B. McCausland wrote:
..
Wisdom does not exclusively materialize by the keeping of dos and don'ts, say by the keeping of the letter of the law.
This is what Christ tried to illustrate in Mat 5 with the sixth and seventh commandment.
One can be guilty of murder simply by hating, calling names or insulting a person.
Now the commandment only says 'thou shall not murder', it does not say 'thou shall not deride' or insult, or 'thou shall not hate'. It is obvious that the depth of the command goes beyond the literal interpretation of the text.
Often, those accusing others of legalism fail to see that they are the true legalists, because they abide strictly by the letter of the writ and miss out that the holistic interpretation of biblical facts and the character of God work as one for our guidance.
Scripture does not say that 'wisdom is the keeping of the law', though in part this is correct.
Rather it says that wisdom is to fear the Lord, and that the servant of the Lord should act prudently. ......

Frank wrote:
Anyone who understands Catholicism and then sends supposedly new converts back to the RCC is not saved – period. ..

".. let the minister take care that his personal character agrees in all respects with his ministry.

We have all heard the story of the man who preached so well and lived so badly, that when he was in the pulpit everybody said he ought never to come out again, and when he was out of it they all declared he never ought to enter it again.

From the imitation of such a Janus may the Lord deliver us. May we never be priests of God at the altar, and sons of Belial outside the tabernacle door; but on the contrary, may we, as Nazianzen says of Basil, “thunder in our doctrine, and lighten in our conversation.” We do not trust those persons who have two faces, nor will men believe in those whose verbal and practical testimonies are contradictory.

As actions, according to the proverb, speak louder than words, so an ill life will effectually drown the voice of the most eloquent ministry. After all, our truest building must be performed with our hands; our characters must be more persuasive than our speech. ...."

The reformers never accept that the Roman "church" was a true church. But not our so enlightened "loving people to hell" crowd!

Refusing to call out the problem is part of the big problem we have with this country, but it started ages ago with the churches not calling the problems of ecumenism, easy believism etc.

just a nobody wrote:
Kev, I do not drink myself but I will not bind another's conscience on the matter. Drunkeness is a sin. Drinking a glass of wine with your dinner is not. In fact I would say the greater sin would be that of of partial and judgmental spirit. I really thought the way Bonar dealt with the issue was commendable. He appealed to those that he was trying to convince on the ground of brotherly love admitting that he could not bind them any other way. I share it as an example to us all of how we might contend with one another. Just my thoughts.

....cont/d

"......We wish the utmost success to the abstinence cause, and, therefore, trust that there will be no pressing of the question of unfermented wine at the Communion, for it will not promote the cause, and will create much heartburning, and, worst of all, it will be contrary to the Divine precedent. The question is not necessary to the temperance movement, and we wish it had never been raised. Mr. Wilson has written the thick volume now before us to settle the matter, and we believe that he establishes beyond reasonable debate that the wines of the Bible were intoxicating, and that our Lord did not ordain jelly or syrup, or cherry juice to be the emblem of his sacrifice.”

This was when the "prohibition" movement gained considerable momentum in the UK. Even back then, the attempt to redefine "wine" could be seen for what it was!

"'UNFERMENTED wine’ is a non-existent liquid. Mr. Wilson has so fully proved this that it will require considerable hardihood to attempt a reply. The best of it is that he is a teetotaler of more than thirty years’ standing, and has reluctantly been driven ‘to conclude that, so far as the wines of the ancients are concerned, unfermented wine is a myth.’

While total abstainers are content to make no assault upon the cup used at the Lord’s table, they work harmoniously with all who seek the welfare of their fellow men; but when they commence warfare upon that point they usually become more factious than useful: everything is then made subordinate to their one idea, and the peace of the church is disregarded. It is well, therefore, that one of themselves should protest against carrying a principle to extremes, and best of all that he should do so by showing that the theories which have been advanced are utterly untenable...."

John Yurich USA wrote:
Obviously you have never heard Graham and his father preach or you would not deny that they preach the biblical doctrine of salvation.

John Yurich USA wrote:
When I receive the bread and the cup of wine I don't state "Amen" as that would be acknowledging the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.

GSMontana wrote:
Observer wrote:
Bro, go easy on Jim!
Unlike the majority who will vote for Hillary out of ignorance or naivete, Jim is a true believer of the cause of the Demoracratic party. I don't think I have to explain which is worse.

John Yurich USA wrote:
Franklin Graham along with his father are 2 of the greatest Baptist ministers around as they have always preached the biblical doctrine of salvation that salvation comes only through embracing Jesus as ones Savior and trusting entirely in Him alone for salvation. Anybody who believes that Graham and his father don't preach the biblical doctrine of salvation are totally off of their rockers.

John Yurich USA wrote:
Massachusetts is in violation of the First Amendment Freedom of Religion by passing that stupid law.

Rodney K. wrote:
There you go again - referencing Scripture. How pesky. If you would stop doing that, we could have a protracted discussion about principles. Yet, you insist on using the Bible as an authority.

Hey bro

I'm gonna change my moniker to "Dei psittacine"!

====================

John Yurich USA wrote:
The only time I drink is when I take a little wine during Holy Communion at church.

GSMontana wrote:
3/4 of Hillary supporters are low information voters, and rest are radical liberals. She only appeals to the lowest common denominator.

s c wrote:
...
the word "wine" is used as alcohol or non depending upon the context,otherwise,there would be many contradictions in Scripture.
..

Since there are MANY contradictions suggested to your mind if wine is not ever non-alcoholic (incidentally an idea never ever voiced before the prohibition period) I'm real interested in these passages. Please do take the time to list them all out so that we can all be educated. And while you're at it, perhaps you would be so kind to show us any lexicons or commentaries before the prohibition period which make this distinction between wine that is alcoholic and not.

Thank you.

========================

Hey bro UPS

Glad to see you posting bro.

ladybug wrote:
...Yes, wine was fermented in O.T. times sc as well as NT times. Your view falls apart in light of God's truth.
Furthermore, if the wine in Christ's day was not fermented, He would never have been accused of being a 'winebibber'-1) a winebibber, given to wine, a wino.
Yes, the wine Christ drank was indeed fermented.

Glad to see you still posting.

Feeling of deja vu here. Seems some people who claim to be Christians are not swayed by any amount of solid bible teaching! Should tell us a great deal about their standing, no?

Lord bless.

==================

Kev

I second what bro Lurker said viz. study the Bible through and read it again and again. BUT there is a big difference between studying for yourself and leading family devotions or indeed doing your own devotions. If you want to know more, write me and let's discuss.

Christopher000 wrote:
Oh my goodness, Steve...why in the world would you say that? Going to hell?

John UK wrote:
..
In your studies for that series, did you consider the lamentations? ...

Not just Lamentations, but remember that in the OT the nation of Israel typified the believer and the church and so whenever we read of any punishment, we can learn a great deal from such passages. Believe me I had a problem keeping the topic to just 3 sermons!

On the issue of trials generally, we have to learn to distinguish between those which we undergo because of our frame (those given to depression for instance), those which are the result of spiritual depression, and other trials which the Lord sends us to test and make us more reliant on His grace.

There are many who suffer from the first and who walk in darkness most of their lives. I believe that it is such who are addressed in the following:

Isaiah 50:10 Who is among you that feareth the Lord, that obeyeth the voice of his servant, that walketh in darkness, and hath no light? let him trust in the name of the Lord, and stay upon his God.

Such fear God and obey, but still walk in darkness!!

Obviously the same could be true of spiritual depression, but that is most often transient.

Christopher000 wrote:
Thanks for taking the time, Observer. Good things to take under advisement.

My pleasure.

It is not a subject that I had ever heard preached on and some years ago I decided to preach a series of 3 sermons on the topic, which were well received. Virtually everyone commented that they had never heard anything on it before and that they were taken aback that something so crucial to the Christian's experience should have been so badly neglected.

Our forebears were more familiar with experiential Christianity and therefore topics like this were more commonly dealt with in the pulpit.

Anyways, if the posts help even one soul on this board, I shall have cause to praise the Lord.