2Tim215

Missionaries would not need to "drum" up support if believers gave their 10%!!! Even if it isn't NT bible doctrine to give 10%, if EVERY believer gave 10% there would be more than enough to go around. I stopped my studies because the fact is, regardless of what anyone says, GOD DOES NOT DEPOSIT A SALARY INTO YOUR ACCOUNT AT THE END OF EVERY MONTH!! He gave us a principle to work with in order to support His work.
Every KJV only church I have ever seen that preaches sound doctrine in TRUTH is small with barely enough to support a pastor, never mind missionaries. I don't know what it's like in other countries, but that's the case here. I need to work to put food on the table, every man needs to work to feed his family, so why do most not regard a pastors calling as "WORK" and as such begrudge their earning a decent wage? Also, why must most bible students go through years of borderline poverty, before they "EARN" the right to a pathetic pittance from the church? Even apprentices earn more!!

Haha... he said "booty."

There is nothing wrong with using the 10% tithe example for NT giving as a guideline for how much to give. Me, knowing MY bills, would rather give 10% than what the NT teaches we should - EVERYTHING. My trust is not quite there yet. But the bottom line is that all pastors are not required to be responsible for what the brethren give or don't give. A pastors responsibility is to teach the Word in truth so that the believer may grow in Christ and when the believer grows in Christ, founded on the Word that believer will give all out of love. Yet, again, the pastor is not responsible for the believers walk with Christ, the believer is and he will stand before Christ one day and give an account for everything.

Using the OT example of tithing is the same as using the OT Laws for how we should live and I agree totally with Steve's posts regarding this, 10% is not "required" in the NT, but it sure is a good starting point. There are many things in the OT that are not required of the believer in the NT, yet there is nothing wrong with teaching these things as examples to live by, lessons to be learned from, so why should the tithe be any different. No where did Steve say that the 10% tithe was compulsory that I could read, so why make a big deal about him teaching it as an OT example to live by? Just being argumentative maybe? Seeing a lot of that here these days.

Not trusting in man...you are not following the point here.
Are you an evangelist, pastor, or missionary? If you are not, then you have no idea of the issues a God-called preacher has to deal with when it comes to $$$. I am attempting to give all of you some insight, because it is not easy, especially when you minister in a small church.
Would you work for an employer who tells you that they will pay you, but they could not guaruntee when or how much?
But a God-called preacher MUST preach, so it is not like he can just walk away and say, "I quit."
And this is NOT about "enriching the preacher." This is about giving the preacher the liberty to fulfill the office of the bishop thoroughly, without any hindrances or encumbrances. Working a full-time job outside of the church ties the preachers hands - he cannot minister to his family or church as he should. Everyone suffers.

1 Corinthians 9:16 For 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!

Now please do not misunderstand me. I believe that a Christian SHOULD tithe, based upon the example of Abraham. I believe that it is NOT under the Law, therefore your reply of "placing a burden upon Christians" is not true. It is under GRACE, not LAW, therefore it is not a burden, but a joy and delight! So I teach what the example is, exhort them to follow Abraham's example, and put the ball in their court.

2Co 9:6 ¶ But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully.
2Co 9:7 Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.

PS - Melchizedek was not a "pagan king." Paul says that he was the PRIEST OF THE MOST HIGH GOD, as does Genesis 14. Jesus Christ is said to be the next priest after the order of Melchizedek. He ranks a little bit higher than you allow. Furthermore, Abraham refused payment from the other pagan kings for his services, so his tithing was NOT from the "spoils of war" since he took none!

There is no direct statement in the NT Epistles demanding a tithe from the Church Age believer. I agree to that. However there some other factors to consider.
1. Melchizedek. Abraham gave a tithe to Melchizedek BEFORE the Law was given. Melchizedek was the Priest of the most High God. Who told Abraham to give the tithe? Jesus Christ follows in the Melchizedekian line of Priests (not the Aaronic line), and Jesus Christ is now our High Priest. Should we not then follow the example of Abraham, who was before the Law, in giving a tithe to the next in line of that priesthood?
There was no law for Abraham to follow - just as there is no direct statement in the NT epistles for us to tithe. But this does not mean we should NOT tithe.

2. I don't know about the rest of y'all, but as a pastor of a small church, I am hardly looking to "enrich" myself. I would like to have the same privileges as the rest of you, and have a pretty good idea of what my income will be. The problem with following this idea of "just give what the Lord leads" is that it becomes too easy for the worldly, backslidden, carnal Christians to give minimally and sporadically. So how can a small church have any way to set a budget for paying bills, etc.?
And how can the Preacher have any idea of how to plan his own family budget if he has no idea what his income will be? Have any of you tried that lately?
The OT Tithe under the Law was to provide for the Levites. The Levites in turn tithed off of the tithe they received for the support of the Priests of Aaron's family. When the nation of Israel did not tithe, the Temple worship was abandoned, since the Levites had to spend all of their time trying to suport their families. See Numbers 18:20-32, Nehemiah 10:28-39, and Neh. 13:10-13.
The NT preacher is to live off his preaching - I Cor. 9:1-14.
Paul purposefully chose not to accept money FROM THE CORINTHIANS for preaching, but he was not afraid to take from the Macedonians (II Cor. 8, PHil 4:14-18).
Take this from someone who has lived it. IT is literally impossible to pastor a church, take care of a family, and then work a full-time job on top of that. What happens is the family gets neglected, the church is neglected (not enough time to pray, prepare lessons and sermons, not enough time to visit members or visitors), and eventually, the preacher gets so run down that he cannot effectively do ANYTHING.
It is the church's job to provide for the preacher - not so that the preacher can "get rich," but so that the preacher is not encumbered with other things, and he is free to study, prepare, preach, visit, and have time for his family.

I believe that if the OT required the Israelites to give a tithe by faith, trusting in God to stretch the other 90% to cover everything, then we as Christians who are NOT under the Law, but under grace, should be willing to give MUCH MORE than a tithe.
The trouble comes in when people start saying that we are not required to tithe others who are not very spiritually minded use this as an excuse to not give anything, or a little bit here and there.

And I would contend that we ARE required to tithe, not based on the OT Law, but by following the example of ABraham before the Law. Our tithe goes to the next priest in Melchizedek's line, our Lord Jesus Christ.

My church does, that's why the pastor is so poor Jokes aside, EVERYTHING we have, we are belongs to God - it's when we realize this we can give with a grateful heart.

I agree John, but just because some preachers misuse a method of study doesn't make it wrong. Being from South Africa I have a outside perspective compared to a lot of you guys that have grown up in IFB churches or similar. My view of IFB churches and their doctrine was shattered when I joined this site. For many years I was angry with God, the church as I knew it, Christians and their confusing and misleading doctrine until I was led to a planted IFB church that taught using dispensations, and the Word was suddenly opened up to me now with a method of study that explained all the supposed confusion and "errors" that charismatic churches teach. I have charismatic friends that still believe that the Word of God has errors, is not inspired, etc and some are also "dispensationalists", though they use a warped method of dispensational doctrine to substantiate their belief system, not what the bible actually says. Man's error, pride and personal agenda does not make God, His Word or the way His Word is laid out wrong.

I say that this site has shattered my view of IFB doctrine because there seems to be as much confusion, infighting and wako doctrines here as there are in charismatic and other church circles. We however can at least agree that the KJV is the True Word of God, yet even using the same bible there are differences in opinion, doctrine, understanding, etc that does not in any way edify the believer, the church or God. So how can the world see the truth if we can't even see it, never mind agree with one another - is this mans pride causing this division amongst those of us who still supposedly hold to the "fundamentals" of the faith or is it the devil sowing discord to undermine the truth - or both?

Your above statement using the fallibility of man to undermine a sound doctrinal principal is a weak argument at best - man will always fail but Gods Word will never fail, come back empty or mislead.
Just because some say 7 dispensations, others 9 etc, doesn't in any way disprove the fact that there are clear divisions in Gods Word where He deals with man differently. Where He has made new covenants, promises etc nationally or individually. Man will never fully understand the Word, nor fully understand God and His methods and will always fail yet this lack of understanding and failures should never be used a crutch to not believe the Truth, whether it be 2,7,9 or 106 dispensations, divisions, covenants, promises or whatever you want to call them - that FACT is they are still there and by recognizing them for what they are we can have a better understanding of Gods Word and His plan for us.

You also make my point. Many dispensationalists claim non-dispensationalists can't rightly interpret Scripture, yet they do, but because some non-dispensationalists do make wild claims, all non-dispensationalists are charged with their error.

My point being, there are dispensationalists and non-dispensationalists who all come to the same basic conclusions as to what Scripture says on various matters. Why is there any need to attack one another simply on the basis of one group separating Scripture into dispensations to reach point "A" and the other group not doing that but also reaching point "A"? Why allow those on the fringe of either side to determine the whole?

Myself, over the years I've encountered far more crazy ideas coming from dispensationalists than non-dispensationalists. I've encountered dispensationalists who have raised that to a standard involving salvation, declaring one can't truly saved if they don't believe in their versions of dispensationalism. Others have claimed the book of Hebrews is for Jews only and not at all for non-Jews. Some have claimed only the books of Paul are for us and if we base anything off another book of the Bible or follow something mentioned in another book of the Bible then we are either not following Christ or not even saved.

The fact is, Baptists, including IFB, are not all in agreement upon a variety of matters. The first and most important thing to consider is whether or not we are of the same faith, meaning do we all hold to the truth of salvation. Then there are clear biblical doctrines we are to all hold to. Beyond that, there are areas we can disagree about, but that doesn't mean we are not brothers/sisters in Christ. Depending upon the disagreement, we may still be able to fellowship with one another, if not, we should be able to have a measure of separation without calling their salvation into question based upon something that has nothing to do with salvation.

There are Calvinist, Arminian and some who claim to be neither, who are Baptists and IFB. Similarly there are pre-trib, mid-trib, post-trib and no-trib Baptists. There are Baptists who will not enter a theater and those who do. There are card playing Baptists and non-card playing Baptists. There are Baptists who have organs, pianos, guitars, keyboards, and other instruments in their church, and some who accept some of those but not others, and some who use none. There are KJO, KJP, and MV Baptists. Etc.

IFB and Baptist are all broad terms, especially today, and they encompass a variety of beliefs.

The problem John is that many do not see the differences in the bible that some call dispensations. And again, many take those differences out of context and create some seriously wako doctrines - Dispensational doctrine should be a study aid only to help differentiate and understand what many modern pastors call "errors" in God's truth.

This is blatant heresy and I'm surprised an admin hasn't struck it down yet, and so I will. I started this thread, I can close it.

SFIC is adding an additional requirement to salvation that is not found anywhere in the Scriptures. He has tried to be reasoned with, but he is too stubborn to listen. He has tried to make the case that because there are grievous errors in the modern versions when they speak of Christ that the gospel message in them point to a false Christ.

He has stubbornly ignored the following facts:

1. To say that modern Bibles point to a false, sinful Christ across the board is incorrect. There are plenty of clear-cut passages in modern versions that portray Christ as the sinless Son of God, and that salvation is to be received by grace through faith in the atonement of Christ. As one brother pointed out, an error about Jesus in one portion of a modern version does not negate the many other places where the version gets it right, just like writing "the Devil is a good guy" in the back of a KJB doesn't negate the potential power of the KJB when put into use. A modern version is in that sense no different than a gospel tract. The tract is not inspired, it is not the word of God, it may contain parts of the word of God, but most importantly it may be used to lead others to Christ.

2. God has used imperfect instruments in the past and still does. God used a womanizer (Samson), a donkey (Balam's), an egomaniac (Saul), a hooker (Rahab), and a murderer (David). God used them and many more, and many times God in His grace has used imperfect people while in a backslidden condition. Why? Because He's a gracious and merciful God and He understands that we are but dust. God uses imperfect instruments all the time, including imperfect Bibles.

3. Salvation is in the gospel of Jesus Christ, and that gospel gives no limits as to how to communicate it. Many people were saved after watching The Passion of the Christ, regardless of the fact that Mel Gibson is a sleazy Catholic. There are preferred ways to give out the gospel, and we should always strive for the best, but we cannot limit God. To say that the modern versions point to a false Christ in some areas so no one can be saved out of them at all would also mean that Charismatics, Nazarenes, and Calvinists can't ever lead someone to the Lord either because they are off on a few things about God.

4. To say that one must be saved out of a KJB is adding an additional requirement to salvation and is akin to mixing faith with works. If nothing else, it is Pharisaical and elitist, and it reeks of "us four and no more." Jesus rebuked this kind of thinking when He said, "for he that is not against us is on our part," in Mark 9:40. To say that people that are packing NIVs or NKJVs are against us because their Bibles are tainted would only further demonstrate the ridiculousness of SFIC's position. In the past this brother has come out and said that if a person dies in a backslidden state they were never saved to begin with, which is right on down the line with the Calvinist position of "Perseverance of the Saints" and the Roman Catholic doctrine of dying in a "state of grace." SFIC has a pattern of trying to, while I'm sure inadvertently, mix faith with works when it comes to salvation and adding additional requirements that are not found in the Bible. Anyone can take a verse here and there and twist it to try and prove an idea that the weight of Scripture does not support, and that is exactly what is going on here.

5. The fruit and testimonies of multitudes of Christians across the globe prove this to be wrong. This is not the primary reason he is wrong, but it an important one. To say that one must be saved out of a King James Bible, and that anything else is a false conversion, would immediately negate the ministry and salvation of thousands of missionaries and Christians across the globe that are forced to use a corrupt version because there is no King James Bible in their language. SFIC's doctrine has suddenly destroyed their profession of faith, any fruit in their life, and any hope they have for Heaven. They are all bound for Hell because they do not have the perfect word of God in their language. Even here in America there are many Christians that love the same God the KJVOers love, and they pray to the same God, and they witness of the same Gospel and the same Jesus. I have firsthand knowledge and experience with people in this country and others that are very truly saved, but do not have or use a King James Bible. The fact that SFIC ignores this makes me wonder if he spends too much time in an ivory tower and not enough outsides actually dealing with real people, because this point is abundantly clear to anyone with any common sense and spiritual discernment.


I started this thread to show everyone what I think is a great video that can be used to help others see the truth behind the King James Only movement. SFIC took it upon himself to hijack the thread and show the world the ugly side of the KJVO movement.

Not anymore.

Perhaps I'm not making myself clear. I'm trying to defend what I believe biblical dispensationalism is, which is commonly taught today. I'm not trying to defend anything else. Allow me to illustrate what I mean by true, pratical, biblical dispensationalism:


Is wrong to say that there was a time once when it was okay to marry your sister, but then God said it wasn't?

Is it wrong to say there was once a time in which God was silent about drinking blood, so to do so would have been acceptable, but then after a considerable amount of time He said it was wrong?

Is wrong to say there was a time in which God wanted His kingdom spread by armed combat and in some cases the killing of heathen women and children, but now His kingdom is to be won by the preaching of His word?

Is it wrong to say there was a time when it was a sin to eat half of strip of bacon during breakfast over a campfire on Saturday morning, but now it's just dandy?

Is it wrong to say that there was a time when believers were not supposed to witness to Gentiles, but now we are?

Is it wrong to say there was a time when believers would heal people, perform miracles, and speak in tongues to convince people that the message they were preaching was true, but now they do not?

Is it wrong to say that there will be a time in which the earth is filled with perfect and holy people, but now it is not?

Is it wrong to say there was a time in which if you sinned God expected you to kill something, but now He does not?


No one here would say that it would be wrong to say any of those things. But somehow if I draw a chart on a whiteboard illustrating these changes in the Bible I've done something wrong? That is all that biblical dispensationalism is, and to say that is wrong is just plain foolish. Biblical dispensationalism dovetails wth the natural reading of the Scriptures, and it is simply a tool to help better understand the Bible.

Understanding these things are simply just a part of rightly dividing. Understanding the different covenants in the Bible are as well. Understanding the different testaments, judgments, baptisms, resurrections, etc, are all part of the idea of rightly dividing. As a tool, biblical dispensationalism is not the authority, the Scriptures are the authority. Biblical dispensationalism is no more wrong than having an outline for a message you're about to preach - both are rightly dividing the word for the benefit of the hearer.

2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Divide 2

Definition: To cause to be separate; to keep apart by a partition, or by an imaginary line or limit; as, a wall divides two houses; a stream divides the towns.

di·vide (d-vd)
v. di·vid·ed, di·vid·ing, di·vides
v.tr.
1.
a. To separate into parts, sections, groups, or branches: divided the students into four groups..
b. To sector into units of measurement; graduate: The ruler was divided into metric units.
c. To separate and group according to kind; classify: divided the plants by genus.
2.
a. To cause to separate into opposing factions; disunite: "They want not to divide either the Revolution or the Church but to be an integral part of both" (Conor Cruise O'Brien).
b. To cause (members of a parliament) to vote by separating into groups, as pro and con.
3. To separate from something else; cut off: A mountain chain divides France and Spain.
4. To apportion among a number: Volunteers divided the different jobs among themselves.

We are to take the Word literally and the very word divide as used by Paul does not imply but states that we are to divide the Word of God with emphasis on rightly doing so. There is no hidden meaning here, no ambiguity, just a word that follows a series of commands that are all actions and the word divide in itself being a command. Nowhere can I find this word to mean anything besides what I have quoted from dictionaries above so how can we not do as we are told and separate the Word of God into divisions. Divisions placed there by God Himself by the His very actions and dealing with man. God is not the author of confusion and His word is Truth so it goes without saying that without these divisions God's Word becomes confusing, contradicting and misleading. We must always ask ourselves if it is not our pride in our own understanding that causes us to fight an obvious truth even if it goes against everything we have been taught, everything we know, even if what we have known to be true has been wrong our entire lives.

Was the world any less round because the learned men of the church believed it to be flat, was Jesus any less the Messiah just because the Jews didn't accept Him?

Sorry if this is off topic, but having read this one has to wonder on the doctrine of those pushing this agenda. Do they not undertsand that in order to be saved there had to be sacrifices and a temple? So how does the Jew now get saved under the OT covenant? There is no temple and there has been no sacrifices that I have been able to find with extensive research. Is there now a new "third" covenant just for the Jews after Christ. We (the believer) are now a living temple and the sacrifice was the Lamb of God - Jesus Christ. Can you imagine the bunny huggers reaction if the Jews were sacrificing lambs, goats, oxen, doves etc now?
My heart goes out to the orthodox Jew who knows that without the temple sacrifice he has no chance - unless I am missing something here and there is another way besides Christ and the cross?

*

That verse not only justifies dispensational divisions, it demands it. Just as there are Calvinists and hyper-Calvinists, so too there are Dispensationalists and hyper-Dispensationalists. Recognizing a dispensational division is not the same a running amok and building hard and fast walls all over the Bible. Many of the dispensations do run into each other, such as the Law and the Apostolic Age, and the Apostolic Age and the Church. Hyper-Dispensationalism tosses everything out except Paul, biblical rightly dividing does not.

Considering you can't tell the difference between two battles that are separated by 1,000 years, you are hardly an authority on what rightly dividing means.

I don't mind telling people what I believe when they ask, even if I've already said it once before (LINK).

1. Innocence.
2. Conscience.
3. Human Government.
4. Promise.
5. Law.
6. Apostolic Age.
7. Church Age.
8. Tribulation.
9. Millennium.
10. New Heavens and New Earth.

I'll add one thing, just in case you asked me this just to turn my answer back around on me, in-house discussions and debates as to the number of dispensations and the manner in which people were saved during these dispensations are irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The point of dispensational study is to recognize that God deals with different people at different times in different manners. Not everyone sees it the same, and it’s not a big deal that they don’t.

Yes, what those marines did was tasteless. Not criminal, but tasteless. I agree with Allen West:

"

“I have sat back and assessed the incident with the video of our Marines urinating on Taliban corpses. I do not recall any self-righteous indignation when our Delta snipers Shugart and Gordon had their bodies dragged through Mogadishu.




Neither do I recall media outrage and condemnation of our Blackwater security contractors bein


g killed, their bodies burned, and hung from a bridge in Fallujah. All these over-emotional pundits and armchair quarterbacks need to chill.




Does anyone remember the two Soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division who were beheaded and gutted in Iraq?




The Marines were wrong. Give them a maximum punishment under field grade level Article 15 (non-judicial punishment),




place a General Officer level letter of reprimand in their personnel file, and have them in full dress uniform stand before their




Battalion, each personally apologize to God, Country, and Corps videotaped and conclude by singing the full US Marine Corps




Hymn without a teleprompter. As for everyone else, unless you have been shot at by the Taliban, shut your mouth, war is __."

Sometimes a doctor will tell someone they have cancer, & all is not well, yet it turns out all is well. Them sometime the doctor will tell their patient all is well & its not & they are soon dead.

My main gripe against doctors, if the good doctor messes up, they get paid, them get paid again to straighten things out, that is if you survive the mess up, if you don't they will take it from your family.

But the good mechanic that works on your car, and it messes up, generally he will redo it with no new charges.

Praying

MAMA'S BIBLE

Four brothers left home for college, and they became successful doctors
and lawyers.

One evening, they chatted after having dinner together. They
discussed the 95th birthday gifts they were able to give their elderly mother who moved
to Florida .

The first said, "You know I had a big house built for Mama."

The second said, "And I had a large theater built in the house."

The third said, "And I had my Mercedes dealer deliver an SL600 to her."

The fourth said, "You know how Mama loved reading the Bible and you know
she can't read anymore because she can't see very well. I met this
preacher who told me about a parrot who could recite the entire Bible. It took
ten preachers almost 8 years to teach him. I had to pledge to contribute
$50,000 a year for five years to the church, but it was worth it.
Mama only has to name the chapter and verse, and the parrot will recite it."

The other brothers were impressed. After the celebration Mama sent out
her "Thank You" notes.

She wrote: Milton , the house you built is so huge that I live in only one
room, but I have to clean the whole house. Thanks anyway."

"Marvin, I am too old to travel. I stay home; I have my groceries
delivered, so I never use the Mercedes. The thought was good. Thanks."

"Michael, you gave me an expensive theater with Dolby sound and it can
hold 50 people, but all of my friends are dead, I've lost my hearing,
and I'm nearly blind. I'll never use it. Thank you for the gesture just the
same."

"Dearest Melvin, you were the only son to have the good sense to give
a little thought to your gift. The chicken was delicious. Thank you so much."

Love, Mama

Thank you for posting this. It shows that you do not believe in eternal security or salvation by grace. You may profess to, you may even think you do - but you don't. If nothing else, you don't understand salvation by grace or eternal security, and I know you're too stubborn to listen no matter how many people may try to explain it to you.

By taking this stand on a man who appears to be a Christian his whole life but goes to Hell because of dying after one act of adultery, you must also concede that if a person dies after committing any of the following sins they too must go to Hell because they died in that particular sin:

Rev. 21:8, "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death."

1. Fearful. If a person dies scared they go to Hell, they were never saved to begin with.

2. Unbelieving. If someone dies doubting God, they go to Hell.

3. Abominable. Someone who is morally repugnant. Of course you'd go with this. The question is, what makes a person "morally repugnant?" You could assign anything to that.

4. Murderers. This would include suicide, murder of another, or unwarranted anger in your heart towards another person according to Jesus.

5. Whoremongers. This is fornication, adultery, prostitution... and porn according to Jesus. If a Christian man dies after looking upon a woman to lust after her, be it a magazine or a billboard, according to your system of 'grace' he was never saved and must go to Hell.

6. Sorcerers. According to Romans 1:32 you could make the argument that if someone died after watching Harry Potter they'd go to Hell. That, honestly, wouldn't surprise me if it came from you.

7. Idolaters. If a Christian puts anything in the place of God, be it in worship or esteem it more important (like a job, money, or reputation), then they go to Hell when they die.

8. Liars. If you lie and die you fry, is that it?

In fact, according to I John 3:8 if you sin at all you will go to Hell!

I John 3:8, "He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil."

So I made a mistake and I'd like to apologize to all my Calvinist friends on this forum. You are not a Calvinist; you are a Catholic for all practical purposes. You may not pray the rosary, eat the cracker, and confess your sins to a man - but on a practical level you believe the underlying foundation doctrine of all Catholics.

You believe in grace (so do the Catholics!), but that someone must die in a "state of grace." They must die with all of their sins currently confessed or they go to Hell. You attempt to look like a Baptist by claiming that they were "never saved to begin with," but you've already stated that even if a person has shown evidence of salvation but dies after committing just one of the above sins they will go to Hell. In other words, no one can really be sure of their salvation (A major Catholic teaching!) because what if I die after doubting God about my finances, or what if I die after bailing out on church (In the Catholic world this would be missing mass!) for whatever reason and therefore die in a state of idolatry? If I lie and then die I will fry? How can anyone be sure they will go to Heaven under what you believe?!?!?!?!?!

I think everyone here understands that you are way off on this thing. But can I ask you a couple of questions:

1. Do you understand the doctrine of the two natures? The old nature which makes you sin after you are saved is not eradicated once you are saved. You do understand that, don't you?

2. Do you understand that even though a Christian sins all the time (I John 1:8-10), that on a spiritual level (that is when it comes to whether or not he'll go to Heaven or Hell) that Christian never sins again for the rest of his life? That's right, on an earthly, physical, immediate level we sin all the time, but on a spiritual and eternal level we never sin again after we are saved? Look at this verse:

I John 3:9, "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God."

That verse clearly states that a child of God doesn't sin, and that he can't sin. As in he doesn't have the ability to sin. Once a person is saved, on an eternal level God never sees another sin, ever again.

It reminds me of this verse:

Numbers 23:21, "He hath not beheld iniquity in Jacob, neither hath he seen perverseness in Israel: the LORD his God is with him, and the shout of a king is among them."

Yes, there are consequences to sin and living in an unrepentant lifestyle - but our eternal destiny is based upon Jesus Christ and what He did for us on Calvary. Not on ourselves. This completely wipes out your entire argument in one fell swoop because we as Christians are not eternally accountable for our actions, as in when it comes to our eternal and final destination. You will reject this because, being a normal human being that you are, you reject what real grace is. Grace is something you don't deserve and couldn't ever possibly hope to earn.

That's real grace.

I'm not speaking about traditions of man, I'm not speaking about my preference, I'm point to what the Bible says, the Bible is clear, for a man to have long hair, it is a shame.

And I feel sure God would have not inspired 1 Corinthians 11:14 to be written as it is & had it included in the Bible if He did not mean it, if it was not a shame for a man to have long hair.

Sad, very sad, that many people claim to follow Christ, yet disobey His Word picking out verses from the Bible and claim we are not suppose to take a stand for them.


Remember:

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

All Scriptures is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Picking & choosing is not an option, not if you want to trust & obey, & to follow Jesus.

kob, I just wanted to point something out to you re: the Nazarite vow: Part of the vow was, indeed, that the hair would not be cut. But that was actually time-sensitive. Nazarites took the vow as a vow of separation for a certain period of time (in Samson's, Samuel's, and John's cases, they were called to be life-long Nazarites from the womb). Once the vow was complete, the person who vowed was to come to the priest, have their head shaved and then burned. Man or woman. So, here we have a conundrum. Men who took the vow were to let their hair grow. Women who took the vow were to have their heads shaved at the completion of the vow. In both cases, it was a shame, or humiliation (or humbling).

2Tim, where do you get the idea that men's hair in Jesus' day was shoulder length? Busts of that time period show us that men's hair was, in actual fact, above the ear.

As far as the point about the lion and the lioness, in the animal world, we see that the male is always "prettier" than the female. It doesn't happen to be so (or, at least, it's not the norm) for humans.

As to the comment that we are to judge by doctrine and not appearance...while somewhat true, it is not always so that we do. in fact, God Himself tells us that man looks on the outward appearance. Yes, the teaching in that verse is that, in the modern vernacular, you "can't judge a book by its cover." However, there are 2 things about that: 1. there are times when, yes, you can judge a book by its cover (if there's a naked body on the cover, it's a safe bet that's a book we don't want to be reading...), and, 2. The fact remains that we do indeed look on the outward, so it is important that our outward displays what we believe internally. And it is a fact that what we believe internally will indeed be seen on the outside....

Is it right to show respect to one who does not show respect to saved believers by denying them the same rights just because of the color of their skin? Being South African I have seen the ugly side of both coins and I have also seen American IFB missionaries in MY country do the same because they hold the same beliefs as Bro Smith and others. All I know is this:

Act 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

And this

1Co 7:21 Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather.
1Co 7:22 For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant.
1Co 7:23 Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.

And this

Eph 6:9 And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.

God sees the color red, not the color black - He sees the blood of Christ not a mans skin.

Is it right to show respect to one who does not show respect to saved believers by denying them the same rights just because of the color of their skin? Being South African I have seen the ugly side of both coins and I have also seen American IFB missionaries in MY country do the same because they hold the same beliefs as Bro Smith and others. All I know is this:

Act 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

And this

1Co 7:21 Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather.
1Co 7:22 For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant.
1Co 7:23 Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.

And this

Eph 6:9 And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.

God sees the color red, not the color black - He sees the blood of Christ not a mans skin.