s c wrote: Really doesn't seem to know how one can draw conclusions by all of the other information that is given versus drawing a conclusion without it. Big difference! One may draw a conclusion based on other data which supports it. One,on the other hand,would be falsely drawing a conclusion if details to support that conclusion aren't present. Pretty simple.
Double standard. You assume that only you have the ability to "draw conclusions" correctly. Looks like it is not pennned that needs the lesson in meekness and humility. My conclusion was not legitimate just because you said it was not and yours was just because you say it was.
Pride goes before destruction, And a haughty spirit before stumbling.
s c wrote: Isn't it interesting,Frank,how those who judge our thoughts and motives so readily (albeit erroneously) can so easily understand the mind and motives of politicians who make token gestures when it comes to the Bible? ...a little biased ...a lot unChrist-like so unchristian that they need to repent of such .
note the following sc quotes
You believe everything? You should be so interested in seeking out the truth as you are in discrediting those you don't know
I'm gathering, Rodney, that you would be okay with your wife celebrating your birthday on her ex-boyfriend's date of birth instead of yours
Just because you have no desire to seek out what the Scriptures say in this regard, doesn't mean that others won't
You,on the other hand, seem to care more about tradition and your mushy sentiment than what is true.
And pennned, meekness and humility might be traits for which to pray for yourself
Shane, poor verse for what you are wishing to say unless you,like some others, wish to falsely accuse others of being conceited and puffed up
looks like someone has a double standard when it comes to judging the thoughts and motives of others
Frank wrote: No, I don't think SC would say she would be happy if someone passed a bill like you noted. But to get to her point, which is my point also; scripture says that God doesn't really need anything; He is completely self sufficient and perfect just because of who He is; therefore He has no needs. But He does want our praise and worship. He wants it, but He doesn't need it. Surely you can see the difference. Christ told us to be perfect because He wants us to be perfect; not that He needs us to be perfect. What a silly argument you are making; yes really.
No Frank, she said, God does not need a state's endorsement, but as you stated He does not need anything, so hers is the really silly argument. You acknowledged He accepts worship and praise, but He doesn't accept people holding the Bible in high regard? Besides the legislation was not to endorse God but to make the Bible the state book. The article is not about what God "needs", He has none.
s c wrote: ... God doesn't need a state's endorsement.
Psalm 50:12 If I were hungry I would not tell you, for the world is mine, and all that is in it.
God does not NEED your worship, do you give it? God doesn't NEED your praise, do you offer it? Why are you bothered that others try to honor the Bible? Apparently you would be happier if they had introduced a bill condemning the Bible as a bigoted Book.
Sooo....guess the bottom line..... The end justifies the means, eh? All that has mostly happened is the BGEA family business filled most of Christendom with tares who believe that pope BG pronounced them Christians after they parroted a prayer and made a mental accent of some biblical truths. but hey, he reached zillions, that is the bottom line. Right??
pennned wrote: really, I know, you just really like your tax dollars going to McCain's freedom fighters, as long as you can say how anti mooooslem you are in church, we are a "spiritual" people after all, if we feel negativity towards all mooooslems in the world, then we are right, eh? Actualities do not matter in America's cult churches.
Here is your opportunity pennned to back up your statement. Post statements from evangelical leaders saying they backed McCain's freedom fighters and wanted their tax dollars going toward that. If I understand you correctly, you are saying those in support of McCain's freedom fighters support "mooooslems" and therefore they can't speak against them in the church because that would be hypocritical. Your condemnation, part b of your statement, only holds up if you can prove part a. Looking forward to your response.
Little Tommy wrote: This is a must read for the American church. The greatest problem in the Church is not Muslims but Christian Zionist (Dispensationalists) who have hijacked the Word of God and made it into something that it is not.
you have Muslims in your church? that is a problem. Before you say I am misstating what you said, please note your post states
Ah yes Chuck Baldwin, the 'guns and God pastor'. The anti-goverment, militant type that are springing up all over like deadly mushrooms. With their fear and hate mongering. Hawking their wares all over the Internet .
John UK wrote: But I do pray for him, Really. You ask, "How so?" The principle has been unchanged since time began, but especially in the new covenant, where you have a preacher in the context of the local church, Paul is exhorting us to pray for him. Paul could hardly have said in Colossians 7:23, "Well now, I ask that you pray for George Whitefield, that the Lord may bless his ministrations and that God's word may have free course among the miners of Bristol, England, and wherever he preaches."
George Whitfield was not Paul the apostle. Your piously taking 'the principle' is not what you are asked to do by the text. The texts are clear that we're to pray for Paul. Your new found 'literalism' seems to have convenient limits.
John UK wrote: .. Which, if you Really interpret it, comes out like: Acts 2:42 RV (42) And they continually sat in the Reading Room at SA, telling people that the Bible is only a history book, and that we Christians are so powerless today that we can't even resist the devil. But then, the devil is only a concept, like God is a concept, like dying with Christ crucified is a mere theological concept. And that being filled with the Holy Ghost is not for today, no prophecies please, even though both Leonard Ravenhill and A W Tozer are both hailed by most as modern day prophets, and just let's not hear the voice of the Lord Jesus Christ, lest he ask us to do something we'd rather not do. Really?
On a number of occasions Paul wrote asking for prayers. Tell me John, do you pray for him? If not why not? It's in the scriptures isn't it? When did he write to say not to pray for him? If he didn't say not to pray for him, why do you not pray for him?
Michael Hranek wrote: Casting out devils was a major part of Jesus' ministry while He was physically here on this earth Something is serious amiss in our churches when people worried about demon possession turn to 'ghost busters', medical drugs and counseling becasue they don't know of a single local church that walks in the power of God to cast real devils, not pretend ones, out.
John Yurich USA wrote: Obviously sc doesn't know American History or has never studied the writings of Washington or else sc would have known that Washington was not a deist but was a Christian according to his own writings and the Evangelical Protestant prayers that he mentions in his writings.
. ......we thought sc knew everything....this comes as quite a surprise.
In the ESV, Isaiah 14:12 says that the 'Day Star' was cast out of Heaven; referring to Satan, Lucifer, being cast out because of pride. Then in 2 Perer 1:19 it speaks of the 'day star' arising in your hearts; referring to the Word of God, Jesus Christ/Holy Ghost.
The ESV, in essence, is telling you that Jesus Christ was cast out of Heaven for pride. I know not!
Also, isn't Day Star a name for one of those so-called Christian channels on TV? Why would they take this name if it is, according to the ESV, Satan?
General wrote: REALLY WROTE: 1 Pet 4:17 ... judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that OBEY NOT the gospel of God? So... What are you trying to say exactly?
Which part of what I wrote did you not understand? Happy to explain.
The Gospel must be preached like the apostles preached it viz. with passion, reasoning, persuading, disputing etc. explaining the Cross work of Christ. After all, if we are calling people to obey it, we must declare it as the King's command, giving reasons why obedience is preferable to disobedience and its consequences. Merely reciting or oblique references to gospel truths is not gospel preaching! Then there must be a clear call to action viz. repentance and faith, with clear explanations as to why this is absolutely necessary, and without which no man can receive the Holy Spirit of promise.If the repentance is genuine then there will be works befitting repentance.
None of this denies the absolute necessity of the work of God. But what God does is not the rule of our actions. Our actions are to be governed by the precepts and commandments of God.
Acts 26. 19,20 Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient...: But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.
1 Pet 4:17 ... judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that OBEY NOT the gospel of God?
penny wrote: ....and if I announced to a bunch of neighborhood kids that inside I had cookies for every child, what do you all think would happen next?
By the statement you mean one cookie per child, but the child NOT UNDERSTANDING will do whatever to satisfy its desires. So, if you are saying that we are to view Presbyterian practices in this light, I have no objections. In fact I would think it is probably a very apt illustration.