Christopher000 wrote: John UK Wrote: "Fascinating, Christopher. Thanks for posting that info. It's hard to imagine a radio station broadcasting such weird stuff." I really thought I'd get some comment, not from you, but someone saying, "Why is a supposed born again Christian listening to a Roman Catholic radio station?", and then followed up with a, 'Hmmm!" Ha-ha.
I call it research, Christopher.
Just observing what the enemy of souls is saying also helps to cement true beliefs.
I am now in regular contact with a chap who left the Moses David cult to join the Jehovah's Witnesses cult. I have done some study on both these, but I sure wish I'd done more, as it is so needful in witnessing to them.
B. McCausland wrote: Well, the issue makes relevant sense when substituting the word Sabbath for what it means, rest. See, " ... the sabbath (the day of rest) was made for man," which is totally true and makes sense; contrary to that "man was made for the sabbath (the day of rest)" which is obvious the ridiculous take the deniers of the commandment incur by misunderstanding!!
Putting it like that, and suddenly all becomes clear. Yes, of course. Thank you. What a blessing today.
Christopher000 wrote: I was listening to a new station near me called, Relevant Radio. I found it while channel scanning, and it turns out to be a Roman Catholic station; all things Roman Catholic, day and night. I listened for a bit to see what sort of things they talk about, and right now, it's all about the sacriments. They've been talking about green scapulars and hiding them near a person you want saved, blessed salt, water, and oil, the rosary, Mary, medals of saints, and how all of these things bring one closer to God bless them, and have the potential to physically heal, and save. Blessed salt supposedly wards off evil by sprinkling it behind furniture, etc., because it won't evaporate like the "blessed" holy water will. Sad bunch of wicked nonsense, and so many are under that wicked systems spell, and why? Real simple...they are trusting in man for their truth, and can't be bothered to read what God Himself has to say. Salvation is dependant upon being under the umbrella of the Roman religious machine, and the intercession of Mary. Argh. â
Fascinating, Christopher. Thanks for posting that info. It's hard to imagine a radio station broadcasting such weird stuff.
Sister B, that is a most wonderful explanation, if it be correct. I imagine this has much to do with the teaching of Jesus that the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath. I am still working on this subject, so I am keeping an open mind.
James Thomas wrote: Look to the prophets bro. zech 10:11 And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people.
Ah James, the promise of Genesis 17:7 is an everlasting promise, which means it is never broken, praise God. Just imagine if the promise in John 3:16 was not fixed and everlasting.
Doc, you are soooooo close to getting at the truth, but you are frightened by the thought of having to change soooooo much of your theology. So rather than hearken to the voice of the Spirit, you gnash your teeth and reject it. The apostle Paul clearly gives the answer, but because his answer clashes with your's, you reject Paul and keep your own theory, fed to you by DP preachers who also ignore Paul.
Dr. Tim wrote: You canât possibly be serious. You accuse Hawking of using a single verse to prove a point, and now you want to extract a single verse (Genesis 17:7) and try to persuade me that your take on that verse is correct because it is, after all, YOUR take, and you are the great and infallible master? Ainât happening, John. Get off of verse 7, read the remainder of the chapter, and you will see that the descendants referred to in the seventh verse are the progeny of Isaac, the circumcised literal physical descendants of the Hebrews. QC may receive an acre or two in Canaan, John, but you wonât get a square inch of it.
Sure, take the whole chapter, take the whole book of Genesis if you want, Doc. But you've still got an eternal promise in the verse I mentioned, which means it is still extant and always will be.
I don't have a take on that verse, or who the promise is meant for. I accept the apostle who interpreted it for me. Why have a "take" when it is so simple and explained by the apostle Paul?
This is not decided by one verse, Tim. There are others to come, including the ones about circumcision, without which you cannot get to heaven.
Do you want to have a go at answering the question?
Alas Doc, if you compare my simple theology with your most complex theology, we would see who has the simple message.
But your bro used "simplistic" techniques to "prove" his points. That is what I was talking about. Okay, so he takes a RT teaching and "proves" it to be wrong with a single Bible verse. Wow, that is so clever. Not.
It's like me taking a single verse and saying, "There you go, Doc, there is Calvinism proven."
And you would argue with me and say, "Not so, John. Far too simplistic, you'll need a better argument than that."
How simple would you like it? Who are the descendants of Abraham to whom God gave promises in Gen 17:7?
Christopher000 wrote: Seems to me that someone is always searching for some new angle, or revelation, etc., in order to be noticed, relevant, and/or to lead people to believe they are being led by The Spirit to introduce new things, or correct age old errors, etc.
Yes, it makes me wonder if he has got a new book coming out soon, with the title, "The Death of God's Commandments". Ought to make a dollar or two.
Thank you Doc, that's a mighty fine DP post, designed to coerce me into submission without any real substance. It is psychological, just in the same way that political speeches are psychological.
Again, I encourage all to watch the YouTube video The Heresy of Replacement Theology by David Hawking. Yes, please do so, and see how simplistic and psychological this message is. Please watch it and put the Doc out of his misery. I have attempted and failed miserably.
Mind you, if by halfway through you find yourself shouting hallelujah or amen, and you don't know why, realise that you've already been had, and shortly will become an IFB. And you won't know why.
The problem with the IFB system, and this is the same problem that Presbyterians have, is a misunderstanding of Genesis 17:7. Fix that problem, and you will understand what Israel is all about.
The problem is all about Abraham's seed. What is it? Is it his physical descendants? Now if you currently believe that, I know why you believe it, but you are mistaken.
Abraham's seed is the living Body of Christ; that is, Jesus Christ and all that are "in him". It is to these that all those promises are made. Get it right on this point, and good theology will follow on.
If you start with the teaching of Jesus concerning the two great things man ought to be doing, you find he is to love God with all his heart and his neighbour as himself.
If you want more detail, you can go to the 10 commandments, and to the parable of the good Samaritan.
If you want more detail still, you can go back to the NT and see the Son of God expounding the 10 commandments, where he makes it clear that sin proceeds forth from the heart. In other words, the sinful nature which is in all men without exception. Thusly, the commandments can be broken without committing a physical act, it can be all in the mind - adultery, murder, and all the rest.
Phew! It is a good thing we are not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ.
Doc, I am so sorry. I will call them by their correct name from now on - DP's.
Galatians 2:11-13 KJV (11)Â But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. (12)Â For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. (13)Â And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
No-one likes being censured, laughed at, or isolated. So the DP must first establish his congregation in common laughter for an opposing theology (which could actually be the truth). Then having established that if YOU accept such a theology, you will be laughed at and scorned, he quickly introduces his own theory (which may or may not be the truth). And having already prepared his congregation to give amens and hallelujahs at just the right point (he tells them when) the group of people accept the said theology without batting an eye, and thusly they secure themselves in the fellowship and keep all their friends and their status.
James Thomas wrote: Isaiah 42:1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles.
Matthew 12:16-18 KJV (16)Â And charged them that they should not make him [Jesus] known: (17)Â That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, (18)Â Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.
Neil wrote: I didn't mean to imply frugality comes easily for everyone; for my wife and me, it was innate even before conversion, as unbelievers can be frugal (e.g. Chinese).
Yes indeed Neil. I'm sure that there are many people who have good common sense, and even live a comparatively sensible life, who yet are unregenerate and far from God. I also imagine that it can even be taught, in which case it comes down to either culture or tradition, where one is born and bred.
Mentioning mine own failure in this area was certainly not an argument with what you said, merely a piece of personal testimony.
Dr. Tim wrote: Iâm sorry, John, but itâs going to take me a while to find the scriptures that say that all Christians and particularly all preachers must be stamped from the same cookie cutter and must all use the same humdrum, monotone voice while expounding on the scriptures. To save time, I think Iâll start with the 67th book of the Bible; it sure ainât in the first 66. Again you make a noose of personal preference and hang yourself from the tree of tradition. And Iâd be a little hesitant to condemn enthusiastic preaching. In so doing, you condemn Peter, Paul, Isaiah, John the Baptist, and even Jesus Himself.
Doc, I recommend you read my post again, and without bias. Observe something. Be an Observer. See what I said and why I said it. Anyone could come up with the same evaluation. It has nothing to do with enthusiasm or zeal or loud or energetic or even Bible thumping. These things are traits of different preachers. But in this case, it is a matter of psychology. I'm sure there are some uni types here who could substantiate my claim. It is a technique, pure and simple. It is why J4 has got a wrong impression of Calvinism; he's been duped by Yee Ha preachers.
It's okay Doc, I found it and tried to listen to it. Sure I gave it about twenty minutes.
The problem for me, is that he is a typical Yee Ha preacher, who preaches by technique rather than the Holy Ghost.
He first of all tries to wake the people up by getting them to Yee Ha, and give the hallelujahs and amens. He doesn't want them quietly listening, pondering what he's saying. He wants them all on his side, achieved through psychology, so that every little while they eject another hallelujah, without even thinking about what he's saying.
Then, to bolster what he himself is teaching, he takes on an acting role. He pretends to be the RT teacher and then the IFB type teacher. That would be all right, except that he deliberately misapplies the style of the RT teacher, as if to say, "You can tell even by the way he talks that he is wrong and foolish." And then he comes out with his own belief, in a serene and beautiful tone, which the people think is angelic, therefore he must be right.
This is technique, and it leaves out the Holy Ghost and his most individual way of reaching into a person's heart and teaching from the word which he inspired.
I would rather listen to someone saying what they believe and why.