Unprofitable Servant wrote:
...
If we depart from this earth we who are saved go to heaven it does not come to us....

Revelation 5:10 - And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

Christopher000 wrote:
... I don't understand how I could die in those sins, but still be welcomed into Heaven. This is a problem area for me because I just don't understand how that could work....

Hebrews 9:27 - And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment,

Then IF the perfect judge says well done thou good and faithful servant, we will be honored to reign with him, not in heaven but on earth as heaven comes down.

Matthew 6:10 - Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

If we do not well do in this life we will not get a well done and we will not reign in the temporal kingdom, thou we will be eternally saved.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
... Now I know a few British don't want to see their police force armed with more of these, but I would certainly like to see more American police have these available....

Frank wrote:
Sorry, I guess I wasn't all that clear. I don't remember David telling Bathsheba that it was God's will for them to have sex and according to scripture. If I'm not mistaken, I thought that God punished David for those things and then he repented and turned from them. ...

Later however, King David sinned in his approach to a son who raped and sinned in his approach to a son who murdered and rebelled against the king. One might say the tenor of his life was not good.

Now I love King David so I don't want to impugn him as much as magnify the mercy of David's heavenly father and demonstrate that one who is Godly can start out with a little bit of sin and watch that turn into a whole lot of sin and throughout the whole process still be eternally saved.

Frank wrote:
A Christian can lapse into sin, perhaps even what we might call habitual sin, but they will agonize over it, confess it, turn from it and ask their heavenly Father to deliver them from all sin. They will not and cannot practice sin without this spiritual battle taking place. Anyone who practices sin as this fellow does and tries to get others to do the same thing cannot be in the faith, nor was ever in the faith.
The only thing confusing about any of this is how we each define the term habitual. But, I am unaware that David or any other saved person in scripture attempted to get others to join them in their folly.

Watchman wrote:
If you don't know the difference between someone converted and sinning during backsliding and someone who was never born again but wants to be considered religious and continue to sin, even justifying that sin, then you have a real problem bud....

I do understand the conditions you describe, I do not understand how you believe one can righteously evaluate this. Nor has the criteria for evaluation been provided. What is the definition of "habitual". Was not King David in a state of "habitual" sin? If not, what would he have had to do to be considered "habitual"? What was the tenor of King David's life as he was murdering?

Watchman wrote:
An occasional fall, sure.
But this is NOT what we are discussing here.
If someone is prepared to live in habitual sin and tries to find ways to justify it as "unsinful', then that person can never ever be called a Christian.

Christopher000 wrote:
....
Gay Christian...oxymoron?

If the sense of the word Christian is one who has been saved, then that Christian can be all of the above. I know of a Christian in the Bible who was a godly man and was a man after God's heart. Yet, he became slothful, looked on a woman lustfully, acted on his lust and committed adultery, then engaged in lie and deceit, then killed a man. He didn't get unsaved in that vomit and it didn't mean he wasn't truly a believer, it just meant he was in trouble with his spiritual father and that father chastised him as a good father should.

Likewise, there is such a thing as a bought by the blood of Jesus Christ believer who is given up to a reprobate mind and turned over to that which is unseemly.

From Romans 1...
...who hold the truth in unrighteousness

...Because that, when they knew God

...as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge

Gymnast wrote:
Rufus - you are also giving your personal opinions (which are an argument from silence, not from the Bible). I am not the government nor have I asserted a desire to be such.
There is no peace when the people advocate rebellion.

Where do you draw the line? What if the parent kills a child in the course of their parenting, training and admonition?
What if a sibling acting in loco parentis kills a child? Is this a purely internal family matter?
You need to be consistent and follow your position to its logical conclusion. I submit that the absurdity of your position is more self-evident than the pursuit of happiness.

Gymnast wrote:
This was not in dispute, and was affirmed as the normal situation in the 1901 judgment.
So do you believe that no state law has any bearing on the relationship of parent and child?
Also - please do not personalise the issue we are discussing the role of governments.
Joe - 1 Tim 2:2 does not use the word paramount, but authority. If they are in authority then we are either subordinate or in rebellion.
"For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty."

The issue was personalized when you gave your personal opinions of how Mormons train their children requiring civil government intervention. You are expressing your personal opinions and advocating that civil government enforce your opinions.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Nothing very novel, and really not very daring this at least the majority of members (no not their leadership) want this.
It's a pity this Graham sometimes doesn't realize it's a full-time job being an evangelist, and shouldn't have the time to dabble in politics? [URL=http://www.ihcc.org/resources/booklets/division-and-diversion]]]Division and Diversion[/URL]

Gymnast wrote:
Prov 22:6 was not written to all parents, but its lesson is applicable to all parents including Barack Obama yes...

It is not within your authority to command another parent how, what or to what degree a parent should train a child. Ultimately God did not grant you the authority to concern yourself with the training of another person's child, nor did he grant civil government the authority to act upon your inclinations.

Gymnast wrote:
Easily stated, but not easily proved.

The contrary is proved in the Bible. Adam and Eve were told to be fruitful and multiply. Where were they told to give up their children to someone else to train them?

Abraham was commended by the Lord for commanding his children to keep the way of the Lord. Where is the instruction for someone else to command Abraham's children?

Genesis 18:19 - For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.

Pharaoh (a type of the state) told Moses to go worship but leave the children and Moses disobeyed the state.

Was Proverbs 22:6 written to Barrack Hussein Obama or to parents?

Proverbs 22
6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.

Gymnast wrote:
...
As indicated below, states need to do more to curtail the educational abuse of children by Mormon homeschooling families for example. It is their God-given duty.

Kyle wrote:
I heard it mentioned by Stuart Crane in the follow on lectures to "Wheat Receipts". That's a fantastic lecture that everyone should listen to. Google it.

Kyle wrote:
Good book