God knew the children of Israel would not change their wicked ways.Â Â Â Yet note in several verses He stated that He sent unto them His servants the prophets rising up and early to tell them to hearken unto HIs Words.Â Â We donâ€™t state that God was disingenuous in His call for them to change their way or His promise to alter His actions accordingly. Neither do we diminish the character of God because Israelites did not do what He said. The same could be stated about what He stated in Ezekiel
Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?
The verseÂ Â in 2nd Peter means what it says.Â Â That does not change in anyway the character or power of God anymore than do the verses previously mentioned.
Darren Thomas wrote: Those who force the meaning to mean every single individual have an impoverished god who can wish but not accomplish what he desires. Who desires all to come, but refuses to draw them. They remain unconcerned about the Bible contradictions they create
Does this mean that John 6:44 is of no value to the Lord? It definitely states that all that the Father gave will come, but here is I Peter God is not willing that some should perish? How would this even be a possibility to consider?
Dolores wrote: Ups, I use scripture when I make a point on here or my own experiences that I have gone through and God has taught me personally. You can take or leave what I say, thatâ€™s your freedom to do. No one guides me on here especially through links. There are wolves everywhere in sheepâ€™s clothing trying to destroy Jesusâ€™s sheep. We are in a spiritual warfare and yes , I have a God given spirit that helps me. Links have taken Billy Graham and Franklin to the cleaners with their judging . I have been torn apart by LB and others on here because I donâ€™t believe like they do. Even called mentally ill.by LB because I hear in my heart as God speaks to and you agree with her and others that give out links on here. The ones I donâ€™t trust are those that judge and condemn others without anything but their instincts because they donâ€™t know me or my lifestyle.
Thanks for responding. If you answered my questions please forgive my ignorance it went completely over my head. Have good day and get some rest there, John is about 6 hours ahead of you.
Dolores wrote: so I pay no attention to links or those that use them
Dolores you are certainly within your rights to not check out links, even though they were offered to help you out.
However, in my 6/24/19 9:38 PM post I used no links but the words of Beth Moore praising and using Roman Catholic heretical teaching and aligning herself with false prophets Joel Osteen and Joyce Meyer. Do your instincts (your words) tell you that Roman Catholicism,so called contemplative prayer,Lectio Divina,Osteen, and Meyer are okay?
Why would not at least use this type of information to inform your church that they are using a wolf in sheep's clothing to teach their ladies about the Bible?
This is to an attack on you, these are simply questions about your thinking on the teachings of Beth Moore the subject of the article. Thanks
Every day with Jesus Is sweeter than the day before Every day with Jesus I love Him more and more. Jesus saves and keeps me And He's the one I'm waiting for Every day with Jesus Is sweeter than the day before
from various internet sources, there is much available to show she is a wolf in sheep's clothing
'According to Beth, she is Godâ€™s divine instrument and He is giving her extra-biblical revelation to give to the whole church. The errors just continued from there. Aside from all the exegetical errors in her teaching and the extra-biblical revelations, she promotes the dangerous mystical practice of contemplative prayer. She claims Catholicism is part of the Christian church! She has no problem teaching men.Â She has even recently aligned herself with Joyce Meyer and Joel Osteen, attending and speaking at conferences at his Lakewood church'
'Beth Moore promotes contemplative prayer: "A true lover of God once spoke about practicing God's presence. To me that's such a part of contemplative prayer. That we are able to absorb the reality that as we commune with God through prayer that he is with us that his spirit for those of us who are in Christ fills us that we are drawn near to him that our souls find rest in him."Â (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sPMPmOEV0c).Â In this video she was praising Brother Lawrence, an apostate Roman Catholic Monk"
looks like her lack of speaking out against sodomites isn't the only issue she has.
Michael Hudson wrote: christopher000 from Rhode Island, Kinda strange you called Dr. Tony Evans a heretic and pelagian? Why do say? Could you provide some links to something he said that was heretical or pelagian? Thanks.
ladybug wrote: Scold your friends as you did DD, or apologize to DD.
My comment was not one made in outrage. If there was a problem with previous comments, and I agree that BMac, John UK should not have made them, there is an option to report them to the moderator.
I have no control over what comments people make and as I stated before, I do not read every comment made in the threads in which I post, so yes I miss stuff and yes there will be "crickets". Both Darren and John UK have been gracious to me in their comments, thus I didn't take notice of how they addressed others, also did not read what BMac had posted.
ladybug wrote: Tell us US, where was your outrage when 'BmC' said this in response to me, "Some things never change in this forum, in fact they come in predictable cycles of practice and behaviour. Such are, the entrenching into groups of shut-minded buddy condescension, the mushroom-like turned up of new monikers under cover, the mantra of pride, the dismantling of texts to accommodate a fixed position, and the adhominem propaganda when arguments cannot be refuted. There is a hint of "Leave them alone" in Scripture"...where was your scolding to her US? It's okay to be rude if you are BmC? Where was your outrage when John UK deemed Darren 'unsaved'? It was crickets from you US. It seems the double standard continues here doesn't it? I read DD's response, you deem it a 'needless attack', warning DD not to question her character, intelligence or state of redemption. Yet, you allow others to do that VERY THING. Before you point your finger at DD, check out the 'patterns' of your 'friends' US. Hypocrisy continues as well. Good comment DD
I confess I do not read every comment but noticed this one simply because it was the last one at the time I look. I also confess I am not perfect and entreat your forgiveness for my lack of consistency
What is without a doubt is that you have launched a needless attack on B McCausland not fitting in anyway of James 3:17 or Ephesians 4:1&2.
Your disagreement should not question her character, intelligence or state of redemption. You do have a pattern of doing this. May God grant you grace to be gracious and kind in expressing your thoughts.
Sorry not what I am saying Darren. Not sure I can clarify to your satisfaction. Will give it some thought
John, I donâ€™t view that as the Covenant of Works. Some do, but they are reading their interpretation into the passage. Itâ€™s been a long while since I spent considerable time there and as I said wasnâ€™t wanting to open that debate. Thank you for your kind words
Darren Thomas wrote: Hello brother, I agree that we should all be doers of the word......
Thanks for your response.
We interpret the Bible by comparing Scripture with Scripture. I said not all interpretation is equal because you said â€śthen the Romanist is as right as the Arminian, who is no better than the Hindu.â€ť
Let me put it this way. You would probably say in your studies of Scripture that the Bible teaches the Covenant of Works, Redemption and Grace. I would say these are nowhere in Scripture but man made doctrine. We are both using the same Bible and depending upon the same Holy Spirit. Our understanding is colored by the teaching we received and accepted as truth. The problem isnâ€™t in the Bible, it is in our understanding of what the Bible teaches and how we interpret it. (Not trying to start that debate)
Roughly a fourth of American women getting early abortions last year did so with drugs rather than surgery, statistics show, as a new study reported improved safety in using the so-called "abortion pill."
Some experts predict the percentage of such "medical abortions," which offer more privacy than surgical termination at an abortion clinic or hospital, will rise even more due to the new study.
believe that was from CNBC site
One thing for sure, it has nothing to do with the implementation of Obamacare.
No such thing as a "safe" abortions in nearly every case a child is murdered, no such thing as safe murder.
Darren Thomas wrote: UPS, I wasn't trying to upset you. I tried to make sense of what you posted and frankly didn't understand your point.
Brother Darren thanks for your response Let me see if a personal example will clear up what I am trying to say.
My brother (due to his Bible College training) after having read all of Calvinâ€™s Institutes said that he is a four point Arminian. (Doesnâ€™t think you can lose your salvation). He would say the DOG are heresy. (Believe me it makes for interesting discussions). A web search for DOG defended would yield about as many results as DOG debunked. I believe David Cloud, who has much useful stuff, would be in the debunked camp. Thus what one sees as plain as the nose on your face, how can you not see it in Scripture others think is bad hermeneutics.
Sure, not all interpretations of Scripture are equal, especially those put out by the unregenerate. We know they have no understanding of spiritual truth.
This debate in this thread will end up with no one changing their thinking. Ultimately Calvinist or Arminian are interpretations of Bible doctrine.
Personally I need to concentrate on by Godâ€™s grace is being a doer of the Word and not a hearer only. Hope that makes sense.
Darren Thomas wrote: I'm sorry UPS, you've lost me entirely here. Appears to me that you wish to vacate all meaning attached to the bible as man's interpretation. If that is so, who has the truth? And how shall we know? Perhaps we just give up on it and make up our own? Let each man's truth be his own interpretation, right?
Never said any of what you said and you seem to be. unwilling to admit that the Canons of Dordt are not the same as the Bible. Have a good day.
Darren Thomas wrote: Just because Spurgeon said it, does not make it true. Where is the scripture to justify this nonsense?
But if the Canons of Dordt says it then it must be true? They are no more inspired than Spurgeon. Both are manâ€™s interpretation of what is found in the Bible. (not addressing their accuracy) The term â€ślimited atonementâ€ť (not talking about the concept of it) is just like the terms depravity, irresistible, and unconditional, not found in Scripture. (Since you indicated that to be crucial)
If you do a search right here on SermonAudio for particular redemption it brings up 393 different sermons and three different series.
You appear to be are swallowing a gnat and straining a camel as both terms refer to the fact that Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it just to tenuously cling to the wording of mere men.
Dear sister ladybug I have not stated anywhere that DOG is inaccurate in and of itself. I would never elevate the words of man to the level of the Word of God.
I have read literally thousands of pages of Reformed theological works and listened to hours of Reformed preaching. So I also know that many in their camp intricately tie them to the Covenant of Works, Redemption, and Grace.
If we are going to state that the words of an ecclesiastical/governmental body are now the same as the Word of God then maybe I am in the wrong place.
I missed where I said all interpretation is on equal footing. It doesnâ€™t change the fact that the so called doctrines of Grace are manâ€™s interpretation of Godâ€™s Word and not the equivalent of Godâ€™s Word.
Sister ladybug whether or not you wish to acknowledge it or not the so called doctrines of Grace are a result of the Canons of Dordt. Their language is not found specifically in Scripture. (For instance depravity is not a Scriptural term). This makes them an interpretation of Scripture. We may hold them to be accurate but we dare not take the word of man to be equivalent to the Word of God.