ISIL issues hit list of U.S. churches for holiday attacks

[weary warrior]

58 minutes ago, wretched said:

This idea about the Kingdom of Heaven referring only to Jews 2000 years into the future is in-explainable, hyper-dispensational cost counting. It is commentary false doctrine and not Scriptural. I realize you did not come up with it but are teaching it just the same. The Kingdom of Heaven and God are used interchangeably across all 4 Gospels. One parable in Matthew says Heaven the same parable in Luke says God. That alone is enough to dismiss this fantasy. But the fact that our Lord preached this firstly to all His present day disciples to be preached by them and so on until the end of the world marks this teaching as false completely.

The Words of Christ are the results of saving faith but mean little to anyone who counts the costs of Scriptural salvation. Please study Luke 14:26-35

The only Gospel is what Christ preached. A false gospel is one that substitutes repentance with a quick prayer followed by constant assurance of salvation because they said the words, then lists of do and don't for christians after being talked into a prayer, then fed a list of what you can keep of the world in your life a what you cannot keep of the world in your life. That gospel (so prevalent in even IFB churches) is not the real Gospel.

Any gospel other than Christ's Gospel is a false Gospel. And there exists only one Gospel message in Scripture. In these last days, other gospels have transformed the true Gospel preached by our Lord and commanded by Him to be preached to all future believers into a false religion of mental ascent and new religious law. These rules never come close to a crucified life in which a believer actually leaves their care for this world behind and follows Him in every aspect of life. This false Gospel not only condones worldly ambition, it encourages gain as Godliness; it encourages natural instincts like self defense, carrying firearms and participation in worldly temporal pass-times, hobbies and sports. None of which have anything whatsoever to do with following Christ or eternal reward.  The desire to move on unto perfection is the fruit of saving faith and the Spirit. It takes growth and learning but the message should always be in the heart of the true believer and they strive the rest of their lives to this perfection. Please prayerfully consider what hell for eternity truly is and if you do you may understand better what Christ's saves us from. Christ's words will make much more sense to you. It should also prove that nothing temporal in this world should be any concern to us

At worst these false teachers are tares/goats and will hear "I never knew you" which is certainly in the context of our Lord's sermon. At best these false teachers will be the least in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

They want fire insurance of course but they count the costs and it is very clear anyone who doesn't desire and strive to surrender all is counting the costs. Doesn't mean we will succeed, even the most sanctified will fail more than succeed, but we will constantly and prayerfully strive to be like HIM. And most importantly, we won't teach others not to be.

This is the saddest statement of all my friend. Do you realize you are calling our Lord a coward? He preached this the loudest and strongest of all. And lived it and then commanded we live it and preach it. The mark of a true coward is one who worries over what others think of them in this life and not what the Lord thinks of them. They are scared to be crucified with Christ. They are scared to be truly different from the world (it is ok with the world to be religious but never ok to be a Disciple of Christ). They are scared to be despised and ridiculed of men for the Kingdom of Heaven's sake. They worry over the world, their self worth, their toys and trinkets, their worldly image to others and reputation, their money and pleasing their wives and children with worldly things, pressing their children to worldly goals and ambitions. Sure they follow the rules given to them after constant reassurance of salvation to attend 3 times a week, read a couple of chapters a day, pray for a few minutes before work and tithe. They love their new cozy religion once they get the rules down pat and are now used to living that way. That is the exact opposite of what Christ preached. In reality it is the condemnation Christ preached against the pharisees. It is little more than a self satisfying, part time religion.

Of course, self defense was only a small part of Christ's preaching and only the tip of the iceberg.

The true believer should want to grow and should want to see that they have no self satisfying future in this life which is but a vapor and our only testing ground for God to see if you truly believe and are not simply a "hearer of the Word" only.

And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection. Oh but they are still in church following religious rules fed to them by wolves.

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.

It is my prayer that all will see the difference between the true Gospel and that typical easy prayerism gospel so prevalent today everywhere including IFB churches.

Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?

The Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God are not the same thing. And yes I did grow up with that doctrine being taught in IFB churches my entire life. And then I studied it out for myself when I became grown. Among the gospels, the Kingdom of heaven is only mentioned in Matthew, and is preached only to Jews. Jesus even commanded his apostles to only preach it to Jews, forbidding them to give their message to gentiles or Samaritans. How does that fit into grace for the whole world? The King had to offer the Jews their physical kingdom on earth with him as King as promised, to fulfill prophesy, but the Jews also had to reject it and crucify that messiah / king in order to usher in the church ages and allow the grafting in of the Gentiles. The preaching of the Kingdom of Heaven was laying down the political platform, the rules and laws for their earthly kingdom, ruled by their promised messiah. But they rejected their king, and thus that kingdom was not ushered in at the time. You have in Matthew 5-8 the rules for the coming millennial reign of Christ, when he will physically sit upon the throne and rule "with a rod of iron". Your entire argument above is ignorant to the extreme, and insulting to the point of laughability. That passage on the KoH is all works. It is impossible for a thinking man to reconcile the KoH with the Kingdom of God. Then Christ went and told the Pharisees in Luke 17:20 that the Kingdom of God "cometh not with observation" but is in the hearts of men. The Kingdom of Heaven is a literal Kingdom that does come with observation, with a literal King sitting on a literal throne, in a literal geographical location, the throne of David. The two are not the same.

I can tell from your post you've never actually studied the scripture for yourself concerning this particular subject. Maybe you read a book, I don't know, but you've never studied out the difference between the two for yourself.

It's not hard. Take a piece of paper and divide it into two columns. Writ KoH at the top of one column and KoG on the other. Take your Bible and a concordance and look up each one every time it appears in scripture. Put the characteristics of each in their respective column. Actually study it out for yourself. The Church did not replace Israel. God did not forget Israel. God did not lie to Abraham or David concerning Israel. They will still get their Kingdom. And that is what was being offered to them in Matthew 5-7.

The arguments throughout the rest of your post regarding the OP's original question have already been answered sufficiently in other posts. There is no need to answer them again.

 

 

[Invicta]

4 hours ago, weary warrior said:

t's not hard. Take a piece of paper and divide it into two columns. Writ KoH at the top of one column and KoG on the other. Take your Bible and a concordance and look up each one every time it appears in scripture. Put the characteristics of each in their respective column. Actually study it out for yourself. The Church did not replace Israel. God did not forget Israel. God did not lie to Abraham or David concerning Israel. They will still get their Kingdom. And that is what was being offered to them in Matthew 5-7.

Been there and done that, and you don't have to go too far to prove that they are one and the same.

Mattt 3:2  And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Matt 4:17  From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Mark 1:14  Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,
Mark 1:15  And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

They can't both be at hand if one is thousands of years ahead.
 

Edited January 17, 2017 by Invicta

[wretched]

2 hours ago, weary warrior said:

The Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God are not the same thing. And yes I did grow up with that doctrine being taught in IFB churches my entire life. And then I studied it out for myself when I became grown. Among the gospels, the Kingdom of heaven is only mentioned in Matthew, and is preached only to Jews. Jesus even commanded his apostles to only preach it to Jews, forbidding them to give their message to gentiles or Samaritans. How does that fit into grace for the whole world? The King had to offer the Jews their physical kingdom on earth with him as King as promised, to fulfill prophesy, but the Jews also had to reject it and crucify that messiah / king in order to usher in the church ages and allow the grafting in of the Gentiles. The preaching of the Kingdom of Heaven was laying down the political platform, the rules and laws for their earthly kingdom, ruled by their promised messiah. But they rejected their king, and thus that kingdom was not ushered in at the time. You have in Matthew 5-8 the rules for the coming millennial reign of Christ, when he will physically sit upon the throne and rule "with a rod of iron". Your entire argument above is ignorant to the extreme, and insulting to the point of laughability. That passage on the KoH is all works. It is impossible for a thinking man to reconcile the KoH with the Kingdom of God. Then Christ went and told the Pharisees in Luke 17:20 that the Kingdom of God "cometh not with observation" but is in the hearts of men. The Kingdom of Heaven is a literal Kingdom that does come with observation, with a literal King sitting on a literal throne, in a literal geographical location, the throne of David. The two are not the same.

I can tell from your post you've never actually studied the scripture for yourself concerning this particular subject. Maybe you read a book, I don't know, but you've never studied out the difference between the two for yourself.

It's not hard. Take a piece of paper and divide it into two columns. Writ KoH at the top of one column and KoG on the other. Take your Bible and a concordance and look up each one every time it appears in scripture. Put the characteristics of each in their respective column. Actually study it out for yourself. The Church did not replace Israel. God did not forget Israel. God did not lie to Abraham or David concerning Israel. They will still get their Kingdom. And that is what was being offered to them in Matthew 5-7.

The arguments throughout the rest of your post regarding the OP's original question have already been answered sufficiently in other posts. There is no need to answer them again.

 

 

The distinction and critical error your preachers have made with this is applying it to the gospels. What distinctions your pro and con list make are unrelated to the Christ's Gospel period  And Matthew is hardly the Gospel to the Jews only. That is ruckmanite doctrine and not Bible. Christ's Gospel is repeated in all 4 Gospels whether Kingdom of Heaven or God. He gives the same commands. Whatever makes your flesh feel good in your religion is the name of your game obviously and your ears are stopped

My intent is you warn you only. What you do with it is your business.

Edited January 17, 2017 by wretched

[Jim_Alaska]

Wretched, why is it that in any subject in question you always assert that the other person has derived their belief from people, preachers, books, or Ruckmanite teaching, never once considering that the other person may have done their own scriptural research and study?

This statement, " Whatever makes your flesh feel good in your religion is the name of your game obviously and your ears are stopped" is an accusation of a brother that is neither called for or appreciated.

[heartstrings]

1 hour ago, wretched said:

The distinction and critical error your preachers have made with this is applying it to the gospels. What distinctions your pro and con list make are unrelated to the Christ's Gospel period  And Matthew is hardly the Gospel to the Jews only. That is ruckmanite doctrine and not Bible. Christ's Gospel is repeated in all 4 Gospels whether Kingdom of Heaven or God. He gives the same commands. Whatever makes your flesh feel good in your religion is the name of your game obviously and your ears are stopped

My intent is you warn you only. What you do with it is your business.

We studied something similar in an IFB Bible college; Matthew was written to Jews, Mark was written to Gentiles/Romans, Luke spoke to the Greeks and John wrote to everyone, or something to that effect. Hence, each gospel has different wording of the same stories but they all agree. BUT, they ALL apply to everyone because we're ALL made out of the same stuff and I think Weary Warrior will agree with that; he/she seems to be a sensible person (Are you a he or a she?)

 

[wretched]

20 minutes ago, heartstrings said:

We studied something similar in an IFB Bible college; Matthew was written to Jews, Mark was written to Gentiles/Romans, Luke spoke to the Greeks and John wrote to everyone, or something to that effect. Hence, each gospel has different wording of the same stories but they all agree. BUT, they ALL apply to everyone because we're ALL made out of the same stuff and I think Weary Warrior will agree with that; he/she seems to be a sensible person (Are you a he or a she?)

 

Argument solved, thanks Brother

A wretched he BTW

[wretched]

1 hour ago, Jim_Alaska said:

Wretched, why is it that in any subject in question you always assert that the other person has derived their belief from people, preachers, books, or Ruckmanite teaching, never once considering that the other person may have done their own scriptural research and study?

This statement, " Whatever makes your flesh feel good in your religion is the name of your game obviously and your ears are stopped" is an accusation of a brother that is neither called for or appreciated.

I am sorry boss; Somehow, I think it would make it harsher that way, but I will stop it now.

[heartstrings]

"......and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

Chambered in 5.56mm NATO.... Legal and widely available to law-abiding American civilians in semi-auto. The full-military version fires both semiauto and 3-shot burst.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_carbine 

Edited January 18, 2017 by heartstrings

[weary warrior]

19 hours ago, heartstrings said:

We studied something similar in an IFB Bible college; Matthew was written to Jews, Mark was written to Gentiles/Romans, Luke spoke to the Greeks and John wrote to everyone, or something to that effect. Hence, each gospel has different wording of the same stories but they all agree. BUT, they ALL apply to everyone because we're ALL made out of the same stuff and I think Weary Warrior will agree with that; he/she seems to be a sensible person (Are you a he or a she?)

 

If I am not a he, I would have to be the ugliest she you've ever seen!   Thank you for you gentle insertion and gracious addition to this unfortunately imploding discussion.

I would agree that there is only one means for salvation for all men, OT or NT, Jew or Gentile. That is salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. And yes, that gospel is preached in all four Gospels. It also is interspersed through Matthew. But I do not agree that the Kingdom of Heaven is just a synonym for salvation. But it doesn't matter, I am no at all bothered by those who see things differently than I, only by those who go on the attack against anything they disagree with.

21 hours ago, wretched said:

The distinction and critical error your preachers have made with this is applying it to the gospels. What distinctions your pro and con list make are unrelated to the Christ's Gospel period  And Matthew is hardly the Gospel to the Jews only. That is ruckmanite doctrine and not Bible. Christ's Gospel is repeated in all 4 Gospels whether Kingdom of Heaven or God. He gives the same commands. Whatever makes your flesh feel good in your religion is the name of your game obviously and your ears are stopped

My intent is you warn you only. What you do with it is your business.

Your intent, as is obvious in all of your posts in all subjects is to be a jerk. I have no works of this Ruckman fella you guys seem to pull out and swing around like a weapon every chance you get, and I don't follow him.

Obviously, from your post, you are uninterested in seriously studying out the differences for yourself. I don't really care. I didn't take you to raise, else I would have spanked you more as a kid for having such a perpetually rude, arrogant attitude. This doctrine is not about the OP, and I apologize for my part in the hi-jacking of it. That was not my intention.

wretched, you need to spend some time on your knees in prayer and tears, developing a little bit of humility and grace. I'll not discuss anything with anyone who is always trying to poke me with a stick. I constantly have to fight and seek help from God over my old cowboy temperament, so I'm like a recovered drunk who stays away from all references to alcohol, I stay away from all people who try to ride me with spurs, 'cuz you jab spurs in me and I buck. And I don't want to buck. So put your spurs away, you and me aint riding no more.

 

[wretched]

10 minutes ago, weary warrior said:

If I am not a he, I would have to be the ugliest she you've ever seen!   Thank you for you gentle insertion and gracious addition to this unfortunately imploding discussion.

I would agree that there is only one means for salvation for all men, OT or NT, Jew or Gentile. That is salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. And yes, that gospel is preached in all four Gospels. It also is interspersed through Matthew. But I do not agree that the Kingdom of Heaven is just a synonym for salvation. But it doesn't matter, I am no at all bothered by those who see things differently than I, only by those who go on the attack against anything they disagree with.

Your intent, as is obvious in all of your posts in all subjects is to be a jerk. I have no works of this Ruckman fella you guys seem to pull out and swing around like a weapon every chance you get, and I don't follow him.

Obviously, from your post, you are uninterested in seriously studying out the differences for yourself. I don't really care. I didn't take you to raise, else I would have spanked you more as a kid for having such a perpetually rude, arrogant attitude. This doctrine is not about the OP, and I apologize for my part in the hi-jacking of it. That was not my intention.

wretched, you need to spend some time on your knees in prayer and tears, developing a little bit of humility and grace. I'll not discuss anything with anyone who is always trying to poke me with a stick. I constantly have to fight and seek help from God over my old cowboy temperament, so I'm like a recovered drunk who stays away from all references to alcohol, I stay away from all people who try to ride me with spurs, 'cuz you jab spurs in me and I buck. And I don't want to buck. So put your spurs away, you and me aint riding no more.

 

I will definitely be praying for you sir

[heartstrings]

 

37 minutes ago, weary warrior said:

If I am not a he, I would have to be the ugliest she you've ever seen!   Thank you for you gentle insertion and gracious addition to this unfortunately imploding discussion.

I would agree that there is only one means for salvation for all men, OT or NT, Jew or Gentile. That is salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. And yes, that gospel is preached in all four Gospels. It also is interspersed through Matthew. But I do not agree that the Kingdom of Heaven is just a synonym for salvation. But it doesn't matter, I am no at all bothered by those who see things differently than I, only by those who go on the attack against anything they disagree with.

Your intent, as is obvious in all of your posts in all subjects is to be a jerk. I have no works of this Ruckman fella you guys seem to pull out and swing around like a weapon every chance you get, and I don't follow him.

Obviously, from your post, you are uninterested in seriously studying out the differences for yourself. I don't really care. I didn't take you to raise, else I would have spanked you more as a kid for having such a perpetually rude, arrogant attitude. This doctrine is not about the OP, and I apologize for my part in the hi-jacking of it. That was not my intention.

wretched, you need to spend some time on your knees in prayer and tears, developing a little bit of humility and grace. I'll not discuss anything with anyone who is always trying to poke me with a stick. I constantly have to fight and seek help from God over my old cowboy temperament, so I'm like a recovered drunk who stays away from all references to alcohol, I stay away from all people who try to ride me with spurs, 'cuz you jab spurs in me and I buck. And I don't want to buck. So put your spurs away, you and me aint riding no more.

 

I'm right there with ya, bro. Re-identifying would definitely be out of the question here, LOL

[swathdiver]

On 1/17/2017 at 9:15 PM, heartstrings said:

"......and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

and... "“If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.” - Romans 12:18

We don't have to be pushovers and we don't have to honor corrupt governments opposed to God.

[heartstrings]

yes

 

[Invicta]

9 hours ago, swathdiver said:

and... "“If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.” - Romans 12:18

We don't have to be pushovers and we don't have to honor corrupt governments opposed to God.

Pray for Caesar.

Did christians fight against the Roman Empire?  Far worse and more corrupt than any govt we are likely to meet.  Pray for Caesar.

 

[Jim_Alaska]

It would seem that the subject matter has changed at this point. The OP was regarding terrorist attacks against U.S. churches. This quickly moved into defense of churches and persons on a personal scale, and whether is was right to defend ourselves, innocent victims and our families against these attacks. Then it morphed again to whether it was right to protect ourselves at all for any reason. Now it has digressed to armed action against government and whether scripture supports it or not.

To me it changed for the worse when it changed to armed action against government. There is a vast difference between defending people against the forces of evil on a personal scale and taking armed action against government.