John UK wrote: Brother US, it seems to me that you are saying: ...
Thanks for your response John that doesn't change the clear teaching of Scripture I cited in any way. I do not believe that people born during the millennial reign of my Lord will be saved any different than they are today , they will need a new birth from above. You are correct my friend, after years of study and even trying to adapt to it, I see amillinialism as a clear distortion of the truth of Scripture. I dare say no one here who adheres to it learned it by simply prayerfully reading the Word of God but it came to be their "understanding" through the influence of someone's writing, preaching or teaching or combination thereof. Maybe those who believe the church replaced Israel should answer why in the new eternal heaven described in Revelation 21 God still makes a distinction between the 12 tribes of Israel and the church.
Just for the record I know of no one who is dispensational that teaches the OT theocracy is going to return.
John UK wrote: As far as I can tell, the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ never has been, nor ever will be, an earthly kingdom.
Some of us simply believe the Bible says what it means and means what it says and donâ€™t let our theological bent cloud our thinking on the matter.
Isa 9:6Â Â For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Isa 9:7Â Â Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.
Rev 20:4Â Â And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
Rev 20:6...but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years
MS wrote: Greetings to all my compadres on SA news forum. A miracle took place in our family today, and I wanted to give GOD all the glory and share with you all...The Lord Jesus Christ called my 89 year old Roman Catholic Dad to Himself and he (my Dad) left the RC institution.Called the priest and told him he will no longer be attending their meetings. So much I could say, but suffice it that my dear Dad is now my brother in Christ..Praise God,to Him be all the glory. Amen!
Praise the LORD!!! That is great news and an answer to prayer, thank for sharing and I know that must be a great relief to your heart. We rejoice with you!! Trust al is going well for you.
Jim Lincoln wrote: People should take it up with CNN if they thank the remarks about the Nancy Pelosi video is wrong because that's where I got it. :
In case you haven't realized it, CNN is NOT posting in this forum, YOU are. Therefore if you post an inaccurate story that isn't true, it would be YOU that should say thanks for the correction what I posted was wrong in the information it gave. You can do this.
Christopher, that is very funny but I am no doubt unprofessional too! Thanks for your kind wishes, hope all is well with you.
Thanks for your thoughts Marty and I feel your frustration. I would be thrilled if Mr Cathy came out and said the Foundation was wrong to make such donations and they will stop. However I do not know what amount of control he has over the Foundation legally. The Foundation has never said that I can find that they would not donate to groups that support liberals or LBTQ groups, thus no hypocrisy from which to repent. They are a corporation not a person
To be consistent you probably should avoid going out to eat at nearly every restaurant, more than likely every chain. Not to mention all the other things you would have to forfeit the use of to be consistent. Eat where you wish but drop the pretense of indignation because they donâ€™t cross every t and dot every I.
Watcher wrote: I knew commenting would bring out those who believe that God bestows butterfiles and rainbows but never allows it to rain in people's lives. Proverbs 16 and 21 and Romans 9 are my evidence. I won't be commenting further lest this discussion degrades into a fight of egos. God is sovereign or He's not. If He's not in control of EVERYTHING, then He's not sovereign.
Here's your choice. Either God is the author of sin (because He determines everything) or He isn't. If He isn't (and He isn't) then God Sovereignity doesn't mean He predetermines all things. You cannot have the best of both worlds. If that is not what you are saying my apologies.
Douglas Fir wrote: In all the first celebrations of Thanksgiving, religion played a central part. Today, that is not so big a deal. Instead, the secular media calls it "Turkey Day" and emphasizes the stores opening on the big day. A friend told me he saw a huge line of people outside of one store that opened at 2pm yesterday. Other stores opened at 5pm. Another one opened late today...at 8am, and he told me that he went early to get in line, and there was no one there. The manager came out to invite him in, and he protested, saying it wasn't 8am (as if this were a game being played), but the manager insisted. There were more worker-bees in the store than customers, which is usually the case. I didn't see any churches having services yesterday, did you?
why wouldn't you want families to be able to be able to get the meal cooked and enjoy loved ones over. Not everybody would be willing to attend church but you can usually get them together for family&friend time at a Thanksgiving dinner. You don't think that's important? Are you saying people can only be thankful if they gather at a church service? Just wondering, thanks.
Jim Lincoln wrote: As time pointed out, the Pilgrims weren't Christian enough to implement a New Testament type Church Acts 4:32 everything in common.
Jim has it all mixed up again. The account in Acts shows Christian love and what we term free market capitalism. Remember John asked if you see a brother in need and don't help him, how dewlls the love of God in you and James reminds us that simply saying be warmed and fillied isn't going to cut it.
According to Acts 2 we have several of the new disciptes (remember we are talking about 3000 converts and even more later) continued daily learning and fellowshipping with the Apostles. This means that several thousand people who normally would have gone home after Pentecost were still around. These people had to be cared for. The people who OWNED (that would be capitalism) property sold their possessions to meet this need. (no government compelled them to do so)
We had a couple who wanted to look good so they lied about their contribution. Note Peter said "while it remained WAS IT NOT THY OWN?" he even asked the same question about the money acknowleging "was in not IN THINE OWN POWER". None of that suggests socialism but what we term free market capitalism.
Fine Doc, I am not looking for a debate, just noticed that despite numerous epistles from several authors given to the church and the book of Acts, an admonition or command to tithe wasnâ€™t given to believers so was wondering where you found the requirement in the New Testament.
the Bible is clear in more than one spot that any ability to get wealth is from God. My thinking is that all the money I have belongs to God , 100%. Money spent to support my family, help others, or give to church is of equal significance in glorifying God and fulfilling His purpose in my life. (Thus money going to the church isnâ€™t a more spiritual use than providing for my family â€”I Timothy 5:8)
There is a pattern given by our Lord of raising the standard. â€œYe have heard it saidâ€¦, but I say unto youâ€¦). If the Old Testament believers gave a tithe, then that can only be the starting point for New Testament believers in giving to the work of God.
Dr. Tim, would you share the N.T. admonition or command to tithe. When our Lord healed the leper He told him to go and make the appropriate sacrifices as Moses commanded and the night before His crucifixion He and the disciples had the Passover Seder, so He clearly operated under Old Testament law. His admonition to the Pharisees about tithing would have fallen under the same.
Havenâ€™t read Jimâ€™s comments so not agreeing or disagreeing with anything he said
John in reading through the comments it looks like you choose to ignore more than one person who tried to show you the fallacy of your quest, so we wonâ€™t address that.
I can think of two examples in Scripture that parallel the situation in Wheaton where the action of a government was changed due to existing granted government laws, which is what these young people are attempting to do.
One was already cited in Acts 22 where Paul stopped a government ordered scourging by claiming a privilege already granted him under Roman law. In Ezra 5&6 where Jews Were able to continue to build that had been stopped by local authorities and used the law to change governmental violation of rights granted to them.
There is your Biblical warrant whether or not you choose to accept it is up to you.
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.