Donations for the month of November


We have received a total of $100 in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Search

Member Spotlight
Posts: 2,923
Joined: September 2003
Show All Member Profiles 
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics6,705
Posts51,505
Members931
Most Online373
Mar 5th, 2017
Top Posters(All Time)
Pilgrim 13,537
Tom 3,556
chestnutmare 2,923
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,773
RJ_ 1,582
MarieP 1,578
gotribe 1,060
Top Posters(30 Days)
Tom 11
Pilgrim 11
John_C 2
Meta4 2
Susan 1
Recent Posts
Matthew 12:40
by rstrats. Fri Nov 16, 2018 10:32 AM
John 7:53–8:11.
by Pilgrim. Thu Nov 15, 2018 7:06 AM
Is the Following Legit?
by Tom. Tue Nov 13, 2018 9:51 PM
The still small voice
by chestnutmare. Tue Nov 13, 2018 4:48 PM
Words from Veterans on Veterans Day
by Pilgrim. Tue Nov 13, 2018 7:31 AM
Humbling Yourselves and A Litany of Humility by Greg Gordon
by Greg Gordon. Wed Nov 07, 2018 8:41 AM
Active Threads | Active Posts | Unanswered Today | Since Yesterday | This Week
Open Forum
Yesterday at 03:32 PM
Perhaps someone new visiting this topic may know of examples.
47 75,583 Read More
Quotes
Yesterday at 11:06 AM
If the Lord God, before whom each individual will shortly stand, is a holy God, a God of truth, and without iniquity, and of purer eyes than to behold sin with impunity; we may well ask, “Who is able to stand before Him? — who can abide the day of His coming, or stand when He appears?” Appear He certainly will; and stand before Him we inevitably must. God only knows who shall first be summoned to do this; but, first or last, the citation will be sent to all. Health is a tender, precarious flower; life is a brittle, slender thread; how soon the one may wither, and the other break, He alone can tell who lent us both. This only we know, from Scripture and from daily observation, that all below is of uncertain tenure; that we are no more than tenants at will, removable at the pleasure of God, the great Proprietor of all."

~ Augustus Toplady
0 10 Read More
Open Forum
Thu Nov 15, 2018 12:06 PM
Originally Posted by Tom

I have two questions.
1. Should we use this passage in the same way we use other passages that are not disputed?
2. If I hear it being used, what should I do?

1. yep
2. See #1

Why not consult William Hendriksen's commentary on the Gospel of John, since you have the complete set? evilgrin
1 48 Read More
Open Forum
Thu Nov 15, 2018 4:16 AM
I had heard rumours that this passage of Scripture, is doubted by most scholars. However, until now I have never looked into it. I uncovered a few things.
The Textus Receptus and the majority of Greek text include the passage; however there are English versions that either omit it, or put it in brackets. Reading more about it, I am finding that despite trying to find evidence that it actually belongs in the original writing of the book of John, most scholars believe it was not part of the original text.
DA Carson for example says:
Quote
“Despite the best efforts . . . to prove that this narrative was originally part of John’s Gospel, the evidence is against [them], and modern English versions are right to rule it off from the rest of the text (NIV) or to relegate it to a footnote (RSV).” (The Gospel According to John, 333)

Over the years, I have heard many sermons that mentioned this particular passage and I think I have even used this passage a few times in the past also, without questioning it.

Seeing the passage is used in the Textus Receptus; I can just imagine (do not know for sure) that KJOists try to use this arguement to prove that the KJV is the only true English translation.

I have two questions.
1. Should we use this passage in the same way we use other passages that are not disputed?
2. If I hear it being used, what should I do?

Tom
1 48 Read More
Open Forum
Wed Nov 14, 2018 2:51 AM
Meta4

I know you said you did not wish to highjack this thread. However, I think this is too important not to say more.
You stated:
Quote
tax exemption implicitly ties the church and state together, and does influence the church and its membership.


Can you give examples of how this has actually caused a negative effect on what a Church is able to teach?
As I said before, if it starts effecting along those lines; the Church needs give up their tax exempt status. However, until then tax exempt status provides more positives than negatives.
I do agree with you that if the government wishes to regulate religion it will not solely be based on taxes.

Tom
11 304 Read More
Devotional
Tue Nov 13, 2018 9:48 PM


“The wayward child and the self-willed youth is guided by his own unsanctified and unsubdued spirit. The man of the world is controlled by “the spirit of the world.” The wicked are governed by Satan “the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience” (Ephesians 2:2). But the Christian is to yield himself unto “the still small voice” of the Holy Spirit. Yet a word of caution is needed at this point, for in our day there are many fanatics and impious people who do that which is grossly dishonoring to God under the plea that they were “prompted by the Spirit” so to act. To be “led by the Spirit of God” does not mean being influenced by unaccountable suggestions and uncontrollable impulses which result in conduct displeasing to God, and often injurious to ourselves and others. No, indeed: not so does the Spirit of God “lead” anyone.

There is a safe and sure criterion by which the Christian may gauge his inward impulses, and ascertain whether they proceed from his own restless spirit, an evil spirit, or the Spirit of God. That criterion is the written Word of God, and by it all must be measured. The Holy Spirit never prompts anyone to act contrary to the Scriptures. How could He, when He is the Author of them! His promptings are always unto obedience to the precepts of Holy Writ.

Therefore, when a man who has not been distinctly called, separated, and qualified by God to be a minister of His Word, undertakes to “preach,” no matter how strong the impulse, it proceeds not from the Holy Spirit. When a woman “feels led” to pray in public where men are present, she is moved by “another spirit” (2 Corinthians 11:4), or if one claimed “guidance” in assuming an unequal yoke by marrying an unbeliever, 2 Corinthians 6:14 would prove conclusively that it was not the “guidance” of the Holy Spirit.” —

~ A. W. Pink (1886–1952) [exerpted from “The Holy Spirit”]
0 35 Read More
Open Forum
Tue Nov 13, 2018 6:27 PM
Originally Posted by Tom
Meta4
I can't really speak about the flag issue, seeing I have no knowledge of that subject.
However, I have no problem with having tax exempt status, provided it doesn't regulate what a Church can and can not teach. The moment, the government starts doing that, is the moment they should give up their tax exempt status.


Tom

Tom,
When a government wishes to regulate religion, it won't be based solely upon taxes, though that indeed may be a part of it. But, even should there be no specific regulation, tax exemption implicitly ties the church and state together, and does influence the church and its membership. I know this is not a popular view; that most all in churches favor exemption status not only for, nor perhaps even primarily for, the sake of the church, but rather for their own tax deductions on what they give.

However, I don't wish to highjack this thread from its original subject.


Pilgrim, thanks for the response. I suppose the display of the flag has more behind it than tax status alone, though I suspect that could be a part of it.
11 304 Read More
Open Forum
Tue Nov 13, 2018 12:31 PM
Being a veteran who joined the U.S. Navy back in 1967, during Vietnam War, I appreciated the following comments voiced by other like-minded men and women on Veterans Day, Sunday, November 11. The few found below are part of an article by "Gunpowder Magazine".

Quote
In Their Own Words: Veterans Speak of Appreciation for the Second Amendment
By: Teresa Mull

As our nation celebrates Veterans Day, GPM (Gunpowder Magazine) shares a service man and woman’s thoughts on why they chose to serve and what they love about their country.

Melanie Dean served as a Marine and is employed by the National Association for Gun Rights:

“Serving my country was one of the easiest decisions I’ve made. I believe in our country, our flag, and our Constitution. It’s not a choice as much as it’s a calling – an inherent desire to protect the foundations of America, and the people that depend on its freedoms every day. Aside from raising my children, I consider being a Marine the most important achievement of my life.

“I’ve since traded my rifle for a keyboard (and my dress blues for a suit), but that hasn’t diminished my integrity, or my passion to protect the people of our nation from all enemies – both foreign and domestic. To do so means protecting our Second Amendment. Without it, our people are defenseless against the horrors a pen can exact. I knew my calling to defend our Constitution was unyielding and, just as before, I will give all that I have to protect our God-given rights.

“Too many people are dying in horrific acts of violence, and nine times out of ten they are unable to defend themselves due to unconstitutional laws. Laws that are enacted by politicians who have forgotten what our Founding Fathers fought so hard to provide us. Knowing countless patriots came before me and died defending our liberty, I can’t let their sacrifice be in vain. I will never sit quietly; I will charge the frontlines and lead by example.

“I have a love for shooting that will never die out. My new favorite handgun is the Sig Sauer P320; it’s convenient, balanced, and comfortable. That said, there is something I love about dropping into the prone position with a Savage MSR 10. It just depends on the day!”

Jordan Mason left the U.S. Navy as a Cryptologic Technical Technician 3rd Class, after serving from 2003-2007:

“Unlike most nations, our forefathers guaranteed our right to repeal tyranny and to protect our homes, our families, and ourselves – a right so precious, men have laid down their lives for future generations to enjoy a better world than they knew.

“What is most surprising today, is that in the course of only a little over 240 years, our nation has only seen bloodshed in its home on two occasions, when most nations will see it once a generation. And with that, of all the countries and nations that have been formed, it’s been the United States who, in recent years, has so easily given up our ‘essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety,’ by restricting this most fundamental right – one that has been paid for in blood.

“I was privileged to serve with our NATO allies in Estonia during the first year they joined our union in the 2004 Standing NATO Maritime Group (SNMG), and upon entering Tallin, Estonia that year, the feeling of liberty was still fresh in the minds of a nation grateful to be free of their previous Russian oligarchs. But they were still quite cognizant of how fragile such freedom is. Estonia’s Constitution was written in 1992, and so most, if not all people there my age, had seen or been a part of the fight for independence from Russia.

“Upon pulling up to port, our Naval Intelligence Officer and I were sent to our embassy to coordinate with our U.S. Embassy and allies on any real-time threats in the area before ‘liberty’ was granted to our sailors on the ship. Ironically, our standard uniform for such formal briefings during winter months are dark button-up shirts, with a black tie and our rank and insignia on our left arm shoulders in red – which appears quite similar to the former Committee for State Security officers – more widely known as the KGB.

“After returning from our briefing and wanting to stop for a quick meal, we were quickly met with resistance, with a restaurant slamming a door in our face, a street vendor walking away, and finally others telling us ‘Kay-Jay-Bah - no welcome.’ We immediately verified this issue with our embassy upon returning to our ship, and our men were required NOT to wear our ‘Johnny Cash’ uniforms (as we casually referred to them), due to the sensitivity that Estonians had towards the appearance of KGB in their nation. It was eye-opening, and it was a wonderful experience that I wish more Americans could have. We must never forget how blessed we are to live in such freedom, and we must never take our Second Amendment rights for granted.

“The point I truly want to make is the same as Reagan’s: We must fight for our right to bear arms, because we are only ever a generation away from losing our liberty.”

Teresa Mull is editor of Gunpowder Magazine. Contact her at teresa@gunpowdermagazine.com.
0 45 Read More
Open Forum
Tue Nov 13, 2018 12:13 PM
Originally Posted by Meta4

When I visit various church services via the Internet (eg. sermonaudio), it seems that very nearly every church in the U.S. displays the U.S. flag prominently, up front. But I'm not sure whether I have ever seen a national flag displayed in any church outside the U.S. Is this a requirement (either official, or perhaps unofficially) of having tax exempt status granted?

Interesting question..... and one I cannot definitively answer. However, to my limited knowledge, there is no official nor unofficial regulation or policy that the American Flag be displayed. My guess, which is just that at best is that displaying the flag is a tradition that perhaps began after the country was founded and the flag became its symbol (of freedom). In the beginning, the government was far more amiable toward the states and territories that gave allegiance to the country and its flag. One can easily see this by reading the preamble+ to the Declaration of Independence:

Quote
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

And, as I have quoted above from the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, where the founders wrote in its Bill of Rights, that all men are to be guaranteed the freedom of religion and the freedom of speech. To guard and protect the freedoms of all citizens, and to the angst of half of the citizenry and those whom they elect to government; the Progressive Left, aka: Socialist, the founders immediately after in the Second Amendment wrote:

Quote
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Thomas Jefferson is claimed to have written or spoken the reason for the Second Amendment: "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." In addition, this reason, in various forms is found in the Federalist Papers and other sources during the time of the nation's founding.
11 304 Read More
Open Forum
Tue Nov 13, 2018 1:37 AM
Meta4
I can't really speak about the flag issue, seeing I have no knowledge of that subject.
However, I have no problem with having tax exempt status, provided it doesn't regulate what a Church can and can not teach. The moment, the government starts doing that, is the moment they should give up their tax exempt status.


Tom
11 304 Read More
Open Forum
Tue Nov 13, 2018 1:31 AM
Thankyou, Pilgrim
11 304 Read More
Open Forum
Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:23 PM
Originally Posted by Pilgrim
Although it would be prudent, IMO, for all legitimate churches to not apply for tax exempt status, which the courts have already ruled that states should provide this status to the church, because by being tax exempt, the church is thereby under government rules and regulations.

While I have long held that true churches should not seek tax exemption, your statement provides opportunity for me to ask another question which I have been wondering about.

When I visit various church services via the Internet (eg. sermonaudio), it seems that very nearly every church in the U.S. displays the U.S. flag prominently, up front. But I'm not sure whether I have ever seen a national flag displayed in any church outside the U.S. Is this a requirement (either official, or perhaps unofficially) of having tax exempt status granted?
11 304 Read More
Open Forum
Mon Nov 12, 2018 10:25 PM
Originally Posted by Tom

I was wondering if you would mind if I shared this with some people?

nope I don't mind. grin
11 304 Read More
Open Forum
Mon Nov 12, 2018 6:40 PM
Pilgrim
This is exactly what I was referring to when I said the U.S. Constitution is not a living document. I appreciate you expanding on this however.

I was wondering if you would mind if I shared this with some people?

Tom
11 304 Read More
Open Forum
Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:33 AM
1. The U.S. Constitution is NOT a "living document" which can be clearly seen from the actual text and affirmed by the various writers of the "Federalist Papers". During one of the debates for the 2016 presidential election, it was asked of both candidates; Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, what they thought of the U.S. Constitution. Clinton answered openly that she believed the Constitution was a living document and must be interpreted and applied according to contemporary social, economic, etc. views. Trump, however, said that the Constitution was not a flexible document but one that was meant to be read, understood and applied as it was originally intended by its authors. That view was the #1 basis for Trump's appointing candidates to the U.S. Supreme Court.

2. Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution reads:

Quote
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

a. the free exercise of religion is a guaranteed right which the Left and some of the Right desire to be and which already has been violated by the enactment of "Discrimination Laws". These new laws take precedence over both the freedom of religion clause but also the freedom of speech clause.
Although it would be prudent, IMO, for all legitimate churches to not apply for tax exempt status, which the courts have already ruled that states should provide this status to the church, because by being tax exempt, the church is thereby under government rules and regulations. However, even without being under such arbitrary government rules and regulations, this Leftist agenda to make these Discrimination Laws, or better Non-Discrimination Laws the supreme rule of the land under which all other laws are to be subject.

3. Lastly, in the past, the U.S. Supreme Court has overstepped its authority and legislated law rather than interpreting the existing law and applying it appropriately. Of course, one of the most well known instances of the SCOTUS doing this was "Roe vs. Wade" and more recently the issue of Homosexual Marriage. State courts are no less guilty of doing this as well. It is admitted by the Left, that their ultimate objective is to rid the U.S. of the Constitution and establish Socialism/Communism. This attempt will probably take many years, and may not ever succeed, although I believe it eventually will succeed. However, what they have effectively done is to reinterpret the Constitution or totally ignore it through liberal appointed judges and their rulings.
11 304 Read More
Quotes
Mon Nov 12, 2018 10:56 AM
16. Resolved, Never to speak evil of anyone, so that it shall tend to his dishonour, more or less, upon no account except for some real good.
Jonathan Edwards, Works, Volume 1
By Jonathan Edwards, ,lxiii
0 37 Read More
Open Forum
Mon Nov 12, 2018 1:29 AM
Yes it is sad and it would not surprise me if it is true. This would fit right in with the left's agenda, which is basically tolerant to all but those who disagree with them. Yet, I do not want to
I have been reading the U.S. Constitution lately and I think it is quite clear that the document is not a living document like it is being interpreted today. Come to think about it, this is similar to much of so called Christianity today. They reflect the world, when it comes to the interpretation of Scripture; rather than the author intent of Scripture.

I also read the comment section and noticed the comment "God loves the sinner, but hates the sin." almost right away. However I chose to ignore it, because it is very typical in Arminian theology.

Tom
11 304 Read More
Open Forum
Sun Nov 11, 2018 12:05 PM
I have no idea if this is actually true. shrug However, it is certainly possible given the inroads that the homosexual agenda has made over the past few years. I read all the comments after the article and many were very sad indeed, but again not surprising. One particular view stuck out over others that were held among those who commented, "God loves the sinner, but hates the sin."... See Gerstner's antidote to this view here: Does God Love the Sinner and Hate Only His Sin?.

It is only a matter of time before this type of issue becomes widespread. One of the comments wisely wrote that many thought that once the homosexual agenda won the legal battle over homosexual marriage that would be the end of it, but in fact, it was only the beginning and it won't end until acceptance, not just tolerance, of this abominable sin is forced upon every person.
11 304 Read More
Open Forum
Sun Nov 11, 2018 7:40 AM
11 304 Read More
Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 33 guests, and 102 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
mottley, SnydersSoapbox, Susan, reformedbygrace, ReformedDisciple
931 Registered Users
Shout Box
November
S M T W T F S
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
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
Popular Topics(Views)
844,200 Gospel truth
Page Time: 0.038s Queries: 6 (0.003s) Memory: 2.4950 MB (Peak: 2.6995 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2018-11-17 14:45:45 UTC