heartstrings

The Holy Spirit convicts with Sin, Righteousness and Judgement. So you must acknowledge that you are a wicked sinner, bound for Hell, and deserve it, and turn to Jesus for salvation accepting His finished work on Calvary. That is all done in the heart, and every bit of it is by faith. You are, in essence, turning to Jesus, in faith, from sin and self. But "repentance' is, and should be, an ongoing occurrence or process in the Christian life.

Money is made and value is created by production of goods. The stock market produces nothing, politicians produce nothing. The IRS produces nothing. It has to pay thousands of employees, and millions (or billions) for administration infrastructure, and it's all dead weight and waste. Every year, citizens, workers, and business people; producers of goods, must waste countless hours and spend millions of dollars filing tax returns. My Wife does our taxes, since we own and operate 3 businesses, and it takes her several days to do it. That is lost production for our businesses and wasted time out of our lives. It's not only lost production for every worker and business owner, but it's a huge loss in "gross national product" for the nation as a whole. It's totally senseless waste of time and resources. Yes, please, a flat tax would be good for the whole country.

The problem is "truth" with no "spirit" and "spirit" with no "truth". When the Holy Spirit deals with a person's heart, He deals with their sin, God's righteousness, and their judgement. In other words, you're a wicked sinner, on your way to Hell, and you deserve it, But God is holy and righteous and, having the highest, most unfathomable love that exists, God loves you and does not want you to go to Hell. But by feeding people a steady diet of "God hates you" without showing that He LOVES you and that he demonstrated that love by sending His only begotten son to die for you, you are putting out what you claim is "truth". But "truth" without "spirit"(including the love of God) is not truth at all. Neither is teaching "love" without telling people they are rotten sinners deserving of Hell. You have to proclaim the whole message; sin, righteousness and judgment or your "gospel" becomes "another gospel". In short, while you're still breathing, there is hope because of God's grace. God commands us to even "love your enemies" so that we can "be like Him". That's a tall order. And God would not tell you to do something which is more noble and righteous than He would do Himself.

I cannot say what attitude I would have if someone did something such as hurt one of my family. It would be difficult to be Christlike for sure and I hope I never have to find out. But then, we are not Christ either. He does tell us to "love our enemies" so that we will "be like our Father". Again, that also confirms to me that God loves sinners, which are, in effect, His enemies.

I keep seeing calvinists, in my Facebook feed, pushing the idea that "God hates the sinner". So I would put forth another example of God LOVING the sinner. Would you agree that the "rich young ruler" went away lost? If so, then we could agree that he was still a sinner because, of course, not one person who ever lived has kept "all the commandments" except the Lord Jesus. So here we see, in Mark chapter 10, God loving a lost sinner, just as lost as any other sinner. It's as plain as day. Mark 10 17And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? 18And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. 19Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother. 20And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth. 21Then Jesus beholding him loved him, 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. 22And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions. 23And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! 24And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God! 25It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. 26And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved? 27And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.

I cannot do this passage of scripture justice in this thread, nor in the time I have today, but I would point out a few observations about the husband's role in Proverbs 31. #1 He found a good wife. 10 Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies. #2 He trusts his wife implicitly and for everything. 11The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil. #3 He gives her the full freedom to purchase and own property and start a business. 16She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard. #4 He's an important man in the community and participates in civic duties. 23 Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land. #5 Again he gives her the freedom to be an entrepreneur, 24She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant. #6 He loves and appreciates his wife and compliments her frequently. 28Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her. #7 Bonus, because of the happy home life, fostered by both Mom and Dad, the kids Love and appreciate Mom as well. This passage shows what a home life can be, when both Mom and Dad love, honor and appreciate each other. It causes them to build one another up instead of living with stress and turmoil in the home. It brings love, honour and prosperity. The Virtuous Woman, in the passage, is quite well off financially, and even has servants. Dad is happy, Mom is happy, the kids are happy. But if our spouse were to falter in their particular role, that is no time to quit doing our part. Dad is to continue loving or Mom is to continue loving until everything gets back on track again.

I've heard a pastor say, on more than one occasion. "Nowhere in the Bible does it say that a woman is to love her husband" which was right in the middle of one of these "it's all the man's fault for not leading" sermons. No, it does not directly tell women to love their husbands, that part is true; it tells husbands "love your wives" in more than one passage. . Does that mean that God does not want women to love their husbands then? No. Titus2 1But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine: 2That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience. 3The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; 4That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands(mentioned first), to love their children(mentioned second), 5To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed. I would say that at least 99% of young mothers would say and demonstrate that they "love their children". Many if not most would say "I put my children first". Well, if that young woman is still married, therein lies a devastating problem. Titus 2 verse 4 says that young women must be taught by 'aged women" to love their husbands, to love their children. Why would a young woman who already loves her children need to be taught to do so? If young wives don't love their husbands first it makes for a less than happy environment for the children, and they suffer because of it. There are some things young ladies need to know that only older women have the qualification and the life experience to teach and some things which would not be received well if taught by any man; even a preacher, or a husband so, the Word of God, in all it's wisdom prescribes Godly "aged women" for this responsibility. A Godly woman can teach young women how to truly love hubby and the kids and how to avoid "tearing their homes down with their hands". So, older ladies can either teach "Feminism 101" or how to have a happy home like the lady in Proverbs 31. There again, this is another example of "leadership".

You know, we live in a rural area too. I always went to work, worked 2 jobs and built a house on the side while my Wife was a stay at home Mom. She homeschooled our children. But you wouldn't believe the talk and the peer pressure that came even from other members of our IFB church whose wives worked and believed kids should go to public school. They believed that our kids wouldn't know how to get along socially and these busybodies didn't keep those beliefs to themselves either. I could relate other things they did to undermine me in raising my kids but I won't. But I can say, despite the homeschooling, all three of our kids have good jobs, none of them are socially inept and have way more friends than I could count.

And about cases of abuse. The Bible only gives one exception for leaving one's spouse and that is "fornication". So I've often wondered if physical abuse falls under that category. As it is, I don't have any experience with that. I did hit my sister one time, when I was about 6 years old. And when my Dad got done with me, I never hit a girl again. I never knew my Dad or any of my grandfathers to strike a woman either. I did know of one man, in my former church, who struck his wife, but he didn't attend our church for very long.; and they're still together; go figure.. I know of a friend of my wife's whose father beat her mother repeatedly and the mother stayed with him until it got so bad, she had to leave. He even shot at her with a gun on a couple occasions. So, even without a Bible verse to back it up, I would say, yes, get out, press charges. An idiot like that needs to be in prison.

Thank you Salyan, One of my points, as much as I can relate it, is that both spouses need reproof and encouragement. Both Paul and Peter offered these to both spouses in the same writings. consecutively and that is the way it should be done. Likewise, a pastor/preacher should never upbraid the ladies in a sermon without giving the men their equal turn and visa versa. The same is true for encouragement. And Mother's Day or Father's Day shouldn't be the day to rebuke and correct; there are 50 other Sundays out of the year to do that. The same could be said for "leading" someone who won't "submit". But again I would point out 1 Peter 3:1If we say "they won't do their part so I won't do mine", nothing can go forward and it only makes things worse. In 1 Peter 3:1 the wife is actually "leading" by submitting to her failing-to-lead-husband and living Godly before him because it says "if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;" Likewise, the husband is admonished, about 7 verses down, to do his part too. The best example I know of how it should work, in the Word of God, is in Proverbs 31. Read through it and you can see that each member of the family is prosperous, content, and each builds the others up. The husband is a respected man in the community, all his needs are met by his wife, the kids are so happy that they "praise" their mother and so does the husband. Is she a "virtuous woman" because her husband constantly shows his love and appreciation for her? Or is he a prosperous man because of how she honors him? Who knows? But the fact is, in the Proverbs 31 example, the members of the family build each other up instead of selfishly tearing one another down. If one stumbles and falls for a bit, the rest are still doing their part to help get it back on track.

I'm sure. This man has endured more push-back from the communist, totalitarians, LGBT's, the murdering baby killers than any politician I've ever seen. They have tried every dirty trick they can dream up to keep him from being president. It's because he loves and appreciates our country and way of life which is contrary to the desires of our enemies who want to destroy it. Yet some Christians expect him to be perfect. He's not going to be perfect. I wish he was. I wish I was. Even fine men in the Bible weren't perfect. Moses got angry. Noah got drunk and cursed his own grandson. Abraham took another wife. Jacob was a cheater. Solomon was basically an idolater and adulterer. David was an adulterer and murderer. Saul was an unsavory character as well. Yet all these men were believers.. No president we put in there is going to be a saint. So, Trump still isn't my first choice and I think we could have better., But he's a far better choice than what we have now. Yes, I would vote for him if he's the best choice we have. Or I may vote for DeSantis if he is running and nominated. But, in this case, if you "vote your conscience" for an underdog who has no chance of winning, you waste your vote. Just my opinion.

I'm sure they do see it that way. And what if there isn't something to follow? The answer is in the following verse. 1 Peter 3:1 KJV Likewise, 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; while they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. This also is leadership Titus 2 3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, Evidently younger women need to be taught to "love their husbands and children" and they have to be taught it by "aged women" regardless of what a male "leader" does, else Titus 2:3 wouldn't be in the Bible. A family needs a father to lead in his role and a mother to lead in hers. It's plain in the word of God. But if both aren't doing their part, the whole family suffers. If one is waiting for the other to "lead" before they will follow, nothing good can happen. So, like I said above, both men and ladies need teaching on these matters because both need to be "leaders". Paul taught it that way, Peter did too, why don't we?

Ben Shapiro just posted a topic in my Facebook feed about people wanting to stay single instead of marrying etc. and, as I was reading some of the responses, came across this one.... [quote]Men stopped being leaders and naturally women took over. I do know several beautiful Godly single women. I’m not so sure a lot of men are looking for them, they look on the outside. So sad [/quote] Actually, no; we've all stopped being "leaders". And women "taking over" is the opposite of the way the Word of God tells us women should "lead". 1 Peter 3:1-7 says that wives should "lead" by living Godly and by being in "subjection" to their husbands so that hubby can see the Godly "conversation" and either get saved, or be inspired to do better if he's already saved.. What I see as "leading" is to follow God, in God's order of "leadership". I hear men say "I'll have to talk to the "Boss" about that". Well, there's the problem. Sure, talk it over with the wife, that's good. But who has the final say in your family? We have too many men practicing the "subjection" in the first verse and if we try to "assert" any authority, that's considered a form of "toxic masculinity". So, how are we expected to "lead"? What does that even mean? And if you DO try to "lead" you are going to fall short on something at some point; it's inevitable. Even "leader" husbands are human. So how's this thing supposed to work? I'll give an example of what's NOT working. My son's wife just gave him an angry dressing down in front of the children. He evidently didn't take that too well, so she either she kicked him out of the house, or he left.(I don't have the whole story because I try not to pry into their business). I just know they're now separated and my grandchildren are caught in the middle. I must say I have seen how angry she can get so, it must have been bad either way. When are pastors going to stop telling young men to "lead" their families while failing to admonish womenfolk about their part? Huh? I've heard 2 different pastors say on multiple occasions "I get onto the men on Father's Day but am nice to the ladies on Mother's Day".(paraphrased) Why is that brother? And I see their church members getting divorces. One just recently divorced and already has her another "feller".

Just one more reason I don't believe the Lord Jesus made the water into alcoholic wine... Habakkuk 2:15 Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour drink, that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken also, that thou mayest look on their nakedness!

If you look at some of the punishments God prescribed for various sins, in the OT, I would conclude that the ones to be punished by "stoning" etc. would be the "bigger" sins. But as far as being worthy of ultimate death and separation from God, all sins would qualify.

The SBC has it's liberals and even heresy infecting their circles, such as Calvinism, just like IFB churches do. Calvinism is very heretical if you ask me and I can't, for the life of me, comprehend why either a SBC church or IFB one would associate with such who teach it. But just like IFB churches can choose not to affiliate or associate with certain churches with teach false doctrine(and many do have networks of churches they associate with), the SBC can do things like "kicking out" churches with women "preachers". And an SBC affiliated church can leave the SBC any time it wants to. An example, by contrast, I know of a little country Methodist church we used to visit in our area (to play music) which recently pulled out of the United Methodist organization; the organization took their church building, bank accounts and all other assets. I know of an Assembly of God church which went through basically the same thing. But I'd be willing to bet my pastor would pull out of the SBC if they condoned women preachers, homosexual preachers, or any other junk like that, and we wouldn't lose our church assets for doing it. How is that not actually independent?

What about the "brawling woman"? It is better to dwell in a corner of the housetop, than with a brawling woman in a wide house. Proverbs 21:9 Seriously, someone can be far from being the "virtuous woman" and at the same time not be a "strange woman" at all; just exceedingly hard to live with.

"you" Again, the word "you" is plural in the King James. It is speaking to a group, not individuals. And He's telling them/us HOW He chose us to be saved.... "through sanctification of the spirit and belief of the truth". Who has to "believe the truth"? We do. "Ordained" Does it say specifically that God ordained these men? No. There's more to the word "ordained" than most people seem to realize. It originally didn't have the specialized meaning of being appointed by some authority. It is possible and very common to "ordain" oneself to one thing or another. In this context these "ungodly men" set, ordered, arranged or established their lives toward evil things and condemnation. Whether we "beleive the truth" or "deny the Lord" and "ordain ourselves to lasciviousness", we decide the way we choose to go: God controls the consequences of our choices. God chose for it to be this way.

Neither Romans 9, nor any other passage in the Bible speaks of God drawing or choosing individuals for salvation. Not only that, but the terms "election" and "predestination" are always used with plural pronouns (for instance, the word "You" is a plural pronoun in the King James) God chose that His people would be "elect" and he chose that His people would be "predestinated" to be conformed to the image of Christ. Jesus said: And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will "draw" ALL men unto me." John 12:32. And He says that He is not willing that any should perish but that ALL should come to repentence. Again, God's will is to draw all men and to bring them all to repentence: He does not choose individuals for salvation.

IF there are no men present, in any meeting, then yes a woman, an "aged woman"(mature) should teach and certainly moderate. But in a church, under no circumstances are women given any Biblical authority to teach or preach to men. We don't have lady song leaders at our church and, I believe, because of authority or "leadership" concerns, that's the way it should be......and I'm not against women; I'm happily married to one.

Excellent! This guy does a good jobat that too.

The closest meaning I have been able to ascertain, as to the meaning of the word "repent", as used in the KJ Bible, is to "turn from" or "turn against". Be that as it may I would ask a few questions concerning this verse: Genesis 6:6 ¶ And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. So i have to ask some questions: Didn't God already know ahead of time that man would sin? The answer would be "yes". So why would He need to "repent" because He had made man if He already knew the outcome of creating him? He didn't need to "repent". So what does the word "repenteth" refer to here? Notice it never says that GOD "repented"; it says "it repenteth me". So the only conclusion I can derive from reading this is that it means that God's creation had "turned from" or "turned against" Him. Which begs the question again: Didn't He already know all this sin, evil, violence, pain and destruction before the flood was going to happen when it "grieved Him at His heart"? We all should know the answer is yes. So, was God changing His mind or "regretting" that He had made man? No. In this particular verse, God was not "repenting" aka "turning from" or "turning against" His decision to create mankind. He had made the right decision from the beginning and already knew the ultimate outcome. However, in passages like Book of Jonah, where it says that God "repented of the evil" which He intended to do to Nineveh, yes, He did in fact "turn from" and "turn against" what He fully intended to do to Nineveh. But then you have to remember, that it was God who had just taken great lengths to ensure that Noah arrived on time to preach to the Ninevites. Yes, He fully indended to wipe them out, yet He WANTED them to repent(Turn from their sin) so that HE could respond by "turning from" the imminent destruction He was about to carry out. Did he change His mind here as well? Not really. Does God change His mind every time a sinner repents and believes the Gospel? Possibly. But, He has already declared that our destruction is imminent, just like Nineveh's was. But, again, God has also already made a way for us to repent, or "turn against" sin and self to Christ, in the same manner that He did with the preaching of Brother Jonah. As to "what makes God repent", I would say that, in most cases of God "repenting", God already WANTED to "repent", but sinners have to "repent" first.

I know, right? Like I said, hurts my brain.

https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=replenish The command, in verse 28, was evidently given to the human beings. But look just six verses back and you see the word "fill". I don't know, man, I still wonder what happened to them dinosaurs but, I try not to think about it too much; it hurts my brain.

If Instagram links aren't allowed, I appologize. https://www.instagram.com/reel/CtjYWB6gx_H/?fbclid=IwAR0xBfqWwgo9lL5yC93xfSCdzNi_m8PKoWlhqWOQXEvJuI-s7dVs1AGEkDs You know, Jesus even said you're supposed to "hate" your parents so, obviously, hate means different things in different contexts, no? God also tells us things like, we're to "love our enemies" so that we will be like Him. Well, if we are to love our enemies, when He hates His, that wouldn't be "like Him" at all would it? If loving the sinner is what WE are told to do, while God doesn't love them Himself....that would kind of make us better than Him in that respect wouldn't it?And I know that's not so.. He also tells us that He "so loved the world.....". I promise you that the word "world, in John 3:16, doesn't mean the sphere of rock that we live on. So, what benefit do these guys hope to accomplish and how are they furthering the Gospel by trying to make it clear to people that "God hates the sinner"?