The issue of identities could be solved easily--by people using their real names, and not hiding behind pseudonyms.
It is the Lord's business to judge the actions of those outside the church, but he asks us to deal with problems inside.
To use this 'touch not mine anointed' scripture is not a reasonable application of the principle. None of us are trying to harm our brother. If he is to be entreated, we must be allowed to say these things, without fear of unreasonable defences.
Are all pastors now exempt from accountability from the brethren? J I Packer and Al Mohler will be delighted that we won't be challenging them any more! Paul withstood Peter--a 'prophet', if you like--to the face.
The reason for the barricade around Paisley is an old one: it is the phenomenon of the 'Paisleyite'. To them, he is beyond criticism. The symptoms of being in this fan club include hanging pictures of the man on the living room wall, and insisting that he is eulogised by portraying his life in the stained glass windows of the Jubilee Complex. (If that's an urban myth, please let us know.)
We know very well that our brother Ian has prayed and preached in addition to his political duties. That's all very well, but his gospel ministry has to suffer. Consider that he was a member of parliament, a member of the European 'Parliament', the leader of a political party, the moderator of his denomination, involved in various organisations (at one time, the leader in a semi-paramilitary group), the editor of a magazine, and contributor to other magazines. Did I mention that he was also the pastor of a large congregation?
His level of activity can hardly be matched. But, paradoxically, therein lies the problem. There are only so many hours in the day. The vast amount of time he spent carrying out political duties meant that there was little time left for what was supposed to be his chief role--that of pastor.
The NT preachers of the gospel were so concerned for the flock over which the holy ghost had placed them, that they even delegated waiting on tables to others so that they could give themselves wholly to prayer and the gospel! And the responsibility they handed over was tiny in comparison to what Paisley has been involved in down the years.
Like it or not, our brother Ian has for many years had a substantial 'fan base'--people who will not have any criticism allowed of the man. And he has to take some responsibility for this adulation. (I doubt Spurgeon would sell posters of himself.)
Are we not all subject to the rebuke of our brothers in Christ? Now, being in politics as well as in the gospel ministry (something I now feel was a mistake), it is understandable that he would be accountable by his supporters for his actions on the political scene as well.
When Paisley said that he would never sit down in government with Sinn Fein/IRA, we believed him. Only a few months later, he broke his promise. This was, to many of his friends, an act of betrayal. It left a huge question mark over his integrity. Now, note the reactions of his fan-base: people who questioned his U-turn were shouted down in a most shocking way, ironically reminiscent of how Paisley had been shouted at down the years when protesting at the behaviour of others!
When he started working with his new Sinn Fein friends, the joy he expressed over his new friendship became news the world over. The world thought it was great for the 'Big Man' to compromise in the first place, but showing him roaring with laughter was the icing on the cake.
The fact remains that the woman was in the car, posing no threat to herself or the officer. He dragged her out so that he could tazer her, and with no regard for the children. We're not even arguing that her behaviour was appropriate or not. The point is that tazers are increasingly being used for the least reason.
It's because the power of the state is increasing that we should be concerned and be prepared to speak out against any move in that direction.
You people who defend this police officer in any way should be ashamed of yourselves. Remember that the police are our servants, not our rulers. A people which thinks that the the police have a right to bully us is already in slavery, and they unwittingly encourage the police state.
I'd like to know why Tony writes in such an irritating way, capitalising the first letter of every word. No offence meant, Tony, but it doesn't add to your argument--it distracts from it. It makes it difficult to read.
Mark, I don't want to appear unkind, but you're continually missing the point, with your 66% figure.
Do you not understand that we should expect most murderers, rapists, child molesters and criminals generally to be heterosexual, since they make up the vast majority of the population?
What we're looking at is proof that there is a disproportionately high number of homosexuals committing these acts. That's why we can say, based on these statistics, that homosexuals are ten times more likely to be child abusers than normal men.
Both are encompassed by this: 'The horse is prepared against the day of battle: but safety is of the LORD.' (Proverbs 21:31) Cromwell said, 'Put your trust in the Lord, and keep your powder dry', perhaps paraphrasing the verse. So we can have our horses--or B2 bombers--but the Lord is sovereign.
Blair is the most wicked, anti-Christian prime-minister Britain has ever had. Since coming to power in 1997, he has enacted more anti-Biblical laws than all our previous leaders put together!
Oh, and know this Tony: that your willingness to engage in this immoral war against Iraq has meant that the Christians, who had a fair degree of freedom under Saddam, are now suffering terrible persecution.
Why didn't you and Bush invade Saudi Arabia? At least you'd have been more likely to destroy one of the real power-bases of Muslim terrorism.
free pres wrote: Paul On the same basis then how do you explain Ephesians 5. 25? can any husband love his wife as Christ loved the church (and gave himself for it)?
Thanks, brother, for your input and encouragement.
Yes, God tells us to do something like this, and we must try! Yet, we know we won't manage it, and we confess our failing to our Father.
But the OT law of God demands perfect obedience, or you die. I'm glad I'm not subject to that! The Christian has perfect righteousness: would anyone care to try and improve that by law-keeping?
Perhaps the issue can be looked at like this: advocates of the Law have to believe that, when the Word says we are DEAD to the Law, it means we're dead only to some of it! For example, the Law told the Hebrews to keep ALL the Sabbaths, not just Sunday, but how many Christians do that?
(For the record, I think Sunday is a great day to set aside for the worship of God. It's called the 'Lord's Day' in scripture. I refuse jobs on that day, not to earn merit with God, but so that my worship is not infringed upon. Churches watching sport in church on the Lord's Day saddens me. I try to avoid shopping, but I'll buy diesel (US: 'gas') if I need to.)
Thanks for your comments, Lisa. Can I firstly ask if you believe the entire Bible to be the word of God?
Could you also tell me where the Christians are going wrong. I promise I'll give it due consideration. (Please don't refer to anything the Church of Rome does, because that organisation is antichrist.)
As an aside, could people please use 'God', and 'Jesus', instead of the Jewish, superstitious 'G-d' and the pointless 'Yeshua'.
I'm not being unkind, but now we know there are those who are clever and can say the Hebrew equivalent of Jesus, can we stop using it all the time? Everyone knows it's 'Jesus Christ'. No-one's interested in hearing any other name.
It reminds me of those who try to impress with the use of the currently-fashionable 'Yahweh', and end up almost spitting while trying to pronounce it.
Oh, yes. The sabbath: you're meant to 'keep' ALL the sabbaths. And, by the way, you Christians who claim to keep the sabbath: you better make sure you keep it as perfectly as Christ did, or you're not keeping it. Then you'll have no option but to flee to Christ. I'm sorry, but there's no other option.
Finally, could people stop saying that those who say the ten commandments are done away with are people who want to go out and sin freely? That's unkind and unfair. Don't insult them because you don't get it.
Walt, would you agree that Jesus baptism was a symbol of his setting apart as our great High Priest, and nothing to do with a public declaration of repentance and faith? It was necessary for him to 'fulfil all righteousness'.
My second point is that sprinkling or pouring in baptism seems the more correct mode, though I also accept immersion as a valid baptism too. Certainly, it is for believers only.
Michael: the law of God is good and holy. No-one should disagree with that. But what people call God's ceremonial law is included in that, and is also good and holy. Yet we all agree that all that has nothing to do with us.
You're right about the idolatry issue and the Satanic ecumenical movement. That's why the law needs to be made known through preaching. The whole purpose of the law is to bring knowledge of sin.
I was hoping no-one would suggest that people like me wanted to go out and sin against God. If I was, say, a serial adulterer, it would clearly be wrong.
Let me try this analogy: when New York was under British rule, murder was against the law. When the US gained their independence, murder was still not allowed. Why? Is it because they were still under British law? Note, they didn't say, 'Now that we're not under the British law forbidding murder, we can kill people whenever we want'. No: they realised it was a moral absolute of God, which was obvious even to their dulled conscience.
Did you set the question David? That would explain your reaction!
With these surveys, there needs to be a clear option which excludes the others. For example, with this survey, if I was looking for piety but not prudence, I couldn't select the first option, and so on.
Designing surveys takes a lot of thought, and quite a few on here are worded badly. The difference is that, if I post a survey, I'd be appreciative if someone suggested it wasn't worded well.