weary warrior

Does Romans 14 not answer this whole question clearly, completely and simply?
I am so confused right now as to why this discussion even took place.
If you're going to have an argument regarding which day of the week we "must" meet on for church, we will, if we are both intelligent and honest, have to include a separate argument regarding which calendar God was looking at whenever He set everything up.
The SDA's argue against Sunday worship because "it was invented by Rome" while observing the Hebrew "Sabbath" on a Gregorian calendar, given to them by ... Pope Gregory! ???
Humans...they boggle the mind.

We've been in Ashville, North Carolina for several months spoiling the grandbabies. Not as bad as driving from AK.

"Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
 5  One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. note
 6  He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it."
If a man regards Sunday as a special holy day, thats between him and God, he is worshiping God and God accepts it. If a man feels God is the God of all, and all days are equally belonging to God, and worships on Thuresday with the assembly because thats when they are free, theyre worshiping God and God accepts it. That's ok too. The Lord who is Lord of the Sabbath is Lord of Tuesday or Friday as well.
We are not actually commanded to worship on any particular day. The early church DID worship on the first day of the week, yes. They also greeted each other with holy kisses and washed each other's feet. Which we don't do.
Our own worship and service must follow and adhere to one of two sources. Scriptural command or historical precedent. If we glean through the book of Acts of the Apostles ("acts", actions...the "history" of the Apostles) for our methodology and turn it into mandated doctrine, we are teaching for doctrine the commandments of men. We make traditions into doctrine. And we will be doing silly things like  choosing church leadership by rolling the dice (Acts 1:26). Instead, we pick and choose what traditions we make into mandated doctrine. Into dogma.
As for my other observation about the calendars, God gave the Hebrew people, who had their own Hebrew calendar, a command to keep a uniquely Hebrew holy day. We don't use that calendar. So an SDA in Cincinnati uses a calendar invented and given them by a Catholic Pope in Europe to observe a Jewish day from a Hebrew calendar, because to observe Sunday worship on that same catholic calender from Europe would be following the leadership and influence of the pope. I just find it humorously ironic the knots we tie ourself up in when we start trying to observe holy days and habits from another time, culture, continent, language and calendar that are not specifically commanded us in scripture, just to be more holy. None of that is what makes us holy. 
 

Actually, it is that church.

Well, after 10 years since the last one, we've accepted a request to take a pastorate of a little church in Washington State 40 miles south of Spokane. They've been looking for a pastor with "callused hands and muddy boots" who can relate to the farmers, ranchers and working men of the area.
When they first contacted me back in June, we turned down the offer, not feeling we were up to it. But they never found a pastor they were looking for, and we never found the ministry we were looking for. So when they came back around again last month, we accepted after much prayer.
I'm taking off with a truck and u-haul here in about 3 days for the 2500 mile trip out there. I have no support, no job and no salary waiting. (The church has shrunk to a congregation of...6). We are not worried at all, but are excited to see what God does.
Our plan? To simply preach straight truth, pray much prayers and love unlovable people. Beyond that, it's in God's hands.

Well, after 10 years since the last one, we've accepted a request to take a pastorate of a little church in Washington State 40 miles south of Spokane. They've been looking for a pastor with "callused hands and muddy boots" who can relate to the farmers, ranchers and working men of the area.
When they first contacted me back in June, we turned down the offer, not feeling we were up to it. But they never found a pastor they were looking for, and we never found the ministry we were looking for. So when they came back around again last month, we accepted after much prayer.
I'm taking off with a truck and u-haul here in about 3 days for the 2500 mile trip out there. I have no support, no job and no salary waiting. (The church has shrunk to a congregation of...6). We are not worried at all, but are excited to see what God does.
Our plan? To simply preach straight truth, pray much prayers and love unlovable people. Beyond that, it's in God's hands.

Psalm 19:1, Psalm 50:6 and Psalm 97:6. Think about it a bit before you just blow it all off. It's a scary thing to take a God that big and put him in a box we can easily wrap our head around, dictating what He can and cannot do.  He can reveal himself how He chooses. There were centuries where men lived without scripture, and there are still 1,000's of languages and dialects now with no "scriptura". God has been revealing Himself to those who seek Him since the beginning of time, in any little, dark corner of earth. And since the scripture tells us this, scripture itself seems to contradict "sola scriptura".
I always get a little hinky when I hear Latin trotted out and used to draw a big ol' line in the sand that scripture never drew. 
Sure, Rome is anti-Christ...just don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Psalm 19:1, Psalm 50:6 and Psalm 97:6. Think about it a bit before you just blow it all off. It's a scary thing to take a God that big and put him in a box we can easily wrap our head around, dictating what He can and cannot do.  He can reveal himself how He chooses. There were centuries where men lived without scripture, and there are still 1,000's of languages and dialects now with no "scriptura". God has been revealing Himself to those who seek Him since the beginning of time, in any little, dark corner of earth. And since the scripture tells us this, scripture itself seems to contradict "sola scriptura".
I always get a little hinky when I hear Latin trotted out and used to draw a big ol' line in the sand that scripture never drew. 
Sure, Rome is anti-Christ...just don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I do believe that the KJO "movement" is dying, but I'm OK with that. The KJV was around centuries before there was ever a "movement", and will be here long after the movement is over. A movement is spearheaded by men following men. And what men lead other men into, they can lead them out of. I suspect that when we get to heaven, God's opinion of the shadow cast by some of the IFB "greats" will not be quite as high as their own opinion of themselves. John the Baptist said "He must increase, but I must decrease". I've watched these men do nothing but increase for decades, until they crashed one-by-one, ruining their testimonies, as well as the testimony of their "movement". Some 100 -odd years of Icarus flying too close too the sun on wings held together by the wax of personality. It melted. Now we're falling from the sky.
We have spent decades sending our best and brightest to these centralized "institutions of higher learning" established and run by egomaniacs and carnal showmen, and failed to do our duty as a local church and train up our own, as commanded by II Timothy 2:2. So we now have a full 2 generations of "pastors" in this country who are the ignorant, carnal product of our own lazy, irresponsibility.
The answer? The few real, godly, veteran pastors that are left must start taking their own young preachers under their own wing, and lead them at home by example in weeping, working, loving, studying, preaching, praying and living right. Pastoring is about nights on our knees, not neckties around our necks. It's about working hard on sermons, not waxing eloquent on social ills. It's sacrifice, not salaries. Humility instead of haughtiness. Building faith, not getting fat.
We call ourselves "Christian". "Followers of Christ". Well, Christ was poor, humble, loving and forgiving while still preaching hard truth. He was hard working and invested in his disciples on a 24-hour-a-day, personal, sacrificial basis. We, the IFB "movement" left following Christ and began following men who named Christ, but followed themselves. 
I'm 50 years old. I was born to an IFB preacher, and raised in it my whole life. 3 of my uncles were IFB preachers. My dad graduated under DR Tom Malone at Northwestern in 1972. I was ordained in 1998 as an IFB preacher, and have preached in IFB churches across the US and in a number of foreign countries. I am heartsick at the condition of the church today as a whole. We have to stop doing what got us in this mess in the first place, and start accepting our responsibility to replace ourselves, (Matthew 28:18-20, II Timothy 2:2 etc.), while making sure daily we are even worth replacing.

Frankly, there are IFB churches I would never attend either. 

Preaching and teaching is communication. The responsibility of successful communication lies with the "communicator", not the "communicatee". If I need to get a truth across, a concept, and I am unable within myself to find the words I need to successfully communicate that important truth, I will sometimes also quote someone else whose grasp of language and personal clarity is greater than my own. It is rare that I do this, but it is needed at times.
Have you ever preached to your people some truth for years on end, and they just didn't quite get it? And then some evangelist or missionary comes through and teaches the exact same thing, and your whole church goes "Aha! Why haven't we heard this before?!? What a wonderful truth!!" It make you want to face-palm, and scream in frustration. The new guy just said it in a different way, and it clicked.
There are men out there who have a gift of words, of communication, and it is a mistake to not use a tool God has given you to enable you to fulfill your responsibility a little better. To teach a truth from the Bible, and to illustrate it with ... "W.A Tozier said it like this, ..." is not wrong. It just takes a little humility and a lot of discretion.
Of course, all of that is pointless if we are not preaching and teaching with the power of God on our lives. Then we are just preaching with man's wisdom, and we all know what Paul said about that.

Frankly, there are IFB churches I would never attend either. 

NN, thank you for actually going through the verses and providing your view of their meaning. I appreciate it.
For all that answered, thank you for your courtesy. As I said, I have no desire for conflict, just wanted to add the other side to be looked at. It is enough.
Would you not admit that your interpretation of this subject rests largely what you are personally willing to accept or deny regarding physiological make up of angels, what the physically are and are not, what they can and cannot do? Yet, these views are not derived from scripture, science or personal experience. All we have from scripture is the following...
Angels and man were both created by God
Angels and man both have eternal souls
Angels and man both have free will
Angels and man can both question God
Angels and man are both capable of pride, rebellion, hatred etc
Angels and man are both damned for eternity in hell for their sin
Angels and man are both called men
Angels and man both can eat, can fight, can wrestle, can kill etc.
Man was made "a little lower than the angels" - Think about that for a minute
Just how dissimilar are men and angels really? "Angel" means "messenger". In scripture, men are called angels, and angels are called men. Where do you see in scripture that angels don't have blood? It doesn't say either way. Where are we told in scripture that we are so different we cant cross over? If a zebra can mate with a donkey (I've seen it), if a lion can mate with a tiger (I've seen it), if a wolf can mate with a coyote (I've seen it), where do you see in scripture that angels are NOT "after our kind"? Now, the crosses that I mentioned above should not have happened, they were abnormal, and resulted in physiological anomalies. But they happened. 
No other creation of God shares all of these attributes with us. Only man and ..."messenger".
Why do demons in the new testament want a body so desperately? If they cant have a human, they will beg to be allowed to enter pigs! Could it be that you miss worse what you've had, and has been taken away from you?
 
Are you pulling your hair out yet?!? Gnashing your teeth?!? Screaming at me through your computer?!? Good. If you are even trying to answer these questions honestly with scripture, then you are thinking and stretching a little.  My iron is sharpening your iron a little. It's my job. 

"Ge 6:4 - ¶ There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."
NN, I think that, to me, one of the greatest mistakes we often make in interpreting scripture is that we read the English incorrectly. We will read it as though it were written in the order, style and grammatical structure of modern, European authors of a western civilization. But it was not. As I read this verse and understand it, it is as thus (I hope you will forgive my audacity in re-wording scripture) "In those days, and also in the days after that, there were giants in the land when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men. These giants became mighty men of old, men of renown." The oriental, near-eastern way of writing. No, I am not discounting the placement of the semi-colon nor the commas. The KJV translation is always perfect, and this includes all punctuation. This then is what I see the punctuation rendering for us, but now placed in a familiar western order of speaking.
So, the "physiological anomalies" were men whose physical presence, power and deeds were drastic enough to warrant direct notice and reference in scripture, and were clearly attributed in the same scripture as being a direct result of the physical reality of who their parents were, whatever that reality may prove to be. The one thing pointed out about their parents, to give a reason for this mighty renown, is their two separate, independent, genetic lines. And having parents whose genetic line are only differentiated by  two opposing spiritual views does not answer to this. A spiritual problem has a spiritual answer. A physical problem, however has a physical answer.
Again, it's all good. There's no problem that some will not see it this way. But NOT seeing it this way just creates more questions for me than it answers, especially when the passage is carefully studied in the light of all other rightly-divided scripture. 
Thank's for the question, Brother.

I'm mildly curious, if we are so sure that "sons of God" in Genesis 6 has to be human and cannot be angels, then who are the "sons of God" in Job 1, 2 and 38?
If the "sons of God in Job are angels and cannot be human, then what is going on in Genesis 6?
If "sons of God" refers to saved people, then why would humans in Genesis 6 be called such, since one cannot be saved without the blood of Christ, which didn't exist at that time?
Why was no one else in the entire Old Testament called the "son of God"? Why was Ezekiel called "son of man" repeatedly and not ever "son of God"? Was he not saved, but the men in Genesis 6 were? Why was the next human to be called a "son of God" actually Jesus, and then after that those who were truly born again? John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name
How does a "godly"person procreating with an "ungodly" person result in physiological anomalies? Why don't we see it today with saints marrying unbelievers?
Why does Genesis 6 point out that Noah "was perfect (nothing deleted or added) in his generations(bloodlines)"?
If Noah did have an ancestor that was simply a human from Cain's line, why would it have even mattered? It never did after that. See Rehab, Ruth et al
If man sinned, and thus God promised in Genesis 3:15 that he would send a messiah as a man, born of a human woman, why would Satan not begin to immediately try to taint all of the bloodlines coming from women in order to ultimately stop the source of his demise? Why would God not see this plan, cradle the untainted seed protectively in an ark while he washes the earth clean of the poison that would eventually spread unchecked to kill the promise?
Why, if we read that angels can, at will, take on physical abilities of a human (they eat, they fight, they drag by force reluctant women out of Sodom), do we discount that they might can actually take on all abilities? They ARE always referred to as males, which is a sex. And we are created a little lower than the angels. Yes, we are told that the angels do not marry in heaven, but since when is marriage automatically and always a part of sex, and  sex automatically part-and-partial to marriage? They are two different things.
I'm not in any way troubled by someone's beliefs on this issue. I don't want any heartburn or stress over it, and I don't want you to have any over it either :). But it looks to me like the study regarding this particular question has been a little ...shallow. So I'm just mildly curious.
 

I've been making some drastic changes to my diet the last several weeks, while going to the gym 3 times a week. Tonight I had a 6-8 oz steak, steamed broccoli / cauliflower and a steamed sweet potato. The family is having nachos, but I'm trying to be good. 

I'm sitting right now in my office as the principal of a Christian school. Outside the window of my office is the gym, and I can hear the student on break. They are playing, laughing, running and being children, as children should. On my right hip, covered up by a jacket, is a Kimber Warrior .45acp. On my left hip is a spare mag. At any time during the week there may be in the building as many as three of us with handguns on our person. We are a school with a total of 47 students. These handguns are tucked away behind suit coats or jackets or sweaters, depending on the individual's clothing style. They are never shown, flashed or discussed in front of the students, but the students, at least the older students, are all aware of their presence. Many of them know me from church, where I am head of security, and of course my 16 year old son is a student here as well.
I wonder how many of these students of mine had the thought flash through their mind as they watch the news unfold about the new school shooting in Florida, "Not in my school, we have Mr. Noel"? I watch as the news tells us of the heroic football coach there in Florida who gave his life shielding his charges, those who were placed in his care, those he undoubtedly loved, just as I love mine. And I ask myself, what if this good, brave man had possessed a weapon tucked behind his waste band? Just a little .38 revolver even? Something. Anything. What if someone had been allowed to be prepared to fight physical evil with physical means? 
We have sown the wind in this country, and now we are going to reap the whirlwind. Our schools have told the students there is no God, and thus no consequences, no eternal soul, no higher authority. We have fed them a steady diet of humanism, violent movies, games and "music" and all manner of Satanic influences. We have denigrated the Bible, parental authority, the police, the military, the flag, the anthem and our founding fathers. And then we wonder when these monsters start coming out of the woodwork.
The schools will have to start physically, violently defending themselves from the very hell that they have so foolishly and gleefully created, and the ONLY defense from a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun. They will not, of course, do this.
I ask "why", but in truth, I already know the answers.

NN, I am very saddened over your distress and discouragement, and humbly apologize for any part I have played in causing it. As has been said already, we've all been there, and will be there again. Thus, we can all empathize. The Lord is our comfort, and we must look to Him in all things.
Omega, I have re-read your posts above a number of times, and I see where I may have misunderstood some of the things you were saying, and took them in a way they were not intended. I apologize for this as well, and for the trouble brought about by it. I hope you will forgive me for allowing my passion and warrior's heart to cloud my judgement and common sense. It is a weakness I have to contend with continually, and have my whole life.
 

NN, I am very saddened over your distress and discouragement, and humbly apologize for any part I have played in causing it. As has been said already, we've all been there, and will be there again. Thus, we can all empathize. The Lord is our comfort, and we must look to Him in all things.
Omega, I have re-read your posts above a number of times, and I see where I may have misunderstood some of the things you were saying, and took them in a way they were not intended. I apologize for this as well, and for the trouble brought about by it. I hope you will forgive me for allowing my passion and warrior's heart to cloud my judgement and common sense. It is a weakness I have to contend with continually, and have my whole life.
 

First - I think at the bottom of everything, you and I would probably agree that there are a lot of "preachers" today that are not actually preaching. I guess what is bothering me a little this morning is how you are expressing your dissatisfaction with these fellows, and the broad brush you are painting with. I sincerely doubt that you have been in "most churches" to witness and judge their preaching. And even if you have, Romans 14 is very clear that it is not our job to judge another man's servant. These men are not ours to judge. If he IS a man of God, and we set him at naught because of the weakness of his preaching, we ourselves are in danger of being brought to task by the very one that both the preacher and we ourselves actually answer to.
Second - as I pointed out in the post above, Jesus' own messages consisted predominately of stories. This sticks in the craw of the scholars among us (I can't for the life of me picture Jesus pointing out how many different languages He could read the scripture in), but the watchword for all of Christ's messages (be they "preaching" or "teaching") was simplicity and commonality. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't speak in terms of pusillanimous conduct. As "the right kind" of preachers, we use a lot of scripture and scripture words in our preaching, but those we preach to often do not have the same foundation.
I have preached in the jungle of a 3rd world country to a crowd who were illiterate and unchurched. I had an interpreter who would translate for me, and beside him was another translator who would then translate his translation into a third language. A chicken came in strutting down the aisle, a dog came in chasing the chicken and then a naked baby came chasing the dog. Down the middle of the hut / building and up on the platform and around and around before the whole circus was eventually shooed outside. You learn to put the truth down on the dirt, where the meanest can grasp it. That means lots of stories and illustrations. Parables.
Remember this, and chew on it long and hard. Like it or not, preaching is not the end. It is only the means to an end. The TRUTH is the end. And as a preacher, if you loose sight of the end while focusing on the means and methodology, you eventually loose both the method and the message. I don't know you, Omega. You obviously hold the truth, and you sound really smart and educated. Most people are not scholars, however, and most people don't like being talked down to. Even from the pulpit. Especially from the pulpit.
Bottom line? While we agree that there is "wrong" preaching, there is no one RIGHT way to preach. With over 7 billion people on this planet speaking 7,000 living languages and representing almost as many unique, distinct cultures, don't put the delivery of the message in a box.
As I re-read this, it comes across as a rant, and Im almost hesitant to send it. It's not intended as such, and I have no heart to offend or get in a slug-fest over this. I just wanted to express my heart. Those on here who've known me for the last few years have learned to understand my plainness without taking it personal. I hope you can as well, for I truly dont mean this as harsh as it sounds.
 

I heard an interview with someone yesterday who was quoting Australian stats in relation to gun control as a justification for US gun control.
They implied that since we brought in heavy gun restrictions there have been almost no school shootings in Australia.
A couple of things:
1. BEFORE the heavy restrictions there were almost no school shootings in Australia. I don't think anything changed much after they were brought in.
2. Australia has a very different attitude towards guns and gun control. Australia is DIFFERENT to the US, and a direct comparison is not useful.
The overwhelming majority of people here are not gun owners and have no interest in owning guns. Therefore gun ownership restrictions were able to be passed through with little issue. Not even a conservative/progressive political issue here.
Even most gun owners here were ok with the concept of gun restriction. Not the details, but the concept........ because Australia is different to the US, and attitudes to guns are also different to the US.
Not saying one is right and one is wrong - but they are different.
My point is that to use the Aussie gun laws as an argument for US gun laws is not right.
 
 
I do have one question in relation to all this: did school shootings increase when guns were made freely available in the US?
Oh wait - guns have been fairly well accessible in the US since before you were a nation.
When did school shootings start to be heard of in the US?
The "rise" in school shootings is not related to any change in gun availability.

A lady took this photo this morning. It's from the east end of Sequim. Gorgeous sunrise. 

Good for you, @weary warrior. Would that more would follow suit. I know of a school that has most, if not all, of their teachers armed. And trained. The doors lock at 8:30, and nobody without a key card gets in unless the front desk person sees them and buzzes them in. The doors open freely from the inside.  It is a shame that in this day and age those practices are necessary, but it is a truth that they are necessary. 
Folks are just shocked, I tell you, shocked at the idea of arming teachers. All kinds of what-ifs and oh nos going on. The plain truth is that if a would-be shooter knows that the school he or she is going to attempt to shoot up has staff that are armed, said shooter will either not show up or will quickly change their mind. Kinda like the threatened school shooting in 1973 that didn't take place. Students and teachers went to their vehicles to get their guns and waited on the shooter to show. Nobody did...probably because he/she knew they'd never make it past the student and teacher guarding the door.  This was in Delaware.

The Lord is not our protector if we don't lift a hand to protect ourselves. The Lord will not feed us if we don't get off out butt and go to the fridge. The Lord will not fix our flat tire, and if we don't carry a spare, were stuck. The Lord will not put out that grease fire in the kitchen, and if we are too irresponsible to have a fire extinguisher in the house, God will watch our house go up in smoke. If we don't have a smoke alarm, we'll probably even die. The Lord will not heal us if we refuse to accept any medical attention available. And the physical needs of our fellow man, whither it be from the deprivations of hunger or the deprivations of a demoniac with a Glock, have NOTHING to do with politics. What the Evil One really wants is for us to find any excuse, including politics, to say that the dangers facing my fellow man are not my problem. I do not carry a weapon in this school simply because my son attends here. That is an insult. I carry because the children of my fellow man attends here, they are in danger, they were made in the image of God, they breath the very immortal breath of God, and if I don't love them, I don't love God. Love is not what we feel, it's what we do, and what we are willing to do.

I'm sitting right now in my office as the principal of a Christian school. Outside the window of my office is the gym, and I can hear the student on break. They are playing, laughing, running and being children, as children should. On my right hip, covered up by a jacket, is a Kimber Warrior .45acp. On my left hip is a spare mag. At any time during the week there may be in the building as many as three of us with handguns on our person. We are a school with a total of 47 students. These handguns are tucked away behind suit coats or jackets or sweaters, depending on the individual's clothing style. They are never shown, flashed or discussed in front of the students, but the students, at least the older students, are all aware of their presence. Many of them know me from church, where I am head of security, and of course my 16 year old son is a student here as well.
I wonder how many of these students of mine had the thought flash through their mind as they watch the news unfold about the new school shooting in Florida, "Not in my school, we have Mr. Noel"? I watch as the news tells us of the heroic football coach there in Florida who gave his life shielding his charges, those who were placed in his care, those he undoubtedly loved, just as I love mine. And I ask myself, what if this good, brave man had possessed a weapon tucked behind his waste band? Just a little .38 revolver even? Something. Anything. What if someone had been allowed to be prepared to fight physical evil with physical means? 
We have sown the wind in this country, and now we are going to reap the whirlwind. Our schools have told the students there is no God, and thus no consequences, no eternal soul, no higher authority. We have fed them a steady diet of humanism, violent movies, games and "music" and all manner of Satanic influences. We have denigrated the Bible, parental authority, the police, the military, the flag, the anthem and our founding fathers. And then we wonder when these monsters start coming out of the woodwork.
The schools will have to start physically, violently defending themselves from the very hell that they have so foolishly and gleefully created, and the ONLY defense from a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun. They will not, of course, do this.
I ask "why", but in truth, I already know the answers.