Jim Lincoln wrote:

Yolanda wrote:
While most economists say President Donald Trump may be overstating his responsibility for recent better growth and jobs numbers, they say his policies may have had a limited positive influence in some areas. …
At the same time, they warn, there are ways the president might also be a drag on growth …
Moody's Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi says it's too early to conclude either way about the Trump effect. He says the economy was "doing fine" before he took office and hasn't changed much. He did add the president will get a chance to have a real impact in coming months. "They have got to raise the debt limit and pass a budget," Zandi said. "If they don't do that, it will do real damage."” US News 

[URL=http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/19/democrats-favorite-conservative-republican-economist-is-neither-republican-nor-conservative/http://]]]democrats-favorite-conservative-republican-economist-is-neither-republican-nor-conservative[/URL]

So far he has arranged to strike out from the grave in anger/retaliation at Trump, Putin and now his former VP running mate Sarah Palin.

Yolanda wrote:
I understand more and more what David meant while praying to the Lord to not let him fall into the hands of wicked men. Men like Lurker.
My prayer is that you feel utterly ashamed as a child of Trump - having to demean one based upon the character of another.
Shame on you Lurker.

I did, however, point out that his values were not friendly to conservatism. And for that tidbit of truth you shame me?

For your convenience, here is my comment again:

Christopher000 wrote:
Lurker Wrote:
"The headline is disgustingly misleading which seems to be the norm any more."
Thanks Lurker, and you're right about that. I read the article this morning, and only then realized that it was focusing on a single kid, I couldn't help but consider the larger picture, and widespread ramifications of such rulings. Seems to me that the proponents will be just fine with this nonsense right up until it hits home and begins effecting their own children's privacy and safety. I wonder then if they'll continue to fight for these transgender rights, or if they'll drive straight to the school and demand to know why there was a boy showering with their child in the girls locker room, etc.

Plain Old Tim wrote:
Right on the money, Lurker. Jim is apparently among those "Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away."

Jim Lincoln wrote:
I would also point out that George Will 3 years ago recognized, [URL=https://tinyurl.com/yd934hen]]]https://tinyurl.com/yd934hen (Donald Trump is a counterfeit Republican) [/URL]

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Note, UPS, George Will is Pulitzer prize winning conservative.

The Quiet Christian wrote:
Whatever happened to you, perhaps at the hand of the Romanists, you need to give to Jesus.

John UK wrote:
That's good, brother!
But you've just done it again, and I can hardly believe it. You are referring to these great men of God like Charles Spurgeon and John Owen as if they couldn't read the Bible so took the "traditional" viewpoint of earlier men.

I have no idea where you came up with the above but the broadly accepted tradition I was speaking of was the commentaries you and Adriel posted.

I was going to ask your opinion on "Thy kingdom come", knowing you're an amil, but I changed my mind.

John UK wrote:
I say this as a friend, and I hope you don't take it badly.

To set the record straight, I was never dogmatic about anything in my posts. I never suggested your view was wrong or those you quoted were in error and I made it clear I was thinking out loud trying to make sense of the text in its historical setting and timeline. I'm still thinking on it but there is no sense continuing on here when I'm thought of as a rebel against broadly accepted tradition because I don't immediately jump on the bandwagon.

John Mackay wrote:
Lead us not into temptation implies simply this ;-that God would keep us from falling into sin as we are unable to uphold ourselves without his grace working in us by The Holy Spirit
It is being expressed negatively and it is really saying lead us away from temptation by your Holy Spirit and don’t leave us to ourselves

John UK wrote:
Thanks bro but I reckon you're barking up the wrong olive.

John UK wrote:
I don't think you are missing anything, bro.
John Gill says, "There are various sorts of temptations."

"Now, in this petition, the children of God pray, that they may be kept from every occasion and object of sinning; from those sins they are most inclined to; that God would not leave them to Satan, and their own corrupt hearts; nor suffer them to sink under the weight of temptations of any sort; but that, in the issue, they might have a way to escape, and be victorious over all." JG

I'm off for my days duties but will look into this more this evening.

Where I'm stuck is the words "lead us not". That doesn't imply "Don't let me fall..." or anything similar as the commentaries suggest. What it does imply, at least in my mind, is that some (not those who pray with a sincere heart) will, in fact, be led into temptation by God and clearly not for their good but for their eternal damnation.

Rev 3:10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.

John UK wrote:
Ah Lurker, Bro Ryle is far more brief in his treatment than Bro Calvin. And he seems to take a much softer approach, probably trying to avoid attributing any injustice to the Lord.
The eighth sentence is a petition respecting our weakness: “Lead us not into temptation.” It teaches us that we are liable, at all times, to be led astray and to fall. It instructs us to confess our infirmity, and beseech God to hold us up, and not allow us to run into sin. We ask Him, who orders all things in heaven and earth, to restrain us from going into that which would injure our souls...

Here's what the pope is proposing:

"A better rendering of the petition would be: “Do not let me fall into temptation,” Francis said."

John UK wrote:
Last one. Thank you.

But... Ryle ended up where I began.

"God not only gives us up to the will of Satan, to kindle the flame of lust, but employs him as the agent of his wrath, when he chooses to drive men headlong to destruction..."

However, I agree with Ryle in that the petition is one: "lead us not but deliver us". Now, if it were not possible for God to lead those who call Him Father into temptation then the entire petition is rendered meaningless and we both know Jesus wouldn't teach a meaningless prayer. So what now?

I'm still hung up on the timeline Jesus taught the prayer was during the first covenant economy. Did God lead the northern kingdom into Assyrian captivity? Or the southern kingdom into Babylonian captivity? Were the two kingdoms tried, as in an iron furnace, during their captivities and a faithful remnant, purged of dross, delivered? Is there yet another tribulation and great tribulation to be fulfilled?

I'm just thinking out loud here John. Perhaps the temptation is what Paul warned the unbelieving Jews of:

Acts 13:40 Beware therefore, lest that come upon you, which is spoken of in the prophets;

John UK wrote:
Bro, I realise that a multitude of nominal Christians pray this prayer by rote. However, it must surely be designed for Gal 4:28 people, because it commences with Our *Father*.

John UK wrote:
Matt 6:13 KJV
(13)  And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
There are great depths in this prayer that the Lord taught his disciples.

Count on the RCC to rewrite the bible to conform to their present progressive agenda.

"Lead"

Tense: The aorist tense is characterized by its emphasis on punctiliar action; that is, the concept of the verb is considered without regard for past, present, or future time.

Voice: The active voice represents the subject as the doer or performer of the action.

Mood: The subjunctive mood is the mood of possibility and potentiality. The action described may or may not occur, depending upon circumstances.

Proof text of the truth of the prayer:

2 Thes 2:10-12 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause **God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:** That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.