Cases of C19 are escalating in India. And with people so tightly packed together in that huge population, everyone is likely to catch it. I'd like to see the Indian guv try to impose social distancing there.
Carl in Asheville wrote: Star Trek episode The Omega Glory, where the "socialized" Comms are at war with the "barbarous" Yangs. The Yangs win in the in as they literally fight to the death to defend the "E Plem Nesta." Kirk discovers that it is actually the first three words of our constitution "We The People." "Comms" was actually the shortened name for Communists and "Yangs" was the shortened name of Yankees.
Carl, I remember that episode, it was quite bizarre. The Yangs reverenced their constitution as if it was a god. It reminded me of some of my American brethren who similarly reverence their constitution.
B. McCausland wrote: Sure, barren Christianity abounds, result of false gospel pulpit 'talks' and esay belivism. How true Adam Clarke had it, even 2 centuries ago. Surely I Corinthians 5 deals with the necessity of church discipline, "Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. "
Thank you sister for your comments. Most welcome. It is always good to hear from you, Sister B. ____________
It is true that I do not know for whom Jesus died, but I do know that few there be that find their way to the portal and enter through that door into the kingdom of God.
All I can go on is the evidence placed before me. Is this lady a member of a church? She ought to be shunned, not accepted. Thrown out of membership, not received with open arms. In the OT, purity within the camp was taken seriously. Today, it seems churches are so lax, that they are filling up with tares. Would anyone care to disagree? Some churches are only tares, not one believer. It's a fact.
Stevenr wrote: But to suddenly judge that â€śNope, they are lost...â€ť
Stevenr, maybe you have never come in contact with real Christianity. Observe what Adam Clarke says:
"If all the fornicators, adulterers, drunkards, extortioners, and covetous persons which bear the Christian name, were to be publicly excommunicated from the Christian Church, how many, and how awful would the examples be! If however the discipline of the visible Church be so lax that such characters are tolerated in it, they should consider that this is no passport to heaven. In the sight of God they are not members of his Church; their citizenship is not in heaven, and therefore they have no right to expect the heavenly inheritance. It is not under names, creeds, or professions, that men shall be saved at the last day; those alone who were holy, who were here conformed to the image of Christ, shall inherit the kingdom of God. Those who expect it in any other way, or on any other account, will be sadly deceived."
Stevenr, please become a realist just for a moment. Ask yourself, is this woman 'holy', and is she 'conformed to the image of Christ'? I say not. What do you say?
Be not deceived by the plethora of pseudo preachers in 2020.
Stevenr wrote: John UK I do have a question for you. In first Corinthians 5, when Paul is dealing with the church member who is in a relationship with his stepmotherâ€¦ is he; A: Lost, needing Salvation B: Lost beyond redemption- enemy of God C: Saved, needing chastisement and, (if he repents) encouragement and restoration to the fellowship?
Stevenr, there is really no need to answer such a simple question. The man was saved, and the church needed to **judge him** and put him away, delivering him to Satan and, after a while, being regenerate, the Lord would restore him both to himself and to the church. However, I'm glad you found a text that proves my point.
1 Corinthians 5:12-13 KJV (12)Â For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye **judge them** that are within [the professing church]? (13)Â But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that **wicked person**.
So, is it a pat on the head, saying, "There, there, deary," or do you chuck them out of the camp, knowing that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
However, I don't believe that 'deary' was ever saved, nor will be, so the passage is irrelevant to the debate.
John UK wrote: [Hatmaker said her â€śgreatest regretâ€ť was speaking against homosexuality. ...] Try making that same speech in the lake of fire, deary.
I do believe that given the small amount of information, I called it right. The Lord Jesus Christ warns his disciples about people like this.
Believing in particular redemption, I do not believe the Lord Jesus Christ died in this woman's place. Rather, she is a nominal Christian, like so many Americans. They will all realise, too late, that they were never born again, never showed any evidence of being indwelt by the Spirit, never bore any fruit unto eternal life.
These sort of people are bold, they make bold speeches, they censure others who genuinely stand with God, they promote sin, they bolster the LGBT cause, they divorce, thinking it to be all right, but contrary to what Jesus taught. "Everybody's doing it, right? Must be okay!" Ah, you need to read and study the Bible, and see what God says about these things.
This woman is an enemy of God. The Lord Jehovah has many enemies, multitudes, billions. She is nothing special, just another rebel. But she writes books, she preaches, and that makes her dangerous.
Stevenr, I appreciate your lengthy post, and agree with much of it.
Your problem is that you don't take the Bible seriously enough. You have a get out clause to justify all your sin. You want to be a Christian but you want to sin as well. You use Paul as an example of this, but you take his words wrongly. Paul hated the remnant of sin in his bosom, and he called himself a "wretched man". This woman is not struggling with sin (as is common to all believers), but wholeheartedly embracing sin. She is not looking for God's grace, but is denying scripture, which is the word of God. She even says that she now accepts and promotes what we (and God) calls sin.
Now Steven, I deny that I am on a high horse, and I deny that I am attacking you. I asked you a question, and instead of simply answering it, you accused me of attacking you. This is not good, Steven. If you ask me the same question....
I stand with God on this. Therefore I am totally opposed to same sex marriage, homosexuality, transgenderism, lesbianism, fornication, adultery, satanism, feminism, liberalism, divorce, sex change, and any other perversion you can think of.
Frank wrote: Thanks brother! Yes feminists will go to any length to undo scripture. A good example of this is Priscilla and Aquila teaching Apollos. How can anyone even guess what Priscilla's role was? They were husband and wife so it would be normal to use both their names if they were both there. Perhaps Priscilla just stood by her husband. Or perhaps she said amen- who knows? What feminists and unfortunately the men who cater to them do is take something like this and make it the rule.
A good point brother! One text misunderstood can build a big doctrine and allow it to be used for all sorts of ungodly activities, or activities which have no biblical warrant. For every doctrine it is wise to have as many texts as possible to build up a certainty.
MS, thank you for the quote by Matthew Poole, which I believe to be very sound. The commentator would no doubt have no truck with the husband/wife combos which seem to be so popular in the USA, where the wife does as much preaching as the husband. Matthew Poole says, "If we allow Priscilla to have contributed towards the instruction of Apollos, as doubtless we may, it is certain it was only in private discourse..." Yes, that is good.
Frank wrote: ... The only thing this lady was ashamed about was her criticism of homosexual unions at one time.
Precisely Frank. And I do not believe she will ever reverse her decision again and make a stand for righteousness and the gospel. She has made her bed and God reserves the right to maintain her in her delusion and prevent her from ever recovering what she thought she once had.
And there are plenty like her in the world today. It is almost like a fashion, this evangelical feminism. But despite all their bellowing and accusations, they will find out it was not worthwhile, and that they ought to have gone the biblical route, as you have pointed out many times, Frank. And to whom much is given, much will be expected. If ignorance is no excuse, knowledge will condemn much more harshly.
The trap people fall into is to study the Bible without any desire to obey its teachings; or, if there is some desire, to not regard it as a serious matter. And that is why it is such a serious matter. Many need to take it on board and think much more seriously about what they do, and who they align themselves with.
Stevenr wrote: Someone forgot the most important verse 1 Corinthians 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
Important, forgotten? Not at all Stevenr.
All it is saying is that the worst of sinners, WHEN THEY REPENT AND BELIEVE THE GOSPEL, will be accepted in the beloved, justified and sanctified. And it is a cause of great rejoicing when they do so.
But 'deary', now she is going in the other direction. She is going AWAY FROM THE GOSPEL, and EMBRACING THE SINFUL LIFESTYLE, saying that she ought to have done it years ago.
I really don't see how you can justify what you're saying, Stevenr, unless you hold the same position as 'deary' yourself. Is that it? Do you support same sex marriage? Or divorce?
It is important to work alongside the Holy Spirit in the conversion of sinners. This means that gospel preachers must aim at the sin of sinners and show from scripture how God hates sin and punishes sin. The Spirit wants to CONVICT OF SIN, ignorant folks want to pat the sinner on the head and say, There, there, 'deary'."
It seems to me that C19 and the end of the world are synonymous. If China believes they are under an obligation to take over the world, then we can expect them any time to make the attempt. It will be a futile attempt, but it will involve great tribulation.
Frank wrote: Yes brother, it is called antinomianism; name it claim it. IOW, Christ is their Savior, but not their Lord. So, they believe they don't need to be born again from above.
Don't need the new birth?!
The main problem 'deary' has, is that she once stood for what is right, namely, she would tell the homosexual crowd what God thought about their activities. But she has changed her mind about that (repented) and now supports the marriage of two men or two women, alongside supporting divorce, both of which God is totally opposed to.
2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 KJV (11) And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: (12) That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
It amazes me that some professing Christians will bless and support the ungodly, while never having a kind word of encouragement for God's elect. This speaks volumes as to whose side they are really on. Again, it is evidence, which stacks up day by day, week by week, year by year. And God records every word.
Stevenr wrote: I mean, think about it John UK... itâ€™s almost like youâ€™re saying that her works decide her salvation?
Stevenr, I am only saying what God says about it, and God is the judge, and the following is God's word. Either you accept it or you don't.
Please accept it.
1 Timothy 1:9-11 KJV (9)Â Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, (10)Â For whoremongers, for them that **defile themselves with mankind**, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; (11)Â According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 KJV (9)Â Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor **adulterers**, nor effeminate, nor **abusers of themselves with mankind**, (10)Â Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Well well, your theology certainly has you tied up in knots, imagining that God is so weak that he cannot save sinners without them doing something. Poor God! He wants to save the whole world because he loves all the sinners, and Jesus died for all sinners, bearing away their sins, and now it is UP TO YOU!
Nay lad. You must needs refer to scriptures which show also the wrath of God against sinners, the eternal punishment he will mete out at the judgment, the fierce anger he has against those who hate his elect people and accuse them of a lack of love. Oh, but then you must accuse God of a lack of love. He could save all sinners if he so wished but he doesn't. Some of them he calls brute beasts fit only for the slaughter. And in the parable of the sower, only a comparative few get actually saved.
It's okay, I realise you have many years ahead of you when you can get to grips with the Bible, so don't think I am being nasty. Far from it. I love people because I have a new heart, given to me by God. It causes me to love God (FIRST), including his justice as well as his mercy, and my neighbour (SECOND). This is a work of God, not my imaginary free will (which is a myth).