Jump to content

heartstrings

Members
  • Posts

    6,268
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    140

Everything posted by heartstrings

  1. Deuteronomy 30:19 says..... 19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: So, why did God(same God) give people the option to "choose" life if He already has made the choice for them?
  2. Belief was totally selfish, on my part. I don't see how Calvinists can say our belief is 'taking credit" for salvation; unless they have never really been saved themselves.
  3. Here's another example using the same word for "walking" used in Job 1:7 and 2:2. In the following passage of scripture, all three words; "walking", "standing" and "sitting" are clearly speaking of our "manner of life"; not physical actions. The same word is used in "Enoch walked with God" and "Noah walked with God". Both of these are also speaking of their manner of life; not physically "walking". Just to let you know I wasn't completely making something up. I believe the word "up" is sometimes used metaphorically as well with "up" having positive connotations and "down" being the negative. Perhaps when I get some more time I will study this further. Psalm 1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, Nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is in the law of the LORD; And in his law doth he meditate day and night. And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, That bringeth forth his fruit in his season; His leaf also shall not wither; And whatsoever he doeth shall prosper. The ungodly are not so: But are like the chaff which the wind driveth away. Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, Nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous. For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: But the way of the ungodly shall perish.
  4. Job 2: 2And the LORD said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it. First of all, would God need to ask Satan where he came from? No But would He ask since this needed to be written for us to read? Yes Second- Is Satan primarily concerned with "walking up and down" through the layers of dirt, rock and magma of a physical planet? No. I suspect that this passage, as in most of the Book of Job, is speaking in metaphors. So this is how I interpret it (at this time). The "earth" would be the heart or soul of mankind. "Walking" would be how Satan conducts himself "Up" would represent the appearance of good/morality "Down" would be the revelation of blatant evil "To" would mean Satan is entering someone and "Fro" would mean leaving. So, Satan sometimes influences people via subtle appearances wherein he makes things look right when they're not. Other times, the evil is blatant and obvious. So, I would say that "up" means ascending to a higher place, whether it be physically or morally/spiritually, and "down" would be the opposite. Hence, going "down" into Egypt is not a good thing.
  5. https://www.facebook.com/share/r/REJgiZQFQnnpdAev/?mibextid=4Ouufp
  6. The devil hates and wants to destroy the family. Feminism, Femininization of men, masculinization of women, domination by women, open disrespect and vilification of men by society, abuse of women and children, our education system, government and our judicial system are all part of the many ploys and avenues the devil uses to destroy the family. Destroying God's order at the very basic level, in the home, I think is the most devastating. But he even works in churches; not just by the teaching of the wrong things, but failing to teach some of the right things. (1 Peter 4:17)
  7. No sir, they are also responsible to government. An unborn child has the God-given right to life. (remember our little post about "rights"?) An who did God make the protector of that right? And the punisher of evildoers? Romans 13: 3For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
  8. The Bible does correct/rebuke this type behavior in several places. It's too many modern-day pastors who seem to have trouble following suit.
  9. https://www.facebook.com/reel/1577537373046417 What say you? ,
  10. I would say both. We are to obey Christ and follow his example.
  11. Brother "Behold" that was not the point. The point was to give a Biblical example of a Godly man voicing "rights" to one thing or another. In verses 8-14, shown above, Paul was basically saying that those who preach the gospel have the right to "reap carnal things" aka accepting worldly goods etc.. just like it's "right" to not muzzle the ox which treads the corn. Then I showed how Paul did not exercise that right for the sake of the gospel. Likewise, just because a spouse does not "demand" certain rights within a marriage, does not mean those rights do not still exist and it does not mean it is wrong to make certain "rights" known, as Paul did.
  12. Correct me if I'm wrong but, I think "lordship salvation" would be defined as giving your whole life to Jesus at the time of salvation. In other words "making Him Lord of all" at the moment of faith. Not cleaning up our lives beforehand. No?
  13. Noah would not be considered "perfect" after the flood. He got drunk and then cursed his own grandson for something the poor kid didn't do. I believe he was a flawed sinner saved by grace just like you and me. It's not speaking of being a "perfect" man for sure. But one can be absolutely perfect in God's prescription for procreation by marrying one woman and gendering all of your children solely and exclusively by that one wife. That is exactly what Noah did. We say we believe that the King James Bible was accurately translated into the English language by the providence of God, down to the last detail. Yet we have to go to the Greek or original Hebrew to determine what it really means only to find it doesn't mean the same from one passage to another(only to be determined by having access to Hebrew or Greek)? Here you have one word "generations" and it means different things in different places? Did the folks back in 1611 have access to a Strong's Concordance or anything else in order to determine what the words meant? The word Generation comes from the same root that our word "generator" comes from. It basically means to "produce" something: does that mean "dwelling" or "revolution of time". I guess, if a bunch of guys built a house you could say they "generated" the house. When the Bible says, in Genesis 5 "These are the generations of Adam" it's talking about what Adam "produced". In other words Adam "generated" every single one of the people named in Genesis 5. That's all it means. I can't help what Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek or whatever word the two different instances of "generations" came from; In English "generations" means "generations". And nobody mentioned "sexual activity". All I'm saying is, just like a "generator" produces electricity, the word "generations" means "productions" or "things produced"..Actually, I believe Noah "generated" more than just Shem, Ham and Japheth. If you look at the sentence "these are the generations of Noah" is followed by a colon(:). That means that what follows in the sentence is what those "generations" are. 1. Noah was a just man (how? by trusting God in faith) 2. He was perfect in his generations (already explained) 3. And Noah walked with God (Noah chose to not only trust God, but he chose to walk with God) All 3 of these things were produced in Noah's life. generation noun as in creation, production Compare Synonyms SynonymsAntonyms Strong matches bearing breeding formation genesis origination procreation propagation reproduction Weak matches begetting bringing forth engenderment fructifying multiplying spawning https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/generation
  14. There is such a thing as God giving people "over to a reprobate mind" when they reject God and His love until there is no more hope for them. God indeed loves sinners, but He is never going to force anyone to love Him back. When people rebel so much like many of these people have, trying to proselytize children, I believe they have hardened their own hearts until they have reached a level of wickedness to the point of no return. As to the gay agenda, I believe that "breaking our bands asunder" and "casting our cords away" is what the world in general is actively trying to do as we speak. You can see it plainly in the actions of the Democratic(communist) Party whose ruthlessness is suppressed less and less as time goes on.. They won't stop their agenda until every Christian is in prison or dead.
  15. True, Noah was a son of God too. The difference between he and Methusela and the others was; he was "perfect in his generations" .I believe that refers to the fact that he had one wife and ",generated" all three of his sons only by his one wife. He was not "taking wives of all" aka " marrying and giving in marriage" like the other "sons of God".
  16. Biblical love is in the heart. You either love somebody or hate them before any action takes place. For example, the verse you quoted.....Leviticus 19:17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart:..............Then comes the action...... "thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him." Here's another. When Jesus was talking with the "rich young ruler" He was talking with a lost man, a sinner, a man trusting in his riches and his own righteousness. But the Bible says "Then Jesus beholding him loved him, .............(Then came the action) and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me." That looks to me like God was loving this young lost man in His heart before God took action. So, again. You can call that "emotion" or whatever but Love goes alot deeper than just "doing right by our enemies". Sure, you can do that. You can do good things for people all day long for reasons other than love. But Love is something "in the heart" just like "hate" is. So, if Jesus "loved" the rich young ruler as He "beheld" Him, how many more lost sinners does He love? The point of the post was that Calvinists, like RC Sproul, teach that God hates sinners, and they try to make it sound reasonable.. But this is part of their real agenda; to push their doctrine that God predetermined those he hates to go to Hell for his glory.
  17. https://www.facebook.com/share/v/4ch8cabJ4di6evzY/?mibextid=oFDknk Isn't someone you "hate", an "enemy"? Jesus told us to "love your enemies" that we may be the "children of your Father". So if we obey that, and love our enemies as our Father does His, even WE can be more holy than RC Sproul's false God. Cuz RC Sproul says his god don't live his enemies. I guess he knows better now. But knows too late.
  18. I would also add, for clarification. Though it is the right thing to VOICE ones "rights" as Paul clearly did here in 1 Corinthians 9, it is best not demand them(as I said above) as the rest of that scripture shows.. 15But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void. 16For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel! 17For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me. 18What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel. Even so, we are left with the fact that Paul still had the "right" to "reap carnal things"
  19. 1 corinthians 9: 8Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? 9For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? 10Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. 11If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things? 12If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ. 13Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? 14Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel. What this is basically saying its that, as the ox which treads the corn has a right to eat of the corn, so those "who plow" should expect compensation for their efforts. Likewise, those who preach the gospel have the right to be "partakers" of "carnal things". I've heard this preached on many times by the same men who not infrequently tell the men in the pews that they "have no rights". On the contrary, "Rights" are things ordained by God and god alone. Our "Bill of Rights" for instance outlines things that are just "right" aka things "endowed by the Creator". I've already said, above, that it's not a favorable thing to be "demanding" rights for yourself. Who wants to have to "demand" something that is just "right" when they could simply "plow in hope" for it? If there is a scripture to refute this, I would like to see chapter and verse.
  20. I would say both. Here's an English definition taken from https://www.etymonline.com/ head (n.) Old English heafod "top of the body," also "upper end of a slope," also "chief person, leader, ruler; capital city," from Proto-Germanic *haubid (source also of Old Saxon hobid, Old Norse hofuð, Old Frisian haved, Middle Dutch hovet, Dutch hoofd, Old High German houbit, German Haupt, Gothic haubiþ "head"), from PIE root *kaput- "head." Physically, your "head" is the part which receives all information from the physical world. It takes in sights, sounds, smells etc. processes the information and makes decisions accordingly. It communicates decisions to the rest of the body and to the physical world and controls what the rest of the body does. But the head loves the rest of the body. For example, the head loves that hand so much that if it ever, like, accidentally causes one hand to hit the thumb on the other hand with a hammer, the head is immediately going to experience the pain and go into action to assess the damage. The head, though it made a terrible mistake, still loves and cares for that hand/thumb and immediately begins to nurture that thumb/hand as best it can. So, even though the head is the "leader" and the "boss", it needs the rest of the body to survive, and it treats the rest of it's body with the utmost care and attention. The "hand", though intensely loved and appreciated by the head, is still "in subjection" to the head, goes where the head tells it, and obeys all communication from it. I mean, all parts of the body are just as important, but only one part can be "the head". I don't know...was that a good analogy? Thoughts? Ephesians 5: 20 Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ; 21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. 22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. 25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. 28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
  21. I have long agreed with and enjoyed listening to Brother Rogers. But I still question men's teaching this subject in this way. Where is it found in the Bible that "The problem is primarily with the husband"? Chapter and verse please? Did Paul and Peter teach it this way when addressing the family? How about Ephesians 5? I Peter 3?, Colossians 3, Titus 2? The woman in the above comment says that the husband is not to be the "boss". Well, that's not what the Bible indicates. But a husband shouldn't have to 'assert' his headship/authority because the Bible already says it and the preachers should be preaching it, Instead they have watered it down to calling husbands a "leader". Sounds better that way doesn't it. Many wives/women say "well he's overbearing and unloving". Well, what are they doing about it? Is it right for him to be that way? Is it pleasing to the Lord for him to be that way? Is he obeying the word of God by not being unloving? Certainly not. But they can do something about it. Wives can be the "leader" for awhile until their husband "get's his act together". Actually, they can remain the leader in that respect as the following scripture says. It will not work any other way. 1Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; 2While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. 3Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; 4But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. 5For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: This verse is basically saying that such a man is disobeying the word of God, but the wife can win him by using her power. Power? Yes, power. Proverbs 14:1 says Every wise woman buildeth her house: but the foolish plucketh it down with her hands. That verse shows that a wife has the power/ability to build her house up and make something strong and beautiful. But she also possesses the power/ability to "pluck it down" and destroy it. The Bible teaches that both husband and wife are responsible for their family, both are accountable and it is unbiblical to put the "primary" blame and fault on one gender/spouse or the other. If the wife is being an "odious woman", "foolish" or "brawling woman in a wide house", the husband is still commanded to love her regardless. Same goes for the husband. If he is being unloving, "bitter", and overbearing, the wife is to take up her leadership role by submitting or "being in subjection". to him "in every thing" with the "meek and quiet spirit". The "feminist" world hates this, but we are not supposed to be like the world. let me also say that the world regularly puts the blame on one gender/spouse too. But we are not supposed to preach it that way, no matter what man says so.
  22. "Rights" So, here you have husbands, sitting out in this audience, who are being told that they have the primary responsibility, only token authority, and zero "rights". Not only that, but he just told these mens' wives and kids, sitting on the pews next to them, that Dad has no rights. Don't get me wrong, no one has the "right" to demand "rights" from anyone; I don't guess do they? But what about the things the Bible says are right? What about Mom "being in subjection to her own husband" and "submitting" and the kids obeying their parents(including Dad)? And what about "due benevolence". Is that the right thing to do for Dad? Is that part of the marriage "covenant"? Well, the Bible says it is "due". I don't have time to look up that word but I'm pretty sure it still means "due". Don;t the children have the right to be raised up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord? Don't wives have the right to be loved and honored by their husbands? But does the Bible say that Dad has to bear responsibility without authority and no rights? If it's there I haven't seen it. Like I said already, men have no "right to demand "rights" and neither should we desire to demand them. The World certainly indicates that husbands have no rights and they make it clear every time a man loses his home and his kids in the divorce and is left with nothing but the child support payments. Should the Church be doing the same?
  23. This is one of the comments to the above video. If the above lady has a job, does she tell the supervisor in authority "you're just the "leader" and then decide whether to "follow the leader"? Or does that "leader" regularly give her "commands" which she is supposed to obey? Have you ever heard the saying "responsibility without authority is slavery, and authority without responsibility is tyranny"? For this not to be a total disaster you can't have one without the other. What say you?
  24. This video came up in my FB feed yesterday. https://www.facebook.com/reel/1107674123753609 Thoughts?
  • Member Statistics

    6,094
    Total Members
    2,124
    Most Online
    JennyTressler
    Newest Member
    JennyTressler
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...