ladybug wrote: All is fine here brother, thank you for asking. I covet prayer for a present trial, please pray God will be glorified in the end regardless of the situation. I ask for His strength and wisdom to see me through, and to trust Him regardless. Blessings to the elect of God
By the grace of God will add that to my prayers for you. God bless
Thanks ladybug, hope all is well with you dear sister.
Yup, Jim is for government regulation of anything. The supporters are telling you that this will lead to censorship when just the opposite is true. Besides, we have all seen several stories of FB, Google (which owns You Tube),Twitter, etc. censoring conservatives and Christians. The very same companies pushing the biggest against the ending of so called net neutrality.
I will never understand why people who own 50 inch and bigger televisions think streaming video from the entertainment industry to their cellphones and tablets is the greatest thing since sliced bread. But that requires tons more bandwidth than grandma who checks email, looks up recipes and keeps up with the grandkids on social media would use. Grandma should not pay the same as them because the government says so.
Jim Lincoln wrote: The above is a very good explanation of net neutrality.
Sorry to say that is one of the worst explanatins of so called net neutrality I have ever seen. Just the opposite is true. Big companies like Google and Facebook using large amounts of bandwidth are inhibiting smaller companies because of the rules. Look who is in favor of it. The analogy was horrible.
Imagine your neighbor waters their lawn regularly, has a large 35,000 gallon swimming pool that they change the water in once a month (I know that doesn't happen), wash their 25 cars and have a large fountain in their front yard. You on the other conserve water by saving your bath water to water your outdoor plants, have low flow toliets and wash your dishes every other day. The reason you have to be miserly with your water is that there is only so much water allocated to your two houses and the neighbor using up the lion's share leaving you only a pittance. In the net neutrality world, you both get the same water bill.
Here is a website that gives a much more accurate picture of what is really involved.
The research used as a basis for saying that Christmas has pagan origins has been debunked
from TMC research
The word â€śMassâ€ť preceeded â€śChristmasâ€ť. But both words preceeded the adoption of the doctrine that Christ is present in Communion, also known as â€śTransubstantiationâ€ť. The term â€śMassâ€ť became widespread in the 500â€™s and refered to the service in general, and the conclusion or â€śsending forthâ€ť in particular. At itâ€™s linguistic root, â€śMassâ€ť means literaly â€śto sendâ€ť and has no connection to â€śsacrificeâ€ť. The first known instance of the term â€śChristmasâ€ť was in 1038 AD. It was not until 177 years later that the RCC adopted the doctrine of Transubstatiation which lead to people associating â€śMassâ€ť with that heresy.
200's AD- First recorded celebrations of Christ's birth and calculations setting the date as December 25th. 500's AD- Old English/Latin form of word "Mass" (meaning "to send") in wide use. 1038 AD- First recorded use of term "Christmas". 1215 AD- Heresy of Transubstantiation (the idea of "sacrificing" Christ at Communion) adopted by the RCC.
None of the above intended to say one should or should not celebrate C
Kev, please don't try and read between the lines on my posts.
I don't deny the presence of spiritual Israel mentioned in the text I do say that it is a passage that is referring mainly to national Israel Paul refers again to national Israel at the beginning (he spoke of his Jewish heritage) and end of chapter ten and the beginning and throughout chapter eleven.
Kev, you seem to be putting forth the doctrine of double predestination. A system of belief based upon the man made doctrines of lapsarianism.
The passage is referring to God's working with the nation of Israel, it is not a proof text that God predetermined to condemn some, save others, and then decree their creation. Multiple passages show that all were condemned and that from that group of condemned God chose to save His remnant.
If I am misrepresenting what you are saying my apologies.
Thank you ladybug and brother Observer for your kind words
Dr. Tim, I don't believe anyone that has posted thus far has said anything contrary to the fact that the gospel is a universal appeal to be made to all men. (we have those who post here who don't believe that but they have been silent thus far) We believe the words of our Lord Jesus Who said, all that the Father gives Him shall come, and he that comes He will not cast out.
Maybe I missed it, being observant is not one of my strong points you can ask my wife (she used to pick up the cat and pretend it was talking to her and commenting on her nice haircut), could you relate the post where someone inferred or stated that the gospel was not for all to hear and given a responsibility to respond?
Looking at the wealth of responses in agreement with what you said, it seems like you are preaching to the choir.
What is being spoken against is a methodology that tries to replace the work of the Spirit with the power of man. Remember the words of the Apostle Paul, we plant, we water, but God alone can give the increase.
Thanks for your response Kev I will let the Scriptures make my point
vs 1-4 Paul is specifically talking about Israelites
v 5 again the nation of Israel
v 6 Israel is mentioned
v7 seed of Abraham (Israel)
v 8 children of the flesh (referring to Israel) also seed refers to Israel
v9 Sara. the mother, so to speak, of the nation of Israel
v10-14 the choosing by God of the seed of Rebecca who would become the nation of Israel
v-15-27 still talking about Israel which he mentions by name in verses 24 and 27 (remember Paul has not left the topic with which he opened the chapter)
9:30 - 10:4 even when he brings up the Gentiles it is as a contrast to what the nation of Israel did He never got off the topic of the children of Israel even through chapter 11
It is not a passage about God's dealings with the whole of humanity
Look at Ephesians 2, the love that God showed us (never said anything about all) happened when?
v. 1 when were dead in trespasses and sins v2 when we walked according to the course of this world, the devil, and were at the time children of disobedience v3 by nature children of wrath v 5 dead in sins v11 in the flesh v12 strangers, aliens, without Christ, without God, having no hope
Dr. Tim wrote: ). If one fifth of the time we use criticizing others on SA
Dr. Tim, I am sure ladybug can more than adequately speak for herself, but she never said that God doesn't use, to quote Paul, the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe, but God alone can give the increase. She is saying that regeneration happens from above (John 3) and that man made techniques to do the work of the God (John 6:44) are vain work. "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." (John 6:63)
I would also say all of us need to be careful about using generalizations like you did in the above comment. It would be good if we all spent more time praying, repenting, mourning our lack of whole-hearted obedience, weeping over our lackluster love for our precious Savior, crying out for those who know not God that He would grant them repentance, sowing the Word, being more diligent in our mortification, walking closer to our Lord in humility, spent more time in meditation and memorization of the Word of God, etc. Obviously the list could get very long.
That does not mean we are less pleasing to God because we also take time to comment here on SA (I Cor 10:31)
Kev, a lot of wisdom in ladybug's post, we were all vessels of wrath fitted for destruction on the broad path. It is only the mercy of God and the regenerating life given by the Holy Spirit that changed us from those who had no hope, strangers to the covenants and promise, without God, standing in condemnation under His wrath, to those who are delivered (praise God)from the power of darkness and translated into the kingdom of His dear Son.
Ephesians 2:4-7 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus
Hallelujah, praise His worthy name for His undeserved mercy!!!
Your own hermeneutic (the passage in Romans 9 is about a very specific group of people) is in question, be careful not to cast stones at others for not seeing things your way.
Jim Lincoln wrote: The Most Destructive Phrase Of All Time?)
The millionaire buys the yacht.
The people who benefit are the builders, the people who produce the material from which it is made, the insurance salesman, the owner of the marina for docking fees, the yacht salesman, the people who repair and do upkeep on the boat, etc.
They take money they earn and buy groceries, eat out, buy cars, buy internet, tv services, etc. and the money they spend helps those in the related industries to have money to buy goods and services.
If the wealthy aren't spending their money, the people that suffer are the ones who are in the middle class and poor who no longer benefit from money they obtain due to the rich people's expenditures.
Even liberal economists note that because as they put it (see Huffington Post) the rich were "hoarding" their money, the rest of the economy (those further down the wealth chain) were suffering.
It is called supply side, and yes, it does have a trickle down effect. Even those who are against it have to admit to that.
Jim Lincoln wrote: So what response do you want where, UPS?
It was a response to your trickle down economics comment and building a yacht. I showed how that created many jobs down the line for those who didn't have the millions necessary for a luxury yacht. But couldn't get it past the SA algorithms even though tech support said it was okay to post.
Angela Wittman wrote: Folks, Please use discernment and be wary of sensational stories. I've heard that this news source lacks credibility. I reposted one of their stories in the past and came to regret it. BTW - Jim Lincoln often comes across as one of the more sensible participants at the SermonAudio news page. I find his links useful.
There is nothing that I can think of in the Washington Post that makes it a credible source, in fact usually whatever they publish is the opposite of what is true. His other source is MSN. Then he says, with no backing, Moore is pushing Dominion theology.
I respect your judgment and enjoy your posts, but am surprised that you find Jim's links useful.
Here is one sir Rodney
That's right Herman. Your next step should be skid row, but with President Johnson wiping out poverty a bum like you has got no place to go. Herman Munster quote from the Munster's Television Series.