kenny wrote:
No, Faithful Remnant, all of this self esteem foolishness of the past 20 years (and James Dobson is the grandaddy of it) is exactly what has allowed people like Osteen to appear credible and draw a crowd. Teaching 'self' anything in a believer's life is wrong. Christians are instructed to die to self. Dead mean have no self esteem.

Neil wrote:
This in addition to his "no-Biblical-doctrine-in-pulpit" policy. Note well, he does not justify his policy with Scripture, but only with Daddy.
If it's entertainment & good feelings you want, leave it to the pros at Disney World, not megachurch pikers.

Freddie wrote:
Obviously, when we read the Bible and read what Calvin says about Calvinism, we know he is obviously correct. That's a given. I do wish, however, that people would not use John Calvin's name, especially in todays world. People want to know "What does the Bible say", not Calvin! Again, I say, Calvin is 100 percent "right on" in all of his interpretaions of the Bible. It may "go against the grain, with some", but the Bible clears it all up when we compare "Scripture with Scripture" and not isolate certain verses.

Lance Eccles wrote:
It's quite likely that the Jesuits' day is over. They've been going downhill for quite a few decades now, preaching the worst feel-good liberalism.

Michael Hranek wrote:
Derek
It probably doesn't matter at all to the Calvinist whom we might name as the determined prejudice of some against all non-Calvinists.
Besides this is a horrible is a trap into an us vs them mentality when our first and foremost love ought to be not Calvinism not Arminianism but Jesus Christ.
Anyway some non-Calvinist names that come to ming, not perfect men in the flesh by any means but genuine blessings to the Child of God
David Wilkerson who ministered among the gangs in NYC
Nicky Cruz certainly not a Spurgeon but one who testifies with passion of how Jesus can save the worst of sinners
Marc Monte a wonderful blessing here on SermonAudio
Greg Frizell (if I have spelled his name right) who is a blessing to those desiring walk in Biblical Holiness and to know power in their praying
David Cloud - holiness
David Hunt excellent on Biblical Prophecy and on our times

Mike wrote:
The question is, does truth require a label to justify it? Are Calvinism or Arminianism synonyms for truth? I hope no one would say yes to either.

Michael Hranek wrote:
former IFB
I saw your post and thought I might comment....I believe it is safe to say and perhaps for some terribly humbling to say Christianity, true Biblical Christianity, knowing Jesus Christ and being known by Him, loving Him abover all others and all things and faithfully serving Him
is NOT a matter of Calvinism vs Arminianism.
But sadly that is the way some, not all but some Calvinists have framed the matter 'If you are not a Calvinist you must be an Arminian (heretic, hater of God)' BUT THIS IS NOT TRUE one doesn't have to be either a Calvinist nor an Arminian and NOT Being a Calvinist doesn't require one to be an Arminian no matter how much some Calvinists think it does.
Sadly it is like you have said, "Men no longer know how to think, nor desire to do so." but some will fight tooth and nail for Calvinism not caring at all if there are non-Calvinists whom God has saved out of wretched sin and who love God believe His word and by His grace find their meaning in life in serving Jesus Christ.
C vs A can be a bad stumbling block to those who love God.

Jhawk44 wrote:
lyn, suffice it to say that Jesus did indeed turn that water into alcholic real wine, otherwise the host would not have raved on it so. Because unfermented wine is just grape juice, and lacks both the taste and sting feeling of wine. And yes we can also assume the people did get drunk off of it, because that's what they did at weddings back then. And when you read John 2 it does indeed reveal intent to drunkeness, the host says so himself:
“Everyone serves the good wine first, and when people have drunk freely, then the poor wine. But you have kept the good wine until now.”
If your curious of what I mean, it's that they brought the subpar wine out last because the people were so drunk by then they wouldn't have cared what it tasted like. And that's what's significant about Jesus turning the water into excellent wine. Side note: it was miracle wine and did not need time to ferment. It was fully fermented on the spot.

GG wrote:
What I just proved was that Christ worshiped God during the festival called the 'Dedication of the Temple' (1&2 Macc), during Hanukkah, which is more important than quoting from them. There is proof that were references from NT back to the Deuterocanonicals...but you won't accept it. And where, according to Sola Scriptura, is the Bible quote that says that "God was silent"? Show it to me! Perhaps he just wasn't talking to you, maybe he was still taling to the Jews!

GG wrote:
PreacherJonD: "...any and all popes hold a blaphemous title and unbiblical office."
MyResp: If their title is 'blasphemous', then ask Jesus why he give it to them thru Peter (The Rock). As for being unbiblical: Please see Matt 16:17-19, Is 22:20-22.

GG wrote:
The Fact still remains that Jesus as a Jew would have celebrated Hanukkah, which only comes from your so called 'Apocrypha'. If Jesus concidered it uninspired why would he celebrate it? Why would St Paul claim it as a 'shadow' of the body of Christ?

GG wrote:
SBG: 80% of the Biblical references of the NT are from the Greek Septuagent, not from the Jewish Masoretic Text. Which means that the men who wrote the NT used the version of scripture that contained the so called 'Apocrypha'. So when you reject the Deuterocanonicals (your Apocrypha) you are agreeing not with the men that wrote the NT, but with the Jews that rejected Christ. Furthermore, the original KJV hadd the alleged 'Apocrypha' in it between the OT and the NT. But, just over 100 years ago, you guys in your infinite wisdom, finally dropped them out of the Bible. It would seem to me, that people who claim to honor the Book, would at least want the see the part that they tossed, just to make up their own mind. We Catholics get falsly accused of hating Scripture, but while we had total control (1500 years)

Wise wrote:
What happen to preaching the Gospel. We are so far off base that we think marketing schemes are the work of the Holy Spirit.

GG wrote:
Lyn...you know nothing about me or my spiritual condition....so mind your own business!

GG wrote:
PreacherJonD: Actually no, I am not trying you sell you what you obviously would rather die denying. What I am looking for are Protestants who still believe that killing a man's reputation is tantamount to killing the man. Forget our differences over Catholicism for now. Is it right for me to tell the world that [fill in your favorite Pastor's name] is gay? Especially when I have no proof. Tell me that Prots still value a man's reputation over half-baked, contrived, falsehoods. Tell me that when accusations are made against any man, that Prots will still look for justice and not vendictiveness against an honest adversary. I have testimony that Pius XII was no Nazi. If you don't care enough to listen to this testimony, more than the Old Pope's reputation is at stake. And if y'all are too jaded or blind to care about the truth of one old man's good name...we really have nothing to talk about and no common point of reference.

Lyn wrote:
How is one a 'devout Christian' when their beliefs do not coincide with the bible? He believes pretty much everybody is going to heaven {Muslims, Hindu, etc} and he is pushing for a peace plan that goes against the very word of God; this 'devout Christian' is in need of prayer. I can say I am a brain surgeon, but that doesn't make me one. A true born again believer will give evidence of a changed life, be in obedience to the word of God, and bear much fruit. Let's pray for the salvation of President Bush.

GG wrote:
I assumed that they were at least interested in the pursuit of truth...my mistake. In real debate, there is give and take. There is an unspoken assumption that people will be fair and at least look at the adversaries answers to their assertions. If we can't agree on this much courtesy...then we truly...truly...have nothing to talk about. If so, then I am moved to profound saddness for both our parties, for what is there left but unreasoned animosity! The Lord be my witness that I have tried to bridge the gap bewteen the two, but there must be two sides to every bridge. Of this bloody mess...I hereby wash my hands.