| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Chuck Stamford
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 1:43 pm Post subject: Re: @Matt |
 |
|
"john w @yahoo.com>" <j<no> wrote in message
news:02gma49so71n204oms1t6nbsljd45onk9p@4ax.com...
| Quote: | x-no-archive: yes
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 23:26:41 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
shell-stamford@cox.net> wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
"john w @yahoo.com>" <j<no> wrote in message
news:s0jga49iij5oppo14999ejfqs1q6dmr381@4ax.com...
x-no-archive: yes
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 00:53:08 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
shell-stamford@cox.net> wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
"john w @yahoo.com>" <j<no> wrote in message
news:ei4da4tvl52kud2lidbcbeprb8qn34h2q2@4ax.com...
x-no-archive: yes
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 00:25:30 -0700 (PDT), roymock@gmail.com wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
On Aug 16, 12:53 pm, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
x-no-archive: yesOn Fri, 15 Aug 2008 18:07:53 -0700 (PDT),
roym...@gmail.com wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this
post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
On Aug 16, 9:51 am, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
x-no-archive: yesOn Thu, 14 Aug 2008 18:45:59 -0700 (PDT),
roym...@gmail.com wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this
post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the
author.
On Aug 15, 11:09 am, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
x-no-archive: yesOn Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:06:11 -0700 (PDT),
roym...@gmail.com wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of
this
post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the
author.
On Aug 15, 2:12 am, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
x-no-archive: yesOn Wed, 13 Aug 2008 18:57:13 -0700 (PDT),
roym...@gmail.com wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of
this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the
author.
On Aug 14, 10:29 am, "Chuck Stamford"
shell-stamf...@cox.net
wrote:
roym...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:81b4d8c3-920b-491b-90b9-d21708e06f10@b2g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 14, 8:22 am, "Chuck Stamford"
shell-stamf...@cox.net> wrote:
roym...@gmail.com> wrote in message
[snip]
And it makes sense to you that God would give a gift
of
discerning what
spirit is prompting speech uttered in tongues or as
prophecy (actually
both
are, biblically speaking and uttered in an assembly,
forms of "prophecy",
but with "tongues" needed the companion gift of
"interpretation") to
protect
His flock, ...
I'm not sure if it's said "to protect". 1Cor12:7 says
these gifts are
for "for the common good" in the sense that we "...
care
for one
another. If one member suffers, all suffer together;
if
one member is
honored, all rejoice together." (1Cor12:25-26).
Surely you're not unaware that there are "diverse
spirits"
and that the
devil "walks about as a roaring lion seeking whom he may
devour". I think
we can safely include "protection" in the reason the
gift
of
discerning
Satan's presence and influence is given to the Church.
...
The churches I've attended over the years don't seem to
have
issues
with utterances from diverse spirits simply because no-one
ever comes
up to say to the effect "I have this special word from the
Lord".
If you actually understood what is being said in Acts 2,
you
are
completely mis-understanding and misinterpreting "tongues."
If you go back and re-read Acts 2, the Apostles didn't
speak
in
tongues during a SERVICE, or to each other.
No one was discussing what happened at Pentecost.
Excuse me! I was discussing Pentecost!
My apologies. 1Cor12 has been the principal text to date.
And now that I'm narrowing down the cause of so much of
your
CONFUSION, you are growing ever more hostile.
They spoke in tongues to non-believers (the un-Christian
Jews who
were from "out of town" who had come to Jerusalem for the
Pentecost
festivities.
There is ALSO NO indication WHATEVER that ANY of the
"new
believers" that day spoke in tongues. Not one single word
is
said that
they did.
I usually take the Pentecost event as unique from the
Corinthian
experience and any current experience
The "Corinthian experience" was one that indicated (by the
text)
that the Christians were already (even in the 1st Century,
even
during
Paul's time) falling into false teaching.
, so I wouldn't bring Pentecost
into this discussion.
Well, you don't need to; I did.
Nor will I apologize for it.
And if you aren't open to other points of view, I won't
bother.
So, even in Paul's and Peter's day, speaking in tongues
was
NOT a
universal phenomenon.
Thanks for that. I'm not up to speed on that. AFAIK it was
found
in
other pagan religions of the day
You're confusing "glossolalia" (the uttering of nonsense
NOISE)
with
real Tongues.
Tongues as given by God are the giving of a language unknown
by
the
speaker for the purpose of ministering to someone in their
native
tongue.
For example: I've never studied Russian. I don't know a
single
Russian word. But if I find myself on a trans-continental
flight,
and
I'm sitting next to a Russian businessman, God may give me the
gift of
speaking Russian so that I can minister to the businessman in
his
native language.
Good one!
That is the "gift of tongues" as taught in Acts 2. The
Apostles
were
given the languages of the foreign-born Jews who were in
Jerusalem
for
Pentecost.
In those days, you were known/could be identified as
"Galilean",
or
"Palestinian" or "Spaniard" or "German" by the clothes you had
on.
The foreign-born Jews saw the Apostles speaking their native
languages, and they wondered, "how is it that these men who
are
OBVIOUSLY local (from Jerusalem), know our native languages?"
It was a miracle of God that isn't matched by people making
noises
with their mouths in "pentecostal" services today.
And if those "Christians" are lying about THAT, what else
are
they
lying about?
I got castigated last month for using 'universal' with the
respondent
calling me a Universalist.
And 1 Cor 13 says that tongues CEASED in Paul's lifetime.
Maybe; maybe not AFAIK. It reads it "will cease" but
doesn't
say
when.
Not true. Paul said, (read it CAREFULLY)
"When I was a child (new Christian), I SPOKE as a child
(tongues).
WHEN I BECAME A MAN (mature Christian), I put away the
childish
things (tongues).
And since the sign gifts are a package deal, if ONE ceased
(tongues),
all ceased.
And since there is not one single solitary church today that
practices REAL tongues, then there are no real "prophesies"
either.
I've had MANY "sincere pentecostal" "Christians" INSIST that
I
go to
this church or that church, and "see the REAL thing!"
I went, and I saw nothing but demonic activity.
I have seen tongues and prophesy displayed in some churches
I've stayed in for a while in the 80's
No, you haven't. You were tricked. You have OPENLY stated,
you
have NO discernment. (you CAN pray for it)
If you have no discernment (your words), then don't tell me
"it
was
real."
Don't you think that if there was a church anywhere on the
PLANET
where withered arms and legs, and blind eyes and limbs that
have
been
BLOWN off were HEALED, there would be weekly TV broadcasts
from
there?
And--- if you actually DID hear "prophesy", what was the
prophesy
you heard?
Yes, it was exercised,
Not true.
That would be hard to say that without being there to experience
the
gift. A-piori is a weak form of argument.
All you have now proved / established is that you don't know what
you're talking about, but you're OPINIONATED enough (a point of view
with ZERO basis in FACT) that you don't take kindly to anyone
rocking
your boat (presenting contrary FACT)
Which leaves me one conclusion. You're already WAY Far gone down
the road to silliness and silly religion.
But, let me address your point. Scripture-- not me-- says that
tongues have stopped. They are no longer a "regular part of
worship",
and there never was a REAL "prayer tongue."
Didn't Paul pray in a tongue? " For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit
prays but my mind is unfruitful." (1Co 14:14) .
One last attempt, and then, we're done. I don't see you remotely
asking SINCERE questions. I see that your mind is made up. PERIOD.
You are simply (with ZERO scripture knowledge/ your "knowledge" is
patchwork [a verse here, a verse there])
deciding what you are going to believe, based on hear/say. And any
other view-- complete with scripture-- meets only with mindless
rebuttal of "what you heard some guy say."
"No. Paul did not "pray in tongues." And it's pathetic when some
(you and your loony friends) use that ONE EXAMPLE Paul used
(allegorical) to prove FACT by "example."
IF Paul truly "prayed in tongues,"
* explain the purpose of such activity. (we are to believe and act
with PURPOSE; Gal 1)
John, Paul did say he prayed in tongues "more than you all" (1 Cor.
14:18)
Not correct. You are mis-quoting from memory.
I am not misquoting, and I'm not quoting from memory, having had the
passage
right in front of me when I referred to it. And although I quote the
whole
passage below, I'll put it here again so that you can see I haven't
misquoted it:
You ARE MISQUOTING. The word in context is SPEAK.
You are substituting the word PRAY.
They are entirely separate activities.
|
You talk about them as if they were necessarily different activities, when
you and I both know they're not necessarily different. It is entirely
possible that Paul is using "speak" and "pray" interchangably in this
chapter. It is therefore up to you, if you think he isn't, to give me your
reasons WHY you think he isn't.
My reason for thinking he is using "speak" to mean "pray", comes right out
of the same chapter:
"For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God..." 1 Cor
14:2a
Now unless you've got some other, more narrow definition for "prayer" that
you're using here, I'd say this puts to bed any notion that there's any
difference in 1 Corinthian 14 in Paul's use of "speak" and "pray", for here
we see him saying that speaking "in a tongue" IS praying to God.
We also find Paul equating "praying in the spirit" with "speaking in
tongues". See also:
Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. 14 For
if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful.
1 Cor 14:13-14
Here Paul equates "speaks in a tongue" with "pray in a tongue" with "my
spirit prays".
Against all of this data for making NO distinction between "speak" and
"pray" at verses 17-19, what do you have?
| Quote: |
And now that you've revealed yourself as "pentecostal," we're done
with this, and perhaps with other stuff, too.
I know enough after 30 YEARS of studying this issue that anyone as
deeply into the "pentecostal/ pretender" movement isn't open to
1 correction
2 other points of view.
|
Once again, I'm NOT a Pentecostal.
| Quote: |
"For you indeed give thanks well, but the other is not edified. 18 I thank
my God I _ speak_ (not "pray") with tongues more than you all; 19 yet in
the church I would
rather _speak_ (not "pray") five words with my understanding, that I may
teach others also,
than ten thousand words in a tongue." 1 Cor 14:17-19
You can see in verse 17 Paul is congratulating the Corinthians for giving
thanks to God "well" when they pray in tongues,
the passage you quoted does not contain the word "pray".
|
The passage I quoted is one in which Paul EQUATES the two, as he does for
the ENTIRE CHAPTER!
| Quote: |
and then goes on to say that
while it is true he (Paul) speaks "with tongues" often, yet he would
rather
speak much less in a language his hearers could understand than in hours
worth of speech they couldn't understand.
^ ^ So even you-- at this point-- understand Paul saying that there
(in the 1st Century even ) was MUCH more point (value) to speaking in
a known language than running off with noises no one understood.
|
What do you mean "at this point"? I've ALWAYS understood that. For crying
out loud, John, the whole 14th chapter is Paul diplomatically telling the
Corinthian church to stop speaking/praying in tongues in their assemblies,
unless there is one who gives the interpretation right afterward. It
doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that Paul is, by demanding they give
an interpretation for each instance of prayer in tongues, trying to stem
their abuse and bring order back into their assembly.
| Quote: |
Bottom line: There is no plausible way to understand this passage, or
indeed all of 1 Corinthians 12 & 14, than to understand Paul is teaching
on
the proper use of the gift of praying and speaking in tongues, and
claiming
that he, himself, prays in tongues often. To deny either is simply to
deny
Scripture.
He didn't mention "praying in tongues." That's YOU pulling that
phrase in from somewhere else.
|
This is you making a distinction Paul obviously isn't making in these
chapters. For Paul, in these places, the two words represent the same
concept: speech directed to God.
| Quote: |
And its not me "denyig scripture." I am VERY aware of what scripture
says. It is now YOU PLAYING with scripture, manipulating it to make
it say things it does not say.
|
Read chapter 14 again, as a single line of reasoning from the mind of Paul,
and then tell me Paul isn't attempting to regulate the use of this gift
rather than end it, and that he doesn't claim to use the gift more than any
member of the Corinthian church.
| Quote: |
And he also says, in 1 Cor 13, that "tongues will cease," and he goes
on to say (by the writing of THAT VERY CHAPTER, that tongues had
ALREADY ceased, with the other SIGN GIFTS.
|
He can't have said they ALREADY ceased, John. Corinthians was written YEARS
before Paul went to Jerusalem, there to be arrested and sent to Rome for
trial. However, it is just before Paul reaches Jerusalem that final time
that Agabus, the prophet, prophesies about Paul being arrested in Jerusalem.
In chapter 13 Paul didn't just say tongues would cease. He said prophecy
would too. Ergo he can't there be saying what you think he is: that the
"sign gifts", as you keep referring to them for God only knows what reason
(as all gifts from God are "signs"), have ALREADY ceased as he wrote chapter
13 of 1st Corinthians.
But again, Paul is only there saying that prophecies, tongues, and knowledge
will cease when a certain something happens; when "that which is perfect is
come". You completely ignore this part of the verse. You need to stop
doing that. You can't make a sound, biblical argument for an idea by only
focusing on that back half of one verse in the Bible!
Now you read the entire chapter 13, and then you tell me what "that which is
perfect is come" refers to, and show me how it makes sense with what you're
inferring from the last half of that verse.
| Quote: |
You really should go back and re-read the passage BEFORE you quote
it. If you are pentecostal/pretender, then you've been misled and you
bought into it, rather than using discernment.
I've never said I was a Pentecostal, and the fact is that I'm not, nor
have
I ever been. The churches I've attended most often in my Christian
experience have been Calvary Chapel branches, and if you know anything
about
them, then you know they are not Pentecostal.
That's not my understanding. I had been led to believe that Calvary
Chapel is pentecostal. My mistkae.
|
Maybe you were thinking of a different Calvary Chapel. I'm talking about
the one founded in the 70's by Chuck Smith.
| Quote: |
But you defend a religion...
|
You need to watch what you say to me. There is NO WAY I can be accused of
defending a religion simply by disagreeing with you on a biblical teaching
that has NOTHING to do with any essential Christian belief.
| Quote: | that is without defense. You're going to
get bumped and bruised for that. And one of those who will bump and
bruise you for defending "false Christianity" will be ME.
Let me illustrate your error. If you are spiritually sound and open,
you'll see it. If you aren't, you won't.
John, I've made no error.
And I notice that you didn't even give me a chance to elaborate!
|
You've had three pages worth of argument above to "elaborate". How much
does it take?
| Quote: |
I truly don't appreciate that. Your mind just snapped closed like a
bank vault.
Very well.
When you can pry it open again, and when you're open to being
corrected about "sign gifts" that don't exist today,
"get back to me."
I sincerely waste NO time on those who defend "sign gifts" that
aren't even around anymore.
|
I don't know how you can say I'm defending what you can't seem to define, or
at least, haven't found the time to in all of this yet!
| Quote: |
And-- as Ive said to others-- if you can find REAL signs (tongues,
healing, folks walking on water) please let me know.
|
You just SAID you'd seen real healings! Now you're suggesting I can't show
them to you???
| Quote: |
Don't TELL me signs are for today; SHOW me.
|
Again, this argument isn't open to either of us. You can't afford to demand
it of me, because you can't show me any number of things we both know exist:
angels, God, Jesus Christ, creation ex nihilo, sin, evil, Satan, hell,
Heaven, Moses, Abraham, the list is endless.
|
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 6:30 pm Post subject: Re: THE SEQUENTIAL RELATIONSHIP OF END TIME EVENTS |
|
|
"Randy ®" <pulpitfire@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jj0ga41b368laja3elit95u5bl0qrn8mgn@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 16:49:59 -0500,
in article <g87i29$n3p$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote:
"Randy ®" <pulpitfire@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:iir3a4lrgotipgbll84b5f6sraie17noj3@4ax.com...
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:40:34 -0500,
in article <g7sovj$rnn$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote:
"Randy ®" <pulpitfire@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2b0u94d7gta90n9vuf3k11qrli005bgdls@4ax.com...
[snip]
YOU, _moronic liar_ are on record, once again, claiming the
"formula" that all prophecy must occur in three seventy year
iterations, is what "God declares in the word".
LOL
Once again, Ridiculous Randy demonstrates HE CAN'T COMPREHEND PLAIN
ENGLISH,
in the Bible, OR on paper, as he CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE between the
words
"WEEKS" and "YEARS."
Poor Ridiculous Randy, so STUPID, yet SO PROUD...
You do,
therefore, claim and teach that all prophecy must occur in
three seventy year iterations.
I have NEVER made any such claim, moron.
NOW GO LEARN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE WORDS "WEEKS" AND "YEARS."
WHAT HAS IKE TAUGHT ALL ALONG?
First iteration: SEVENTY "YEARS" SHORT OF SEVENTY "WEEKS."
Second iteration: SEVENTY "YEARS," BUT TOO LONG ON BOTH ENDS.
Third iteration: RIGHT ON THE MONEY, SEVENTY YEARS (the Lord's right to
tarry not withstanding).
Ike
Give up, Ike. You are now at the mercy of morons who are
easily deceived:
On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 02:03:39 -0500,
in article <g710sb$4f7$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote:
**************************************************************
Which is not a formula whereby one may extrapolate that all
prophecy must therefore occur in three seventy year
iterations.
Bub, THAT'S THE FORMULA GOD DECLARES IN THE WORD.
**************************************************************
Yes, that's you, claiming that three seventy year iterations
for the fulfillment of all prophecy is God's "formula",
declared in His word.
No, moron, that's YOU telling the same LIE so many times that one begins
to
ignore the noise.
I never said ANYTHING ABOUT "Three seventy ***YEAR*** iterations."
That's just YOU SHOWING YOUR ASS TO EVERYONE.
Ike
If you did not claim the Bible teaches all prophecy must be
fulfilled in three seventy year iterations...
|
....AND STILL THE ASS IS SHOWING HIS ASS TO EVERYONE.
[snip]
Ike |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 6:35 pm Post subject: Re: *** Adam and Eve: Who Sinned First? - Chuck Runs From Pr |
|
|
"cactus" <bm1@nonespam.com> wrote in message
news:TRQpk.21773$N87.1463@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
| Quote: | H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. wrote:
"Leo Sgouros" <hanaram857@archangels.mil> wrote in message
news:g87m8q$tm9$1@registered.motzarella.org...
[snip]
Believing this doctrine, along with stuff like a literal 6 day creation,
is not critical to salvation-hence the reason why I wonder why people
cling to it.
First, I don't believe in a literal six 24-hour day creation.
Second, that is a LONG WAY from the doctrine of original sin, WHICH IS
essential to Judeo-Christian belief: Once one gets the false notion that
original sin isn't the basis of Biblical doctrine, then one has opened
the door to [potential self-reliance (i.e. it's possible for a human
other than Christ NOT to be a sinner), which is ANTICHRISTIAN doctrine.
Ike
It's Christian tradition. Jewish tradition has no notion of original sin
corresponding to that of Christianity.
|
The hell it doesn't.
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of
Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then
she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for
her infirmity shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the flesh of his
foreskin shall be circumcised.
And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and
thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary,
until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.
But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in
her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying
threescore and six days.
And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a
daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and
a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the
tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest: Who shall offer it before
the LORD, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the
issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a
female.
And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two
turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other
for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she
shall be clean.
These are SINS OFFERING and ATONEMENTS for the SINS OF NATURAL CHILDBIRTH,
which GOD CURSED EVE WITH (which means IT WASN'T PART OF THE PLAN AT THE
BEGINNING).
Ike |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Al Smith
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 7:16 pm Post subject: Re: * ARE HOMOSEXUAL ACTS WRONG IF THEY'RE IN LOVE? * |
|
|
| Quote: | Its a bit of a puzzle. God created humans in such a way that a certain
percentage would be homosexual then acts offended when they behave
according to the way he made them.
|
Homicidal maniacs might make the same argument. It won't work for
them, and it doesn't work for homosexuals, either.
-Al- |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Matt .
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 9:17 pm Post subject: Re: @Matt |
|
|
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 11:01:33 -0700, "galia" <galia@somewhere.com>
wrote:
| Quote: |
"Matt ." <trdell1234@nospamgmail.com > wrote in message
news:n37ma41mmif5ctm5l21ok6c6e4t7ildqbe@4ax.com...
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 13:57:26 -0700, "galia" <galia@somewhere.com
wrote:
"Matt ." <trdell1234@nospamgmail.com > wrote in message
news:jm0ma4dg4dhaviivefd31vg6j10iuf1njt@4ax.com...
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:37:54 +0200, " ::: good news runner :::"
veralein@lycos.com> wrote:
In news:5drla4l8mktgf1v2065qftlho5cqpj9ub6@4ax.com,
Matt . <trdell1234@nospamgmail.com > typed:
Well I guess
Correct!
Hi Vera Dearest. Ouch another hanger
Get well, Matt!
Galia Thank you
How did you know I had a slight cold?
Matt
Just imagine, how much I know about you; I also know that you are an idiot!
|
At times maybe. We all have things we are good at.
Matt
Romans 14
1 Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on
disputable matters. 2 One man's faith allows him to eat everything,
but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The man
who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the
man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for
God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to judge someone else's servant?
To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord
is able to make him stand. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Carl
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 9:30 pm Post subject: Re: Saving Faith & Works |
|
|
On Aug 20, 4:13 pm, "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"
<1stCenturyAposto...@Traditionalist.com> wrote:
| Quote: | "Carl" <sai...@nettally.com> wrote in message
news:g8hht1$hmr$1@news.utelfla.com...
Charles Spurgeon, in his sermon presented below,
snipped
examines the Biblical doctrine of salvation by God's Grace through faith
alone in Jesus Christ and not by works of man. It is a Biblically-sound
sermon which should edify the reader.
It isn't as Biblically-sound as you think, for James who really will edify
the reader says.
"21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac
his son upon the altar? 22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and
by works was faith made perfect? 23 And the scripture was fulfilled which
saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness:
and he was called the Friend of God. 24 Ye see then how that by works a man
is justified, and not by faith only." James 2:21-24 (KJV)
|
http://www.ankerberg.org/Articles/roman-catholicism/RC0602W2.htm
Protestants maintain that in context this verse cannot possibly be
teaching what Catholicism says it teaches. First, because it is the
only verse like it, and a hundred other verses declare justification
is by faith and not by works. Protestants thus maintain that a careful
evaluation of James 2 in context will reveal that it is not a denial
of justification by faith alone but a complement to it. It proves that
the faith that justifies, does, in fact, produce good works, although
those works have nothing whatever to do with salvation. Since major
portions of Romans (e.g., Romans 3:23-4:6) and Galatians (chs. 2-3)
clearly teach that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of
the law, the only conclusion that may be arrived at is that
justification must be by faith alone. No other options exist.
The real question James is addressing is the nature of true saving
faith. If a man says he has faith and has no works, how can we know
whether or not his faith is genuine? In other words, James’ point is
that genuine faith will always result in obedience and good works,
even though they had nothing to do with justification. A "faith"
without works is a dead faith, and therefore has no power to save.
---
Ephesians 2:8,9
8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not
from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one
can boast.
Acts 16:29-31
29The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before
Paul and Silas. 30He then brought them out and asked, "Sirs, what must
I do to be saved?"
31They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you
and your household."
The Bible is consistent: salvation is by God's Grace through faith in
Jesus Christ and not by works. The second chapter of James, when taken
IN CONTEXT supports that. What the second chapter of James is actually
teaching in context is that those who have saving faith exhibit such
by their goood works. It is NOT teaching salvation by works but
instead those who are truly saved produce good works.
Charles Spurgeon recognized this Biblical fact which is illustrated in
his sermons.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/ |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Carl
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 9:32 pm Post subject: Saving Faith |
|
|
Ephesians 2:8,9
8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not
from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one
can boast.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/ |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Grabbitz
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 9:35 pm Post subject: Re: * ARE HOMOSEXUAL ACTS WRONG IF THEY'RE IN LOVE? * |
|
|
Al Smith <invalid@address.com> wrote in news:fHVqk.8828$%b7.4036@edtnps82:
| Quote: | Its a bit of a puzzle. God created humans in such a way that a certain
percentage would be homosexual then acts offended when they behave
according to the way he made them.
Homicidal maniacs might make the same argument. It won't work for
them, and it doesn't work for homosexuals, either.
-Al-
|
it doesnt matter how people have sex. if there even was a god, he wouldnt
care either.
the thing is alot of humans are shallow minded, and think that sex rules
everything. There is a hell of alot more out there in this beautiful
universe than sex, trust me.
So anyone to judge another simply by how they have sex is an idiot, and
deserves to be controlled by their relgion. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Grabbitz
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 9:36 pm Post subject: Re: *** Adam and Eve: Who Sinned First? - Chuck Runs From Pr |
|
|
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleberrybooks@msn.com> wrote in
news:g8h6jp$ift$1@registered.motzarella.org:
| Quote: | "cactus" <bm1@nonespam.com> wrote in message
news:TRQpk.21773$N87.1463@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. wrote:
"Leo Sgouros" <hanaram857@archangels.mil> wrote in message
news:g87m8q$tm9$1@registered.motzarella.org...
[snip]
Believing this doctrine, along with stuff like a literal 6 day
creation, is not critical to salvation-hence the reason why I
wonder why people cling to it.
First, I don't believe in a literal six 24-hour day creation.
Second, that is a LONG WAY from the doctrine of original sin, WHICH
IS essential to Judeo-Christian belief: Once one gets the false
notion that original sin isn't the basis of Biblical doctrine, then
one has opened the door to [potential self-reliance (i.e. it's
possible for a human other than Christ NOT to be a sinner), which is
ANTICHRISTIAN doctrine.
Ike
It's Christian tradition. Jewish tradition has no notion of original
sin corresponding to that of Christianity.
The hell it doesn't.
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of
Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child:
then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the
separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. And in the eighth
day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.
And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three
and
thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the
sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.
But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks,
as in
her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying
threescore and six days.
And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or
for a
daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt
offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering,
unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest:
Who shall offer it before the LORD, and make an atonement for her; and
she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for
her that hath born a male or a female.
And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two
turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the
other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for
her, and she shall be clean.
These are SINS OFFERING and ATONEMENTS for the SINS OF NATURAL
CHILDBIRTH, which GOD CURSED EVE WITH (which means IT WASN'T PART OF
THE PLAN AT THE BEGINNING).
Ike
|
who do people care who sinned first, its just a fictional story, lighten
up! |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Diana
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 9:57 pm Post subject: Re: @Matt |
|
|
X-No-Archive: Yes
"galia" <galia@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:g8hbpk$j5c$1@registered.motzarella.org...
| Quote: |
"Matt ." <trdell1234@nospamgmail.com > wrote in message
news:n37ma41mmif5ctm5l21ok6c6e4t7ildqbe@4ax.com...
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 13:57:26 -0700, "galia" <galia@somewhere.com
wrote:
"Matt ." <trdell1234@nospamgmail.com > wrote in message
news:jm0ma4dg4dhaviivefd31vg6j10iuf1njt@4ax.com...
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:37:54 +0200, " ::: good news runner :::"
veralein@lycos.com> wrote:
In news:5drla4l8mktgf1v2065qftlho5cqpj9ub6@4ax.com,
Matt . <trdell1234@nospamgmail.com > typed:
Well I guess
Correct!
Hi Vera Dearest. Ouch another hanger
Get well, Matt!
Galia Thank you
How did you know I had a slight cold?
Matt
Just imagine, how much I know about you; I also know that you are an
idiot!
|
Matthew 5:22 (King James Version)
22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a
cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his
brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say,
Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Diana
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 10:10 pm Post subject: Re: @Matt |
|
|
X-No-Archive: Yes
"Matt" <trdell1234@gmail.com> wrote in message news:g8hj1j$jhp$1@aioe.org...
| Quote: |
"Diana" <shechinah7@reborn.com> wrote in message
news:6h30s6Fi8t1uU2@mid.individual.net...
X-No-Archive: Yes
"galia" <galia@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:g8hbpk$j5c$1@registered.motzarella.org...
"Matt ." <trdell1234@nospamgmail.com > wrote in message
news:n37ma41mmif5ctm5l21ok6c6e4t7ildqbe@4ax.com...
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 13:57:26 -0700, "galia" <galia@somewhere.com
wrote:
"Matt ." <trdell1234@nospamgmail.com > wrote in message
news:jm0ma4dg4dhaviivefd31vg6j10iuf1njt@4ax.com...
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:37:54 +0200, " ::: good news runner :::"
veralein@lycos.com> wrote:
In news:5drla4l8mktgf1v2065qftlho5cqpj9ub6@4ax.com,
Matt . <trdell1234@nospamgmail.com > typed:
Well I guess
Correct!
Hi Vera Dearest. Ouch another hanger
Get well, Matt!
Galia Thank you
How did you know I had a slight cold?
Matt
Just imagine, how much I know about you; I also know that you are an
idiot!
Matthew 5:22 (King James Version)
22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a
cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his
brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall
say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire
Hi Diana
Good Verse. Don't let them get to you. Hope your having a
wonderful day.
God Bless You and your Family
Matt
|
Thanks Matt. They no longer get to me. That stopped four years ago. Won't
happen again. It is their soul that is at risk for what they are saying and
doing. I can pray for them and forgive them. I hope you have a wonderful day
too dear brother. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Scout Lady
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 10:31 pm Post subject: Re: @Matt |
|
|
"john w @yahoo.com>" <j<no> wrote in message
news:9u9ma4trgo7b5khdliinq91dlvsc4asp7o@4ax.com...
| Quote: | x-no-archive: yes
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 21:22:18 -0400, "Scout Lady"
scoutlady@nospam4me.net> wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
"<Kelly>" <316kcbk@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5b67a984-6300-446f-9c25-fe3551a9f46c@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Says you, oh John-god Weatherly, man of the size 7 shoe? (or is it one
is size 7 and the other size 6?)
He added the 6 to the 7 to come up with his claim of wearing a size 13
LOL.
And I haven't had anyone (particularly not FEMALE) talk about my
penis size since ... high school?
No one was talking about your penis size pervert, but since you brought it |
up
Question:
Does size REALLY matter?
For you is it "bigger is better" or "good things come in small packages" Men
and women to answer!
John's answer:
This can get awkward, but I'll go for it. I happen to be what some would
call "bigger than average." Average being 5-6" fully hard. Let's just say
"I'm considerably larger" than "average" and leave it at that. Not to brag.
The reason I bring this up is that of the MANY women I've "known", I've had
few complaints. Several have made comments like, "Oh, my GOD!" My first
wife's initial comment at getting it fully hard was, "Oh, s*! Where the HELL
am I supposed to put THAT!?" Turns out, she was abnormally SMALL in the
matching orifice. (not too narrow, but too SHALLOW) Now normally, a woman's
"receptacle' will adjust. Some don't. If a woman can adjust to the size,
I've had simply too many women say, "if I can get a BIG man, I'll always
choose that over a small man, and any woman who is HONEST will say, "the
bigger the better."
I can only report what I've HEARD, but I have certainly heard from MANY
satisified women, "bigger is most definitely better" as long as it's not
over a foot long.
--------------------------------------------
| Quote: |
As I have said to others, "it gets the job done." And my "size 7
feet " get me where I need to go.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
galia
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 11:01 pm Post subject: Re: @Matt |
|
|
"Matt ." <trdell1234@nospamgmail.com > wrote in message
news:n37ma41mmif5ctm5l21ok6c6e4t7ildqbe@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 13:57:26 -0700, "galia" <galia@somewhere.com
wrote:
"Matt ." <trdell1234@nospamgmail.com > wrote in message
news:jm0ma4dg4dhaviivefd31vg6j10iuf1njt@4ax.com...
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:37:54 +0200, " ::: good news runner :::"
veralein@lycos.com> wrote:
In news:5drla4l8mktgf1v2065qftlho5cqpj9ub6@4ax.com,
Matt . <trdell1234@nospamgmail.com > typed:
Well I guess
Correct!
Hi Vera Dearest. Ouch another hanger
Get well, Matt!
Galia Thank you
How did you know I had a slight cold?
Matt
|
Just imagine, how much I know about you; I also know that you are an idiot! |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Matt
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 11:08 pm Post subject: Re: @Matt |
|
|
"Diana" <shechinah7@reborn.com> wrote in message
news:6h30s6Fi8t1uU2@mid.individual.net...
| Quote: | X-No-Archive: Yes
"galia" <galia@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:g8hbpk$j5c$1@registered.motzarella.org...
"Matt ." <trdell1234@nospamgmail.com > wrote in message
news:n37ma41mmif5ctm5l21ok6c6e4t7ildqbe@4ax.com...
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 13:57:26 -0700, "galia" <galia@somewhere.com
wrote:
"Matt ." <trdell1234@nospamgmail.com > wrote in message
news:jm0ma4dg4dhaviivefd31vg6j10iuf1njt@4ax.com...
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:37:54 +0200, " ::: good news runner :::"
veralein@lycos.com> wrote:
In news:5drla4l8mktgf1v2065qftlho5cqpj9ub6@4ax.com,
Matt . <trdell1234@nospamgmail.com > typed:
Well I guess
Correct!
Hi Vera Dearest. Ouch another hanger
Get well, Matt!
Galia Thank you
How did you know I had a slight cold?
Matt
Just imagine, how much I know about you; I also know that you are an
idiot!
Matthew 5:22 (King James Version)
22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a
cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his
brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say,
Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire
|
Hi Diana
Good Verse. Don't let them get to you. Hope your having a wonderful
day.
God Bless You and your Family
Matt |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
1st Century Apostolic Tra
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:13 am Post subject: Re: Saving Faith & Works |
|
|
"Carl" <saints@nettally.com> wrote in message
news:g8hht1$hmr$1@news.utelfla.com...
| Quote: | Charles Spurgeon, in his sermon presented below,
snipped
examines the Biblical doctrine of salvation by God's Grace through faith
alone in Jesus Christ and not by works of man. It is a Biblically-sound
sermon which should edify the reader.
|
It isn't as Biblically-sound as you think, for James who really will edify
the reader says.
"21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac
his son upon the altar? 22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and
by works was faith made perfect? 23 And the scripture was fulfilled which
saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness:
and he was called the Friend of God. 24 Ye see then how that by works a man
is justified, and not by faith only." James 2:21-24 (KJV) |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
