robmac68

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".

Ruff?? Anyway, the church is a "social club". In fact, a private social club. Church, ekklisia, is the fellowship of the believer. Where we come to praise, worship, learn, uplift each other, and socialize among other things. If you study it out, the church you go today looks nothing like the 1st century churches. We are to be in the world but not of the world. So, while going through this life of separation but still having to work, shop, and live in this world, we at times feel beat up. We get harassed and snubbed. We see all the filth and injustices. All the temptations. Yes, we go to church to give reverence and worship to an Holy God, but don't forget it is also a blessing to us. We should feel like we are with family. We should feel relaxed as well as excited to walk through the doors. I was glad when they said unto me, "let us go into the house of the Lord." If we go and feel like we are there to sit down, shut up, don't drink your coffee and pay attention, what blessing is that? I can get that at a safety meeting at work. If the church is so uptight. we might as well go back to puritan times where the women and kids sat on one side and the men on the other. And don't dare smile or you will be kicked out for being irreverent or having a demon. Remember, Jesus fed the 5000. Where were they? He was preaching/teaching. Some were believers. It was "church". You are putting too much stock in the brick and mortar building that is called church.

What is the difference between sipping water or sipping coffee? The service I attend on Sunday starts at 8:15. I am just getting in to my coffee drinking for the day and carry a no-spill contigo. If someone has a too casual attitude during the worship of Almighty God, it ain't the coffee's fault. Check his (spiritual)temp with a thermometer! It is probably a good idea to prepare our hearts for worship before we enter the meeting area, possibly before we leave our homes. Can we do this while eating breakfast and drinking coffee? Yes.

. Proverbs 3:12 For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth. Hebrews 12:6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth Do these verses show a difference? If God looked at the lost the same as the saved or loved all the same, why would these verses state "for whom". That states not all. I have love for the kids down the street inasmuch as I don't want bad to happen to them, but I don't feed, clothe or chasten them like my own kids.

Yes, God has love for all but we have to go through Jesus to get it. Romans 8: 39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 4: 7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. 8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. We are not better than anybody else, but the saved are better off.

Exactly. This is the love that God has for all. Romans 5:8, God commendeth (established/proved) His love toward us... God showed us His love that He has for us with His son on the cross. And now we have the chance because of this sacrifice and love. But Mark writing that Jesus loved this person does not mean that is the message we are to give to lost sinners. If we say that, then we also should tell them that Jesus said we can buy our way in to heaven by "sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven..." Is that the message we give to lost sinners??? Ray comfort was correct. Where is the verse that states the apostles told lost sinners that Jesus loves them? Psalm 5:5 clearly states that God hates the workers of iniquity. Do we understand that a worker is a person? I looked up this verse in Bible gateway and did a check on all English translations. 95% of the new per-versions actually recognize this worker as a person. Do we? Think of it like this. Not all sinners are necessarily workers of iniquity. So you have this guy you work with that seems like the most upstanding, moral person-but he is lost. So you tell him that Jesus loves him. Meanwhile, in his spare time, he is actually a drug dealing, child-trafficking pimp actively promoting a hedonistic world view in an on-line blog with 1 million followers. You do not know these facts. Would you call him a worker of iniquity? If God considers him one and you tell him that God loves him, you just lied. If you tell him that God has so much love for him that His son died so that he could be saved, did you lie to him now? No. So what would be the better way to communicate God's love to lost sinners?

1 Samuel 8:11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. 17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants. 18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the Lord will not hear you in that day. 19 Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us; In the OT, God wasn't too pleased that His people wanted a King to judge them. We might not be His people, but we are His children. Why would we believe God wants us to be concerned with a ruler (president)? 2 Timothy 2:4 No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier. Getting into politics would be the "affairs of this life". We have been commissioned to spread the gospel, period. It wouldn't matter if we lived in China, N. Korea or here in this great country. We are to spread the gospel and leave the rest to God. If we were good at the commission God gave us, this country wouldn't be in the shape its in. Acts 17:6 And when they found them not, they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also; Are we turning the world upside down? Are we at least turning our communities upside down? That is what the gospel does; elections do not.

I guess I wasn't signed in when I replied. Now I will have to remember what I wrote. Is it up to each church to decide? I honestly don't know when I ask that. The Ethiopian Eunuch didn't have much understanding of what he was reading, but Philip baptized him without a 2 month class. John the Baptist was preaching and baptizing in the same day it seems from reading about him, and yes that was before Jesus' death. The only exception I believe is found in Acts where some had received the Holy Spirit and hadn't been baptized yet. Peter quickly fixed that issue. All other instances seem to be "pretty close to the salvation decision". They believed and were baptized. So if we look to the Bible for guidance, is it a church's right/decision to institute a class on a subject when the Bible appears to contradict that church's decision? It almost seems condescending. These new believers can read the Bible for themselves and see that they "believed, and were baptized" (Acts 18:8). Talk about making a person feel stupid.

I loved the NFL and more so the Steelers. But in the past decade or two, they have seriously gotten way too political for my liking. In fact, there are some things I actually hate about the NFL. Do I hate the teams and the players? No. There are so many things I hate about Roger Goodell but I don't believe I actually hate him. Although, after reading some news articles in the past, my dislike for the man was very high. Would I like to love the NFL again? Sure. But they would have to change quite a few things and turn from their evil (political) ways for me to love them again. I would say, for the ,most part, I am indifferent to them. A few I strongly dislike. "For God so loved the world..." Past tense. If we understand some of the Holiness of God, how can we say a Holy God loves this world now? John 12:31 and Ephesians 2:2 talk of satan being the prince of this world and the air. Does a Holy God love that? No. I do believe God is sort of "indifferent" to the lost sinner that is going through this life, trying to be good, but doesn't even know God or His Son's name. Example would be the native Americans. They believed in a spirit in the sky and tried to take care of their families and the land. Would they be "workers of iniquity"? I don't believe so. Gay couple living next door to you, not hating you because they see you going to church. Just going through this life the best way they think they can. Keeping to themselves. Not adopting. Not going to parades or protests. Just living life. = lost sinner? Gay activist trying to push their agenda and get sex ed for kindergartners. Actively protesting and hating all things to do with religion. = "worker of iniquity"? I definitely believe God hates some people on this earth because we are told this in Psalm 5:5. This is a fact that so many Christians would argue with. I have experience with this because a deacon got in a shouting match with me during one of my sermons on this and stated that God can't hate because God can't sin and all hate is sin. Our hate comes from pride, God's does not, but this deacon could not separate the two. God has love to give all, but we have to go through His son to get it. Telling a lost person that God hates them would be wrong to do. Telling them that God has so much love to give us that He gave His only begotten Son to die on a cross so that we might be saved would be a better point to make.

I don't believe we should feed them a diet that God hates them. That probably does not need to come up. But by feeding them the lie that God actively "loves them", they get confused on how a God that loves them can send them to hell for eternity. In this case, telling them God loves them would be doing more harm then telling them He doesn't love them. The Bible is very clear, "...thou hatest all workers of iniquity." Psalm 5:5 A worker is a person not their actions or "sin". God HAS love for all lost sinners, but doesn't actively love them. In order for them to get God's love, they have to go through Jesus. "...shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." Rom 8:39 God has all this love to give, but you have to go through a door to get it. That door is Jesus. And anybody can go through that door. "...not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." 2 Peter 3:9 There isn't a verse in the Bible that states God loves the lost person, just that He has love for them. John 3:16, past tense.

God said it is not wise to be deceived by wine or strong drink. How are we deceived? By getting drunk and being excessive. The drunk smokes more cigs than when sober. The drunk will spend more money at the gambling tables than sober. That is why a lot of casinos used to offer free drinks. I already mentioned above he will drive faster. The list goes on and on. This is the person deceived by alcohol. How is he deceived? He thinks he is having a good time. Meanwhile, he wakes up hungover and broke. Yep! He is deceived. I don't think anyone here is looking for reasons to imbibe, at least I hope not. I just do not want to call something a sin that is not. My wife grew up in a church that said roller skating was sin because it was "too entertaining". Playing "old maid" was sin because it involved cards and all cards are sin because it leads to gambling. My wife telling our children that roller skating is not a sin is not looking for a reason to skate, she is way to clumsy and would hurt herself, but just trying to stay biblical.

Um, looking at this passage by diagraming the sentence, drunk is the subject so the "wherein is excess" after the comma would be referring to "drunk" not wine. This passage is not saying wine in itself is excess, but drunkenness. And, if you have ever been around drunks, the alcohol magnifies their attitude or personality. This causes them to be "excessive" in all they do. The drunk driver will drive in "excess" of the speed limit, whereas the stoned driver tends to drive well below the speed limit.