Mike wrote: Hi Lurker, they are considered natural rights because in nature, created by God, we see that demonstration of survival instinct is intrinsic in the design. One needs no permission to protect wife and children, it's not up for discussion. The arguments from those who for generations have become comfortable with having govt as a parental authority/entity ignores this. Today in the US, those who would entrench themselves as parental authorities here, use tragedy to increase control, not because they give a rip about victims, but because they fear an armed people. As the fallen who lust for power should. Still waiting for someone to explain how America would be safer if I no longer had my single shot .22. If anyone thinks the issue is about mean looking black rifles, they are deluded.
Thanks for your thoughts grounded in reality. Obviously, I concur.
But as for that .22 varmint rifle; I'd encourage you to not offend or neglect it as it may pull its own trigger and seriously injure someone. After all, guns kill.
Blessings to you and yours, brother. I'm going back to the shadows of reality.
B. McCausland wrote: Thanks for your take, Lurker Perhaps Deism, the belief existing at the time of the founding fathers, selectively picked and embeded such 'natural right' into American existence without caring for the whole context of the law of Christ. It is true that spirits are frenzy regarding the topic, which has become totally entrenched in American nationalism as an untouchable sacred cow, yet there is no reason why this should be out the pale of biblical check. Thanks for your thoughts Regards
Thanks sister B. I appreciate you taking the time to hear out our particular situation. It's not an easy one.
Personally, I don't believe we, as a nation, will be able to put an end to the mass shootings. In my opinion, the best chance we have in our power to curtail them is to do away with gun free zones at schools, churches, shopping centers, etc. They are an open invitation to lunatics who can't handle freedom.
Aside from that, God has the solution but He isn't speaking just yet.
B. McCausland wrote: Thanks Lurker for yours. So to be an American means the right to bear arms. Where did that come from? From a revolutionary war of which like-minded leaders wrote a Constitution perpetuating the idea.
Not so, sister B.
The right to bear arms, among other rights specifically enumerated in our constitution, are considered natural rights. They are not granted to the states and the people by the federal government, which could just as easily take them away, but are considered inalienable rights granted by our Creator. In this regard, an old idea has not been perpetuated. I'm sure you could argue the biblical legitimacy of a natural right if you choose but, right or wrong, that's the way it is.
As I said earlier, any attempt to infringe on the right to bear arms will be met with fierce resistance. So you can hypothesize all you want but it isn't helpful as it doesn't deal with the realities as they exist here.
B. McCausland wrote: Lurker, Self-protection comes in many shapes, colours, and sizes, gun obssession too. Americans need to separate the two. [‚Ä¶] Definitions need to change in their heads, along with reading their politics with insight, before they can perceive the folly...
I offered a rationalization of the defensive steps this congregation in the article is taking to preserve life. You offered criticism but no workable alternative.
I believe they are doing what they believe best for their own safety in their setting. I'd go a step further and post a sign out front: "This is NOT a gun free zone."
You live is a society where the general population is barred from bearing fire arms. We do not. The right to bear arms is grounded in our constitution and any attempt to infringe that right will be met with fierce resistance. That's just the way it is and we in the USA have to deal with it accordingly.
We have to deal with the possibility of some sick nut-job copy-cat waltzing into a gun-free zone and killing innocents, with deadly force if necessary, without infringing on the right of the rest of the law abiding citizens to defend themselves, family and property.
An unwillingness to view this from our perspective is unhelpful.
Christopher000 wrote: ...No mentally healthy person would remain standing up straight, amidst some madman spraying bullets, and no mentally healthy person would just stand there, smiling, as some thug swung a pipe at their head, over and over, while saying, "Should my skull cave in, it was God's will. Self defense comes in many forms, which includes ducking, and taking cover. Self-protection is tantamount to a lack of faith, and denying God's sovereignty? Give me a break.
I believe our brothers and sisters across the pond are focused so keenly on guns they are missing the point of the news item and the discussion: Self preservation.
Self preservation is instinctive not only for people but for animals, plants, etc. All of God's creation has the innate drive to live. Fight of flight is instinctive.
To employ a gun defensively is no different that putting on a seatbelt when driving; getting a vaccine shot for the flu; getting an annual wellness check from your doctor; installing locks on the entrance doors of your house; etc.
But when it comes to preserving life with a defensive firearm, the Brits say the Americans are trusting in their guns and not God. Apparently they have no idea how silly that comes across.
B. McCausland wrote: There were two instances where the seed of the word had a start but then fell away. Such became partakers of heavenly enlightment from the Holy Ghost and even it says that they received the word with joy, went forth and *believed*, but their end was not of true enduring permanence:
"They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, *receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe*, and in time of temptation fall away.
And that which fell among thorns are they, which, *when they have heard, go forth*, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection."
It could be said that such are cases of tasting of heavenly things in vain.
Amen to that, sister B.
I had the parable of the sower/soils (Mark 4:1-20) in mind to couple with the Hebrews 6:4-6 text but didn't have room. I believe the two texts together demonstrate precisely what has happened to Joshua Harris.
Many will say he was saved therefore just needs to get right with God. But the fruit he now bears reveals the state of his stony heart.
. . .
I agree with your thoughts. As for me, I've said all I have to say so will step back to the sidelines.
Stevenr wrote: Lurker: Respectfully ‚ÄĒThe key to the passage that tells us the spiritual condition of the named is found in v4 "...and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost..." (Hebrews 6:4) to partake means to receive a share of. Lost people don't get a piece of the Holy Ghost. You must consider the context of the passage, which begins in Hebrews 5:12- it is discussing those who did not mature, and the leaders if the church, former Hebrews, who are used to the sacrifice, could not wrap their head around the fact that One time sacrifice was good enough, so were preaching salvation again to those who fell into sin, in lieu of making them get right. He was telling them it was impossible for someone who is saved and worldly to get re-saved. They just need to get right.
Steven, Thank you for an interesting interpretation of the text. However, I respectfully disagree. For what it's worth, so does Matthew Henry.
The apostle was saying it is impossible to renew unto repentance those who bear thorns and briars, in spite of their ever so religious past, whose end is the lake of fire. Nothing about getting right:
Heb 6:8 But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.
Stevenr wrote: Again‚ÄĒwe don‚Äôt know his heart. I‚Äôm just making the suggestion that he could have been saved and now he‚Äôs running from God. For that, there is still a penalty‚ÄĒjust not hell. Matthew 5:19
Not possible, Steven. Rejection of God and His Christ by a born again believer is a pretty serious falling away.
Heb 6:4-6 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
If, as you suggest, JH was saved, by what means could he be renewed unto repentance? There is no remedy remaining for him. And if there is no remedy for a once born again fallen man, then the Son failed to keep His Father's will to lose none of all that were given to Him of the Father (John 6:39).
However, what is possible is JH has never experienced the new birth and could still be brought to submission and repentance by God.
Hitchitaw creek wrote: Sorry y'all but Fred is right. We have the freedom to walk away from Christ. He will never let us go but we can let go of Him.[‚Ä¶] Every promise of salvation in the scripture has a condition. If we fulfil the conditions the promises are ours.
Indeed the promises of God have conditions. But you wrongly assume man has the ability to fulfill the conditions. The responsibility and ability falls to the Son.
John 6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
It is His alone to redeem in time and preserve that which was given to Him.
Jude 1:24-25 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.
Joshua Harris fell because he was none of His but an antichrist, goat, tare.
1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
Sadly, the constructs of men (CF's, creeds, systematic theologies, commentaries, etc.) continues its work of division amongst those whom God has made to stand in His sight as one new man in Christ by His free gift upon regeneration. It's been going on for centuries.
I wonder how God will look on this come judgment day..... brothers/sisters casting away brothers/sisters over petty disagreements which have no eternal consequence.
MS wrote: Also wanted to give an update on our great g-child whom I asked for prayer months ago... ‚ÄėChristopher‚Äô is due any day now.
Great news sister.
June A. Nadolny wrote: Ps. 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. Commentary by: Charles H. Spurgeon
Thanks for that commentary, June.
If I'm not mistaken, that's the third commentary on Psalm 51:5 you've posted and all three have the same in common:
1) All obviously uphold and promote the doctrine of imputation of original sin.
2) All are reformed.
3) All willfully ignore Psalm 139:13-16.
How is it possible to say 'I love God with all my heart, mind, soul and strength' yet willfully ignore a portion of the word He inspired because it casts a cloud of doubt over a man's doctrine? Seems a bit hypocritical to me which is why I will never associate myself with the reformed label. Still, I've never denied anyone the right to be wrong.
MS wrote: I can attest to that Bro. Lurker. You and Bro. James have been misrepresented, slandered, and gossiped about for days on this thread, while you both have been patient and gracious in your comments. IMO you both warrant an apology from J-UK. Back to hibernation mode.
Thank you sister MS. You are appreciated. And thanks to Ladybug and others who may disagree with me doctrinally but recognize that God has not been honored by what has been going on here.
June A. Nadolny wrote: Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Are you absolutely certain that David was speaking of his own sin and iniquity and not his mother's?
Ps 139:13-16 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.
A sin ridden, dead on arrival, fetus written in the book of life?
John UK wrote: Lurker, note, this statement comes just before Paul launches into his testimony of meeting the risen Christ on the road to Damascus. Acts 26:8 KJV (8)¬† Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead? To my mind, Paul seems to be thinking of the resurrection of Christ....
"To my mind..."?
Okay John. You've made it abundantly clear that you will not engage legitimate biblical questions but will ever practice deflection and diversion.... So be it.
Have a great rest of the day.
. . .
You can ask me about my beliefs if you want. I don't bite. The answer is NO, I'm not Arminian.
John just can't get over the fact that his version of original sin isn't biblical and he can't convince me otherwise. That's why he falsely accuses me of such things as humanist, cultish, mysticism, etc, etc. to which I won't even dignify with an objection. It doesn't bother me. God knows my heart.
John and I have been on the comment board for around 13 years and have discussed about everything there is to discuss. There are a few here who know both of us well and our beliefs and if they had a mind to speak up I believe would say that I'm none of the things John accuses me of.
John UK wrote: Anna and Zacharias and John Baptist were not from the tribe of Judah, and my dear friends James and Lurker claim that they are not therefore Jews and all like them are mentioned in Ephesians 2:11 where they are called uncircumcised Gentiles. So that in Ephesians 2:15, the twain who are brought together in Christ, are people like "Anna and Zacharias" (who emerged from the ten tribes) and the two other tribes of the southern kingdom, thus making one new man.
If I actually believed you were interested in reconciling God's prophetic promise to gather the two nations of Israel into one with the NT writings, I'd be more than happy to help; but you're not. So let's take your view of Eph 2:15 and run with it.
Acts 26:6-8 And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers: Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope's sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews. Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead?
Twelve tribes, instantly serving God, looking forward to the resurrection of the just and unjust in hope.
How can that be, John, if the prophetic promise hadn't even come to pass? Help me out
John UK wrote: Thanks Lurker. I don't understand your question, so am unable to answer it. Back to normal.
No problem. Just ignore what follows which may be of help to others.
. . .
The promises God gave to Abraham flowed through Isaac and Jacob. Jacob was given the name of Israel after his struggle with an angel.
Jacob had twelve sons who were the patriarchs of the nation of Israel. Israel remained a united nation until shortly after the death of King Solomon. At that time Israel was divided into two kingdoms with Judah and the absorbed tribe of Benjamin becoming the southern kingdom of Judah and the remaining ten tribes becoming the northern kingdom of Israel.
The northern kingdom was then referred to as either Israel or the house of Israel while the southern kingdom was referred to as Judah or the house of Judah. These designations are consistent throughout the prophets.
The northern kingdom was eventually given to Assyrian captivity and cast off by God and not a people of God. Yet God promised He would gather them again and join them to the southern kingdom as one people with David as their king.
The term Jew is derived from Judah and points to the house of Judah while the term Israelite refers to all of Jacob's progeny.
John UK wrote: Lurker, I realised as soon as I began this study, that definition of terms is required. So excuse me for asking, but: 1. a) Are you asking, considering that the Israelites were twelve tribes in toto, the ten tribes separated in the north, were Jews? b) At the time of the writing of the NT? 2. By Jews, do you mean physical descendants of Abraham, of whatever tribe? Or Israelites in general? Or people of the two tribes in the southern kingdom?
I appreciate your questions and desire to better understand biblical terms such as Jew, Israelite, Israel, Judah, house of Israel and house of Judah but I trust you'll understand I'm reluctant to be the one to offer instruction.
That said, I'm glad you realize the importance of the biblical terms and that getting them confused or wrong leads to fruitless conversations where we are just talking past each other.
I think my position has already been made clear since I asked the question. But you need to satisfy yourself of the proper meaning of the terms and that best from the bible. Sister B. offered an excellent summary. You could search the internet (origin of the word Jew) which has some good help. Or I would be willing to offer my understanding of the terms I mentioned later tonight.
Dr. Tim wrote: Okay, I see what you‚Äôre getting at, Lurker. But remember that the Samaritans and Judaites had a common ancestry. It was their ‚Äúfather Jacob‚ÄĚ who gave the Samaritans the well. They were ethnically connected if religiously separated.
Thanks for your reply, Doc. My question wasn't meant to be a "gotcha" but there seems to be differing opinions of what constitutes a Jew and those differences are causing discussions to be fruitless at best. I agree that both kingdoms has a common patriarch in Jacob/Israel.... hence, Israelites all. But not Jews all.
. . .
Sister B., Thank you for the most excellent post regarding what the bible says about Israelites/Jews. Absolutely right on the mark.
. . .
John, Take all the time you need to research the subject but I'd encourage you to avail yourself to sister B's comment as well. Now it may spook you and make you wary that I'd agree with sister B., as we've disagreed on many other things, but on this subject I believe she has nailed it true to scripture.
My only purpose in asking the question is to try to get to the bottom of what happened yesterday. I may have misunderstood your comments but there is really no way of knowing without agreement on the words and terms we use.
I must be a brute for punishment but I reviewed this thread to see if I could figure out why it went crossways and came across this:
John UK wrote: Go to my post of 1/26/19 1.47pm and read it, please. Lurker came back with: "Two nations gathered into one with one king? Sound a little like Eph 2:15?" I came back with: "I do approve of the king being Christ over the one new man, made up from every nation on earth, such that there is neither Jew nor Gentile." James, you came back with: "The two nations gathered into one sounds like the house of Israel walking together with the house of Judah to me Bro. spoken of here in Jeremiah." Note, Ephesians 2:15 KJV (15) Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; Now see my reasoning of scriptures, James? In Ephesians 2:11, it is clear who Paul is speaking to - GENTILES (not Jews).
Are you of the opinion that the ten tribes of the northern kingdom were Jews? I don't need a 1300 character rant that says nothing. A simple yes or no will do.