Donations for the month of August

We have received a total of $220 in donations towards our goal of $175.

Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Member Spotlight
Posts: 170
Joined: May 2016
Show All Member Profiles 
Forum Statistics
Most Online373
Mar 5th, 2017
Top Posters(All Time)
Pilgrim 13,242
Tom 3,230
chestnutmare 2,836
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,739
RJ_ 1,582
MarieP 1,578
gotribe 1,057
Top Posters(30 Days)
Tom 46
Pilgrim 31
John_C 7
Meta4 2
Recent Posts
A Guy at Work
by Tom. Tue Aug 22, 2017 12:15 AM
The Lutheran view/translation on Psalm 8:4-6
by Pilgrim. Mon Aug 21, 2017 9:34 PM
White grape juice for the Lord's Supper?
by Meta4. Mon Aug 21, 2017 6:51 PM
A new translation - CSB
by John_C. Mon Aug 21, 2017 10:12 AM
Charlottesville Virginia and White Supremacy
by Tom. Sun Aug 20, 2017 6:02 PM
Martin Luther the Calvinist
by PerpetualLearner. Sun Aug 20, 2017 9:08 AM
Yesterday at 04:15 AM A Guy at Work by Tom
As some of you might be aware I try to be serious about sharing my faith with those I am around; especially those who I am around the most. I have been getting quite a few chances to proclaim the Gospel on my own time with a few people from work. There are a lot of positive discussions going on.
Enter (name omitted), he is a very passionate individual who says he is a Christian and often sends me articles about his passion. Which is basically the left wing and communist agenda against Christianity, as well as how the New Age movement in its various forms are permeating society. Some of this material is pretty good and some not so good.
Along the way, I have always tried to steer the conversation towards the Lord; the Gospel and His Church. I actually gave him a really good Gospel presentation pamphlet written by Pilgrim on the necessary ingredients of a Gospel presentation. He read it, and seemed to agree, but because of his vagueness I have my doubts about what he actually believes. He is very clear about his dislike of the homosexual agenda, The New Age Movement, and a few other related issues. But not so much on what it is he actually believes concerning the Gospel.
We had an e-mail conversation recently concerning a comment that he made that made me want to understand where he was coming from. His comment was that he “dislikes organized religion”, because where they should be coming together to fight against the devil, they separate and cause division.
As I was thinking about this, I thought of ways I could respectfully try to get the discussion towards the Lord and His Church. I decided one way to do this is to use as much Scripture as possible and use his passion against the New Age movement, to try to show him that unity is based on a common belief in the essentials of Scripture and therefore if they were to unite before those differences were solved. Like Gal. 5:9 says “A little yeast leavens the whole lump of dough.” I explained how this is not a good thing either. I then asked him in light of his comment about not liking “organized religion” as a Christian can he help me understand where he is coming from.
His response was
“Pretty simple, I don't believe in organized religion for the very same way you have discussed other Christian groups.
They are influenced by many leaderships that corrupt the Gospel....I have a very simple way of looking at Christianity. I don't get caught up in latest Church trends that seem to be changing Christians thinking. (On purpose)”

I thought his response was a little too vague, so I asked to expand on his answer by considering the Scripture verses I gave him. Mainly, because in his vagueness I am having a hard time understanding where he is coming from.
His response came back:
“ your try to dissect me or trying to say Im not a Christian.....I did realize that I under the microscope.”

I told him that I never even entered into questioning whether he was a Christian or not. (admittedly I have my doubts). I told him I am trying to understand where he is coming from.
His last response was the following. ’
What does it matter how I think? It doesn’t matter to me how you think? You believe in Christ and I’m ok with that. There many things you say I don’t agree with. But I don’t hold that against you as you shouldn’t either about me. I come from a different back ground than you.

I sent him one more response, telling him that differences and backgrounds are understandable and there will always be differences of opinion on certain things. However, the Gospel essentials as determined by Scripture transcends all barriers between backgrounds. The Gospel unites Christians together.
He has not responded to me and I actually do not expect him to. However, I have learned one thing about him. He does indeed care that I agree with him, he made that very clear in previous discussion.

Can you understand where he is coming from, because without thinking the worst, I certainly can’t?

I better mention, this particular guy thinks nothing of using profanity; which should tell me something. He also has not been to a Church in quite some time, preferring to have Church with his brother and him.

Not even sure, if I should be having more discussions of this nature with him.

12 Views · 0 Comments
Mon Aug 21, 2017 7:40 PM The Lutheran view/translation on Psalm 8:4-6 by PerpetualLearner
Is the following good translation and interpretation, or is it going too far reading Christianity back into the Old Testament?

Psalm 8:4-6 (An American Translation by William F. Beck, Lutheran)

"what is man that You should think of him,
or the son of man that You should come and visit him?

You make Him do without God for a little while;
then crown Him with glory and majesty
and make Him ruler over what Your hands have made,
putting everything under His feet:"
(Footnote: Heb 2:6-9; 1 Cor 15:27,28; Eph 1:22)

Luther translated v5 "Thou wilt let Him be forsaken of God for a little while" taken from The Lutheran Study Bible

From The Popular Commentary (1924) by Paul E. Kretzmann (Lutheran) on this passage:

"v. 4. what is man that Thou art mindful of him, that the great God should spend any thoughts upon human nature, so far below Him that a comparison is not possible, and the Son of Man, that Thou visitest Him? The reference, as Heb_2:6-10 shows, is to Christ, who assumed human nature, with all its weakness and lowliness, who was made in the likeness of men and was found in fashion as a man, Php_2:7-8. It is to this singular man alone that the next words can apply.

v. 5. For Thou hast made Him a little lower than the angels, literally, "Thou hast caused Him to lack a little of God," this being fulfilled when the Son of Man, in the depths of His sufferings for mankind, was forsaken by His heavenly Father, as He Himself cries out, and hast crowned Him with glory and honor, with the majesty and glory peculiar to the essence of God, this taking place when Jesus Christ, the Son of Man, entered upon His state of exaltation, when the Savior, who had deliberately waived the right to use the divine power and majesty communicated to His human nature, assumed and practiced this right, also according to His humanity.

v. 6. Thou madest Him to have dominion over the works of Thy hands, as the Ruler of the entire universe, with boundless power and majesty, and that according to His human nature; Thou hast put all things under His feet, Eph_1:22 "

35 Views · 3 Comments
Sun Aug 20, 2017 8:56 PM White grape juice for the Lord's Supper? by PerpetualLearner
This morning was my first Communion service at the Baptist church I currently attend. I knew most, if not all, Baptists used grape juice instead of wine, but I'd never heard of any church using white grape juice as was done today. I've looked online to see if I could find a reason for it, and so far the only thing I found was to keep someone from accidentally taking wine? I don't understand that. To be honest, I felt it more 'authentic' in a liturgical service with real red wine when I was visiting Anglican and Lutheran services. I find only "red wine" in the Scriptures and it seems natural to represent blood. Anyone else encountered white grape juice or wine for the Lord's Supper, or know the reason for it?

47 Views · 6 Comments
Sun Aug 20, 2017 1:08 PM Martin Luther the Calvinist by PerpetualLearner
The Title is a bit tongue in cheek, but I had encountered something Luther had written on the extent of the atonement and when placed next to his writing of the sovereignty of God in salvation, it sounds quite Calvinistic.

"And it is this very state of the truth, that of necessity proves "Free-will" to be nothing at all; seeing that, the love and hatred of God towards men is immutable and eternal; existing, not only before there was any merit or work of "Free-will," but before the worlds were made; and that, all things take place in us from necessity, accordingly as He loved or loved not from all eternity. So that, not the love of God only, but even the manner of His love imposes on us necessity. Here then it may be seen, how much its invented ways of escape profit the Diatribe; for the more it attempts to get away from the truth, the more it runs upon it; with so little success does it fight against it!" Section 101 of The Bondage of the Will

"God will have all men to be saved” (1 Timothy 2:4), and he gave his Son for us men, and he created man for the sake of eternal life. And likewise: Everything is there for man’s sake and he is there for God’s sake in order that he may enjoy him, etc. But this objection [to God’s sovereignty in salvation] and others like it can just as easily be refuted as the first one: because all these sayings must be understood only with respect to the elect [emphasis in original], as the apostle says in 2 Timothy 2:10, “All for the elect.” Christ did not die for absolutely all, for he says: “This is my blood which is shed for you” (Luke 22:20) and “for many” (Mark 14:24)- he did not say: for all- “to the remission of sins” (Matthew 26:28Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)). [Martin Luther, Lectures on Romans, translated and edited by Wilhelm Pauck (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1961), 252.]

21 Views · 0 Comments
Fri Aug 18, 2017 1:42 PM A new translation - CSB by John_C
What is optimal equilvalence? I know the NIV used dynamic equivalence. So the question is what is the difference between the two?

Here is an extract from the opening paragraph on the website.


The CSB was translated using a methodology called Optimal Equivalence, which balances contemporary English readability with linguistic precision to the original languages. In the many places throughout Scripture where a word-for-word rendering is clearly understandable, a literal translation is used. When a word-for-word rendering might obscure the meaning for a modern audience, a more dynamic translation is used.

122 Views · 4 Comments
Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 17 guests, and 102 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Petey Bad, Derwood, lynn, PerpetualLearner, TruthSeeker
915 Registered Users
Shout Box
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31
Today's Birthdays
Bill W, PerpetualLearner
Popular Topics(Views)
607,453 Gospel truth
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0
Page Time: 0.030s Queries: 5 (0.001s) Memory: 2.0819 MB (Peak: 2.3135 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2017-08-23 02:08:07 UTC