You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Latest activity
Filters
Show only:
If we are all sinners (and we are), how can we get into Heaven where there is "no impure thing"?
- Ethics & Morality
- 41 Replies
I didn't know I was focused on other people' sins...I primarily reject the title protestant. I believe in the validity of the mother church. I am "small c" catholic.
I thought the Promised Holy Spirit worked on us like clay, per scripture? Do you know what the actual word Devil translates to?
What does 1 John 1:8 have to say on this topic?
Notice it says (Your), not (Other peoples).... is it possible that God through Paul knew what He was doing when that was written?
hmmm... where did I say that?
And i have my own interpretation of that Lord, Lord psg.. about how not all who say that will enter Heaven.
Upvote
0
I have a problem with Paul and his version of events.
- By JSRG
- General Theology
- 60 Replies
I am a bit confused here. Assuming Jerome's statements here are correct (note that Jerome only says "we have received the following story" as if to indicate he's not fully convinced of it), how is it in contradiction with Paul being from the tribe of Benjamin or that he and his father before him are Pharisees? I don't see how they contradict.I have a problem with Paul and his version of events.
What we know of Saul/Paul, comes from Paul. Christians today accepts his version of events, and make this person of small (Acts 9 commentary) stature (Paulus) a Giant in the religion he has invented, Pauline Christianity we have today. My issue with Paul is his disinformation, according to the ancient authors--Christian, Jewish, and Pagan. According to St. Jerome (347-420), there was a tradition among Christians in the Holy Land that Paul's parents were immigrants to Tarsus from the Judean (Galilean) city of Gischala: “they say that the parents of the apostle Paul were from Gischala, a region of Judea* and that, when the whole province was devastated by the hand of Rome and the Jews scattered throughout the world, they were moved to Tarsus a town of Cilicia; the boy Paul inherited the lot of his parents” **(St. Jerome, Commentary on Philemon, vs. 23-24). Yet, Paul claims that he is from the tribe of Benjamin, and he like his father before him are Pharisees. See Acts 23:6.
Sue for Jero.
*Jerome was first and foremost a religious author. However, geography was not his best subject, he mistook Galilee of the Gentiles/Galilee of the Nations, as being in Judea.
**Translated: by Thomas P. Scheck (2010), St Jerome’s commentaries on Galatians, Titus, and Philemon, pp. 378/9, University of Notre Dame Press, Indiana.
Upvote
0
Giving to the rich brings a curse.
- By HopeSings
- General Theology
- 24 Replies
Your folks are confused. Politics are worldly fears and concerns. It's divided and contention. It's not Jesus.Nevertheless, I don't see any lack of good men in history who were political leaders. It is a necessary calling of God.
God wants order in the state, and would protect the cause of justice and compassion. Military protection is also a godly concern, which is also what political leaders are responsible for.
There is a bad thing when political interests displace interests in the public and in people. I would agree that self-serving politics is an evil.
Upvote
0
Muslim explains why they vote Democrat in America. To make America Muslim.
- General Politics
- 15 Replies
I don't really get this but I do get my EYES. I have read parts of the Koran and it is clear. Kill the infidelThe verses found in the Qur'an that call for the killing of "infidels" have a very specific application. In each and every verse where the killing of unbelievers is mentioned, there are strict conditions prescribed for doing so, and not a single one calls for the killing of unbelievers simply for being unbelievers. Those verses were revealed to specific audiences under specific circumstances that took place over 1,400 years ago. That point in history and those being spoken to have long passed, and the verses commanding that unbelievers be killed are not applicable to Muslims living in 2024.
Thou shalt not kill and all those other Commandments from the Bible, on the other hand, are timeless-- do not depend on the era in which they were first taught or adhered to.
Upvote
0
Do Buddhists, Muslims, and Christians worship the same God?
- By Diamond7
- Exposition & Bible Study
- 8 Replies
Buddhists do not believe in God. There is only one God. The Muslims have a covenant with God through their father Abraham with Hagar the Egyptian maid. Genesis 16 10 “I will greatly multiply your offspring so that they will be too numerous to count.” 11The angel of the LORD proceeded: “Behold, you have conceived and will bear a son. And you shall name him Ishmael, for the LORD has heard your cry of affliction.…Do Buddhists, Muslims, and Christians worship the same God? Do Christians worship the same God?
It seems a little strange here that the "angel of the lord" said "I well". It looks like a translation error because clearly it is God and not the angle that will multiply her offspring.
Upvote
0
Do Buddhists, Muslims, and Christians worship the same God?
- Exposition & Bible Study
- 8 Replies
The words 'El' / 'Elohim' and 'Allah' are all strongly etymologically related. Also e.g. in countries like Indonesia (the largest country of Muslims in the world population-wise) and Malaysia, ALL Christian Bibles also use the word 'Allah' to refer to the God of the Bible, simply because their language has no other word for the concept of God.
Many theological truths in the Qu'ran are simply copied from the Bible, and unfortunately many others twisted as well. However like others have stated the Qu'ran professes Allah to be the one God of Abraham, of the people of Israel, of Joseph, Moses, Jesus (Isa), etc. I do not find difficulty in expressing that is the same God - the depiction/characterisation of that one God however is significantly different.
Actually we would have to choose a methodology first to answer the question, what method/criteria would determine whether two descriptions of a divine entity actually refer to the same divine entity in reality?
Many use the argument that the Allah of the Qu'ran is different from YHWH in the Bible because he is described/attributed differently. But that is not a usable argument because when applied to the TNK/OT and New Covenant/NT books we would no doubt arrive at the conclusion that the God of the TNK/OT is not the same God as the one we find in the New Covenant/NT books ...
Many theological truths in the Qu'ran are simply copied from the Bible, and unfortunately many others twisted as well. However like others have stated the Qu'ran professes Allah to be the one God of Abraham, of the people of Israel, of Joseph, Moses, Jesus (Isa), etc. I do not find difficulty in expressing that is the same God - the depiction/characterisation of that one God however is significantly different.
Actually we would have to choose a methodology first to answer the question, what method/criteria would determine whether two descriptions of a divine entity actually refer to the same divine entity in reality?
Many use the argument that the Allah of the Qu'ran is different from YHWH in the Bible because he is described/attributed differently. But that is not a usable argument because when applied to the TNK/OT and New Covenant/NT books we would no doubt arrive at the conclusion that the God of the TNK/OT is not the same God as the one we find in the New Covenant/NT books ...
Upvote
0
Why believing conspiracy theories corrupts your Christian witness
- By HopeSings
- Conspiracy Theories
- 36 Replies
Christians don't worry about worldly mattersWhen the theory turns out to be truth, .... ? Then believing it is right to do.
But no excuse to be high minded and proud.
If people were not so gullible so often, there would be no forum, no false teachings, no false gospels, no false apostles and false prophets.... right ?
Upvote
0
Why the subconscious is very important and should not be neglected
- By Aaron112
- The Kitchen Sink
- 16 Replies
Trying to serve two gods is double minded. Those people doing that should expect nothing.
"Jesus declared, “No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other” (Matthew 6:24). God and the things of this world are of such opposite natures that it is impossible to love either one completely without hating the other. Those who try to love both will become unstable in all their ways."
from gotquestions.
"Jesus declared, “No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other” (Matthew 6:24). God and the things of this world are of such opposite natures that it is impossible to love either one completely without hating the other. Those who try to love both will become unstable in all their ways."
from gotquestions.
Upvote
0
Healing/blessing Testimonies Unbiblical?
- By timewerx
- Christian Philosophy & Ethics
- 31 Replies
Is that about how their children have learnt more about God, grown in their faith, learnt something of the Bible; or are they saying, "MY child has achieved ...... with God's help, of course."
If it's the latter, I'm not surprised people walk out or look disinterested.
Only if people are taught that healing is something we can earn, or people who are "spiritual" get their prayers answered.
That was the case even in Jesus' day - the Pharisees investigated the healing of man born blind and even asked his parents if he really had been blind.
Sadly today, there are reports of "false healings". Some healers/speakers decide that they need instant, dramatic results to make God look good, and so bend the truth a little.
When I had M.E I was told - by folk on these forums - that God would get more glory if I was healed; that I could do more for God and be a "better witness" to the faith if I was well. It's this underlying attitude of "sickness dishonours God/you need to be healed to be a better witness/God is only glorified by instant, miraculous healing", that is damaging. Some who are sick may even be tempted to play down their symptoms after prayer, or claim that some have gone completely, so they will be more acceptable.
The things you said here only proves many people don't have the anointing to speak to an audience. Many are not meant to share their testimonies and only sending the wrong message.
Even if some of the things they said is the truth, they could have said it with compassion and understanding of other people's struggles in life.
But without the anointing, often these Christians make it sound like it's your fault why you're not getting miracles or your prayers answered even if it wasn't their intention.
They forget about Hebrews 11. That dying poor or in misery doesn't mean a lack of faith or a lack of blessing or lack of God's favor. But rather it is those who keeps fighting the good cause despite reaping nothing but misery and dying in misery who has demonstrated real faith according to Hebrews 11. Many of Christ's disciples endured such fate.
Yet, we don't hear testimonies like that. I've only ever heard one such testimony out of so many. Most testimonies are about how God has enriched their worldly existence.
Upvote
0
President Biden mocks our Catholic faith
- By AlexB23
- OBOB General Politics Forum
- 6 Replies
Amen to that. We must all turn back to God, if we have strayed.Well said. No one is perfect. We are called to turn back to God.
Upvote
0
A glimpse at our Eastern & Western Christian Churches
- By cradleGO
- Christian History
- 49 Replies
The Assyrian Church of the East does not accept the 4th EC - Chalcedon. However it characterizes itself, and the nature(s) of Christ using their terms (there is a language element), the Assyrian Church of the East only needs to affirm its agreement with the work of the 4th EC and all is good.1. The Church of the East is not Oriental Orthodox.
2. They practice semi-open communion (specifically, anyone who believes in the Real Presence can partake of the Eucharist at their liturgies).
3. Rome has granted a blanket authorization for Orthodox and Assyrians to receive sacraments in Catholic parishes, and for Roman Catholics to receive sacraments from them, in both cases this is obviously contingent on the Orthodox or Assyrians agreeing to it. In practice, since the Church of the East will communicate anyone who receives the Eucharist, they are the only Eastern church that will consistently give the Eucharist to Roman Catholics, but I don’t know if Assyrians are allowed by their own church to partake at Catholic churches.
Whatever the rationale of the Roman Catholics is regarding the Assyrian Church of the East, they have allied themselves with non-Chalcedonians.
For me, the problem appears to be that the Church took over 400 years to prepare a concise statement as to the nature of the Godhead. Some at that time did not accept it. Now, it seems that those same folks are saying, 'Yes, we actually agree with Chalcedon, but this is how we say it'. Or. 'it really means the same thing'. All they have to do is affirm the 4th EC. I think that would prime them to be brought into communion with the EO.
Upvote
0
My Worst Challenge
- By dlamberth
- Physical & Life Sciences
- 1 Replies
Searching with Google, as far as death count it looks like the 1931 China flood might have been the worst. It's hard for me to imagine any flood where over 1 million humans died. But there were several. There was no mention of a Noah's flood that I could find. I'm guessing because that story is not history related.What is the worst flood in history?
Upvote
0
“Once again, the State of Florida has a First Amendment problem” - Judge rules teacher can use preferred pronouns at work despite state law
- American Politics
- 5 Replies
I understand that Russian has nearly 260 pronouns. So I can see why ours would seem a bit odd.Does this school teach grammar? If so...I would say they have a compelling interest in requiring the teacher to use "I/me" otherwise it could get extremely confusing and detrimental to the educational outcomes of the children.
Upvote
0
Why the subconscious is very important and should not be neglected
- The Kitchen Sink
- 16 Replies
Thanks for the prayers (that's what that symbol means, but I guess u know that?)but God knows when someone is double minded through no fault of his/her own. I have always struggled to trust God.. trust that He is love, as the Bible and Church teachings tell us.. so I was likely what you'd call double minded. But he understands all things about us. And I doubt he holds us fully accountable for psychological weaknesses that were... you know.. put upon us by bad parenting or other bad experiences. I likely have never trusted God much because I could never trust my family much.
I pray for all posters here... though sometimes I forget. most of my prayers are at night when I can get away from all the craziness.. and then I'm tired so I fall asleep before I've prayed long
Upvote
0
Misconstrued Implement
- By AlexB23
- The Junk Drawer
- 3 Replies
Hey, thank you. I can ask @FreeinChrist to move it for you.You understood this poem, perfectly!
Please, if you would move it there, I would appreciate it, Deeply!
I Love you, Brother in Jesus. This Swordsman is weary… footprints now have to be made.
I love you also, Brother in Jesus Christ.
Upvote
0
Why the subconscious is very important and should not be neglected
- The Kitchen Sink
- 16 Replies
I've read the entire Bible and keep on re-reading it.Just for comparison...../ description of/
www.gotquestions.org/double-minded.html
Perhaps helpful ?
"......
...
If someone struggles with being double-minded, he or she should read, study, and memorize the Word, for it is the Word of God that produces faith (Romans 10:17). And he or she should pray for faith. God freely gives what is good to those who ask Him (Luke 11:9–12), "
I have also been less "double minded" through prayer, esp the rosary
Upvote
0
Imprisoned For Christ (Ephesians 4:1-3)
- By AlexB23
- Christian Scriptures
- 0 Replies
Hello folks. Today is the analysis on Ephesians 4:1-3, a passage which discussed how Christians may become prisoners, for professing their faith.
Date | May 14, 2024 | Prisoners for the Lord |
Verse | Ephesians 4:1-3 (NIV): "As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace." |
Explanation | Ephesians 4:1-3 is a passage from the New Testament book of Ephesians, written by the apostle Paul. This passage is a call for believers in Christ to live a life worthy of their calling, specifically emphasizing humility, gentleness, patience, and unity in the Spirit. The term "prisoner for the Lord" in verse 1 refers to Paul's status as a prisoner because of his faith in Christ and his work in spreading the gospel. Paul often faced persecution and imprisonment for his beliefs, and this verse is an encouragement for believers to persevere in their faith despite any challenges or difficulties they may face, just as Paul did.One example of a Bible figure who was imprisoned for spreading his faith is the apostle Peter. According to the New Testament, Peter was imprisoned in Jerusalem for preaching the gospel and was miraculously released by an angel (Acts 12:1-19). Remember, not all of us will be released from prison by divine mercy, but we will eventually be released into Christ’s arms when we pass away into the eternal life. |
Societal Relevance | In modern society, there are many ways we can help support and advocate for individuals who are imprisoned for their Christian faith in various parts of the world, including Asia, Africa, and the Americas. Some organizations work to provide legal support and advocacy, as well as practical assistance such as food, shelter, and education for prisoners and their families. We can also pray for these individuals, write letters of encouragement, and raise awareness of their situation through social media and other channels. Additionally, supporting organizations that work to promote religious freedom and human rights globally can be a way to make a difference. Some organizations that support imprisoned Christians include the Prison Fellowship Organization, which helps Christians and non-Christian prisoners alike seek the Word, and supports restorative justice. Global Christian Relief is another nonprofit which helps Christians who are persecuted. For instance, Ashbeel Baber Ghouri, a 12th-grade student from the Punjab region of Pakistan was arrested in March 2024 for blasphemy against Islam for stating his Christian beliefs in front of his Muslim friend during a heated debate. The Global Christian Relief program protects folks such as Mr. Ghouri from unfair court trials in places where strict anti-Christian laws are upheld. Please pray for Mr. Ghouri, and all who are persecuted for upholding the Gospel. Source: Christian teenager persecuted in Punjab, charged with blasphemy |
Muslim explains why they vote Democrat in America. To make America Muslim.
- By JosephZ
- General Politics
- 15 Replies
The verses found in the Qur'an that call for the killing of "infidels" have a very specific application. In each and every verse where the killing of unbelievers is mentioned, there are strict conditions prescribed for doing so, and not a single one calls for the killing of unbelievers simply for being unbelievers. Those verses were revealed to specific audiences under specific circumstances that took place over 1,400 years ago. That point in history and those being spoken to have long passed, and the verses commanding that unbelievers be killed are not applicable to Muslims living in 2024.The Koran says to kill the infidels, which is everyone not Muslim!
Upvote
0
We Don't Have Forever - Francis Schaeffer
Francis Schaeffer I believe prophesied here in 1980, because a lot of what he talks about here has now happened to a far greater degree than what he mentions. Having read some of the old school Presbyterians like Horatius Bonar, Thomas Boston, John Flavel, Timothy Cruso, and Ebenezer Erskine, and Francis Schaeffer I did read some back in the 1980s, I get the feel for how the Church is supposed to be, and seen where many have gone, so I think there are more splits now than when Schaeffer preached this....
Those of us who left the old Presbyterian Church USA (the "Northern" Church) 44 years ago made mistakes which marked the movement for years to come. The second principle often was not practiced. In particular we often failed to manifest an observable love for the fellow believers who stayed in that denomination when others of us left.
Things were said which are very difficult to forget even more than 40 years later. The periodicals of those who left tended to spend more time attacking the real Christians who stayed in the old denomination than in dealing with the liberals. Those who came out at times refused to pray with those who had not come out. Many who left totally broke off all forms of fellowship with true brothers in Christ who did not come out.
What was destroyed was Christ's command to love each other. And what was left was often a turning inward, a self-righteousness, a hardness, and, too often, a feeling that withdrawal had made those who came out so right that anything they did could be excused.
Further, having learned these bad habits, they later treated each other badly when the new groups had minor differences among themselves.
We cannot stress both of the principles simultaneously in the flesh. Sometimes we stress purity without love. Or we can stress love without purity. In order to stress both simultaneously we must look moment to moment to the work of Christ and to the work of the Holy Spirit. Without this, a stress on purity becomes hard, proud, and legalistic. Without this, a stress on love becomes compromise. Spirituality begins to have real meaning in our lives as we begin to exhibit (and the emphasis here is on exhibit, not just talk) simultaneously the holiness of God and the love of God. Without our exhibition of both, our marvelous God and Lord is not set forth. Rather, a caricature is set forth and He is dishonored.
We paid a terrible price for what happened in those early days. As some of you now come out of your denominations, please do learn from our mistakes. Each pastor, each congregation must be led by the Holy Spirit. If some disappoint you, do not turn bitter.
One of the joys of my life occurred at the Lausanne Congress (the 1974 International Congress on World Evangelization in Lausanne, Switzerland). Some men from the newly formed Presbyterian Church in America asked me to attend a meeting they and others had called there. When I arrived I found that it was made up of Southern men who had just left the Presbyterian Church US to form the PCA and some Christians who were still in the PCUS. Someone from each side spoke. Both said to me that the meeting was possible because of my voice and especially my little book, The Church Before the Watching World (published by InterVarsity Press). I must say I could have wept, and perhaps I did. It is possible for us to do better than we would naturally do. It is not possible if we ignore the fleshly dangers and fail to look to our living Lord for his strength and grace.
Those of us who left our old denomination in the Thirties had another great problem, as I see it. It was confusion over where to place the basic chasm which marks off who we are. Does that chasm mark us as those who are building Bible-believing churches and that on this side of the chasm we hold the distinctives of being Presbyterian and Reformed? Or is the primary chasm that we are Presbyterian and Reformed and that we are divided from all who are not? The answer makes a great deal of difference.
When we go to a town to start a church, are we going there with the primary motivation to build a church which is loyal to Presbyterians and the Reformed faith, or are we going there to build a church which will preach the Gospel which historic, Bible-believing Christianity holds, and then on this side of that chasm teach that which we believe is true to the Bible in regard to church government and doctrine? The difference makes a difference to our mentality, to our motivation, and to the breadth of our outreach. I must say, to me one view is catholic, biblical and gives good promise of success; the other is introverted and self-limiting, yes, and sectarian. I spoke of a good promise of success. I mean on two levels: First in church growth and a healthy outlook among those we reach; second, in providing leadership in the whole church of Christ.
We alone do not face this problem of putting the chasm at the wrong place, of course. A too zealous mentality on the Lutheran view of the sacraments is the same. A too sectarian mentality in regard to the mode of baptism is another. The zeal of the Plymouth Brethren for an unpaid ministry is often the same. No, it is not just our problem. But it is our problem. To put the chasm in the wrong place is to fail to fulfill our calling, and I am convinced that when we do so we displease our Lord.
Those who remain in the old-line churches have their own set of problems. In contrast to the problem of hardness to which those who withdraw are prone, those who remain are likely to develop a general latitudinarianism. One who accepts ecclesiastical latitudinarianism easily steps into a cooperative latitudinarianism which can become a doctrinal latitudinarianism and especially a letdown on a clear view of Scripture.
This is what happened in certain segments of what I would call the evangelical establishment. Out of the evangelical latitudinarianism of the Thirties and Forties grew the letdown in regard to the Scripture in certain areas of the evangelical structure in the Seventies. Large sections of evangelicalism today put all they can into acting as though it makes no real difference as to whether we hold the historic view of Scripture or the existential view. The existential methodology says that the Bible is authoritative when it teaches "religious'' things but not when it touches that which is historic, scientific, or such things as the male/female relationship.
Not all who have stayed in the liberal denominations have done this, by any means, but it is hard to escape. I don't see how those who have chosen to stay in (no matter what occurs) can escape a latitudinarian mentality which will struggle to paper over the differences on Scripture in order to keep an external veneer of unity. That veneer in fact obscures a real lack of unity on the crucial point of Scripture. And when the doctrinal latitudinarianism sets in we can be sure from all of church history and from observation in our own period of church history that in just a generation or two the line between evangelical and liberal will be lost.
This is already observable in that the liberals largely have shifted to the existential methodology and have expressed great approval that the "moderate evangelicals" have done so. The trend will surely continue. Unless we see the new liberalism with its existential methodology as a whole, and reject it as a whole, we will, to the extent to which we tolerate it, be confused in our thinking. Failure to reject it will also involve us in the general relativism of our day and compromising in our actions.
The second major problem of those who stay in the liberally controlled denominations is the natural tendency to constantly move back the line at which the final stand will be taken. For example, can you imagine Clarence Macartney, Donald Grey Barnhouse or T. Roland Phillips being in a denomination in which the battle line was the ordination of women? Can you imagine these great evangelical preachers of the Twenties and Thirties (who stayed in the Presbyterian Church USA) now being in a denomination which refuses to ordain a young man whose only fault was that while he said he would not preach against the ordination of women yet he would not say he had changed his mind that it was unbiblical? Can you imagine that these leaders of the conservative cause in an earlier era would have considered it a victory to have stalled the ordination of practicing homosexuals and practicing lesbians? What do you think Macartney, Barnhouse, and Phillips would have said about these recent developments? Such a situation in their denomination would never have been in their minds as in the realm of conceivable.
The line does move back. In what presbytery of the Northern Presbyterian Church can you bring an ordained man under biblical discipline for holding false views of doctrine and expect him to be disciplined?
Beware of false victories. Even if a conservative man is elected moderator of the general assembly (as Macartney was in 1924), it would amount to absolutely nothing. Despite the jubilation among conservatives at Macartney's election, the bureaucracy simply rolled on, and not too many years later conservative leader J. Gresham Machen could be unfrocked. Nelson Bell was elected moderator of the Southern Church later (in 1972), and nothing changed. The power centers of the bureaucracy and the liberally-controlled seminaries were unmoved.
There are always those who say, "don't break up our ranks ... wait a while longer ... wait for this ... wait for that." It is always wait. Never act. But 40 years is a long time to wait when things are always and consistently getting worse. And (with my present health problem) I tell you soberly, we do not have forever to take that courageous and costly stand for Christ that we sometimes talk about. We do not have forever for that. We hear many coaxing words, but watch for the power structure to strike out when it is threatened. If the liberals' power is really in danger or if they fear the loss of property, watch out!
What of the future? We live in a day that is fast-moving. The United States is moving at great speed toward totally humanistic orientation in society and state. Do you think this will leave our own little projects, our own church, and our own lives untouched? Don't be silly. The warnings are on every side. When a San Francisco Orthodox Presbyterian congregation can be dragged into court for breaking the law of discrimination because it dismissed an avowed, practicing homosexual as an organist, can we be so blind as to not hear all the warning bells go off? When by a ruling of a federal court the will of Congress can be overturned concerning the limitation on the willful killing of unborn children, should not the warning bells go off as to the kind of pressures ahead of us?
Who supports these things? The liberal denominations do, publicly, formally, and financially. And it puts into a vise those of us who stand for biblical morality, let alone doctrine. Beyond the denominations, it is their councils of churches that support not only these things but also terrorist groups. They give moral support and money. Should we support this by our denominational affiliation? We may seem isolated from the results for a time but that is only because we are too blind to see.
I don't think we have a lot of time. The hour is very late, but I don't think it is too late in this country. This is not a day of retreat and despair. In America it is still possible to turn things around. But we don't have forever.
Two biblical principles must be practiced simultaneously, at each step of the way, if we are to be really Bible-believing Christians. One is the principle of the practice of the purity of the visible church. The other is the principle of an observable love among all true Christians.Francis A. Schaeffer, founder of the L'Abri Fellowship, author of 21 books, and principal in the "How Should We Then Live?" and "Whatever Happened to the Human Race?" film-seminar series, was the featured speaker at the 1980 "Consultation on Presbyterian Alternatives" sponsored by the Presbyterian Church in America. His counsel, excerpted here from the full transcript of his Pittsburgh messages, was heard by participants from several Presbyterian communions.
Those of us who left the old Presbyterian Church USA (the "Northern" Church) 44 years ago made mistakes which marked the movement for years to come. The second principle often was not practiced. In particular we often failed to manifest an observable love for the fellow believers who stayed in that denomination when others of us left.
Things were said which are very difficult to forget even more than 40 years later. The periodicals of those who left tended to spend more time attacking the real Christians who stayed in the old denomination than in dealing with the liberals. Those who came out at times refused to pray with those who had not come out. Many who left totally broke off all forms of fellowship with true brothers in Christ who did not come out.
What was destroyed was Christ's command to love each other. And what was left was often a turning inward, a self-righteousness, a hardness, and, too often, a feeling that withdrawal had made those who came out so right that anything they did could be excused.
Further, having learned these bad habits, they later treated each other badly when the new groups had minor differences among themselves.
We cannot stress both of the principles simultaneously in the flesh. Sometimes we stress purity without love. Or we can stress love without purity. In order to stress both simultaneously we must look moment to moment to the work of Christ and to the work of the Holy Spirit. Without this, a stress on purity becomes hard, proud, and legalistic. Without this, a stress on love becomes compromise. Spirituality begins to have real meaning in our lives as we begin to exhibit (and the emphasis here is on exhibit, not just talk) simultaneously the holiness of God and the love of God. Without our exhibition of both, our marvelous God and Lord is not set forth. Rather, a caricature is set forth and He is dishonored.
We paid a terrible price for what happened in those early days. As some of you now come out of your denominations, please do learn from our mistakes. Each pastor, each congregation must be led by the Holy Spirit. If some disappoint you, do not turn bitter.
One of the joys of my life occurred at the Lausanne Congress (the 1974 International Congress on World Evangelization in Lausanne, Switzerland). Some men from the newly formed Presbyterian Church in America asked me to attend a meeting they and others had called there. When I arrived I found that it was made up of Southern men who had just left the Presbyterian Church US to form the PCA and some Christians who were still in the PCUS. Someone from each side spoke. Both said to me that the meeting was possible because of my voice and especially my little book, The Church Before the Watching World (published by InterVarsity Press). I must say I could have wept, and perhaps I did. It is possible for us to do better than we would naturally do. It is not possible if we ignore the fleshly dangers and fail to look to our living Lord for his strength and grace.
Those of us who left our old denomination in the Thirties had another great problem, as I see it. It was confusion over where to place the basic chasm which marks off who we are. Does that chasm mark us as those who are building Bible-believing churches and that on this side of the chasm we hold the distinctives of being Presbyterian and Reformed? Or is the primary chasm that we are Presbyterian and Reformed and that we are divided from all who are not? The answer makes a great deal of difference.
When we go to a town to start a church, are we going there with the primary motivation to build a church which is loyal to Presbyterians and the Reformed faith, or are we going there to build a church which will preach the Gospel which historic, Bible-believing Christianity holds, and then on this side of that chasm teach that which we believe is true to the Bible in regard to church government and doctrine? The difference makes a difference to our mentality, to our motivation, and to the breadth of our outreach. I must say, to me one view is catholic, biblical and gives good promise of success; the other is introverted and self-limiting, yes, and sectarian. I spoke of a good promise of success. I mean on two levels: First in church growth and a healthy outlook among those we reach; second, in providing leadership in the whole church of Christ.
We alone do not face this problem of putting the chasm at the wrong place, of course. A too zealous mentality on the Lutheran view of the sacraments is the same. A too sectarian mentality in regard to the mode of baptism is another. The zeal of the Plymouth Brethren for an unpaid ministry is often the same. No, it is not just our problem. But it is our problem. To put the chasm in the wrong place is to fail to fulfill our calling, and I am convinced that when we do so we displease our Lord.
Those who remain in the old-line churches have their own set of problems. In contrast to the problem of hardness to which those who withdraw are prone, those who remain are likely to develop a general latitudinarianism. One who accepts ecclesiastical latitudinarianism easily steps into a cooperative latitudinarianism which can become a doctrinal latitudinarianism and especially a letdown on a clear view of Scripture.
This is what happened in certain segments of what I would call the evangelical establishment. Out of the evangelical latitudinarianism of the Thirties and Forties grew the letdown in regard to the Scripture in certain areas of the evangelical structure in the Seventies. Large sections of evangelicalism today put all they can into acting as though it makes no real difference as to whether we hold the historic view of Scripture or the existential view. The existential methodology says that the Bible is authoritative when it teaches "religious'' things but not when it touches that which is historic, scientific, or such things as the male/female relationship.
Not all who have stayed in the liberal denominations have done this, by any means, but it is hard to escape. I don't see how those who have chosen to stay in (no matter what occurs) can escape a latitudinarian mentality which will struggle to paper over the differences on Scripture in order to keep an external veneer of unity. That veneer in fact obscures a real lack of unity on the crucial point of Scripture. And when the doctrinal latitudinarianism sets in we can be sure from all of church history and from observation in our own period of church history that in just a generation or two the line between evangelical and liberal will be lost.
This is already observable in that the liberals largely have shifted to the existential methodology and have expressed great approval that the "moderate evangelicals" have done so. The trend will surely continue. Unless we see the new liberalism with its existential methodology as a whole, and reject it as a whole, we will, to the extent to which we tolerate it, be confused in our thinking. Failure to reject it will also involve us in the general relativism of our day and compromising in our actions.
The second major problem of those who stay in the liberally controlled denominations is the natural tendency to constantly move back the line at which the final stand will be taken. For example, can you imagine Clarence Macartney, Donald Grey Barnhouse or T. Roland Phillips being in a denomination in which the battle line was the ordination of women? Can you imagine these great evangelical preachers of the Twenties and Thirties (who stayed in the Presbyterian Church USA) now being in a denomination which refuses to ordain a young man whose only fault was that while he said he would not preach against the ordination of women yet he would not say he had changed his mind that it was unbiblical? Can you imagine that these leaders of the conservative cause in an earlier era would have considered it a victory to have stalled the ordination of practicing homosexuals and practicing lesbians? What do you think Macartney, Barnhouse, and Phillips would have said about these recent developments? Such a situation in their denomination would never have been in their minds as in the realm of conceivable.
The line does move back. In what presbytery of the Northern Presbyterian Church can you bring an ordained man under biblical discipline for holding false views of doctrine and expect him to be disciplined?
Beware of false victories. Even if a conservative man is elected moderator of the general assembly (as Macartney was in 1924), it would amount to absolutely nothing. Despite the jubilation among conservatives at Macartney's election, the bureaucracy simply rolled on, and not too many years later conservative leader J. Gresham Machen could be unfrocked. Nelson Bell was elected moderator of the Southern Church later (in 1972), and nothing changed. The power centers of the bureaucracy and the liberally-controlled seminaries were unmoved.
There are always those who say, "don't break up our ranks ... wait a while longer ... wait for this ... wait for that." It is always wait. Never act. But 40 years is a long time to wait when things are always and consistently getting worse. And (with my present health problem) I tell you soberly, we do not have forever to take that courageous and costly stand for Christ that we sometimes talk about. We do not have forever for that. We hear many coaxing words, but watch for the power structure to strike out when it is threatened. If the liberals' power is really in danger or if they fear the loss of property, watch out!
What of the future? We live in a day that is fast-moving. The United States is moving at great speed toward totally humanistic orientation in society and state. Do you think this will leave our own little projects, our own church, and our own lives untouched? Don't be silly. The warnings are on every side. When a San Francisco Orthodox Presbyterian congregation can be dragged into court for breaking the law of discrimination because it dismissed an avowed, practicing homosexual as an organist, can we be so blind as to not hear all the warning bells go off? When by a ruling of a federal court the will of Congress can be overturned concerning the limitation on the willful killing of unborn children, should not the warning bells go off as to the kind of pressures ahead of us?
Who supports these things? The liberal denominations do, publicly, formally, and financially. And it puts into a vise those of us who stand for biblical morality, let alone doctrine. Beyond the denominations, it is their councils of churches that support not only these things but also terrorist groups. They give moral support and money. Should we support this by our denominational affiliation? We may seem isolated from the results for a time but that is only because we are too blind to see.
I don't think we have a lot of time. The hour is very late, but I don't think it is too late in this country. This is not a day of retreat and despair. In America it is still possible to turn things around. But we don't have forever.
Family Fun At The Biden's
- By Chesterton
- News & Current Events (Articles Required)
- 10 Replies
It was abandoned in a house she formerly lived in.
Upvote
0
Would you vote for a person who believes or does these things?
- General Politics
- 124 Replies
yeh, I always wondered about the total here, 81 plus 74 million because that looks like way more than registered voters.. That is about half the population of the US but as we all know, a huge part of the US population is not old enough to vote and then there are the people who don't bother voting... doesn't add upYou're correct. If Biden got 81 million, his opponent should have been significantly less
Upvote
0
Learning how to love, not cancelling ourselves from loving the way Jesus desires . . .
- By com7fy8
- Spiritual Formation & Disciplines
- 7 Replies
Ones of us have been very busy with criticizing racism and gay stuff and abortion. But what about beauty discrimination?
For a long time, in the United States, people have loved and favored more the women who are more beautiful. And there have been people who have felt unloved and less acceptable because of this.
Plus, by the way, don't people fear older age because of how they will look less beautiful? Why would anyone fear looking older? Possibly, because certain culture has taught people that you can become less loved and be less desirable when you look less beautiful in your older age. And so, also, younger ones might dread spending time with older people, because they have learned to fear seeing what they could look like when they get older. And who perhaps has taught this to younger ones? May be, older people talking critically about what they look like . . . instead of being role models of how you can become more mature and wise and encouraging in your older years.
And do not let this world's love-cancelling culture shame you for looking older or less beautiful than others!!
"rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God." (1 Peter 3:4)
I even bullied the girls who were less popular because of not being cute like other girls. Beauty discrimination helped to feed and enable my willingness to bully instead of loving any and all people; but the real fault was with my own evil character making me so ready to receive an excuse to enjoy hurting other people.
And most people would not stand up for the ones less socially accepted.
So - - this anti-love problem has been going on at least since I was in elementary school during the 1950's. This problem has been **hiding in plain sight**, even being promoted in the form of beauty pageants, possibly.
And I see the degradation, of men who are hung up on beauty, so they do not know how the evaluate and love a person in a close relstionship: because we men can be so **vain** about how cute and beautiful a woman looks.
There are men who can be so upset about the racial discrimination that is coming against them; and yet at the same time they can live in beauty discrimination, hunting down and using and abusing the women they consider to be more attractive, and not caring about less beautiful women.
Even during college I was a horrible person. I could get disgusted, even, against certain women because of what they looked like. I did not know how to love - - right while I was so busy trying to make sure I did not sin in some way that could keep me out of Heaven.
But in my sort of Catholic practice, such beauty discrimination did not get obvious attention > I never felt effectively warned of how it could cancel me from finding out how to love, and help keep me from Jesus for eternity.
Of course, it is possible that my own evil nature kept me from realizing how wrong I was, right while certain people could have said things and I just ignored them.
But Jesus has us loving any and all people. And in case people discriminate against us because of what we look like, God has us forgive ones who do not know how to love us, and be encouraged to pray for them and be their example so they can find out how to love . . . after they first trust in Jesus who can give us real and deep correction.
For a long time, in the United States, people have loved and favored more the women who are more beautiful. And there have been people who have felt unloved and less acceptable because of this.
Plus, by the way, don't people fear older age because of how they will look less beautiful? Why would anyone fear looking older? Possibly, because certain culture has taught people that you can become less loved and be less desirable when you look less beautiful in your older age. And so, also, younger ones might dread spending time with older people, because they have learned to fear seeing what they could look like when they get older. And who perhaps has taught this to younger ones? May be, older people talking critically about what they look like . . . instead of being role models of how you can become more mature and wise and encouraging in your older years.
And do not let this world's love-cancelling culture shame you for looking older or less beautiful than others!!
"rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God." (1 Peter 3:4)
I even bullied the girls who were less popular because of not being cute like other girls. Beauty discrimination helped to feed and enable my willingness to bully instead of loving any and all people; but the real fault was with my own evil character making me so ready to receive an excuse to enjoy hurting other people.
And most people would not stand up for the ones less socially accepted.
So - - this anti-love problem has been going on at least since I was in elementary school during the 1950's. This problem has been **hiding in plain sight**, even being promoted in the form of beauty pageants, possibly.
And I see the degradation, of men who are hung up on beauty, so they do not know how the evaluate and love a person in a close relstionship: because we men can be so **vain** about how cute and beautiful a woman looks.
There are men who can be so upset about the racial discrimination that is coming against them; and yet at the same time they can live in beauty discrimination, hunting down and using and abusing the women they consider to be more attractive, and not caring about less beautiful women.
Even during college I was a horrible person. I could get disgusted, even, against certain women because of what they looked like. I did not know how to love - - right while I was so busy trying to make sure I did not sin in some way that could keep me out of Heaven.
But in my sort of Catholic practice, such beauty discrimination did not get obvious attention > I never felt effectively warned of how it could cancel me from finding out how to love, and help keep me from Jesus for eternity.
Of course, it is possible that my own evil nature kept me from realizing how wrong I was, right while certain people could have said things and I just ignored them.
But Jesus has us loving any and all people. And in case people discriminate against us because of what we look like, God has us forgive ones who do not know how to love us, and be encouraged to pray for them and be their example so they can find out how to love . . . after they first trust in Jesus who can give us real and deep correction.
Upvote
0
Why the subconscious is very important and should not be neglected
- By Aaron112
- The Kitchen Sink
- 16 Replies
p.s. there is almost always a cycle of deception/ deceivers/ false or wrong ideas
in our upbringing and lives, even in church.
As the Truth fills us, and what is wrong is driven out or renounced or given up,
there are good results.
in our upbringing and lives, even in church.
As the Truth fills us, and what is wrong is driven out or renounced or given up,
there are good results.
Upvote
0
Trump Touts Key Endorsement from Hannibal Lecter in Iowa Speeches (In NJ: "A wonderful man")
- American Politics
- 48 Replies
Workin' ONE TO ONEOne to One.
Not a way to make a livin'
Upvote
0
Load more
