B. McCausland wrote: Thanks, John. 1. The principle of remembering is Biblical. 2. Honour to whom honour is due. Regards
Thank you Sister B. Now then.....
1. Absolutely! And I'm sure both of us could spend many happy hours recalling scripture where the Lord called upon his people to remember something important, such as Passover etc. What we can't find is a scriptural example of God's people sculpting something to remind them of something, unless you count Aaron's golden calf, who he said brought them up out of Egypt. Naturally we say that is wrong. But why is it wrong? It is wrong because God says it is wrong.
2. Now here is a tricky one, because the text can be used to justify almost anything relating to the exaltation of men by honouring them; or, if you agree, to the exaltation of women also, by honouring them. So how shall we do this?
Hebrews 11 gives us the gallery of people of faith, naming certain men and women and saying why they were so honoured as to be counted worthy of mention in the NT text. But NO statue of them! Why not? Because making statues of men and women is wrong. And why is it wrong? Because God says so.
B. McCausland wrote: John, you are rising humanists straw men. We are not perpetuating men, but the witness of God and his doings in the past. No harm in this. With your kind of thinking you are aiding the efforts of leftist anarchists in their aim to clear out from our history of all traces of Biblical Christianity, morality and order. We have a reasonable faith that has nothing to fear about order and remembrance.
Sister B, you are quite right that there is no harm in remembrance; rather benefit. This is why I have read books about historical figures who inspire me to greater service for the Lord.
But I disagree that "my kind of thinking" aids the efforts of leftist anarchists. I am all in favour of archiving historial documents and records of events, doctrines etc. And I hardly think that a statue serves the population in any form of teaching. Besides which, I always thought that men were mere unprofitable servants, not stars to elevate and worship.
As to "principle", if it is not based upon scripture, it is not a godly principle but a sin, and sin has its consequences.
The Quiet Christian wrote: Just it, Brother John. Running from death right into its clutches, out the first and then the second.
Amen Quiet Brother, what a terrible shock to the system when the truth is finally experienced, and ordinary people catch their first glimpse of their eternal abode, the lake of fire where is no joy or peace.
B. McCausland wrote: 1. People in the past erected 'memorials' in remembrance of the martyrs or other good leaders in Britain, 2. the same as the Lord ordered Israel to built a memorial with 12 stones after crossing Jordan and that was for a testimony to future generations. 3. So the Geneva wall.
Sister B, greetings to you, and thank you for the sole response to what I said. However, let us look at this answer.
1. You are justifying memorials (statues) in the UK because God once told his ancient people to erect some stones as a memorial so that future generations would not forget what happened there? Well I personally would not do that.
2. Yes the people were told to do that by God. It was biblically warranted. This is my whole argument, and always will be. The apostles would have been shocked if anyone had erected a statue after their death. Do you not agree?
3. I don't mind anyone building a wall, but I object to anyone building statues of men, to elevate them (oh yes, to elevate them; have you never been to a Calvin church and heard the reverence for the man and his theologies, even greater reverence than that shown to the Lord Jesus Christ himself?). No biblical warrant - no statue, simple.
Mike wrote: It's hard to identify with the whole world, at least for me, John. I have to be more specific in prayer. The whole world is beyond my ability.
Me too, Mike, which is why I do not personally pray for the whole world, but for those I am in personal contact with, and know that they have heard the gospel or have access to the gospel.
However, if Adriel has such a big heart as to pray for all, I am not going to dishearten his adventure, rather welcome it; the lost need someone to love them, for the devil sure doesn't.
Your second point Mike, is difficult, and I'm not sure I can answer it. Except to say that the OT dispensation appears to be different from the NT dispensation, in the sense that God did deal with entire nations or entire cities such as Ninevah. This he did not do since Pentecost, when even families were divided by Jesus Christ, who brought a sword not peace to family units.
Adriel wrote: John. Howâ€™s it going. Good idea. If God blessed the world then we wouldnâ€™t be too bothered about the nation. But small steps begin a long journey.
Apart from ailments Adriel, it be going fine, thank you.
I like your statement, "small steps begin a long journey". I will remember that.
With regard to God's blessing, it would appear from scripture that we can limit his salvation blessings to a smaller number, on account of his election and other purposes. It also appears rare (from the historical viewpoint) that God will save a whole country. So to say, "God bless America" is manipulation, and what the impression is given and meant to produce in hearts is, "God IS blessing America". Thusly, whatever America is doing is justified by the "fact" that God is blessing America, even if he is not, and his judgment is upon the country.
With regard to temporal blessings, I believe God can bless any individual, having some sort of love for the entire world - see John 3:16, even if there is no intention to save that person.
Adriel, I believe the words "God bless America" have become mere religious words which have no particular meaning, except it be to pyschologically manipulate the population into religion rather than Christianity. You never heard the apostles saying, "God bless Greece" or "God bless Spain", did you?
If you are serious about God blessing people, all you have to do is pray, "God bless the whole world," and the job is done?
Mind you, you might be disappointed, because the liberals are already praying that without success.
Wayfarer pilgrim wrote: Yes John, ... Tear down a statue, might as well,...
Greetings Wayfarer Pilgrim. As an observer of American customs, it seems to me that when Americans pull down a statue of a foreign dictator in a foreign land, it raises a cheer and a big Yee Ha. But when Americans pull down a statue of a fellow American, in America, it gets a cheer from some and disdain from others.
Yes, I'm just saying that I have noticed this, and it is very much a matter of opinion as to how to define "lawless".
I always thought it was "lawless" to raise a statue, anywhere, anytime.
For example, would you justify as Christian the "Reformation Wall" in Geneva?
NeedHim to Bro Mike wrote: ... Jim is like a roach who scatters when the light exposes them! Mat 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works & glorify your Father in Heaven!"
The demand of the day is for a higher standard & style of Christian life. Every follower of Christ must represent His religion purely, loftily, impressively, before that multitude of "Bible-readers" whose only Bible is the Christian.
We need more sermons in shoes, men & women going up & down the roads of life preaching Christianity by their imitation of Christ!
1 PT 2:21 "Leaving you an example, that you should follow in His steps!"
Wow, too right, NeedHim! Thank you bro for your edifying posts. These posts will come up on judgment day.
Frank to "Black Follower of Jesus" wrote: I am a 73 year old Caucasian and also live in Florida. That means you and I go way back to a time when racism was clearly practiced in the south. Your comment blessed me and thanks for your thoughts.
It is a most wonderful thing when the Almighty God can get his enemies to do his will and create statue-pullers to undo the works of the ungodly who made them and erected them contrary to the will of God, as found in scripture and in the commandments.
May all statues of men (and women) be pulled down and reduced to cement rubble and used for more profitable and godly things such as foundations for houses etc.
Acts 17:6 KJV (6)Â And when they found them not, they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also;
Ah, those were the days, when men of faith were men of faith, strong, powerful, indwelt by the Holy Ghost, doing wonders in the name of Jesus, turning the world upside down, seeing multitudes of conversions, with persecutions besides.
Adriel, have you backslidden so far as to not see these things in the Bible?
If you want to argue doctrine, find an Arminian to argue with. It is not doctrine I am concerned with but real facts in the world today, of which you seem totally oblivious.
If conversion to you means the creation of "feeble little sinners", I rather think you have lost the plot.
Mike wrote: Yes indeed, that sentence was kind of muddy, wasn't it, John? I'll try again. You said according to Mr Calvin, the elements change at the point of eating and drinking. I was wondering as to what do the elements change into? What do they become? And I might as well ask, aside from remembrance, is there then something else of substance added to the life of a believer? If so, wouldn't that be Jesus plus...?
Thanks Mike. I am finding it difficult to quote Calvin without the normal theological lingo which attends such. The best I can do is to refer you to this very short article which seeks to describe the main churches position on the communion.
The Reformed/Presbyterian view is now the one that I espouse, having as one of its main tenets the real and living presence of Jesus Christ, as opposed to the Baptists and others who regard the communion as simply a remembrance with no presence of Jesus.
Thusly the Baptist version is more like a funeral, a reminder of death. The Reformed reminds of salvation through death, but adds the living Christ into the equation, which makes it a joyful celebratory meal.
Adriel wrote: No John. I want GOD to do the conversion of His Elect. Not me. Iâ€™m just a feeble little sinner.
Adriel, someone has been telling you porkies.
If you are a Christian you are in the royal family; you are a priest; sin no longer has dominion over you; Jesus has made you free; you live righteously.
As for being too feeble to witness, please observe:
Acts 1:8 KJV (8)Â But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
Luke 24:49 KJV (49)Â And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.
Now please note, Adriel. You are leaving it up to God to convert sinners. God is using Arminians to bring in his elect. The same Arminians are teaching the new converts. Therefore you are to blame that Arminianism is on the rise and Calvinism is biting the dust.
Have you never wondered why God told his people to wait for the promise before venturing out witnessing?
Frank wrote: Well said Pilgrim. No one is outside of salvation if God's chooses them to be saved. His grace and calling are irresistible In a worldly sense it must be understood that if a Muslim converts to Christ, they will at a minimum be ostracized by their family and friends and at a maximum, they will be murdered by their family and friends.
Amen brother, and yes it is a great sadness when religious people will not permit others to freely express their faith in Jesus Christ.
Mike wrote: Colorful language was used more in those days, John. They didn't have special effects, just words to grab hold of the listener. We have to ask, what was Jesus doing at the very time he said this is my body? Was he holding his body in his hand, or bread? His blood, or wine? So when he said this do in remembrance of me, the taking of the bread and wine was to be a remembrance of what he was about to do for them, i.e. the death of his body, and the shedding of his blood. They were to incorporate him into themselves completely, and them into him, that they be one in him.
No doubt about it Mike. However there is more to this than the Baptists claim. At least I think so.
One thing is for sure, and that is, whatever he meant, we must eat his flesh and drink his blood or we have no life in us.
So how do you go about doing that bro? And does the Eucharist play any part in that process?
BTW to save time, I am not putting forth the Catholic expression of transubstantiation, but the John Calvin expression of Receptionism, where the elements change only at the point of eating and drinking, and then only through the faith of the receiver.