"The archbishop was speaking in connection with the launch of Thy Kingdom Come, now in its fourth year, the prayer initiative that has united more than a million Christians from more than 65 different denominations and traditions in more than 114 countries to pray for evangelisation. It takes place between Ascension to Pentecost, May 30-June 9."
"'What has surprised me is the number of people who have got involved. Methodists, Catholics, Orthodox and Pentecostals are all piling in. This is not a Church of England thing, this is a church thing,' Welby said."
I wonder what he means, "...pray for evangelisation".
With a million "Christians" praying for whatever it is, you would expect to see some evangelisation in the UK.
Ah but then, Justin Welby was a member of Holy Trinity, Brompton, which gave us the Alpha Course and Toronto Blessing.
Stevenr wrote: John UK, assuming you meant me. (No PH though....) Lol, I wrote that today. I write and text out a short devotion to my wife and kids every day, and it so happened that todayâs coincided with this discussion.
Well I sure hope your little daily devotions (written by yourself) will coincide more often with the discussion, Steven. Most edifying, bro.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Don't run into that many or unknown if I do. The gospel tells man he is under the condemnation of God for whatever sin he is or has committed
Brother, and what will God accuse him of on the Day of Judgment, if he has been a sodomite? I believe we ought to tell them the truth, and regard not the consequences of telling it like it really is, instead of hiding behind euphemisms.
The world talks about "the man upstairs". I never refer to Almighty God in such terms. It reduces the impact, and makes him out to be a kindly old man with a long beard who wouldn't hurt a fly.
So it is with calling a sodomite a gay man. It reduces impact and even condones him. Don't forget bro that Satan is back of all this word business, and the rainbow business, and all the rest of it. He's got you fooled, for sure, same as he's had me fooled on countless other issues.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Thanks for your thoughts John. The last time the Bible used the word sodomite was over 2600 years ago. It is not found in the New Testament. Sorry if came across as harsh I didnât mean to.
That's okay bro. Tell you what, why not tell me which word you use when witnessing to a homosexual? Or do you not mention that sin, but only as the Spirit leads?
"Mankind was created in the image of God, but we are called to ACT like Christ. Consider the attributes: holy, righteous, merciful, giving, loving, compassionate... the list can go on and on... but ask yourself; are you acting like Christ? If not, isnât it time for us to start?" stephenr wrote
Stephen, I don't know who it was wrote that commentary you quoted, but the conclusion is excellent, and worthy of all pondering and musing.
Michael, thank you for clearing that up.
Until the incarnation of the Word in 4BC, all three members of the Godhead were Spirit, and invisible. So whoever it was that created man in Genesis 1:27 was invisible and therefore did not have "an image" to replicate.
I'm real glad you do not countenance the teachings of men like Ken Copeland who is fully convinced that God the Father is a 6ft tall God sitting on a throne in the heavenlies. Worse still is his insistence that the gospel of Christ is not found at the cross, but what happened afterwards.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Youâre missing the point. If you said that being gay is sinful according to the Bible people would know what you meant Nobody would say the Bible doesnât teach that because thatâs not what the word meant back in the 1600âs. Whether you try to skirt the issue or not, you know what I am saying is true. Use whatever word you wish when speaking of sodomites, it doesnât change the fact gay means homosexuality in this day and age and not using the word doesnât make you more Biblical or spiritual
All I am saying is what I actually do, not what I might hypothetically do. And I certainly do not consider myself more spiritual than you, brother, simply for refusing to use the word "gay" in my language. I do not know where you arrived at that conclusion.
Am I not permitted to have an opinion and share that here on the forum? Man, you're getting so paranoid I fear for your health.
What if, instead of the word "gay", the sodomites hijacked the word "godly" and used that to describe themselves? Instead of saying, Oh look, there is a gay man", you would have to say, Oh look, there is a godly man."
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Thanks for your reply John. My memory is not the best but I didnât forget you donât use the word gay this Is why I used the word if, so brother you didnât answer my question
Bro, I wouldn't use the word, I would rather use what the Bible teaches. It is not difficult to show that sodomy is sinful from the Bible. Are you no longer a Bible man?
Unprofitable Servant wrote: What do âgayâ people say. Donât judge me. Would they say that if they thought you meant they were happy? Do they not say Christians are judging them for being gay? Have we not seen headlines here on SA about âchurches â accepting the gay lifestyle. Gay has as its main meaning, a person who practices homosexuality. Nobody thinks a gay bar means they are extending happy hour
Brother, if someone in the world says that a gay person is wicked, what they really mean is that the sodomite is a great person. Please keep up with modern parlance.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: How many times John UK do you think you would have to explain yourself if you told someone that being gay is sinful according to the Bible even though as S.C. pointed out it is not a phrase found in Scripture?
As I've already said, several times, I never use the word "gay", not to anyone.
I agree that the female version ought to be called homosexual.
I'm fairly sure that the word "gaiety" is still in use, just. And it is associated with laughter and joy, happiness and wholeness.
Thusly, even the world will put the two and two together, and therefore a gay person cannot be a sinner, he indulges in gaiety and laughter, which is exactly how sodomites are portrayed on the TV from the 50's onwards, thusly making the general public laugh at them as harmless, thusly paving the way for them to take over the world.
These things don't normally happen overnight. Sixty-five years ago, sodomy was illegal in the UK. Now look at it.
As SC has already said, you can apply this principle to adultery, divorce, and a whole lot of things.
Michael Olasanya wrote: Hahahađ... Well, good luck to them and their evolution discoveries. All I know is that as a man I was created by the hands of God in His image and likeness and my God is not an ape. The so-called evolution theory just explains Romans 1:22, "Professing to be wise, they became fools"...
Michael, it looks like (from your post) that you believe your God looks just like you. And that you are using that seeming fact to discount evolution.
Well I'm glad you discount evolution as unbiblical. But to think that Jehovah is six foot tall and in appearance just like any human reminds me of the Health & Wealth heretic Kenneth Copeland, who also promoted that.
It comes down to a misinterpretation of "in His image".
By nature, Jehovah does not have an appearance. God is Spirit, and is present everywhere. He is invisible.
I'm not sure the unregenerate even know the word sodomite, here in Wales.
In the old days, the word used on the street to describe a homosexual deviant was "queer". The word homosexual was not used nor gay, in everyday language use.
I associate the word gay with joyfulness, something very good. But if I use the word now in Wales, it means "one of those people who are made differently" rather than "queer". So I choose not to ever use the word. "Gay" in the world does not mean sinner.
Some Christians no longer use the word "evangelical" because that also has been hijacked, and is associated with 'Christian' groups which "the world" stereotypes as unwanted. So to describe myself as evangelical, to people in the world, immediately they think, "This fellow is up to no good." So I reserve some language for Christians and some for the worldlings.
"How can a gay person possibly be a sinner"? I said. If I said, "How can an evil person possibly be a sinner"? Does that help, bro?
Gay was used often as a female name. I doubt if it is ever used nowadays because of the hijacking.
We even have to be careful how we make use of rainbows now, because of the hijacking.
To my mind, the word 'gay' is lost to sodomites. I never use it. To refer to sodomites as gay supports their cause and makes the crime of less intensity, or even of no intensity. How could a gay person possibly be a sinner? Whereas a sodomite, now there is power in that word; it reminds sinners of what happened in Sodom when sexual promiscuity was punished in the severest of fashions.
The war we are in is a spiritual war, and spiritual powers well know the power of words. The minds of men are swayed by words.
Hedonistic Brits love places like the south of France or the Costa del Sol, but if the sea level rises by over 30ft they would all trade their current lifestyle for a simple shelter on the inhospitable slopes of the nearest high mountain.
If men are quaking over a little earthquake, what will they be like when the Lord Jesus Christ returns to this planet and calls for the end of time.
Three Bibles, and we look at one verse and one word in that verse.
Bible 1 = Bnutl Bible 2 = Bnity Bible 3 = omitted
Are all three an accurate translation?
Obviously not, because Bible 3 omitted it entirely. Does that mean 3 is incorrect? Not necessarily. Bibles 1 & 2 have a different word. Does that mean one of them is wrong and the other right? Not necessarily, they both might be wrong. One thing is for sure, they both cannot be right. And another thing is for sure: all three CANNOT be right.
Now apply these thoughts to the Bible you hold in your hand. It is different from other Bibles, so how is your assurance that you have the word of God?
When I hold a Bible in my hand and speak words from it to sinners, I tell them that THIS is the word of God, nothing doubting.
What Bible? The King James Bible.
But another Bible, like the NIV, was translated partly from the TR and partly from those wretched Westcott & Hort abominable Greek mss called Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. I'm talking here of the NT, okay?
Now do these people who higher criticised the Bible hold an NIV and say, "This IS the word of God."?
No they don't, and friends, you need to realise that.
Frank wrote: I agree! The commandment to not love this world is ignored by the unbelievers of this world. So, women and men would simply not want their lives complicated by births and the responsibilities that follow. Be fruitful and multiply has become a choice instead of a command and we are reaping what we are sowing.
Yea and Amen bro, although that is not what I was thinking, regarding the loss of fertility in Norway.
Dr. Tim wrote: I was already under deep conviction when I âjust happenedâ to find that tract on the side of the road. Iâm sure glad you âjust happenedâ to listen to that tape. And that millions of others âjust happenedâ to be in the right place at the right time for the sword of the Spirit to pierce their hearts and the power of God unto salvation to enlighten their eyes. Wonderful grace of Jesus, Greater than all my sin; How shall my tongue describe it, Where shall its praise begin? Taking away my burden, Setting my spirit free; For the wonderful grace of Jesus reaches me.
Lurker wrote: Benjamin, If we can agree that the Protestant Reformation was God's work, what came out of it that never existed before for English speaking people? A vernacular bible free from the dictates of church and state. That work began in 1526 with Tyndale's NT and culminated with the Geneva Bible in 1560 and the TR was the underlying Greek text. Competing Greek texts didn't show up for another 320 years. So the question that needs asked: Did God have to wait until 1881 to begin perfecting the work He started in 1526?
Agree, Lurker. And another question on top of that might be, "Would God ever use corrupted mss to perfect his word, anyway?"
Connor7 wrote: @John, Iâll get back to you, but I ask that you show some respect and not falsely accuse me.
Okay it's a deal, Connor. But I ask that you show some respect and not falsely accuse me. __________
Connor, if you say there are more than three differences between the Oxford and Cambridge KJV's, please teach me something, and point me to an article which documents this. Thank you.