John UK wrote: Bro US, thank you for your post, and I will try to answer. Note, an actual example: "Mike, my own opinion on this dilemma is that in order to argue with Adriel from his own theological position, you obviously would have to understand his theological position, or you will end up arguing a strawman to no avail." Is this what you mean? If not, I will inevitably end up building mine own strawman. The onus is on you to be clear and concise in what you are saying. Is this example suitable? If so, I will use it to show you exactly what I'm saying, and why Mike was building a strawman to knock down again. It's up to you bro. If it is not suitable, please give me one example which is suitable and we can look at it and dissect it. Thanks.
Sorry I didn't get back to you earlier John but I do believe Mike responded to your question.
Adriel quoting Calvin specifically said
"God, therefore, ordained that which should come to pass, because nothing could have been done had He not willed it to be done."
Mike responded to what he posted, pure and simple.
B. McCausland wrote: Whatever you say, it is terribly worrying to observe how much pragmatism governs actions, standards, and decisions in the church today. Realistically is not the Word that governs but what it might work, the innovative, the feeling-good, rationalised opinion, or the convenient. It is understandable for governments to take such line of action as they do not care for the word, yet the church continually goes on paying the price for this accepted and habitual trend.
B. McCausland wrote: US We can make assumptions out of pragmatism, which is what invented scenarios are, but it is not safe to make them a matter of faith and conviction. We anchor from the Word to draw conclusions, not pragmatism. This is a grave error. E g. We can pragmatically distribute free contraceptives to curve unwanted teenage pregnancy, yet the solution is the implementation of thou shall not commit adultery. Please stop going round and round trying to find a way out of this basic principle of hermeneutics placing flaw where it is not due.
Thanks for your response. Whether you agree or not it is a matter of personal opinion. I have rightly divided the Word of Truth as I see it.
Just passing through here. But BMacCausland I get what they are saying.
You and John UK are discounting what people are saying by stating they are using a straw man and thus what they are saying is of no value, but your assessment is wrong. You are also saying that what you are saying is Scriptural and what others are saying is not.
Youâ€™re entitled to your opinion, but it is just that, your opinion. We appreciate the fact that you base your beliefs on the Bible and are trying to admonish the brethren. However I did use Scripture to back my thinking. The fact that you donâ€™t see it that way doesnâ€™t make you right and me wrong and vise versa. It means we see things differently and we should respectfully discuss things instead of insisting we have superior intellectual skills and deeper spiritual understanding of the Bible.
This, Lord willing will be my last post in this thread, although I will take the time as a common courtesy to read any responses that people feel obligated to give.
Adriel, John UK, and BMac among others have spent time sharing with us the great need we have to trust God. Great verses, thoughts and testimonies have been shared for which we should all be thankful.
I firmly believe the problem is the premise is flawed. The one that says no self defense. On both sides of the Atlantic a woman defending herself and/or her children from an abusive spouse or significant other is not persecuted for any bodily harm they cause even it results in death It is seen by both countries as a lawful act. One would hope we wouldnâ€™t condemn the woman for her actions. Also taking out a person who is about to commit mass murderer before he or she becomes one is a lawful act. Thus, both in my thinking fall under Romans 13.
Trusting God is not a measure of blind faith. We still lock doors, have insurance policies and avoid things that put ourselves in harms way. We trust God for our physical well being (Acts 17:28; Daniel 5:23) but still use medicine, physicians, and bodily care.
If John were being forthright he would truthfully say his discovery of â€śerrorsâ€ť of premillennialism and dispensationalism came at the hands of men he read or heard not from some â€śrevelationâ€ť that suddenly hit as he was reading his Bible.
B. McCausland wrote: 1. Not interested in your scenarios, US, which are only strawmen at best, but in the Word, which after having been presented has been laid to rest with you. 2. Erraticly over extrapolating some approximate facts, US, but regretfully distorting and misconstructing truth from them 3. Coming a little closer to a real faction of the entire picture Fare well, US, take a rest and God bless you, and yours
Thanks for your kind wishes and I pray the same for you.
Please tell Adriel to take heart, the NHS should be able to see him in a couple of months at the earliest.
Jim got his â€śfactsâ€ť discombobulated once again.
In 1971, only about 32 percent of all Americans enjoyed air conditioning in their homes. By 2001, 76 percent of poor people had air conditioning. In 1971, only 43 percent of Americans owned a color television; in 2001, 97 percent of poor people owned at least one. In 1971, 1 percent of American homes had a microwave oven; in 2001, 73 percent of poor people had one. Forty-six percent of poor households own their homes. Only about 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. The average poor American has more living space than the average non-poor individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other European cities. Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars. Seventy-eight percent of the poor have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception; and one-third have an automatic dishwasher.
Note neither John, Adriel or BMac answered my scenarios. So it might be safe to assume that if John was painting and had a glass full of turpentine to clean his brushes and Adriel came in and picked up the glass because he was thirsty that John wouldnâ€™t stop him because thereâ€™s no example of that being done in the New Testament and BMac wouldnâ€™t warm him because itâ€™s just a stupid American thing.
Adriel there are several examples where a mass shooting was stopped by an armed citizen. The leftest press in America doesnâ€™t cover it. We obviously would have taken any necessary to stop any mass shooting
Not straw grasping John just applying Scripture correctly
You come across two young teenage thugs beating up on an elderly lady to rob her.Â Â Do you say, I am sorry maâ€™am I cannot find any example in the New Testament where a Christian helped defend someone who was been beaten and robbed, carry on boys.Â Â Â
You at setting where you are eating and many people start getting sickÂ Â The chef says donâ€™t eat this because it has botulism.Â Â Someone unawares sits down to have the food but you donâ€™t say anything because there are no New Testament examples of Christians stopping someone from consuming food that causes sickness.
A flood has washed out a bridge but you donâ€™t attempt to warn a car driving onto it because there are no examples of Christians in the New Testament stopping someone about to drive into danger.
John I gave you Biblical warrant.Â Â Defending one against bodily harm is doing good for them. (Galatians 6:10).
Biblical principles are found in the Scripture which includes both the Old and New Testament.
II Samuel 21
Moreover the Philistines had yet war again with Israel; and David went down, and his servants with him, and fought against the Philistines: and David waxed faint. 16 And Ishbibenob, which was of the sons of the giant, the weight of whose spear weighed three hundred shekels of brass in weight, he being girded with a new sword, thought to have slain David. 17 But Abishai the son of Zeruiah succoured him, and smote the Philistine, and killed him.
Every known instance of what we do is NOT detailed in Scripture.Â Â Where is your Biblical warrant for enjoying a cup of tea, driving a car, taking a shower, using electricity, listening to a sermon in mp3 format from somewhere you have never been?Â Â Are you thus saying that if a child about to enter a busy street that you donâ€™t make an attempt to save their life, because there is no â€śBiblical warrantâ€ť to do that?
John UK wrote: Ahem, a couple of things here bro. 1. It was "the authorities" who protected Paul. He was in their custody. It was NOT Paul defending himself, nor did he ask his Christian friends to defend him. I can hardly believe you are using this text as a proof text. Yet you are angry with me, who has a just argument, and why is that? You will have to work that through with the Lord Jesus. 2. You are jumping, jumping, away from your proof text, knowing it to be no proof text (the tongue-in-cheek technique) and now are jumping into another argument, hoping that it might fare better (clutching at straws technique). Brother, I am convinced you are fully aware of the futility of your argument, but you fear the Yee Ha preachers and other members who will laugh at you, and force you to leave their circle.
Brother John, we will give you your thinking on Paul.
Not clutching at straws, don't care what other preachers think, basing my thinking on Biblical principles of my God given responsibilities from the verses cited in my last post.
If you don't see that it is not my problem. God bless.
John UK wrote: Well Christopher, I can post up for your perusal plenty of NT examples of blood spilt or at the very least the churches attacked, members beaten, falsely charged and imprisoned, beheadings, stoning to death, and all the rest of it. And not one peep of any church member fighting for their survival with any weapon. Are you thinking that these battles were just not recorded in scripture? Or would you agree with me that there were no such battles?
Read Acts 23:16-35 John, anyone attempting to attack this church member/leader would have been put to death and the protection given was strictly self-defense purposes. And yes he was being tried for his faith.
You can skip Jim's link and read what the author of the amendment wrote (from article)
The 14th Amendment was actually designed to make citizens of the former slaves freed by the 13th Amendment in 1865, and thus guarantee that they would enjoy all the rights of American citizenship. The phrase â€śand subject to the jurisdiction thereofâ€ť has, of course, been ignored by those promoting the concept of open borders. Clearly, the framers of the 14th Amendment intended that only children â€śborn subject to the jurisdiction thereofâ€ť that is, the jurisdiction of the United States, are considered natural-born citizens. This would, by the clear wording of the amendment, not include the children of illegal aliens or â€śbirth tourists,â€ť because they are still under the jurisdiction of foreign governments.
Senator Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan, an author of the 14th Amendment, said during the discussions over the effects of the amendment, â€śThis will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners.â€ť
In other words, those who are born in the United States â€śunder the jurisdiction thereofâ€ť would only include those whose parents are American citizens themselves, or those whose parents have placed themselves under U.S. jurisdiction â€” legal residents