Is not there a point about stopping wrong practice in Christian living, or are we to continue in wrong doing so that grace may abound, wearing people out with ungodly traits or impertinence?
Are we not called to do all unto edification, say the building up of each other?
Obviously the main goal of sanctification is to dismiss wrong practice.
Or is it possible that all this forum represents for some is good fun at the expense of any, where I am seldom checked for what I say, or accountable for my personal conduct ?
Or is sanctification not applying to a Christian Forum?
You all seem very smart because you seem to assume that sanctification is to be exempted from conduct here, hence, no rebuke is expected, welcome, accepted, or tolerated without hitting back on plain talking, and of course never as a norm admiting to any wrongdoing.
If truth cannot be spoken here, where else can? Any answers?
QC Though US' posts are polite, and mild in content, the intend and timing is what places them as insolent, the same as Tim's in a different slant though.
There is no need to post to sustain endless strife because we cannot take what is given, and this is were the remarks fall in, sometimes by jest or mocking, others to carry on contending, and if you cannot see this, perhaps you should review the matter by examining the chain of logic they amass.
John UK and myself have taken harassment due to this type of conduct from posters, because they take into semi-bullying while passing/pretending as genuine/decent inquirers.
Nothing of that sort figures as part of the character we are expected to show. 'Let your yeah be yeah, and no, no, and what comes more than that comes into sin.' So in the light of this verse the insolent term is not out of place, while remembering also that to rebuke in order to correct sinful practice is part of ministry.
If you could perceive this you would agree that there is not a place for such behaviour in a genuine Christian forum.
Of course, when speaking straight, offended individuals always turn up. Nothing new. The disciples spoke of offended individuals at Jesus' words. See Mt.15:12-13
Mike wrote: B., Apologies if I am misunderstanding what you are saying. I know of no point of Scripture teaching where murder is held as a mere social ill. Thou shalt not murder seems fairly clear.
You seem to have a problem because you understand the word social in a different way. The term social here has to do with the ills a society experiences as a result of the fall.
CES You are welcome Every blessing
Michael Hranek Thanks for your kind good wishes. Always interested in hearing about new tracts being written. Our society reads little but understands less as its sense of perception its numbed by the constant pursuit of the good-feeling factors of the day
The Quiet Christian wrote: ... could you give some examples of the naivety of Americans juxtaposed to secularism in the UK?
My pleasure QC Britain is very much a secularised society, even in places as Ulster, which is its bible belt, where church going is higher, and the number and quality of born again Christians is superior to the mainland, you find that the mind set of the bible believing Christians is secular. For instance, homeschooling is frowned upon by the average believer, because their minds are brainwashed to believe that the welfare system they enjoy is the ultra plus, and the government can do nothing but the best for them. All this is the rampant result of socialism. As you can perceive only with this instance there is a huge difference with America. Yet on the other hand, most of those believers, because of their heritage, have an innate clear awareness that Rome is not a Christian church, which thing in the USA is not a given in general. This is due to a superficial and naive religious understanding. Trust this helps.
** Tim and US You are showing insolent responses. Is this an average American trait? Not to be isulting, but truth needs to be said.
How do you know, US, how many times we have been in USA?
Michael Hranek wrote: And US as well So, we don't and rightly so, want compromise with any false Christianity Ever thought of using a march against the evil of abortion to evangelize Roman Catholics? Give them tracts and talk to them of the Truth of Jesus Christ?
Chrisgp from England wrote: Despite all the opposition, we had a staggering election in December 2019, which could have gone either way, but it was won amazingly by the pro-Brexit Boris Johnson, and more than restored the majority list by Teresa May in the previous disastrous election. This confirmed that Brexit went ahead, and Britain left the EU after 47 years, on 31st January 2020, at 11 pm British time (12 midnight mainland European Time. Incredible, but it happened!!
Brother, thanks for the information you share. And what can we say? Absolutely, that there is a God in heaven who orders seasons, and changes times by his great skill, using whom he wishes. So we pray and trust that in his good will this new stage may be for the turning of this nation to himself.
O God, our help in ages past, Our hope for years to come, Our shelter from the stormy blast, And our eternal home:
Under the shadow of thy throne, Thy saints have dwelt secure; Sufficient is thine arm alone, And our defense is sure.
Before the hills in order stood, Or earth received her frame, From everlasting thou art God, To endless years the same.
Adriel wrote: "The Puritans believed, along with the Reformation, that it is not the responsibility of every Christian to be an evangelist, or to, in that sense, evangelize. This might go against the flow of what contemporary Christians think concerning sharing the Gospel, but those concepts are mutually different. For example, the Puritans thought that the âofficeâ of an evangelist ceased when the office of the apostle ceased, (see John Owen on this â ... They saw this as an extraordinary office, not an ordinary one. They also made a distinction between âevangelismâ and âsharing the Gospel,â or, âbeing a witness for the Gospel.â Being a witness for Christ, or sharing a testimony or leading someone down the âRoman Roadâ of salvation is not evangelism as the Bible defines it in that regard. Everyone is called to be a witness to the Gospel. But not everyone is called to be an evangelist (the office which ceased when the apostolic office ceased.) âBut sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.â Everyone ought to give an answer for the hope that lies in them. But that is not evangelism"
Alan H wrote: Isn't Vice President Mike Pence a Roman Catholic? If so, he's not a Christian.
Thanks, friend, and also thanks to Ariel for his contribution on the like. Surely the media works well on the fallacy behind the term 'Christian'.
With great apologies for stating this, please, it has to be said that the average American's understanding or discernement on basics is often blatant, which makes that in naiveness of mind they may argue tooth and nail to defend erroneous perceptions at the expense of the obvious, missing the forest because of a tree.
QC What happens if you are helping outside one of the clinics with one of your pro-life RC coworkers and a girl set out for abortion in remorse changes her mind seeking advise regarding how to be at peace with God ?
Are you going to defer to your RC collegue to council her? Will you both together be able to council validly? Will you need to tell your collegue that you will take over about the topic from there? Will there be conflicting messages?
Besides, the pro-life stand makes a convinient propaganda platform for Rome's ecumenism, which exploits common points at the expense of huge differences.
Better work with clear distinctives so people can identify by clear identity Truth-bearing sources when seeking truth in time of need. There is enough religious confusion, so we do not need to add more
CES Please see the order and sequence of posts correctly before lashing out slander. You had started with your imposing intolerant remarks before what you refer here about a different spirit, which was my response to yours of 31/01/20, 5:29. Twisting facts to shift the pole.
The acusser of the brethren would not be too far behind from your strategy.
CES wrote: B McC your interpretation of Scripture is faulty at best, dishonest at worst. âThe Lord rebuke youâ is a stern admonition, not a curse as you falsely stated. Bearing false witness needs to be repented of as well as slander. Good evening and farewell.
The issue is not about interpretation of a text necessarily here, though those words were spoken to Satan as an imprecation originally rather than as an admonition as you say.
On the other hand why had you to use them as a stern admonition? Are you not the one interpreting them wrong? And what is the wrong done to merit an admonition? Is it the right to speak, to share, to maintain a position of belief, or to sustain dialogue???? It is absurd.
The real matter is about your intention/purpose with which such words were used.
Monikers change, but yourself, your approach and style had been the same for quite a time, which identify you.
When you dislike the way a topic heads on, you lash out to the one you do not tolerate to stop the person in the conversation, as if posters had the duty to police a forum?!?! Nothing new. Your behaviour repeats itself.
BTW we still do believe in and enjoy freedom of speech, in which you seem not to feel comfortable.
Dr. Tim wrote: The President of the United States stands with those who oppose abortion, as every Christian should do. Is he commended by Christians on this site for doing the right thing? Negatory. He just catches hell for being proud. And he catches it from some of the most prideful people around. Good grief.
No, sir, you are extrapolating. No one is condemning Mr Trump for his stand. The comments in question are because the reading should go as "I am pleased to stand with..." rather than "I am proud to stand with ..."
CES We were called unto blessing. Watch out. This kind of spirit displayed dangerously reveals much in a forum as this. It would pass in any unregerate circle as average, but here it denotes you with the ungodly .
CES wrote: How bizarre this culture has become, people on a religious news forum who have never met, know nothing about each other, yet proceed to call each other brother/sister and then lecture others on their âopinion â of what Godâs Word is âactually sayingâ. Talk about pride!!
Jesus said, "you do not know of what kind of spirit you are"
By the words of thy mouth and the fruit of your lips thou shall be justified as the spiritual man in Christ judges spiritual things that are discerned that way.
"Try the spirits if they are of God" we are told. We know our brothers and sisters in Christ by identifying the kind of spirit they have which it comes obviously manifested by their spiritual understanding, discernment, perception and reactions. Sorry, check yourself, because yours appears to be more like an insolent spirit of ignorance.
Lurker Wondering if you are reading the same Scriptures we are, or you have them upside down
QC The immoral connection you attach to the verse may be accepted, but the second part of the verse stands true for all situations.
John UK wrote: Bro US, this is exactly the problem I am trying to identify, and not doing such a good job of it. The plain honest truth of the matter, is that when a parent says he is proud of his offspring, he is actually saying he is proud of himself; he is the one who brought this creature into the world; he is the one who brought the child up; he is the one who nurtured the child; he is the one who taught the child; he is the one who chastised the child. "Look at the child I produced!" This is the heart of the matter. But the truth is, that he has brought into the world someone with a heart that is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked, and they go astray from the womb because of their sinful nature. "Ah but look", he says, "I have brought them to Christ and they are now saved and in their right mind!" Well there you have it. Rotten arminianism. The parent is proud because of his skill, and the child is proud because they made a good decision.
Thank you, John, undisputable truth. How often we contradict what we say to believe!! This is when doctrine shows up its true colours in our system of belief. May God bless you Thank you for upholding pure and consequent faith in the doctrines of grace.
enough already wrote: Amen CES, the religion of 'do's and don'ts' is nothing more than modern day Pharisee-ism. They trot out their opinions as though they were inspired. They are most miserable of all, continually working at their 'religion' to satisfy their 'god'....'22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." matt. 7. They think themselves presentable based on their 'works'. How tragic their end will be...
My, my, as usual when things get tight the legalistic judgementalists turn up in guised monikers to give out the stick to those endeavouring to stand for disliked truth.