John for JESUS wrote: They should remove it. Slavery, splitting families, and rebellion against our country is nothing to be proud about!
Which one? the one I linked to that one preached says fits your description or the the one Moore doesn't like?
http://www.darkpolitricks.com/2015/06/farrakhan-i-dont-get-debate-over-confederate-flag-we-need-to-put-the-american-flag-down/ Dump the Flag for Racial Peace Farrakhan: I Donât Get Debate Over Confederate Flag, âWe Need to Put the American Flag Downâ declared, "I dont know what the h*ll the fight is about over the Confederate flag. We need to put the American flag down. Because weve caught as much h*ll under that as the Confederate flag, comments that were meant with cheers and applause. He added, Who are we fighting today? Its the people that carry the American flag" [URL=http://beforeitsnews.com/obama/2012/08/ex-farrakhan-aide-says-obama-farrakhan-ties-run-deep-2444014.html]]]Obama&Farrakhan past buddies[/URL]
Maybe Obama can make friends w/Screwy Louis by changing to the Rainbow flag for the White House....
[URL=http://www.darkpolitricks.com/2015/06/farrakhan-i-dont-get-debate-over-confederate-flag-we-need-to-put-the-american-flag-down/]]]Dump the Flag for Racial Peace[/URL]
Farrakhan: I Donât Get Debate Over Confederate Flag, âWe Need to Put the American Flag Downâ declared, "I dont know what the h*ll the fight is about over the Confederate flag. We need to put the American flag down. Because weve caught as much h*ll under that as the Confederate flag, comments that were meant with cheers and applause. He added, Who are we fighting today? Its the people that carry the American flag"
Mt7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged. 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 7:4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam ..."
[URL=http://www.creationliberty.com/articles/graham.php]]]Good breakdown of Graham's 'ministry' :Apostate[/URL]
part of the silliness of Evangelicalism is lack of ability to use the tools that apostates TRIED to use against the Historicity of Jesus to show that Islam is based on a myth.
Far from an anti-Islamic polemic, Did Muhammad Exist? is a sober but unflinching look at the origins of one of the worldâs major religions. While Judaism and Christianity have been subjected to searching historical criticism for more than two centuries, Islam has never received the same treatment on any significant scale.
The real story of Muhammad and early Islam has long remained in the shadows. Robert Spencer brings it into the light at long last.
Think of the inroads Graham's followers would make if they had the courage to use this type of historical analysis.The fact that they don't shows their cowardice.
[URL=http://www.amazon.com/Did-Muhammad-Exist-Inquiry-Obscure/dp/161017061X]]]no historical Mohammed: a MYTH![/URL] A blank sheet of paper would be the correct cartoon of the Mythical Pirate Mohammed:
Ephesians 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. 5:12 For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret. 5:13 But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.
read the book:
Did Muhammad Exist?:
An Inquiry into Islam's Obscure Origins
book:Hardcover â April 23, 2012
by Robert Spencer (Pam Geller's friend and co-worker)
Are jihadists dying for a fiction? Everything you thought you knew about Islam is about to change.
Muhammad DID NOT exist
It is a question that few have thoughtâor daredâto ask. Virtually everyone, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, takes for granted that the prophet of Islam lived. His story is a cartoon made up by a group of murdering raiders to justify their pillaging and, like Scientology, to create a lucrative made up 'religion'. which is really a fascist political ideology.
Yes, but it is time for more thoughtful iconoclasm.
As well as the accidental or deliberate damage to churches in the course of the fighting and due to purely military factors, many parliamentarians also sought for ideological and religious reasons to alter the fabric and fittings of churches, to remove and destroy physical elements and symbols which they associated with Roman Catholicism or with the high church, Laudian policies pursued by Charles I and his Archbishop of Canterbury, William Laud, during the pre-war period; for many opponents of these policies, Laudianism was effectively creeping Catholicism. Targets of this âiconoclasmâ included altar rails (many of them very recently installed), altars, stained glass, paintings on screens, the screens themselves, religious statues and carvings, crosses, vestments, prayer books and organs; around the same time, though not principally for religious reasons, royal arms and the tombs and effigies of some elite families were also sometimes damaged or defaced.
I think Basic has gone Pastor-point-of-no-return. It won't matter what Scripture reference you give him, he will just go on accusing you of being in a box of that demon John Calvin's making. Some people are beyond help and incapable of rational discussion. Unfortunately they always turn up on these discussion forums and throw their weight around. They are the voice of authority and have almost papal infallibility. Rational discussion with them is impossible because they see Calvin as the devil, all his doctrine as heresy, anyone who calls themselves Calvinist as unsaved and the Scriptural evidence they produce highly suspect at best.
Basic - your God is no god at all, for you claim His Omnipotent will can be resisted and/or frustrated. If you can resist God's will then you are God for you are stronger than God. I know you don't like this conclusion but to hold to your position of man's autonomous freedom that conclusion must hold. When an unstoppable force (The power of God) meets an immovable rock (the heart of man) the one that prevails is the greater. My God always removes whatever obstacle He desires. Your's can be stopped by the heart of man. I submit that my God, the God of the Bible, is greater than your god, whoever he is.
Some of these "Evangelicals" should read the closing chapter of Proverbs and see what a godly wife can do. Just because she cannot be ordained in an ecclesiastical office does not mean she is to be chained to the sink with just enough slack in the chain to be able to make it to the bed.
So prevenient grace (where do you get that from?) enables the dead in sin to sit up and make a decision. If they accept Christ they are regenerated, if they reject Him they drop dead again.
The question is, who determines who gets saved? Does not God have mercy on whom He wills and whom He wills He hardens? Is He not the cause of all things, even of men's decisions? Or is He in this case not the cause but the effect? Are we'preveniently' enabled to choose Christ by the Spirit's drawing (that literally means 'dragging', but doesn't matter)but the final determinent in who is saved is not God but man? Can't you people see how you have dethroned God and placed yourself in His place? Do you have any idea how heretical and blasphemous your theology really is?
It is the good pleasure of HIS will that determines these things. Who has resisted His will?" NO ONE! Therefore according to your 'God loves everyone and wants them all to be saved' theology, there are those who can and do resist His will. For He wants them to be saved but is not able to do so because they are not willing.
If they can resist the will of Almighty God then He is not almighty and they are god.
And that in a nutshell is the heresy of Arminianism which has destroyed our protestant heritage.
Basic - you are almost right. But man is not just lost in sin, he is dead in sin. Here a just a few texts for you to peruse before you continue your interesting discussion.
A few of the OT texts that show our sinfulness and depravity and inability Gen 6:5, 8:21, Job 9:2, 14:4, 15:14-16, Ps 51:5, 52:2,3; 58:3; 130:3; 143:2; Pr 20:9; 30:12; Ecc 7:20,29; 9:3; Is 48:8; 53:6; 64:6; Jer 13:23; 17:9
And a handful of NT texts. Jn 3:5,18; 5:42; 6:44;8:34,43 Acts 26:18, Rom 1:28, 3:9, 19, 23; 5:12; 6:20; 7:18; 8:7 ICor 1:18; IICor 2:14; 4:3; Eph 2:1,5,12; 4:17; Col 2:13, II Tim 2:25; IJn 5:19.
If the condition of man is as described in these texts, then he is not only incapable of choosing salvation, he does not even know he needs it. He will not turn to God because he hates Him with every fibre of his being. He is, as the texts say, dead in sin.
Therefore we maintain that without the regenerating power of the Spirit of God who takes out the stone heart and replaces it with a heart of flesh, there can be no response to the gospel.
This leads logically to the next point. If God wants all men to be saved why does He not regenerate them all and give them all a heart that wants to serve Him?
How does this lead to Him choosing those He 'foreknew' would choose Him first?
Christians are commanded to live lives of holiness, that is, dedication to God and seperation from the world. Luther called this "Coram Deo",lives lived under the ever-watchful eye of God.
Roman Catholocism is paganism dressed as Christianity and much of Protestantism still carries vestiges of Rome. It is up to us to show how and why we are different from the world.
Unfortunately the church of today is frantically courting the friendship of the world, even changing their 'worship' services to accommodate the unsaved. They forget Jesus said that friendship with the world is enmity with God.
Unfortunately it begins with a desperate clinging to man's ability to do something, even as small a thing as making a decision.
We cannot equate God knowing something as being the same as man knowing something. God does not 'discover' or become cognitively aware. He has always known all things to their fullest extent. This is the meaning of Omniscient.
God "knew" Israel, he "knew" Jeremiah. He said Israel was the only nation He had known, just as Jesus said "I never knew you!" Did this mean they were not cognitively aware? No, it means they had not set their love, their special regard on them.
Adam "knew" Eve to the extent that she fell pregnant. When God knows us it implies a deep intimacy.
If He elected on the basis of what he foresaw we would do, we would have something of which to boast. Election that is not unconditional is not election - it is selection. That is what we do when we choose tomatoes. We choose according to what we see is good and bad. God chose according to the good pleasure of His will, and it was all bad.
Isaiah saw himself for what he really was - "undone" - like a disintegrating corpse. That is what you were when God chose you. So stop boasting of your decision. He chose, you responded!
The Scriptures clearly teach election and predestination. They just as clearly teach man's responsibility and accountability before a Holy Creator. This is a dichotomy, not a contradiction. For God to be the God we profess, Omniscient, Omnipotent, Eternal and Holy we cannot reduce Him to a predicter of the future who elects according to 'foreknowledge'. You may have heard this before - but in all things theological there is the equation 100% + 100% makes 100%. It is fully Divine, fully human, simultaneous with the Divine having the preeminence. Christ is both fully Divine and fully human simultaneously. Yet there is One Christ. The Scriptures are both fully Divine and fully human in their authorship. Yet there is one Scripture.
Likewise our salvation is 100% of God and from God, yet we are 100% responsible. But our responsibility does not denote ability - and here we part ways with Arminianism who claim that God would not command what we cannot perform. This is what set Pelagius off against Augustine.
To understand this we MUST understand and ackowledge what the Bible teaches about man's natural state. Is he capable, according to the Bible, of "choosing for Christ?" Is he able to love God and try to please Him? The Bible says NO! Dead in sin, heart of stone!
I went to church from not long after I was born. My father's family had been Christians for generations. My dad is now a retired pastor. I grew up in the Dutch Free Reformed church, became disenchanted with their cold staleness and drifted to the Baptist church. The Arminian Dispensationalism drove me out and I have been a Pressie ever since. I have loved Jesus since I can remember and even before that if the family stories are to be believed. I was singing Psalms and Hymns before I was 2, was evangelising before I was 10, and know that the Spirit of God dwells in me because Christ died for my sins.
My experience counts for little, but the Bible tells me there will be many who have testified on this earth but Christ will tell them He never knew them.
Michael Hranek wrote: Rev 22 17 And the Spirit and the bride say, âCome!â And let him who hears say, âCome!â And let him who thirsts come. Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely. I do hope you note that word desires. It is an interesting word as apparently a lost person under the preaching of the Word of Christ and conviction of the Holy Ghost can in my words desire to be forgiven and saved from their sins.
So you think that someone can come under the conviction of the Holy Ghost, make a decision for Christ - yes or no - and be regenerated on the basis of that decision? Interesting. So was the person spiritually dead in trespasses and sins while doing this or temporarily revived?
Of course it says whosover will, or whosoever comes or whosoever desires. Your people will be volunteers says the Psalm. But before you will,desire and come your heart has to be changed from stone to flesh first. It's called regeneration, being born again. Before that you don't will or desire to have anything to do with Christ and you don't come.
"God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life" - where have I heard these popular but totally unbiblical words before? Ah yes, standard man-made Arminian claptrap.
Here we go again - probably with the same result, but what the heck.
Question 1 - what is the condition of natural, unregenerate man before conversion. That is, how has sin affected him? Is he dead in sin, unable to discern spiritual things, hates God by nature? Or is he close to spiritual death but still able to function, can be drawn to see his need of Christ without actually being converted and can be convinced he should love God?
Dead or not dead? Well my Bible says dead. It also says there is none that seeks after God, not even one. That every imagination of man's natural inclination is only evil continually etc etc.
The Arminian, and those who don't like to be called that but still believe everything Arminius taught, thinks that man in his natural state is still able to choose good, to choose God, to choose salvation when it is offered to him. Then, after he makes this choice, God raises him from spiritual near-death.
So, Mr Back to Basics, how do you answer? Dead, or not dead? It all hinges on this so think before you blurt.
Mike wrote: Nah. Look, this is not difficult. One cannot, even for a microsecond, be a born-again unbeliever.
Oh - so you think you can be an unregenrate believer? Hm, interesting. UNLESS one is born again, he cannot SEE the kingdom of God. Not my words, His words. Go argue with Him.
And the Corinthians text mentioned below about not being tempted beyond what we can bear has no reference at all to unbelievers believing, but to Spirit-filled Christians being able to endure temptation through the power of God.
You guys have an amazingly original way of interpreting the Bible, but Protestant/Orthodox it is not.
Strange, I don't remember saying that if you are a Calvinist you must be regenerate - you either do not know how to read or you are one of those people who deliberately misquote others. No Calvinist believes that there is no such necessity as preaching. The true Calvinist is a true evangelist. Even the Canons of Dort carefully explains the Univeral Call. God commands all men everywhere to repent. Man is responsible, to hear and to obey. But this responsibility does not denote ability. If we are dead in sin as the Bible says we are, then we need to be resurrected, born again by the Spirit of God through the preaching of the Truth of His Word.
God's Word ALWAYS accomplishes His purposes. If, according to you, that purpose is only repentance and conversion then it is not always accomplished. But God has decreed (Is 6) that there will be those whom the Spirit renders dull, blind and deaf so that they will not hear, will not turn and will not be converted. That Isaiah passage is quoted 6 times in the NT.
Obviously the purpose of God's preached Word is condemnation as well as conversion, refusal as well as repentance. Peter preached,3000 converts. Stephen preached,3000 stones. Both times the purpose of God was fulfilled.
Back 2 Basics wrote: That is a laugh. Sorry, but you don't define who I am. You are not calling it as it is but as you see it. And you remind for of some hometown referees I've seen who need new glasses! Again, you do not understand biblical fundamentalism. You throw out false accusations and misrepresent what we believe. Eph 2:8-9 - Of course man is unable to chose on his own. Faith is a gift of God. That is easy to defend and not the point upon which we disagree. Your tatics are typical but cheap. Or maybe you are sincere just misguided. Only you and God know. Where you are wrong is assuming, contrary to Scripture, that God only selects some. You deny J3:16 and a multitude of other 'whosoever' Scriptures. I've read Rom 9. Unfortunately, you don't read it in context of all other Scripture. Read Gen 1 - Rev 22. Nice try but no cookie.
I have enough cookies - low fat of course
"Whosoever" in John 3 must be read in the context of the whole monologue. You MUST be regenerate BEFORE you can believe. These are the words of Christ Himself, and whosoever does not believe is condemned already. Dead in sin means just what it says, "Dead." Dead people, spiritually dead people, do not choose life. They must first be resurrected.
You do not fully understand or appreciate the Biblical doctrine of Total Depravity, that is, the true nature and condition of the unregenerate man. You would have this unregenerate man still able to choose good, still love God and still see his need for salvation. But the Bible paints this unregenerate man in a different light. He hates God by nature, and cannot understand spiritual things. Even Jesus Himself said that an unregenerate man cannot even see, let alone enter, the kingdom of God. So if this unregenerate man, as the Bible describes him, is left to choose for himself, what will he choose? Certainly not God.
Again, don't watch Fox News, read Romans 9, where Paul carefully and clearly answers all your objections.
By the way, you are an Arminian, whether you like it or not. Anyone who tries to prove that God wants all men to be saved but that this is dependent on man's choice is a rank Arminian.
Sorry, just calling it as it is.
I am a Calvinist - but so were Isaiah, Paul, Jesus, Peter, Luther, Spurgeon et al.