robmac68

I don't understand question 1. 2) "...for the wages of sin is death." This is not a physical death such as a baby dying. This is spiritual, the second death. Death after judgement and being cast into hell. That is why the second part of that verse is best, ..."but the gift of God is eternal life..."

Who is this NONE? Is this all lost people? Is this just the lost of David's day or all the lost of all times? Who is David talking about? Do lost people ever do good? Was Mother Teresa a saved individual? I hope she was, but her faith was more in a religion, a work, a man (pope). She questioned God's existence. "Mother Teresa was afflicted with feelings of abandonment by God from the very start of her work among the homeless children and dying persons in Calcutta's slums. From all available evidence, this experience persisted until her death five decades later, except for a brief interlude in 1958." (google quote). If she wasn't saved, was she doing "good"? I believe even God would look to her work among the homeless children and dying as "good".

Is this all hearts or just the unsaved? Deut. 30:10 If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn unto the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul. Sounds like a choice. Is this heart deceitful? Umm, I don't believe it was His work to "make" you willing. That would kind of go against free will, wouldn't it? It would have been Him that pricked your conscience and burdened your heart, but you could have still rejected Him.

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. There, mystery solved. Now go on about your business. Oh, by the way, you can glorify Him now in how you live your life. Who is this talking about? A lost person being "chosen" to be saved and being led to repentance? Verse 12 sounds like Paul is talking about saved individuals. If we are saved, yes, we have God Himself dwelling in us.

Jerry spoke mostly on conscience and what he said is not debatable and, imo, 100% correct and biblical so I will not comment on that since already stated. The movie Courageous is decent and has a good message. If you are trying to teach your youth that there are alternatives to worldly entertainment, this movie is a good one. Better yet, imo, is Flywheel and Facing the Giants, both by the Kendrick brothers. Better ones would be "Time Changer" and the "Secrets of Jonathan Sperry" but any movie out there most likely will not line up with your beliefs 100% just like every IFB church won't. Anyway, let's talk "youth group". Is this time during regular church hours or different times? If it is during church, I believe you are correct in just wanting to spend time studying God's Word. If it is different times and this time of meeting is for the youth to get together to fellowship and to study God's Word, I fear you would lose them if you turned "youth group" in to just another church service/Bible study. Do you ever get together with your church friends? Is it solely to study God's Word? Have you ever had a "movie night" for the youth? Here they can get together to watch a good movie, eat pizza and popcorn, and then afterwards tie the movie in to your biblical beliefs with a brief summation. Stay clear of mostly negatives that don't line up with your beliefs and drive home the good points with a few Bible verses that back them up. You can appeal to the flesh a bit without making everything a Bible study because you know we adults do the same thing. Show the youth alternatives to the world's appeal to the flesh. Side note...when I was 13 I attended my church's lock-in. The youth director showed us a movie. Care to guess??? No, you never will. Rambo, First Blood. Yea, it wasn't an IFB church. It was American Baptist.

I feel for you, brother. I was 24, my wife 22 when we married. 6 months later she was pregnant. 3 months after that she had a miscarriage. A little less than a year later she was pregnant again. This one ended in something called a molar pregnancy where the fetus starts growing through the wall of the uterus. She had to have surgery. After that, she couldn't get pregnant in what her doctor called "unexplained infertility". I was tested. She went through a bunch of tests and procedures but nothing was ever found as to why she couldn't get pregnant. Mother's day was extremely hard. We would go to church and the mothers would be honored. The message would center around being a mother and would unintentionally make it sound like if you weren't a mother you were only half a woman. Father's day seemed worse because friends and family would acknowledge that I too was effected by the miscarriages, but would quickly shift gears back to my wife because she was the actual vessel that had the miscarriage. In other words, "suck it up, man...oh your poor wife". I guess as the father I wasn't allowed to have "feelings" of loss, it was all the woman's sorrow. We too started skipping the mothers and fathers day ceremonies. I would honor her with gifts for being a mother of two children in heaven. Irony??...I have been Baptist my whole life. We believe life begins at conception but it seems except on mother's and father's day because miscarriages didn't seem to count. I do have a happy ending, but it took 10 more years and a doctor in Columbus.

I was reading over this thread and came across this older post. Why is it so hard to believe that God put Dino on the ark? I think all the drawings of the occurrence is confusing people. Does God say in His Word that He put full grown animals on the ark? Why not have them all puppies and kittens and joeys etc.? If they were adult lions and tigers, did God close their mouths like in the lions den? If they were little babies and just off the bottle, they would be quite tame. If all the animals were just off the bottle, they wouldn't eat as much food in 40 days which would make it easier to stock the food pantry. And baby dinosaurs would not be a problem. I've heard issues on what would the meat eaters eat just of the ark? There wouldn't be animals to hunt. No, but I bet there were plenty of fish flopping around on dry land after the waters receded. And probably small puddles that caught some fish that would be fairly easy to catch once all the "flopping" fish were eaten. And then bigger puddles with fish would slowly dry up and so on and on. I bet the fish would keep the meat eaters sustained while all the animals were multiplying. Or God, in His omnipotence, fed them and just didn't need to record it in His Word because we just need to take Him at His word. When you worship an omnipotent God who can speak things in to existence, it is not difficult to believe His account of the flood.

Like the last two pointed out, interesting and something to think about. Ok, I thought about it and I must say once again it makes me want to sing "How Great Thou Art." God in His greatness and bigness, Who can hold the world in His hands has made such a choice personal to me. A little speck of dust on this big planet is allowed to make a decision of such great proportion. What is man, that thou art mindful of him? Yet He is and not willing that ANY should perish. How humbling a thought that a great God would give little ole me such a wonderful choice! How can I not but obey?

Because they hated humanity so much that they wanted to pervert/corrupt it through their offspring???? Why are they down here being "demons" or "devils"? Why not go sit on the moon? Do they have to be here and be confined to the earth?

Yeah, what a goober! But on the marijuana issue, I look at the simple facts: grow a plant in your back yard, roll it up and then smoke it = go to jail! Has the government lost their ever-loving mind??!! Talk about control issues. Tobacco is a plant. It doesn't get you stoned so let's not make that illegal, just tax it to death. Alcohol gets you drunk (high, buzzed) but that isn't illegal, just taxed. Where does the government get its standards for making something illegal or not? Not everybody that gets drunk, drives. Not everybody that gets stoned drives. Not all drunks beat their wives and kids. Does any person stoned on weed want to beat anybody? Alcohol magnifies your personality, weed mellows more than anything else. Oh but you say it is a "gateway drug" to the harder stuff. No more than alcohol is a "gateway" to weed in search of the better buzz. In fact, check the stats, children that have grown up in a home where at least one parent drank are more likely to try weed than not. Now that stat is from 11th grade social problems taught by Mr. Jones to me in 1986. I was puzzled by it at the time, but that is what the book said. Today it makes more sense to me. I have personally known more lives ruined by alcohol than weed. In fact, I know of only one person I can say their life was ruined by weed but only because of the health issues it caused after decades of use. I was reared in church, 3 times a week since birth. I went to a Christian school. From the time I was 14 to 24, I was in a rebellious stage. I have been the drunk. I have been the stoner. I loved going to rock concerts, bars, biker parties and bonfires. Anywhere I could go to get drunk or stoned was fine by me. I stayed away from church. If I ever find myself in a dark alley, I would rather run into someone stoned on weed than a drunk. I found out back then that I hated being around drunks. Does this mean I want weed legalized? No! But if a person getting high deserves jail, the drunk deserves it two-fold. If we are not going to lock up the drunks for getting drunk, we should not be locking up stoners. If the person on probation has to stay off weed, he should have to stay off alcohol also. I hate to say it, I agree with Biden on this issue. And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit. I believe that verse would also apply to being stoned.

I guess I should have put a smiley face after saying "Solomon's temple sounds good." I wasn't wanting to make a point that it should be "Solomon's". Because we are N.T. I love it being the house of the Lord in the Old Testament and the verses you pointed out about the glory of the LORD filling the temple. The high priest was the only one allowed into the holy of holies. So the significance of the temple veil being rent after our Savior's death is just so awesome! I am a priest now. I have permission to go to God having Christ as my mediator. It doesn't get any better than that! Christ in me, no need for a "holy of holies." It was the house of the LORD, now I am! Gives ya goose bumps, doesn't it?

Acts 17:24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Solomon's temple sounds good. Amen to that! I never cared too much for big, fancy, expensive church buildings. The cost of some of these church buildings would feed a small nation. And to think our Savior "hath not where to lay His head" and He did just fine in getting the message out.

Acts 20:9 And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep: and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead. Maybe he should of had some coffee????

Psalm 5:5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity. Hatest is a strong word. It is a stative verb which usually refers to thoughts or emotions. It requires an object. In this verse the object is "workers". A worker is a person. This verse is not referring to a future occurrence such as the great white throne judgement. People are not "workers" at the time of judgement. Work is done. This is here on earth and does not mean to love less. It means hate. You stated that all of us are workers of iniquity before salvation. The Bible makes it clear that God hates workers of iniquity. So is it safe to draw a parallel between your statement and David's and say "God hates the lost"?

Yes, God loves all of mankind, His creation as a group. "All in need of the Savior", yes. When we take our first breath, we are in need of the Savior. But as soon as we put faith in Jesus as our Savior, we are no longer in the same boat as "all of mankind". Now we are individuals. God does not look on individuals the same as "all of mankind". "For whom the Lord loveth" this quote does not state for whom the Lord has more love for. Stating "His love for the lost" is saying He loves the lost individual just not as much as the saved. You backed this statement up with the verse about hating parents and said it was in comparison to the love we have for the Lord. But the quote "for whom the Lord loveth" is not in comparison. It is clearly stating there are individuals that God "loveth" and "correcteth". Is God correcting the saved more so than the lost? No. This verse is making a distinction between whom the Lord correcteth and whom the Lord loveth. Saying His love for His children exceeds His love for the lost would directly contradict the statement "for whom". "For whom" is a distinction. It is the object of the verb "loveth".