Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"Sexually Inclusive Christians" Celebrate Victories, Push for More
Institute on Religion and Democracy ^ | Mark Tooley

Posted on 08/30/2003 5:48:16 PM PDT by xzins

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350351-378 last
To: drstevej
Great bio. I look forward to studying some of his work.

Funny how when I quoted some DGBarnhouse doctrine on evil elsewhere, I was attacked for it not being true or Scriptural. Not to worry though, I find Him to be an outstanding minister and pastor and study by his guidance while in feloowship with Him.
351 posted on 09/04/2003 8:47:47 PM PDT by Cvengr (0:^))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 349 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
The basic doctrine series is outstanding. The first few are a bit academic.

The current pastor-teacher at Believer's Chapel, Dan Duncan, was a seminary classmate and is a friend. He is an excellent teacher.

BTW, I like Barnhouse and his successor at Tenth Presbyterian in Philly, James Boice.
352 posted on 09/04/2003 8:53:39 PM PDT by drstevej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 351 | View Replies]

To: drstevej
I enjoy Boice's Radio Ministry immensely, at least when I can hear it. I just wish his Bible Study Hour lasted more than 5 minutes to 30 minutes.
353 posted on 09/04/2003 9:09:35 PM PDT by Cvengr (0:^))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 352 | View Replies]

To: drstevej
BTW, FWIW Boice's voice sounds just like Thieme's, interesting parallel.
354 posted on 09/04/2003 9:10:42 PM PDT by Cvengr (0:^))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 352 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
Boice's commentaries are worthwhile.
355 posted on 09/04/2003 9:25:21 PM PDT by drstevej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 353 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr; lockeliberty; CCWoody; Dr. Eckleburg; drstevej; Wrigley; Calvinist_Dark_Lord; CARepubGal; ..
It is truly sad that you are unable to see that questioning someone's salvation because he has the courage of his convictions to stand up to what he perceives as error, is itself an error, and an insult to fellow believer in Christ. For some reason, you seem to equate an apology with capitulation and admitting that your entire system of theology is equally in error. The apology is for one thing and one thing only: Questioning the salvation of someone for whom Christ has died and bought with His own Blood, based on that person's opposition to you in several points of doctrine. Conformity of theology is not an indicator of any person's standing with God, except in the areas of heresy against the Atonement, the Person of Jesus Christ, or the Godhead. You seem to think otherwise. If you thought I didn't understand what you were saying, then it was your responsibility to clear that up with clear language, not to turn around and question my standing before God, and doing so publicly. If you had approached me privately, we could have solved it privately. You took it public, made public statements injurious and libelous to me, and now you adopt the attitude that you were "only doing your Christian duty". Poppycock!

I think you have made it quite plain that you feel you did me no injury, and it is equally plain to others here that you, in fact, did. If you will not apologize, your sin is on your own head. Posting charts and acting superior does not shine a flattering light on you, and it is clear that you are very concerned with how you are perceived by others. Unfortunately you do not accord to others what you hold so dear for yourself.

356 posted on 09/04/2003 9:30:53 PM PDT by nobdysfool (All men are born Arminians...the Christian ones that grow up become Calvinists...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 350 | View Replies]

To: EdReform
1
357 posted on 09/04/2003 9:31:25 PM PDT by Coleus (God is Pro Life and Straight & gave us an innate predisposition for self-preservation and protection)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drstevej
Gee, a son taking over a fathers ministry, how 'cultish' can you get!

Sought of like Bob Jones University?

What are they on there, Bob Jones the 5th ?

What is this thing you have about Thieme?

He believes what you do about the Bible, that we do not have one.

Just various 'opinions'.

358 posted on 09/05/2003 1:49:33 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 330 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
***He believes what you do about the Bible, that we do not have one. ****

Hope you shared that with PAstor Thiene while you attended his church.

***Sought of like Bob Jones University? What are they on there, Bob Jones the 5th ?***

I don't think you are supposed to use Bob Jones and 5th in the same sentence. Repent.
359 posted on 09/05/2003 4:42:49 AM PDT by drstevej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 358 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
I believe his son is a Marine or Naval Aviator, probably field grade by now and retired. I believe he also has theological training. If I understand correctly, a search was performed for others initially and not fulfilled. In addition, I understand there was no lack of skepticism in allowing his son to even speak there, let alone becoming more involved. The quote of the tape ministry I suspect provides some testimony to this.

I suspect the deacons, elders, and body of that congregation is just as critical if not moreso of having any sibling associated with the ministry than any outside critic. If he is able to oversome that hurdle, remain in fellowship with God and continue to advance in God's plan, I remain open minded enough to consider he's not only the right man for the job, qualified and best linked to the ministry, but perhaps foreordained by a higher power to have been placed in that situation.

Disciplined doesn't imply lack of justification.
360 posted on 09/05/2003 5:44:21 AM PDT by Cvengr (0:^))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 358 | View Replies]

To: nobdysfool; Cvengr; drstevej
***Then perhaps you aren't saved yet.***
395 posted on 08/17/2003 11:11 PM EDT by Cvengr (0:^))


You know, after watching this pompous peacock for a while, it is quite evident that his pride as got the best of him. The thing is that, with is refusal to acknowledge that he was clearly wrong for challenging your salvation from your orthodox confession and apologize, all he seems to be revealing is that he may be the one who is self-deceived.

Personally, I'd advise you to let 1 Co 5:11 guide you for Cvengr's slander against you.

Woody.
361 posted on 09/05/2003 6:28:04 AM PDT by CCWoody (Recognize that all true Christians will be Calvinists in glory,...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 356 | View Replies]

To: nobdysfool
If you thought I didn't understand what you were saying, then it was your responsibility to clear that up with clear language, not to turn around and question my standing before God, and doing so publicly.

This is exactly what was provided not out of any responsibility to do so, but out of an impersonal love and a brotherly love for any man. You have a choice to accept it, .

Post #350 on this thread may provide you a short version.

The original is probably better stated at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/963672/posts?page=395#395

Again a shorter version was posted on that thread at #402.

Perhaps it's better to drop the entire issue and place the entire issue in His hands. You might find the topics of 'rebound' and 'faith-rest' worth studying. God Bless.

362 posted on 09/05/2003 6:33:27 AM PDT by Cvengr (0:^))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 356 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
108
363 posted on 09/05/2003 6:39:54 AM PDT by EdReform (Support Free Republic - Become a Monthly Donor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 357 | View Replies]

To: CCWoody
Woody, you may want to go back and read the entire thread in context and also place the 'quoted' post in context of the post itself.

There was a situation where things eternal, of the spirit, were being discerned and one party had argued that truthfully a situation arose (yet from the spirit would not be considered true) speaking from a soulish perspective, not paying attention or perhaps not even aware of things of the spirit.

There's only 2 options to explain this if the person was truthful.

One option is that the person who sincerely believes something is true, but not cognizant of the spirit, is indeed perhaps not yet saved.

The second option is that they are saved, but have fallen in sin and not yet confessed or repented that sin, consequently, although indwelt by the Holy Spirit, not filled with the Spirit. Again, the person's perspective of truth might also omit things of the spirit.

The remainder of post #395 on that thread explained that. Numerous other posts on that thread tried to explain that and were written with attempt after attempt not to condone contrived argument or repay evil with evil.

I haven't judged anybody elses salvation.

Even if a man does that (Other than Christ in His Divinity), it would be immaterial, without effect, lacking any force, impotent, and mute. So even if somebody sincerely believes they have been affronted, if indeed saved or in fellowship with Him, there would be no impact or affront or offense even received.

This is why those words were chosen. If I had suggested he was fallen away, he naturally from a soulish perspective would have taken the defensive.

I could have assumed he was lying, but that I felt was unneccessary and perhaps a false assumption, so I gave a benefit of doubt that he was truthful. One option he would reject and I would only give him cause to remain reprobate. The only other option was to remark a possibility, which if saved, he obviously would understand to not be true, but would query how such a position could be held. The only answer would be the recognition of a degenerate state and a Spirit led desire to return to Him.

If this doesn't happen, that's always between him and God. Nobody else.

Now why would any other person attempt to encourage any other behavior?

364 posted on 09/05/2003 6:54:35 AM PDT by Cvengr (0:^))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 361 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr; CCWoody; drstevej; Frumanchu; Wrigley; CARepubGal; snerkel
There's only 2 options to explain this if the person was truthful. One option is that the person who sincerely believes something is true, but not cognizant of the spirit, is indeed perhaps not yet saved. The second option is that they are saved, but have fallen in sin and not yet confessed or repented that sin, consequently, although indwelt by the Holy Spirit, not filled with the Spirit. Again, the person's perspective of truth might also omit things of the spirit.

You missed an option: Option three, the other person is wrong, and it is their theology that is defective, not the person in option 1 or 2. That is the option you are unwilling to consider, and is in fact, the true dynamic of what is transpiring here. You are judging me by your defective theology vis-a-vis free will and the nature of fallen man. In your view, my response to you can only be viewed as, (a) I am not saved, or (b) I may be saved, but not in right standing with God due to unconfessed sin. Your whole spectrum is skewed, because you do not allow for the possibility that there may be option (c), that your view is wrong, and your understanding of free will is faulty, and therefore (a) and (b) could not and do not apply, and that you have impuned my standing before God unjustly and without due cause.

In all this, you will not consider the one thing that would bring peace and put an end to the misunderstanding. Even if you believe yourself to be blameless, what is the harm in apologizing sincerely for the offense that is perceived, not only in my heart, but in the minds of those who also interact here? It is not only I who feels I have been wronged, but others as well, feel and perceive that you have wronged me. Only you can correct that, and in only one way.

365 posted on 09/05/2003 7:32:01 AM PDT by nobdysfool (All men are born Arminians...the Christian ones that grow up become Calvinists...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 364 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr; nobdysfool; drstevej
I was there when it happened. I even interacted with you on the subject. I have no plan on going back.

Woody.

BTW, I am giving serious thought to continuing to completely ignore you in the future. Your refractory spirit and your unrepentant nature seem to clearly reveal that you are not currently submitting to the Lord. You seem dead set against a peaceful co-existence with the saints. So, where does that leave you? Well, I'll happily leave you to wallow in the middle of these idiotic doctrines you have been spamming us with.
366 posted on 09/05/2003 7:40:36 AM PDT by CCWoody (Recognize that all true Christians will be Calvinists in glory,...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 364 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr; CCWoody; drstevej; Frumanchu; Wrigley; CARepubGal; snerkel; RnMomof7
This is exactly what was provided not out of any responsibility to do so, but out of an impersonal love and a brotherly love for any man. You have a choice to accept it,

Clear explanation, free from terminology that is ambiguous and easily misconstrued is the way you clear up misunderstandings, not heaping more of the same confusing and obscure words on top of what caused the confusion in the first place. Maybe it was clear to you, from your perspective, but not to me or to others here. You fell short in that regard.

Perhaps it's better to drop the entire issue and place the entire issue in His hands. You might find the topics of 'rebound' and 'faith-rest' worth studying. God Bless.

Perhaps the topics of humility and avoiding giving of offense would be good topics of study for you. As for dropping the entire issue, that is not your decision to make. I, and others, have some serious issue with the doctrines you espouse. My love for the Truth will not allow me to be silent where I see error being passed off as truth, and that by someone who, when confronted with a challenge to his doctrine, attempts to turn the tables by impuning the challenger's standing before God.

367 posted on 09/05/2003 8:04:04 AM PDT by nobdysfool (All men are born Arminians...the Christian ones that grow up become Calvinists...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 362 | View Replies]

To: xzins; BibChr
Thanks for the rant. It demonstrates the difficulty of any balance. Arnold Schwarzeneggar flunks the test. I find the choice in CA to be intriguing. Vote for a bad guy who is a baby killer. Vote for OUR "star" who is a baby killer. Or vote for OUR loser who is a baby saver and theonomically sound in other areas. Conservatives are told to ignore McClintock in favor of Arnold. Many of them are going that route. To date, I've not heard a single conservative principle espoused by Arnie.

Well, that's because Arnold does not espouse any Conservative principles. (shrugs and grins -- seems obvious to me).

Arnold espouses Center-Left principles (weighted towards the center economically, and towards the left socially) -- as opposed to Bustamante, who espouses Hard-Left principles.

Now, as I do not live in California, I am relatively uninterested in the California Recall Election -- except to the extent it sucks away media attention from the Democratic candidates for President, which is arguably a good thing. However, I don't really consider the choice in California to be all that difficult -- to me, it's simply a question of What You Want to accomplish with your vote.

I can understand voters like BibChr who hold their nose and vote GOP. It's not me (except when the GOP guy really is the best on the slate, which did actually happen fairly often when I lived in rural Virginia), but I can understand it on tactical, pragmatic grounds.

What I don't understand is, if one is perfectly comfortable with the GOP losing anyway... why vote McClintock? Why not just go all the way and vote Constitution??

Honest question, not baiting at all.

368 posted on 09/05/2003 2:28:45 PM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian (We are Unworthy Servants; We have only done Our Duty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Whoa.

I've made that exact same final statement.

Dan
369 posted on 09/05/2003 3:21:48 PM PDT by BibChr ("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 368 | View Replies]

To: CCWoody
"Your refractory spirit..."

Thanks for the complement. I always loved Shadrach, Mishach, and Abendigo and that Refractory Spirit leading them to Paradise.

370 posted on 09/05/2003 4:16:58 PM PDT by Cvengr (0:^))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 366 | View Replies]

To: nobdysfool
Truth will not allow me to be silent where I see error being passed off as truth,...

Love is perseverant and I applaud your desire for His truth. Rejoice Christian.

371 posted on 09/05/2003 4:20:14 PM PDT by Cvengr (0:^))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 367 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr; CCWoody; drstevej; Frumanchu; Wrigley; CARepubGal; snerkel
Love is perseverant and I applaud your desire for His truth. Rejoice Christian.

??? Why do you adopt the "doting granfather" bit with me? That's almost as insulting as your questioning my salvation. Your attitude just reeks of superiority and "I'm so far above you". Do you have any idea how you sound to others? Any idea at all? If you want people to take you seriously, you need to cut the superior act and quit speaking "down" to us. You're not all that high and lofty, despite your attitude. It's as phony as a three dollar bill!

The only point in your favor is that you actually referred to me as a Christian. It's a step in the right direction....

372 posted on 09/05/2003 4:47:20 PM PDT by nobdysfool (All men are born Arminians...the Christian ones that grow up become Calvinists...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 371 | View Replies]

To: xzins; Jerry_M; Romulus; wideawake
Conservatives in California are being told to lie down and prostrate themselves before Arnold and Maria.

It is nauseating the way that the mainstream RINO establishment is marginalizing Tom McClintock, who is stalwart and salted on all the right issues.

California conservatives are being shouted at, intimidated, ridiculed and told to "sit down and shut up" even though McClintock holds the high-moral ground.

All in the name of "Pragmatism", that specific Americanist idol.

373 posted on 09/06/2003 3:48:46 PM PDT by Aggressive Calvinist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: Aggressive Calvinist
Schwarzenegger is a self-proclaimed enemy of traditional morality and also an enemy of fiscal conservatism.

There is no reason any Republican who cares about the party would ever want this individual to gain prominence within it.

374 posted on 09/06/2003 10:17:03 PM PDT by wideawake (God bless our brave soldiers and their Commander in Chief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 373 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
As a non-Californian, my interest in California's governor election is due to a couple of things. One is the intriguing choice being presented to conservatives, especially to conservative Chrisitians. The 2nd reason is some hope that a different administration might care about national security in this age of terrorists and try to stem the unchecked illegal immigration. The 3rd reason is simply the size of California's economy and the effect it has on the rest of the nation for good or ill. The 4th reason is the number of voices California gets to send to our House of Representatives. It'd be nice to get rid of some of the radical socialist votes that are coming out of that state.

I don't see Schwarzeneggar helping with any of the above. He's going to campaign on his star-power, and I think that a real candidate in the race who isn't an anti-black, race baiting, hate-America-first, Mexifornia advocate like Bustamante or a male bimbo moral reprobate like Arnie JUST MIGHT attract a few reasonable voters and really win.

I have no problem with throwing a bunch of votes to the Constitution Party UNLESS that 85-90% conservative has a realistic chance of winning IF he soundly defeats the bimbo and has the "party-minded" RINOs throw their support to him.

375 posted on 09/08/2003 2:54:51 AM PDT by xzins (In the Beginning Was the Word!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 368 | View Replies]

Comment #376 Removed by Moderator

To: xzins
“Transgender people won’t come to your church unless they truly know they are safe there,” Swenson warned..."

PROMISE? I've got something for ye, if ye wish to come...
377 posted on 12/14/2003 12:32:37 AM PST by tinacart ((I STILL hate hitlery!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SandraDee
You signed up for Free Republic just to post that hateful piece of rhetoric?
378 posted on 12/14/2003 1:03:16 AM PST by Nathaniel Fischer (Herman Cain for Senate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350351-378 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson