly told how to spot a Pharisee-type Christian, when they go visiting on the doors. I'm sure there are a lot of fellow believers who don't realise this. But a lot of the things we do as Christians "reveal" to the door-knockers that we cannot be trusted because we are no better than the Pharisees of Jesus day.
I'm sure my own JW must be a bit puzzled, as over the Christmas period we were able to talk with him about paganism like Saturnalia and Roman Catholicism, and how the church has gone away from truth in many areas. So that although I am not a JW myself, he has finally met another person following Christ who holds the same principle as himself. And that must be causing him some thought.
J4 wrote: ‚ÄúOn the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that there will be no collecting when I come.‚ÄĚ ‚Ä≠‚Ä≠1 Corinthians‚Ä¨ ‚Ä≠16:2‚Ä¨ They collected tithes on the first day of the week.
J4, there is absolutely no mention of tithing in this verse. Nor is there a collection for that church. It was only a method for saving up money for the poor brethren in Jerusalem. It has nothing to do with a church service on a Sunday. The money was to be kept aside by each person, not given in an offertory box. Duh.
Oh John, why oh why do you accept what Yee Ha preachers tell you, rather than study the Bible for yourself? This is not rocket science, a ten year old will reach the same conclusion about what this text is saying. Which makes you wonder what is wrong with these Yee Ha preachers.
James Thomas wrote: If you read Isa. 49 and insert Christ for thee some questions of difficulty come to mind. Isaiah 49:4 Is 49:4 Then I said, I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength for nought, and in vain: yet surely my judgment is with the LORD, and my work with my God. In the above, the speaker recognized self labour for righteousnes is vain.
James, where did you get the idea that the speaker was trying to gain righteousness by works? It doesn't say that in the verse.
As I see it, by far the best thing we can do is to go through Isaiah 49 the first seven verses, and look at it verse by verse, in great detail, and thusly ascertain to whom it refers, whether it be to Paul, Christ, or indeed someone else.
You obviously have a reason why it is important for you to believe it is Paul, although no-one yet understands why that should be. But notwithstanding, I hope you will be willing to study with me the scripture, sharing and caring, especially as we both believe the answer is always found in the scriptures.
B. McCausland wrote: True, John. Blessed are ye when men speaking evil of you. Jesus said, many good works have I done among you, for which do you stone me? However, religious fellows went on blaspheming God while arguing Christ himself.
Religious is the word. That's what these anonymous trolls remind me of. Or should I say the troll with many monikers. It happened in the past when one troll said something, and then he would come back with another moniker and support himself, as if to bolster his position. And then a third, and so on.