From the article: "Alexander is among countless Catholics in the U.S. who are raising their voices in prayer and protest to demand change amid new revelations of sex abuse by priests and allegations of widespread cover-ups. They are doing letter-writing campaigns and holding prayer vigils and listening sessions in an effort to bring about change from the pews, realizing it's up to them to confront the problem and save the church they love after years of empty promises from leadership."
Similar to what Martin Luther had in mind 500 years ago but God had another thing in mind. God didn't want to clean up the RCC and reform it but rather call his people out of the evil institution and condemn it. And that He did and one day all will realize it.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Well, so far we haven't seen anything from Trump's Trollops in Congress trying to bring him to heel, đź‘Žbut the above the show that there are outside forces at workâť— Let's hope the lawsuit is able to continue.đź‘Ť
You and George Will are chasing butterflies if you believe the Dems stand a chance of taking a majority in the house come November. The so called undecided (the majority being unwashed deplorables ), most of who always intended to vote conservative but remain silent until election day to avoid retribution, will net the Republican candidates a 5 to 6 percent advantage just like they did 2 years ago which has put the Dems in an uncontrolled tailspin every since.
Their defeat in November will really make the left go nuts. The left coast may well fall off into the Pacific Ocean. Can't wait to watch. Be sure to reserve a front row seat, Jim. It's gonna be great!
Jim Lincoln wrote: Lurker, what you say has nothing to do with the arguments in his articles or the facts that he pointed out in them. Evangelicals believe what they're believing for political purposes not biblical ones âť—
I said nothing. I quoted part of a bio of your heathen hero Jonathan Dudley. But it is apparent you agree with him or you wouldn't have quoted him.
Here is the source for anyone interested which I didn't have space to post:
"Growing up as an evangelical Christian, Jonathan Dudley was taught that abortion is murder, homosexuality sin, evolution nonsense, and environmentalism a farce. He learned to accept these conclusions, the "big four", as part of the package deal of Christianity. Yet when he began studying biology at the evangelical Calvin College and theology at Yale Divinity School, Dudley's views started to change. He soon realized that what he had been told about the Bible and those four big issues involving scripture and biology may have been misconstrued...
He argues that evangelical opposition to gay marriage has more to do with allegiance to socially conservative cultural values than allegiance to the Bible. He demonstrates that traditional Christian valuations of science, as well as scientific evidence itself, should lead evangelicals to accept evolution and reject both creationism and intelligent design.
In the process, he lays the groundwork for a new generation of post-Religious Right evangelical political activists, who believe in evolution, rally behind the environmental movement, are moderate on abortion, and support gay marriage."
Quoting more likeminded heathens for your mouthpiece, Jim? Telling.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Dave Hunt: ...The question remains, What are we to do? We must follow Scripture. Neither Jesus nor His apostles nor the biblical early church ever engaged in social or political activism or advocated it. The Great Commission is not to go into all the world to reform its morals by forcing sinners to behave like saints, but to â€śpreach the gospelâ€ť and convert sinners. And in the end, the conversion of sinners will have a far greater impact on society than all of the lobbying, protest marches and passionate appeals to morality that consume the time and energy of concerned Christians....
What a hypocrite you are, Jim!
You've been up to your eyeballs in political/social activism every since Trump was elected president yet you obviously can't see it. Are you blind?
Hunt says to "follow scripture". Where is the scripture in all the liberal op-ed trash you incessantly post up penned by atheists, Catholics and Godless heathens? Unbelievable!
Christopher000 wrote: Prospective mothers-to-be, murder the unborn, enmasse, because they can. Their promiscuity has an easy out; a simple fix, and that is legalized murder...
It's disgusting, Chris.
And the only solution the sick minded liberals (like Jim and his ilk) can come up with is free health care/public assistance in the guise of compassion. Not to mention the liberal politicians are assured a vote and a lifetime cushy job as a master of their slaves.
In reality, there is no such thing as authority without responsibility. There is no such thing as personal freedom without personal responsibility. Yet our liberal culture takes away that responsibility and along with it, freedom, by promising "If you get pregnant, we'll pay for an abortion or we'll send you a monthly check if you keep the child." No incentive to not get pregnant. They no longer have freedom because they are no longer responsible. They give up freedom when they agreed to become a servant of the state.
What a mess we'd have if Corporate America and Small Business had the same attitude... 'Not to worry if we make a mistake and fail. Big brother will bail us out.'
Feed a man a fish and he lives a day. Teach a man to fish and he live a lifetime.
Jim Lincoln wrote: By the way, Lurker, [URL=https://tinyurl.com/yaou2u3x]]]https://tinyurl.com/yaou2u3x (Health care is a human right)[/URL]
I though you were told by the moderator this was a Protestant Christian comment board yet you promote this RCC mindless trash? I think you need to find a new haunt amongst likeminded liberals/Catholics because you certainly don't have anything in common with anyone here.
From the article: "Evers then proceeded to compare abortions to tonsillectomies while advocating for unlimited taxpayer funding of elective abortion under Medicaid."
James Madison: "If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."
"I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious."
The concerns of James Madison are here, more are proposed and hardly a peep of protest.
John for JESUS wrote: It seems to me if the branches started off as only Israelites then the root of the promises must have been the Patriarchs who the promises were first offered. The covenants were planted and took root with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/Israel. I don't know what the stock would be or if it is anything other than the tree in general, but I am open to suggestions. Although I have already done so some, I just don't feel comfortable speculating where it doesn't say specifically.
It's a good practice not to speculate when scripture is silent. But in this case, is it silent?
As for me, I'm going to stick with the two verses I quoted earlier from the Revelation coupled with this:
John 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
Same picture language, just a different plant used as a figure. In this figure, the whole purpose of the plant is to bring forth fruit pleasing to God and I can't think of a reason why the same wouldn't be true of the olive tree. You may want to have a look at Zechariah 4 where it's the olive oil which produces the light (John 8:12) of the candlestick (church, Rev 1:20).
The Quiet Christian wrote: I'm not sure, Lurker, that you have properly identified the Branch from Zechariah. Didnt Zechariah live well after David? Likely refers again to Jesus Christ -
David, the Branch, is cited several times in the prophets as a figure or type (which I mentioned in my post to J4J) of our risen Lord and Savior. This is clear in Isaiah which Paul quotes indicating the prophecy's fulfillment in his time:
Isaiah 11:1 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:
Isaiah 11:10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.
Romans 15:12 And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust.
The Zechariah prophecy points to David as a figure of Christ who would build the temple, which temple we are, and rule as king and high priest from His throne which finds consistency with the following prophecy.
Ezek 37:24 And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.
John for JESUS wrote: 1) So you are saying that everything from sanctification, justification, and salvation is ultimately for the purpose of bringing us back into fellowship with God the Father? If I am following you correctly. 2) I believe the roots are the Patriarchs to whom the promises were first given. What do you mean by stock? Fruit or sap? Gentiles who believe will receive what Israel has been promised.
1) I believe so.
2) By stock I mean the trunk of the tree. It's a word used in the KJV for that from which non-molten idols were fashioned. See Isaiah 44:19.
But my question to you: Wouldn't it make more sense if the root of the olive tree was that which produces the goodness rather than that which was promised the goodness?
Rev 5:5 Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.
Rev 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
Yet David, a type of Jesus, was called the branch:
Zech 6:12 Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD:
John for JESUS wrote: Lurker... 1) We agree that God only saves believers. 2) Okay, I get it. You are older and wiser and trying to help me formulate my arguments better. Thank you. I read Ezekiel 37 and agree Israel will have peace, but I really don't believe that is all that the promises of Israel contain. The verses itself even mentioned a covenant with Israel that promises to take away their sins when they believe.
The means of peace with God is what the covenant is about and that in contrast to the Sinai covenant into which the Jews were placed when they were broken off (See Jer 11:6-8). Paul preached the gospel of peace. There is nothing of more worth for if we are not at peace with God, and He with us, we are under His wrath and destined for perdition.
But what else do you believe the root and stock of the olive tree hold for both Jew and Gentile? After all, if Gentiles are partakers of the goodness of the cultivated olive tree, we should receive exactly what the Jews would receive; not that it's owed to us but promised.
John for JESUS wrote: 1) The verses may not specifically mention Israel, although it does mention Gentiles in contrast to the natural branches. The whole passage is about how God is not through with Israelites and how Israel stumbled yet not to fall. How by Israel's rejection the rest of the world has been reconciled and by their acceptance of Christ the Ressurection will happen.
2) What else would the olive tree be? Care to share instead than playing games?
1) Pretty much agree with your summary of the text. It was never my intent to suggest God was finished with Israel. However, He will only save those who believe.
2)Sorry you think I'm playing games. I'm actually trying to get you to make a biblical argument for what you believe to be true.
There are a few differing opinions on what the olive tree figures but I'd break it down thusly. The branches are clearly individuals who bear fruit pleasing to God. If not, they are cut out of the root and stock and cast into the fire (Jer 11:14-17). So the stock and root, which bears the branches, surely must be the righteousness of God's covenant of peace (see Ezek 37:24-28) as a seed always produces root, stock, branches and fruit after it's own kind.
John for JESUS wrote: 1) You'll have to take it up with God because scripture says: For this is My covenant with them, When I take away their sins.â€ť Romans 11:27
2) My absurd assurtion that the olive tree is Israel comes from: I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew... Romans 11:1â€-â€¬2 For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? Romans 11:15 If natural branches were cut off resulting in Gentiles being grafted in, then when Israel is grafted back in it will result in the Second Advent and the Ressurection.
1) I have no problem with scripture but what you wrote: "It's a covenant to take away their sins which will only be done when they believe."
Was Peter a Jew cut out of the olive tree? Was he a faithful believer? Was he saved from wrath by grace when he believed? If so, why was he looking forward to the salvation granted Gentiles?
Acts 15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
2) No mention in the verses you quoted that the olive tree is Israel. Want to try again?
John for JESUS wrote: Lurker... It's a covenant to take away their sins which will only be done when they believe.
Is 59:20-21 And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD. As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.
When does the Redeemer come to Zion? Second advent. That's when those of Jacob who have already turned from transgression, who already had His words of life in their mouths, shall be saved from wrath and become party to the grace of the promised new covenant. They will be grafted back into their own olive tree along with all the believing Gentiles from the beginning of Paul's ministry.
As for your absurd assertion that the olive tree is Israel; the great multitude of Gentiles in Revelation 7:9-17 do not count their descent from Jacob but rather Abraham and Sarah in accordance with Romans 4:16 and Galatians 4:26-31. Your assertion demands Gentile descent from Jacob which you wrongly insist is the olive tree.
John for JESUS wrote: Lurker... do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree. Romans 11:18â€, â€¬24
So, when the Jews who were broken off the olive tree but believed the gospel and are grafted back in to their own tree is when Romans 11:26-27 is fulfilled? And the olive tree is that promised covenant of peace first promised in Jeremiah 31:32-34 and again in Romans 11:27?
John for JESUS wrote: Lurker... And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, "The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob"; "and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins." As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. Romans 11:26â€-â€¬29
It's a wonderful text regarding the second advent of Jesus Christ, when he delivers the believing Jews from the wrath He placed them under when He appeared to Paul on Damascus Road (Rom 11:32). The book of life will no longer be sealed to them. All believing Jews (from the tribes of Judah and Benjamin) shall be saved from the wrath of the Sinai covenant.
Rev 22:10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.
But it doesn't answer my question: "What does the olive tree or the nation of Israel have to do with eternal life?"
John for JESUS wrote: John UK... Is eternal life promised to you? If so, it is only because you were grafted into the promises of the cultivated olive tree which you are not naturally a part of. So I ask, is God done with the nation of Israel?
What does the olive tree or the nation of Israel have to do with eternal life?