TrueHolyBibleChristianCatholic wrote:
Back In 1988, When I Was At BOB JONES UNIVERSITY,

N. T. Diluvian wrote:
If Rivera was a 'proven fraud' where is the proof?

TrueHolyBibleChristianCatholic wrote:
*BR. ALBERTO RIVERA Warned TRUE CHRISTIANS &
NON-CHRISTIAN In The 1970s-90s:
"Another Problem (For Satan) Was THE TRUE (2nd-CENTURY) CHRISTIANS In NORTH AFRICA Who Preached THE GOSPEL (ala Athanasius).
ROMAN CATHOLICISM Was Growing In Power, But Would NOT Tolerate Opposition.
Somehow THE [SATANIC] VATICAN Had To CREATE A WEAPON ...

Disgusted wrote:
How does this fool get to stay on TV??? Praying on elder and people looking for a real healing. I beg my family not to give to these televangelists. Just Fast and Pray.

Paul wrote:
You see my dear, you completely missed my comment and you are too irritated at me to even realize it. Frank was calling preaching the Gospel to fools, foolishness...tongue in cheek,I said it sounded foolish. Please understand the humour here. Why are you so angry? I didn't need Scripture to make a joke, and there is nothing more sad than someone casting stones at glass houses, especially when that person didn't deserve it. I don't have to continue to reply to you, but I do feel sorry for you. Please email me so we can discuss your problem with me further.

Paul wrote:
I guess the point of using Scripture is if it's in context... you would know without a shadow of doubt that the above passage you have tried to pass over on me is so far out to lunch, I can't even begin to start with it... If you would actually open up your eyes ... You would see that you are the pot calling the kettle black and perhaps you should take a closer look at yourself before YOU call someone else self righteous.

Paul wrote:
Please tell me in what way am I self righteous. My comment to Frank was in a silly manner with absolutely no intent to convey a Christian principle. Do you understand what I was conveying? It looked like Frank got the joke. It's a shame you have wasted my time and yours over ANOTHER frivolous matter.
BTW, unless you can back up your rebuke scripturally...

Paul wrote:
Yeah, it's a bad habit of mine. Maybe I should become more compromising like you and others and accept man's word over that of God's and join the club, huh? BTW, my name is Paul, that's what my parents named me, and it would look rather funny to tell everyone to call me Revivalandreformation. That's my blog, I learned the importance of that distinction. That's for clarifying to S.A. readers the difference. Have a great weekend.

Paul wrote:
sounds kinda foolish to me, Frank

I enjoyed reading your post from earlier today. It is a comfort to hear someone else who is likeminded. I've heard it said that we read to know that we are not alone. I agree.

Today, as I sat with my mother-in-law, I viewed the webcast from FFPC in Greenville, S.C. It was a blessing to join in the service, and quieted my m-i-l who can be verbally abusive in her dementia. I prayed for her salvation as she repeated the words of Dr. Cairns in a mocking manner. I know that God who created the mind and spirit can redeem one even in such a state.

There is a song based on a poem found scribbled on the walls of a patient's room in an insane asylum after the patient's death. The third stanza goes like this:

"Could we with ink the ocean fill and were the skies of parchment made,
Were ev'ry stalk on earth a quill and
ev'ry man a scribe by trade
To write the love of God above would
drain the ocean dry,
Nor could the scroll contain the whole
tho stretched from sky to sky."

I love Isaiah 62, and I don't know if this is what you are referring to - but -

are you referring to vs. 12? "And they will call them, "The holy people,
The redeemed of the LORD";
And you will be called, "Sought out, a city not forsaken."

In vs. 4 the name of "Forsaken" and "Desolate" will be changed to "My delight is in her," and your land, "Married; For the LORD delights in you, and to Him your land will be married."

Or, is the new name "the called out ones" - a "City set on a hill?"

scarecrow wrote:
Yet we Christians do sin, even if it brings no joy in the sinning. Is one who sins a sinner, or is there a new name by which the one who sins should be known?

In the past, even to the common man, unlearned, a sinner was considered to be one who lived unreconciled to God. A Christian was known as a Christian and one whose life made a statement of faith.

In Romans 1:8 we see that Christians were known for their "faith being proclaimed throughout the whole world." So, that would indicate that they were not known for their sin being proclaimed throughout the world.

DJC49 wrote:
Isn't that what you JUST DID??? ... Mrs. S. Smith?

If you DON'T wish to dialogue, then don't even bother responding to ANY of my posts! Period.

You and I differ on our understanding of Scripture.

You think that I am a legalist, a Wesleyan perfectionist. I am not.

I am a child of God, walking in the newness of life - not perfectly, and certainly not with perfect understanding.

I have compassion for the lost, and for those who struggle in their walk with the Lord.

I am not a self-righteous person. My confidence is in the Lord.

You do not know me, and I do not know you. I'm sure that the Lord would give us greater understanding if we could see the countenance of the other person, as so much is conveyed visually.

I apologize for offending you, and will read your posts as you have a lot to offer.