There is Hope wrote:
Did it occur to anyone that maybe Christ doesn't want His Holy name associated with such a pagan holiday.

Living in an IMperfect world a little publicity for Jesus is a price worth the effort.
"pagan holiday" most things are irreligious, evil and worldly about this human polluted earth at the moment. But we as the Remnant try to spread goodwill and the Gospel as best we can amongst a humanity which doesn't want to know.

The NAME of Christ Jesus as we know is very important, If "Christmas" touches a persons heart and results in developing a seeker then who knows what GOD may chose to do about that?

The theology of "Christmas" may be all wrong to some around here.
BUT considering the huge variations on theological convictions, creeds and discussion during the previous history of the church and society; - who can blame anyone for seeking something simple but joyous.

Merry CHRISTmas.
"And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." Luke 2:13/14.

Mike wrote:
Perhaps it's the way they thought of things back then. And the flesh does serve sin. But we might remember this:
Romans 12:2
And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
Perhaps the mind gets renewed, because it is out of the mind that bad things hatch that the flesh serves, making it evident that renewing is needed, that we may have the mind of Christ.
1 Corinthians 2:16
For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Mike wrote:
PS Merry Christmas!

Mike wrote:
Where does Lloyd-Jones think lust and desire originate, if not in the mind?

Rom 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring *AGAINST* THE LAW OF MY MIND, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

It seems that Paul detached the source of sin from the mind???

Then why did God send HIS only Beloved Son to die so terribly, painfully and ignominiously upon a cross - If *HE* accepted other ways????????

Sometimes it makes you wonder why some people have no common sense, never mind knowledge, when talking about religion?

Mark 1:11 And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

"The instance which you bring to illustrate your assertion, indeed, dear Sir, is quite impertinent. For you say, "If a sick man knows that he must unavoidably die or unavoidably recover, though he knows not which, it is not reasonable to take any physic at all." Dear Sir, what absurd reasoning is here? Were you ever sick in your life? If so, did not the bare probability or possibility of your recovering, though you knew it was unalterably fixed that you must live or die, encourage you to take physic? For how did you know but that very physic might be the means God intended to recover you by?
Just thus it is as to the doctrine of election. I know that it is unalterably fixed (one may say) that I must be damned or saved; but since I know not which for a certainty, why should I not strive, though at present in a state of nature, since I know not but this striving may be the means God has intended to bless, in order to bring me into a state of grace?" (G Whitehead)

Mike wrote:
The offer of life to the whole world might be considered an act of love to the whole world.

Matt 22:14 For many are called, but FEW are chosen.

Rom 9:22 What if God, willing to shew HIS WRATH, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath FITTED to destruction:

Eph 5:6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the WRATH OF GOD upon the children of disobedience.

Lev 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

To then suggest that HE would accept that some people should conduct themselves in an abomination must be the most ludicrous, most deluded, most perverted idea that Newsweek and it's followers could come up with.

If this is quote an "influential" magazine, in America or anywhere else, then Satan is obviously the Editor in chief.

Not only does Newsweek lack truth - they also lack common sense when reading the Bible.

I don't think the true Church were very convinced that Georgy was a real Christian anyway, so not being able to receive the truth is to be expected.

2Thes 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

"The word selections are a very interesting reflection of the way childhood is going, moving away from our spiritual background and the natural world and towards the world that information technology creates for us."

Nothing new here.
Dictionary publishers have been redefining words and removing words and correct grammar, from dictionaries for over a century.

As for "reflecting changes" we can observe that even in school, the next generation are not being taught the truth. Thus the education of our children is being dumbed down and removing Christian teaching by merging it with idolatrous religions. "Information technology" has replaced good basic education in some "progressive" schools.

"multifaith" is a new word which defined by GOD, means the acceptance of idolatry.

I wonder from which group will GOD elect his disciples from, - atheist or church attendee?

Why either of course.

"The work of the Spirit, then, is joined to the word of God. But a distinction is made, that we may know that the external word is of no avail by itself. unless animated by the power of the Spirit ...All power of action, then, resides in the Spirit himself." - John Calvin

Scott McMahan wrote:
I don't know how the CoE works ... can't lay people impeach, recall, or otherwise vote out these people? Who appoints these ultra-liberal folks who don't believe their own faith?

Quote; "“The Government reaffirms its commitment to the position of the Church of England by law established, with the Sovereign as its Supreme Governor, and the relationship between the Church and State. The Government greatly values the role played by the Church in national life in a range of spheres.”"

They preach the social gospel, embrace idolatrous religions such as RCC and Islam, and their Liberal convictions are more about impressing secular society - than about anything the Bible teaches.

Like Lot - it is our lot to be vexed amongst this abominable society.

Mike wrote:
You imply that if he is drawn, he MUST come. Now you will say the drawing means he cannot do otherwise. Wherein then lies the need for personal repentance? What if he loves darkness rather than light? Think about the term "rather than" and what it implies.

Here is your "rather than"....

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness RATHER THAN light, because their deeds were evil.

You appear to suggest that this domain of sin which the man is under, retains such power over him that he *THEN* chooses sin (rather than) Christ.

Mike wrote:
There's that whosoever, meaning any person whatsoever, again.

Who is this guy "whosoever"??

Is he everybody??? anybody???

37 "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out."

Nope! As we can read he is those who have been chosen by GOD.

44 NO MAN (R) NO MAN can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

So reading again - NO Person can come to Christ UNLESS God the Father draw him. Thats **NO ONE** folks.

As Jesus points out

11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

Some think "whosoever" means everybody/anybody.
Others read the Bible and see God's sovereign purpose in election.

Mike wrote:
But Pew, you didn't comment on Whitefield's view of Wesley. What was that fine old Calvinist doing, praising the character of Wesley like that?

John UK wrote:
Point 1. Not all the elect understand, nor necessarily believe in, 'the biblical fact of limited atonement'. Eg. Both Spurgeon and Whitefield held John Wesley in the highest regard. Spurgeon said that he reverenced John Wesley more than any Wesleyan Methodist alive.

And would bring you into line with the heresy of Arminianism.
Wesley and his invention of Prevenient grace - promotes man to overcome sin by his own volition, AND Demotes God correspondingly to only being able to save man if the sinner agrees and cooperates with HIM.

Thus NO definite atonement or effectual call required.

Neatly removing divine sovereign intervention and man saves himself?????

Like the politician, you were a little economic with the truth, John UK!!!
You hinted earlier you were in agreement with Reformed Doctrine, but just did not like the term Calvinist.

John UK wrote:
I think it wise when you post a link, to read it through first yourself. This one is a real treasure, and very helpful. Spurgeon held to tuppip just like me.

[URL=http://www.corkfpc.com/chs12atonement.html]]]Spurgeon believed in Limited Atonement.[/URL]

God has stated........

Jo 6:44 "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day."