Just a Guy wrote: Psalm 150... 1 Praise ye the Lord. Praise God in his sanctuary: praise him in the firmament of his power. 2 Praise him for his mighty acts: praise him according to his excellent greatness. 3 Praise him with the sound of the trumpet: praise him with the psaltery and harp. 4 Praise him with the timbrel and dance: praise him with stringed instruments and organs. 5 Praise him upon the loud cymbals: praise him upon the high sounding cymbals. 6 Let every thing that hath breath praise the Lord. Praise ye the Lord.
It would be sort of interesting to hear a voice only group singing Psalm 150...
This is some remark to think about
John, the psalm expresses the exuberance (great zest) of worship. May be it would be better to grasp the bigger picture instead of standing behind single punny interpretations.
John UK wrote: Actually Christopher, 1. If God wants to save more people, he will do. He is not caught out by a return of his Son to earth. He is the one planning it! 2. It sounds commendable, but the better route is one where we can say, "I delight to do thy will, O my God." The will of God for both John Baptist and his own Son was for them both to die in their 30's. --------------- Sister B, it is no problem for sufferers to say not only, "I am ready to die (being redeemed)" but also, "Heaven is far better than this evil world, and besides, death removes this awful remnant of the sinful nature which lurks within me." However, while there is work to do for HIM, in the will of God, I shall remain alive according to HIS will not mine.
1 & 2, so true.
*** Yes 'ready' is the word, to do all his biding.
John, it is perceived what you wish to mean through this short statement, but it sounds somehow as the talk of stoic Socrates before drinking his poison cup
Certainly we count the believer's death as 'sleeping in Christ', on the grounds of the purchased redemption, by which the believer is spared in death the torment of guilt that death without redemption imputed carries.
But as a matter of fact, being the sting of sin death, death still carries its own victory through the grave; and though conquered in Christ we look forward to the time when death will be totally swallowed up (drinked down or drowned) in victory when the inmortality of the body is restored and "mortality ... (is) ... *swallowed up of life* "
"... ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting ... the *redemption of our body* "
"... *when* this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, *then* shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory"
"... thanks be to God, which gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ."
Unprofitable Servant wrote: 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. Thanks
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.
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.
danfromtenn wrote: ... using a denominational label is only a convenience that quickly identifies you with a certain set of beliefs. In conversing with someone it serves as a filter but then you have to comb through what remains throwing out whatever is not biblical. I could say that I'm a Baptist but then I would have to refine that and add that my church holds to the doctrines of Grace for instance. That chops out a huge number of Baptist churches. The final filter has to be the Bible alone, though.
Yes, you make sense. The most difficult group to witness to are RCs, as the common lingo seems to say the same things, making them agree to all you may say, yet they are miles from the truth because the terms in their context have a total different meaning.
John, more than the Anglicans, some RC would say they had been born again by 'receiving Jesus' through the Eucharist, as they have heard such term inside the charismatic/progressive or mystic circles
John UK wrote: I know the problem sister, and of course there is vagueness and ambiguity. But even Anglicans can say they are "born again" because that happened at their christening. Before JW's adopted their new name, they were called Bible Students (KJV) and they would call themselves Bible believers. But neither Anglicans nor JW's are following Jesus. The only people who can follow Jesus are those who know him and hear his voice calling them. These are sheep, elect and precious to him.
John, not many Anglicans acknowledge themselves as 'born again' as they are quite aware they are not and not many are up to date with the finery 9f their doctrine . As for JW they are Bible students, which is different from Bible believers. In Ulster at least, people have a vague idea of who are we talking about when using the terms 'Bible believing born again Christian' without confusing any with Anglicanism or Russelites.
Somebody needs to learn wrote: the definition of a straw man The fallacy is your definition of a straw man. Don't be so proud as to not admit you are wrong. Not discussing topic at hand just your inaccurate use of the term straw man.
Sorry any argument trying to divert from what the Scripture says about an issue is only time consuming and attention distracting from truth. Please, may we be clear how it denotes character when resorting to insult, and again behind a new moniker of course
John UK wrote: ... there is no biblical warrant for a denomination, and there is biblical instruction not to hold men in such high esteem as to cause division in the church. "I am of Paul, I am of Apollos etc." Rather, it was simply, the church at Corinth, the church in Ephesus. They all had to get on with each other. Today we can't seem able to do that, so we split off and form yet another denomination, so there are now hundreds, thousands of splintered groups, all claiming to follow Christ. I find that very sad, very sad.
John, your theory sounds prime, but reality is not as simple. Most of the news mentioning 'Christian' 90% of the times or more means RC, as probably is this case, which is a vast difference from what we understand as to be a Biblical Christian. And as for being a 'follower of Jesus', even this is vague, as any devout RC trusting in the rosary, praying to Mary and relying on masses thinks him/herself as followers also. The ambiguity is vast.
It is worth to define faith even if it might take extra terms or sentences to present the identity, which indirectly provides opportunity to witness by the Word contrasting true from false belief. A useful term nowadays might be a bible believing born again Christian
Somebody needs to learn wrote: the true meaning of a straw man A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man." read the post, they addressed an argument that was presented
Yes, they are *fallacies*, hence not valid to establish practice. We establish practice on God's law, not on a situation that seems to demand a pragmatic verdict.
Mike, we believe God is sovereign or not, even in what he choses to prevent. Remember the case of the King being hit by a single arrow while disguised in ordinary clothes to escape being killed.
Yes, we use wisdom in care, precautions and provision. But the routine defence of citizens and altercation with crime, in principle, biblically, pertains to the state, not to the invididual, to reward accordingly and to keep order. If supplanting this order the right to bear arms strays. Or biblically, do we trust in our arm to save us?
"...the hypothetical, but real world examples ... posed over the course of time, have gone fully unanswered." Yes, Chris, they are called strawmen colloquially, but biblically they actually become "enticing words of man's wisdom" upon which people base verdict, instead of basing it in the word and its plain teaching,
So: Trust in God. He gives life to His servants for His purpose.
Such precious thought you end with here, Adriel.
The balm of God's comfort by which and through which we live:
"I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body,and after that have no more that they can do. ... Fear him, which after he has killed has power to cast into hell ... Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God? But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not therefore: ye are of more value than many sparrows."
"In righteousness shalt thou be established: thou shalt be far from oppression; for thou shalt not fear: and from terror; for it shall not come near thee. Behold, they shall surely gather together, but not by me: whosoever shall gather together against thee shall fall for thy sake. No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; ... This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, And their righteousness is of me, says the LORD"
We walk by faith not by sight
"When a man's ways please the LORD, He makes even his enemies to be at peace with him" Pro 16:7
Just a Guy wrote: Whenever you want to change a whole culture for evil, you have to make sure the next generation are all taught the same thing. And the only way to do that is to treat them like cattle. Teach them as a mass of brains and flesh, and not like the individuals they are... One big reason our country was so much better before the public school era, was because no one was taught the same. We had generations of free thinkers, and young people who learned in the one room school house, and the church. They grew under the close watch of their parents and preachers. And even the many who wanted to be "free" (which just means a freedom to sin) from cultural morality were carried along with Godly principles put down by our spiritual forefathers (Pilgrims, Puritans, etc)... The millennials are totally gone, and the baby boomers trained the millennials to be the loosers they are. The only hope for this nation is a turning back to God, and it certainly won't be done unless the parents of today are willing to step up, get off the couch of self, and homeschool this next generation of children ...
Great pointers, friend
PAUL WASHER, in his talk 'What a man is not' (SA) addresses what you point out in depth & extensive detail
Mike wrote: Because the scenario is extremely rare. Instant media coverage makes the rare seem more common than it is. How many churches are involved in this particular news item, and see how much reaction it has wrought? Likewise real events, though actually rare, bring forth emotional responses, which is the goal of the media in the first place. It's easier to pass legislation when the citizen is in an emotional, rather than a thoughtful state
18 churches have completed this training, according to the article. Other data shows there are over 300,000 Protestant churches in the US. Their biblical stance is not the issue at the moment, but the overwhelming number that aren't involved in the article issue. But we have been led to "feel" like it's something really big, no?
Good grasp of reality, Mike.
Inventing scenarios to support a particular case count in scriptures as *enticing words of man's wisdom*, which drive into conclusions lacking truth, and hence value or power, and this is what the article is about. Thanks
See, "... my speech and my preaching was not with *enticing words of man's wisdom,* but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the WISDOM OF MEN but in the power of God"
Unprofitable Servant wrote: 1. neither John, Adriel or BMac answered my scenarios. 2. So it might be safe to assume that ... John wouldnâ€™t stop him because thereâ€™s no example of that being done in the New Testament and BMac wouldnâ€™t warm him because itâ€™s just a stupid American thing. 3. The leftest press in America doesnâ€™t cover it.
1. Not interested in your scenarios, US, which are only strawmen at best, but in the Word, which after having been presented has been laid to rest with you.
2. Erraticly over extrapolating some approximate facts, US, but regretfully distorting and misconstructing truth from them
3. Coming a little closer to a real faction of the entire picture
Fare well, US, take a rest and God bless you, and yours
John UK wrote: You are in danger of joining with those who do not believe in objective truth. Read an article on "relative truth" and it may save you from a cul-de-sac... the God who "so loved the world" does not have different truth for different countries.