Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

Paul Christian

Members
  • Posts

    44
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Paul Christian

  1. I personally do not like the language of "personal relationship". The reason is because of how false Christianity uses it, and how prolific it is. It's along the lines of "invite Jesus into your heart". It is very difficult to find a clear gospel in the messages given by the people who use these terms, and they usually have a works based gospel at that. That "personal relationship" or "inviting Jesus into your heart" essentially equates to "a changed life" gospel. Jesus told saved people that if they loved Him, they should keep His commandments. By bible standards, there can be people who are saved, but do not obey His commandments, and therefor, do not love God. God sets the standard in the bible, so we should use His terms. I will tell people out soul winning that the bible does not tell us to invite Jesus into our heart to be saved, but it does say that if we believe in our heart, we will be saved. No gospel message should put a focus on the life they should live after they are saved, because we don't want to confuse that life with getting saved. When explaining eternal security, we should explain to them the good things that they should do after being saved, but only to point out that it is not required for salvation. A relationship with Jesus Christ cannot be more personal than the Spirit of God living inside of us, and nobody has a relationship with Jesus without the Holy Ghost living in them. Anyone can receive a gift from someone without talking to them every day. They can receive the gift without going to church, or ever reading their bible. It goes without saying that this is not what God wants, but God does not require a "personal relationship with Jesus" beyond them being seal with the Holy Ghost. Romans 4:5 makes it clear that a person can do no works and be saved by faith. I personally believe that a saved person who spends no time with God is not going to be fulfilled or even very happy, but I do not believe that it is a sign that they are not saved. If we are going to use mainstream Christianity's terms, we should put it in it's proper place, which is post salvation concerning "personal relationship with Jesus". I would tell them that they already have a personal relationship with Jesus if they are saved. Being a child of God is a relational situation. Beyond that, it can be a bad relationship concerning our interactions, or the lack thereof, with God. Let's say that we pray every day, but God is not hearing us because of how we treat our wife. Do we have a good relationship with God? Does that make us unsaved? It is a vague term that is not easily clarified. I have a personal relationship with my earthly father, but I don't like him, nor do I want to spend time with him. Personal relationships are very complex, and often difficult. I don't believe that it is a good term to use with people concerning God. I would rather just use God's words, such as "while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us", "for God so loved the world", or "we love Him because He first loved us". Then we can point out to people that "if we love Him, we should keep His commandments". A church cannot help you with a personal relationship with Jesus beyond keeping His commandments. If they keep His commandments, they will love the brethren, and seek for the lost to be saved. They will preach the Word in and out of season. They will rebuke, reprove, and exhort with all long suffering, etc. If someone preaches about having a personal relationship with God, hopefully, they will preach that you can have a good personal relationship with God, or you can have a bad personal relationship with God, so choose this day whom ye will serve, the flesh, or the Spirit.
  2. It seems like the preachers of old brought a lot of people to making a decision by peaching it. It certainly is a warning. The problem today seems to be the ecumenical trend toward Billy Graham doctrine. While the IFBs were preaching hard against the sexual revolution, which included sodomites being rejected of God, Billy Graham was including everyone. “Reprobate”, as defined by the first bible usage, just means rejected of God. (Jeremiah 6:30). We put names on doctrine that, hopefully, represent our doctrine well. Whether we call it the unpardonable sin doctrine, the reprobate doctrine, or the rejected of God doctrine, they all involve God giving up on saving a person. Since no man can come unless drawn, the question is simply how do we identify people of whom God is no longer drawing? I personally believe that people who obviously hate God have crossed that line, and since so many people are claiming to believe in the God of the Bible, one way to identify false believers is by finding out if they hate biblical teaching, which we first have to identify and articulate. A lot of “Christians” today hate salvation by grace through faith alone, and once saved always saved. I recently had a man get emotional and angry when I told him that repenting of your sins is works and gave him Jonah 3:10 and other verses. The only groups of people that the Bible seems to specifically identify as rejected of God are false prophets and homosexuals. The Bible also seems to include the latter as a possible trait of the former. I believe that my dad is likely reprobate. He has hated even the mention of God, or the Bible for a long time, and has no fear whatsoever to blaspheme God openly. My uncle is a sodomite, and I have witnessed Romans 1 in him. There is no unrighteousness that he would not do if he could get away with it. I believe that Romans 1 is a warning to us, particularly in the time and place that we live, because Baptist churches are inviting them into their congregations making their flocks vulnerable to all of the unrighteousnesses within them. If we heed God’s warnings concerning them, we might just stave off Gods judgement upon us a little longer, in our nation, in our churches, and even in our homes. If our children fall victim to them, it is very likely that they will turn into haters of God because of it, which is not right, but happens. Even if I did not believe they were rejected of God, I would not allow them in my home or around my children. When we know that a brother is fornicating we ultimately kick them out of church and don’t even break bread with him. How much more the sodomite, given what the Bible says about them? Bad doctrine ruins lives, both in this world and the next. I look forward to hearing your words on the matter. A subject that I would like to explore is actually one that I disagree with many on, including many in the IFBs. I think that the rich young ruler was saved.
  3. I’m not plugging Anderson, but clearly he has a lot of people on the defensive concerning doctrine, and anyone that believes the same as he does on certain doctrine will be labeled a “follower” of his. All I seem to be getting is general statements rather than scriptural refutations on the doctrine. When I mention that God gave them up, God gave them over, and God gave them up, all I seem to get in return is “that doesn’t mean what it says”, or “the Pauline epistles generally refute that”, when Paul was the one who wrote it. I can post the respected preachers of old using those verses to teach the same doctrine, and people will defend the preacher while rejecting their doctrine. It’s like doing a study on cognitive dissonance. First, people tell me that it is never too late for anyone, then say that it is for some, just not the ones specifically mentioned in the verses that have historically been used to preach the doctrine. Then they pick out a preacher that currently preaches the doctrine and accuse me of being some blind follower of the man, even though I had never mentioned the man, and gave and compared a whole slew of scripture to make my doctrinal points. I don’t respect a person who can only “win” an argument through guilt by association. Convince me of how men with men and the women leaving the natural use of the man has nothing to do with God gave them up and over to it, or how God gave them up and over doesn’t mean that God contributed to it. Now we are just down to English grammar and word definitions, because the Bible says it. This is only hard to be understood for people who don’t have ears to hear it.
  4. I don't think that you understand the reprobate doctrine. It is summed up by saying that there is a line that people cross with God that they can no longer be saved. These preachers of old used the same chapters and verses to teach it. There is no difference between "unpardonable sins" and the "reprobate doctrine" other than the labels themselves. The only difference between Jack Hyles using all of those verses in Romans 1 and Steven Anderson using them, is that Jack Hyles didn't live in a day where baptist preachers exclude the very people being described in detail in Romans 1. Hyles had no need to expound on those verses because it was obvious to the people that he was preaching to what was between those verses, and he didn't live in a day where the "LGBTQ community" had a lot of political power to silence people in the public realm. Do you really think that Hyles would use those verses in Romans 1 to teach unpardonable sin, but then turn around and say that the verses he just used don't apply to the people being described in between those verses? That is a high level of cognitive dissonance, and is, quite frankly, desperate in nature. I attend Sure Foundation Baptist Church in Vancouver Wa. I have been authorized by my pastor to start an assisted living home ministry in my area on the Sunday mornings that I can not attend church, which is three hours away. I am starting a soul winning program where I live as well. Tomorrow is the first day of that program. My pastor wants me to video tape the nursing home ministry, partially because he wants to see what is going on, but also to get the word out, just in case there are like minded people in our area. I'll post links to the nursing home ministry Facebook and youtube pages when I get them established.
  5. Now you are calling John R Rice, Glen Schunk,, and Jack Hyles reprobates. They all taught crossing a line with God, and not being able to be saved, using the same verses that I did.
  6. Anderson may be a good teacher, but he is not the Word of God. God’s words speak for themselves, and one reason that I respect the man is for defending the word of God and pointing out continually the right gospel. 1 John 2:27 tells us that because we have the Holy Spirit to teach us, we don’t need a man to teach us. Anderson was the man who pointed me to that. The reality is that when a person casts down the presuppositions of past teaching by men, and reads the Bible for themselves, they will find many things that contradict popular doctrine, and that is what people really don’t like, so they blame it on one man teaching it, rather than refuting the doctrine with scripture. I’m not quoting Anderson, I’m quoting the Bible. If I wanted to quote men, I could quote many current preachers, many modern teachers, and many from antiquity. Little children repeat what others say to make a point, while the learned speak to the authority. I have not exhibited child like behavior hear, and do not succumb to it. I could quit listening to all preaching for 20 years and the Bible would still say the same thing. Why would I seek a spirit that doesn’t agree with the Word of God? Why were you saying that I was calling John R Rice a reprobate?
  7. I think you might want to read my post again. I said they “taught” the reprobate doctrine, sir.
  8. When you talk about wresting the scriptures, I don't think it is wrong to compare scripture with scripture. There is no context deficiency between the verses mentioned in Romans 1, Hebrews 6, Mathew 11, 2 Peter 2, Revelation 22, or the example I mentioned concerning Pharaoh and Moses. Exodus 8:32 And Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also, neither would he let the people go. Exodus 9:12 And the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he hearkened not unto them; as the Lord had spoken unto Moses. The same thing is happening in Romans 1. First God makes Himself known to them. Then, when they knew God, they became vein in their imaginations and their foolish heart was darkened. Then professing themselves to be wise, they become fools. Then they fully turn away from God, worshiping the creation rather than the Creator. At this point, God becomes proactive in giving them over to their lusts and a reprobate mind. In this process they become worse and worse until they are "filled with all unrighteousness", and until they are without natural affection, implacable, and unmerciful. Romans 1 says that these reprobates are implacable and unmerciful. Pharaoh was implacable and unmerciful. God hardened Pharaoh's heart so that pharaoh would not let God's people go. Why would God do that, when God wanted His people to be let go? God did not want Pharaoh's heart to soften, but rather wanted pharaoh to be destroyed in the end. Romans 1 also says that they are "deserving of death". Malachi 3:6 says "For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed." Hebrews 13:8 says "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." I don't think that God has changed how He does things. The same God hardened Pharaohs heart that gives people over to a reprobate mind. It is the same God that said in Hosea 9:15 "All their wickedness is in Gilgal: for there I hated them: for the wickedness of their doings I will drive them out of mine house, I will love them no more: all their princes are revolters" that said in Rev 22:19 "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book". 2 Peter 2:12 But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption; These people are "made to be taken and destroyed". God hardened pharaoh's heart so that he would be destroyed. The Romans 1 people are also made to be destroyed. God pushes them along until they are deserving of death. In Judges 20:48 the men of Israel are slaughtering the Benjamites because of Judges 19, and they slaughtered them "as the beast". Jude references Sodom and Gamorrha and refers to what those people know naturally as being that of "brute beasts'. The old testament law requires that a brute beast be put down, or "destroyed", which is what 2 Peter 2:12 is referencing. One of the attributes of a false prophet is sexual deviancy. Many false prophets are found out to be child molesters or sodomites. Just as a person who is saved is saved forever, so it is with the children of the devil. Paul referred to a sorcerer in acts 13:10 as a child of the devil, and said that he was the enemy of "all righteousness", just as Romans 1 says they are full of "all unrighteousness". When I see effeminate men preaching, all I have to do is check their gospel, and if it is a false gospel, I can rightfully wonder if they are a sodomite or child molester, because that is one of the false prophet's attributes. There is no room in God's word for suffering an effeminate man to teach, especially when they possess the mannerisms of a woman, because it is not natural, and what is not natural might have been given over by God. Jude says there are people who crept in unawares who were ordained of old for this condemnation, and goes on to reference the people of Sodom and Gomorrha as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. You can take all of the scriptures that speak of God's love and long suffering, and apply it to these people, saying that they can get saved right up until they die, but Jude 1:12 says that living people are twice dead, plucked up by the roots. The only way that a living person can be twice dead, it to be reserved for the second death, which is hell. If they are reserved for the second death, their names are no longer written in the book of life. God draws all men to Him, but there is a point where some people are those who "God will love no more". God so loved the world, therefor God loves everybody, until He doesn't. We can't save what God won't save. There is no lack of parallel context in these passages. Genesis 6:3 My spirit will not always strive with man. Eph 4:19 who being past feeling have given themselves over Hebrews 12:17 ..for he found no place for repentance, though he sought it with tears In Hosea 4 God is no longer chastening, and in vs 17 says "Ephraim is joined to idols: let him alone. John 12:39 Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again,40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. Glen Schunk, Jack Hyles, and John R Rice all taught the reprobate doctrine.
  9. I don't believe that the fruit of the Spirit is relevant to God rejecting and giving up on people, outside of the Spirit first drawing them. Fruit is what is produced by something. While Jesus was talking about false prophets, he talks about trees that produce good or bad fruit, in Mathew 7. He said that you will know false prophets by their fruit, not saved people. Unsaved people can do all of the things listed as being the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5. Why would we think that God keeps drawing them after God has given them over to a rejected mind, vile affections, and to do those things? God makes it clear in Hebrews 6 that it is impossible to renew them again. People that believe the sodomites can be saved have to believe that God gives them over to act like a beast, which is behavior that God says is deserving of death in the same chapter, and to have a reprobate mind, yet still wants them to get saved. Preachers are now telling people that you can take the mark of the beast and still be saved, which is along the same lines. The bible says that their names will be taken out of the book of life, but that doesn't seem to matter to those who just want God to save everyone no matter what the bible says. Do you believe that the sodomite editors of the NIV can be saved? They have gone through Romans 1, and they have changed the Word of God, yet they have not physically died yet. Does a sodomite have to turn from all of their sin, or just that one, to be saved? How is a sodomite going to turn from that sin when God has given him over to it, and they don't have the power to do it on their own? Is the Holy Ghost drawing the person at the same time God is causing him to have a rejected mind, and is giving him up to uncleanness? Are you thinking that God gives them over to it, they become a full blown sodomite, and then God starts drawing them to Him again? John 6:44 says: No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: Does God quit drawing them while He is giving them up, and giving them over? It seems really strange that God would do this to them while He was trying to get them saved, because He is giving them over to a "rejected" (reprobate) mind. What you seem to be saying is that God gives them up, and over, to do what sodomites do, and then starts drawing them again, after they have literally lost their minds. When I give people the gospel, I am trying to get them to understand certain things. I have literally given the gospel to mentally ill people, even while their relatives were in the background laughing at it. I would get through a point thinking that they understood it, and then they would say something that told me that they clearly didn't, and eventually, it became clear that they could not, or would not, get it. My gospel presentation is packed with scriptures, showing them from my bible, because "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God". Why would I think that people who have been given over to a reprobate mind have ears to hear? Mathew 11:15 says "he who hath ears to hear, let him hear". Doesn't this mean that some do not have ears to hear, and wouldn't we consider someone who has gone through Romans 1:17-32 with God are some who don't? Jesus told some of the false prophets of His day that they would have "never forgiveness" for speaking against the Holy Ghost. 2 Peter 2 seems to add to all of this concerning the condemnation of such people. Why would a homosexual "defending the practice" thereof be any different than everyone else? You could say that they defend it because they are given over to it, but what about the "saved" people who defend the practice, or the unsaved, who just think it is fine and not a problem? We don't have all of God's knowledge as soon as we get saved. Someone can believe on the Lord Jesus and trust in Him for salvation and still be wrong on this issue. The only time that I would question their salvation is when they deny clear scripture, because a saved person will not reject the Word of God. I am not wresting the scriptures. My logic on these verses is not out in left field, it is just taking them for what they are saying, and not denying that God has a hand in making them that way. You can say that a sodomite makes the choices that lead to it, but to say that God does not proactively contribute to them becoming a sodomite is denying clear scriptures. The KJV is God's word in the English language, and these words are not hard to be understood, as you mentioned by quoting Peter.
  10. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Whatever you may think these verses say, the verbage is clear that God did something to them. The references are proactive on God's part. It is quite clear in vs 28 that God did something to their mind, and if we use the bible to define it, we have to go to Jeremiah 6:30, which is the first use of the word "reprobate' in the bible. Jeremiah 6:30 Reprobate silver shall men call them, because the Lord hath rejected them. Apparently, when God rejects someone, their mind becomes "reprobate", and results in them doing things which are not convenient, unclean, vile, and against nature. Men with men is against nature, just as the women leaving the natural use of the man is. God also makes reprobates out of people who change His word, take the mark of and worship the beast, and the people of Hebrews 6:4-6. We have examples such as with Moses and the pharaoh. Pharaoh hardened his own heart, and then God hardened his heart. Homosexuality is not a sin that is common to man. It is an unnatural sin that occurs only after God does something to them. It appears that God removes whatever separates people from the natural and unnatural. The NT warns saved people about indulging in the lusts of the flesh, and of this world, but I don't believe that God gives saved people over to, or up to, unnatural, vile, unclean, and inconvenient lusts, as He did in Romans 1, for his seed remaineth in us. Neither do I believe that God does this to people that are not Hebrews 6:4-6 people. Romans 1 says "when they knew God". These people have already tasted of the heavenly gift. God made himself known to them, and they are without excuse. Their choices caused their foolish hearts to be darkened just like Pharaoh did. Unless someone can show me some scripture that says these people can be saved, I just can't buy it.
  11. If you read 1 Corinthians 6, the "unrighteous" in verse 9 is referring to not being saved. All of these sins can be done by saved people. Some of these people committed some of those sins. How is it that they could no longer commit any of those sins? 1 John 3:9 says that whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin, for his seed remaineth in him, and he cannot sin... yet "if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. When the people who committed some of those sins got saved, those sins were no longer accounted unto them, yet they could continue in the flesh to commit such sins. Some of the saved people in Corinth may have still been in some of these sins (in the flesh), as is evidenced by the context of the rest of chapter 6. If you are going to say that "abusers of themselves with mankind' is talking about homosexuals, and therefor homosexuals can be saved, then you have to admit that you believe that homosexuals can continue in the sin of homosexuality and be saved. If you say that no practicing homosexual is saved, then you contradict your own interpretation of 1 Cor 6:9. If you say that they can be saved if they quit sinning, then you are preaching works salvation. If you say that they can be saved, but if they commit the sin of homosexuality again, they will lose it, then you don't believe in the eternal security of the believer. I personally believe what Romans 1 teaches, which is that they were haters of God, became vein in their imaginations, worshiped the creation more than the creator, and God eventually gave them up to vile affections and a reprobate mind, which is why they are homosexuals or "trannys". Romans 1 finishes off referring back to Leviticus 20;13, so I fail to see the opportunity for them to get saved, especially when God made them that way.
  12. What I was trying to convey was not just a quiet voice, but a soft mushy lovey dovvy voice that comes out when they are trying to be “Christ like”. There is a difference between loud and angry, which is good in its place, and just authoritative. The effeminate is neither. We should teach as Jesus tought, as one having authority, and not as the scribes.
  13. Acts 7:18 talks about Moses being in the wilderness with the church. A church is a congregation. A biblical church congregates somewhere.
  14. A church only has authority over what happens in church, but screwed up people tend to get better when the church does it's job. I disagree with marriage counselling in the church, because everybody has a bible, and it doesn't take long to point out the verses that should be sounded from the pulpit. They will either obey the bible or not. I have seen many defeated men in churches over the years. Their wives like to say that they had to take control because their husbands won't. The reality was that the woman would end the marriage if the husband stepped up. I've seen the women leave as well. When God doesn't allow remarriage while the spouse is alive, the men are faced with being defeated in their home, or being single until she dies. A man cannot assert his authority when the wife is not in obedience to God. He can only pray and wait. I've seen pastors get deep into people's personal lives in the process of marriage counselling, and because they would not preach and teach hard on God's family structure, it ended poorly, and with the church leadership stepping into the marriage where they ought not, even counselling the wife separately. I looked at it like the church leadership was committing spiritual adultery with another man's wife, because the man is the head of his wife, not leaders in the church. This was a non-denom church, but I'm sure baptists are not immune. I am remarried, and I know what it was now to remarry now, but I am blessed with a Godly wife and a life lacking the strife that I have seen and endured, and it is undeniably due to hard, biblical preaching, and having a common purpose in life that is well defined. I've seen women lead their husbands out of church when they heard things that they didn't like as well. You can mark that man as defeated.
  15. The kind of hard preaching that I appreciate is expounding on Deut 22:5, and not leaving out the women. If a pastor preaches what a man's garment is, then the women will be wearing skirts and dresses, and not breaches. Hard preaching on 1 Cor 11:14, 15 produces a congregation where the women are ashamed to have short hair, or the men having long hair. Hard preaching on Romans 10:13-15 causes the congregation to actually go out and give the gospel to the lost. I visited a church in Vancouver Wa this weekend and went to their Saturday and Sunday soul winning times. Barring some visitors from out of town, I believe that 90% of the congregation went out soul winning, and they have a third weekday time. In total, there were 60-70 soul winners going out, including the children. I have seen 12 year old's knocking doors and giving a complete gospel presentation. A church like that just makes you feel alive and useful. When those 80-90 people sing the hymns, I could barely hear my own singing, when I was singing as loud as I could without losing my voice. My wife loves it, because she isn't the best singer, and can cry aloud while singing without being self conscious. My wife gave up wearing pants due to hard preaching of the word that helped move her to change. It took her some time, but I didn't have to say a word to her. Just hearing the preaching and going to a church full of women in dresses was enough for her to act on her own. When we went to a baptist church where the women spoke to the congregation, she was set back by it, and didn't like it. I truly believe that these changes in her were due to the fear of God to disobey these commandments, or to disagree with what God calls an abomination, but that fear was prompted by preaching. We were invited to a church couple's house for dinner Saturday night. The husband is leading their nursing home ministry. The women toiled in the kitchen while the men spoke of leadership in ministry, as the church is sanctioning me starting a nursing home ministry where I live. Although I didn't realize it while there, in retrospect, I realize that the men and the women were doing by nature what God created them to do, without some rigid plan for the evening. While going soul winning, the men were setting up the maps and pairing people together. They had a little confusion during the process. I brought it up with my wife on the three hour drive home. She told me that her and the ladies that she was paired with didn't understand why they were doing it that way, because it didn't make sense. I agreed with them, but even I did not argue with the men leading it, and the ladies had a conversation later about it, talking about how they don't get to correct the men, and just have to do whatever they are told. Not as a bad thing, but as a right thing. I just don't see this kind of church happening without a firm hand on doctrine through hard preaching. Maybe it does, but I have not seen it.
  16. No, really. There is no scripture I can give you that directly correlates fear with honor and respect toward men. Fear God, honour the king, does not mean to fear the king.
  17. If someone screams and yells the whole sermon, that would get tiring really quickly. Hard preaching to me is just preaching the Whole council without apology, and when appropriate, showing some righteous indignation. I’ve heard a lot of preaching over the years on Eph 5:22-24, and if they expounded on it at all, it was to excuse it away with vs 21. Hard preaching would simply make a dominant woman in the church want to either leave or know that God is really not happy with her. If the preaching works, and is complete, the church would be full of men fulfilling their roles as leaders in the home and in the church rather than being less of a man because of their wive’s offense and behavior toward them.
  18. I would like to say that fear, honor, and respect are all synonyms of one another in the Bible. I don’t view “fear” as meaning “shaking in your boots” here, although you certainly can find that in the Bible. I fear my pastor because he is a righteous man put in authority that I know will rebuke, correct, and exhort me if needs be, and he has tools that could go as far as exposing my sin before the congregation, or even kicking me out of church. His authority is from the Lord, but he is the one who would do it. Our government is becoming a terror to good works, but by and large, they still bear the sword for me if I were to be tempted to break a righteous law. I do not have a spirit of fear toward them, but if sin were to lay at the door, I would fear them, just as I would my earthly father, or a pastor in authority over me. This is a good fear to have available to my flesh. When my members betray my spirit, God has provided for an earthly solution, that has nothing to do with my eternal life. I am blessed with a wife who fears God, and seeks to be in quit obedience even unto her husband, but in our culture today, hard preaching from the pulpit is ultimately what settled it for her. Hard preaching without apology is what drove it home for her, and she has great respect for those preachers. The soft preaching on it, that was usually accompanied with an almost apologetic dialogue, never drove it home for her until it was preached hard without apology. I have no doubt that hard preaching is what many people need, and will prick the hearts of the hearers even unto being fearful of disobeying. Soft voices do not penetrate thick skulls. When people hear righteous indignation protruding from the man of God, created in His image, it can move God’s people toward repentance.
  19. Who has been made complete, or perfect? I certainly have not, because I have not been resurrected, only Christ has as the first fruits of the resurrection. My spirit cannot sin, yet I have a flesh that cannot be made complete until the resurrection. Because of my flesh, I do that which I ought not, and what I ought, that I do not, therefor it is not I, but sin which dwells in my members. Because of this, God has appointed rulers over me who bear not the rod or the sword in vein. I do not understand why Christians don’t think that this applies to them, as if being saved makes them sinless in the flesh, and negates God’s law when their flesh sins. God did not give us the “spirit” of fear, but He did give us the powers that be to scourge the flesh. Should we say that God does not chasten and scourge every son which He receiveth with the powers that He put in place? Why would we not fear those powers themselves, when they are the flesh that scourges flesh? When people say that you have to repent of your sin and live a good life to be saved, they have the same problem as people that think all fear is bad. They both fail to understand that he that is born of God doth not commit sin, for His seed remaineth in him, and he cannot sin. That seed is not subject to fear, nor is a spirit of fear, but our members which sin should fear the higher powers. Those powers are supposed to be “men”, who were created in the image of God for such a purpose, not women. The law bounds the woman in obedience to the man, and when the man looks and sounds like an obedient woman he is not right with God. Even nature tells us that it is a shame unto a man to have long hair, and the woman’s hair is given for a covering. Our heads are not supposed to be covered, and our voices are not to be silenced in the congregation. Itching ears seek for a soft voice, and when the man of God provides it, it won’t be long before the woman is speaking in the congregation, because there is so little difference. I’m not listing all the scripture because I have been out of town going to a good church, and have to use my phone.
  20. I would say Romans 13. I would say that our fathers, pastors, police, judges, and even military, should be people who are respected with some level of fear, and women should not play a role in any of these. We should fear these people because of the power they have, both physical and spiritual, which is given of God. Did Paul not rebuke those which he called his children, even unto threatening to bring a rod with him when he came? No matter the nature of the rod, it was a tactic of fear. He who spareth the the rod hateth his son. 1 Peter 3 tells the women to have a meek and “quiet” spirit, but not the men. Isaiah 58:1 is an example of a man preaching against sin, and God sent the prophets to many nations to do so. Obviously, there is a balance to be kept, but the balances should be leveled. There is much more negative to preaching the whole council of God than there is positive.
  21. I don’t have all the answers on what it means to be effeminate, because the Bible doesn’t go into great detail. It seems like something that we should understand by nature, which is getting harder to discern as we have all probably been influenced by the world to have a slightly skewed view. I think that God wants us wearing clothes that are clearly different than women. I also think that men should speak differently, according to how we were created. As we know, a women should not be permitted to speak in the church, but rather be under obedience, as also saith the law. Speaking from humility and meekly is good for the man as well, but unlike the woman, not always. The men are not the weaker vessel, and thus are responsible for exuding the authoritative leadership role as it pertains to the image of God. If a man is not feared on some level, neither is he respected, especially by other men. A righteous man who preaches hard against sin causes other men to fear him, because they get a picture of God’s anger through him. It makes it real for them in a sense. If all they ever see is love, joy, and peace in a man, they know by nature what is common to man, and that there is something missing. A man should be angry, and not sin, but if he is never angry, then there seems to be something wrong. There certainly are men out there who sound and act like a homosexual man, but are not. Certainly that is the clear sinful effeminacy mentioned in the Bible.
  22. I don’t get it. Do people use it in church? I’ve heard it in politics, but not sure how it applies biblically. Maybe concerning sin? Still doesn’t seem like a good parallel.
×
×
  • Create New...