Judging by the comments of a priest in Ballymena (Symonds) big Ian is unlikely to say anything against Romanists these days - in true Billy Graham fashion he takes the opportunity to "preach the gospel" at an event where a priest leads in prayer and closes in prayer. What will the FPs do about it I wonder?
"ONLY Phelps has honesty/guts to tell people that to their faces in the streets - "God hates you, ergo you're a fag etc, the evidence of his eternal decree concerning you". They are Puritans.[/QUOTE]Yep...sure sounds like the preaching of Christ and the Apostles, doesn't it? Where do you ever read of such a "message" being preached to sinners: "God hates you.....and you will be in Hell because God did not decree your salvation...."? The gospel is not "Repent...if you are elect, and believe.....as long as your salvation has been decreed..." What utter garbage! Yes, believers are saved because God elected them to eternal life. Sinners are damned because of their sin. Salvation is undeserved; damnation is always deserved. But, then how does our Aussie friend know that he himself is really saved? What does he base his assurance upon? I would not like to be thinking I was sure of heaven because I agreed with the ungodly methods and atitudes of a moron like Phelps.
Thankfully when asked at successive elections: "Do you believe in the Liberal Democrats?" most British people say an emphatic "NO"!! God does not believe in them either, because they are a pathetic bunch of pro-sodomite, pro-abortion, anti-decency, Socialist, tree-hugging liberals....tea anyone??
But that doesn't count Ehud - if it is politics then normal Christian ethics and morals do not apply (??????????). It really depends upon what hat you are wearing at the time which determines if your actions are legitimate or not (that is the line many are giving anyway, and I suppose any excuse is better than none). If it seems to be a breach of normal Christian standards of separation, then one's actions can always be excused under the "politics" category!! Be assured, if the Presbyterian Church in Ireland had a Moderator doing those things the Free P-ers would be protesting in public about it.
Your CAPS button is stuck, obviously KK. Plus, your thoughts are stuck in the mire if you think grace is not imparted without your asking for it. Your very asking for mercy is in itself the gift of a Sovereign God. You would never pray for salvation if God had not moved you to do so (ROM.3 says "There is NONE that seeketh after God..") The text you quoted teaches this: Faith is in itself the very gift of God. God is the One Who draws sinners to seek His grace. And Abigail - It is true the Bible is most important of all, but why do you think God does not use mighty men like Matthew Henry in assisting our understanding? Preachers, commentators etc are not infallible, of course...but are you?? It sounds real spiritual to say you just read your Bible - but many that say this end up in false doctrine. Maybe you are like the other misguided folks who think they do not need to be under a teaching ministry because they are their own teachers!! God has ordained ministers, and just because some are bad or go bad does not mean we do not need any (Read: 1 Timothy 3; Titus 1; and Ephesians 4).
Yep...great points....that really settles the matter eh? Er..no.....Mike obviously believes it is impossible to have a Sabbath then if it encroaches upon 2 days...."remember the 7th and 8th days"??. Say what you like.....God has appointed a special day for His private and public worship, and it is the Lord's Day, the FIRST day of the week. Apostolic practise confirms it, as well as that of true Christian churches ever since.
The Lord's Day is neither an ADDITION nor REPLACEMENT for the Sabbath - it IS a continuation. This is why there are still 10 commandments and not 9. The N.T. Sabbath is kept on the first day of the week. Read the bible kenny: Jesus rose on the first day, He met with His disciples on 2 successive Lord's Days after His resurrection, The Holy Spirit descended on the first day of the week, Paul met with the believers at Troas and preached to them on the FIRST Day, and He commanded them to bring their offerings when they met together on the FIRST Day (I COR.16: 1,2). The Old Testament Day commemorated Creation, the New Testament Day celebrates the NEW Creation. "This is the day that the Lord hath made: we will rejoice and be glad in it." SDA garbage about Rome and the Pope changing the Day of worship has no basis in fact. Theirs is a system of legalism: i.e. unless you observe the 7th-Day Sabbath you will be damned.
Several good sermons on this site deal with the SDA nonsense obviously imbibed by many contibutors to this thread - "Seventh Day Adventism", "The Millerites", and The Cult of the 7th-day Sabbath". The Lord's Day is the Christian Sabbath - the first day of the week was appointed by Christ and seconded by the Holy Spirit as the day of worship for New Testament Christians. The 7th Day sabbath crowd are Judaizers and practical deniers of the Resurrection.
Jesus never instituted a cannibal feast - it is utter blasphemy to assert that even while He was standing there, at the Supper, He was offering His literal fleash and blood to be consumed corporally by the disciples. John 6 clearly teaches he that believes "shall never hunger" and he that comes to Jesus "will never thirst" - eating His flesh is a reference to faith, and drinking His blood is a reference to coming to Him. Communion is not even in view in that passage at all.
JDB: A body of water does not prove anything. As for Acts 8 - if that proves The Ethiopian was immersed it must also prove that Philip was also immersed - the Greek shows clearly that they went down "unto" the water. The mode is not signified - it might have been immersion, but it might not, because it does NOT say. "Baptizo" is used of the "Washing of cups and couches" in the Gospels - but they were not immersed. Hebrews talks about a doctrine of "baptisms" - it was known among the Jews when they baptized proselytes, and that was not necessarily by immersion. Check it out.
No they do not......water baptism is not mentioned in those verses at all. They are referring to Regeneration: Spirit baptism - see I Corinthians 12 verse 13. If they were talking about water baptism they would be teaching salvation by water which is a false doctrine. You might argue that water baptism represents what happens at regeneration. But then so does sprinkling, and so does pouring - the Bible uses BOTH those terms to describe the Spirit's work in salvation (EZEKIEL 36; JOEL 2 v.28) Were all the 3000 converts at Pentecost immersed (immediately)? If so, where? There is no large body of water in Jerusalem. The mode of baptism is NOT "clearly" taught in Scripture. Baptists think it is - hence the name "Baptist" i.e. no-one else is properly baptized but them.
"Since the Bible clearly teaches baptism by immersion...." Really? Where? A closer look, rather than the usual Baptist superficial treatment of scripture, might make you think again. Is it not amazing how everybody else is a Romanist but those who are the "dippers"? Talk about exalting an ordinance as if it were equal to salvation itself! "Share my view of baptism or be consigned to the ranks of the Great Whore of Babylon"! Tush....
Don't be so shocked my Baptist friend - many Independent Baptists pass out a silly little booklet to their people called "The Trail of Blood". It's a pathetic attempt to prove that Baptists have an unbroken line back to Christ. And when challenged about the many, many different kinds of Baptists that exist - so which of them are in the succession? - some will have the gall to claim that it is "The Independent Baptists"! Of course, those churches are normally governed by little "popes" i.e.their pastors.
1/10/08 1:00 AM
12/28/07 9:10 PM
9/6/07 10:50 AM
