Posts by Springfield Reformer

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • The Republican Party's Lack of Commitment To Conservatism

    05/15/2016 8:01:53 AM PDT · 180 of 181
    Springfield Reformer to Chancellor Palpatine
    The Constitution Party is the antithesis of the unconstitutional ignorance promoted by the KKK.  Whatever the electoral calculus may be, they cannot be faulted for the noble and godly character of their platform. Here is their preamble.  See if you find anything within it inconsistent with constitutional conservatism:
    The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.

    This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on a foundation of Christian principles and values. For this very reason peoples of all faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.

    The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.

    The Constitution of the United States provides that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” The Constitution Party supports the original intent of this language. Therefore, the Constitution Party calls on all those who love liberty and value their inherent rights to join with us in the pursuit of these goals and in the restoration of these founding principles.

    The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law, administered by representatives who are constitutionally elected by the citizens. In such a Republic all Life, Liberty and Property are protected because law rules.

    We affirm the principles of inherent individual rights upon which these United States of America were founded:

        That each individual is endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are the rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness;
        That the freedom to own, use, exchange, control, protect, and freely dispose of property is a natural, necessary and inseparable extension of the individual’s unalienable rights;
        That the legitimate function of government is to secure these rights through the preservation of domestic tranquility, the maintenance of a strong national defense, and the promotion of equal justice for all;
        That history makes clear that left unchecked, it is the nature of government to usurp the liberty of its citizens and eventually become a major violator of the people’s rights; and
        That, therefore, it is essential to bind government with the chains of the Constitution and carefully divide and jealously limit government powers to those assigned by the consent of the governed.
    Peace,

    SR

  • The Republican Party's Lack of Commitment To Conservatism

    05/15/2016 7:49:54 AM PDT · 179 of 181
    Springfield Reformer to Dan from Michigan
    Where is there any such call for a death penalty for drug offenders? Here is the Constitution Party's current official platform statement on drugs:
    Drug Abuse
     

    The 10th Amendment states:

    “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    The 4th Amendment states:

    “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

    The Constitution Party will uphold the right of states and localities to restrict access to drugs and to enforce such restrictions. We support legislation to stop the flow of illegal drugs into the United States from foreign sources. As a matter of self-defense, retaliatory policies including embargoes, sanctions, and tariffs, should be considered.

     At the same time, we will take care to prevent violations of the Constitutional and civil rights of American citizens. Searches without probable cause and seizures without due process must be prohibited, and the presumption of innocence must be preserved.

    This is a statement that the drug war is a states rights issue. I would think that was consistent with the foundation principles of constitutional conservatism. Is there some other official statement of the Constitution Party you can use to show your position is correct?

    Peace,

    SR
  • Spirits Who Minister (Protestant Devotional and Caucus)

    04/26/2016 8:45:58 PM PDT · 8 of 11
    Springfield Reformer to Gamecock

    Thanks for posting ...

    Peace,

    SR

  • HRC Blasts Ted Cruz’s New Transphobic Ad

  • Why the North Carolina Transgender law is Counterproductive

    04/23/2016 3:13:19 PM PDT · 20 of 49
    Springfield Reformer to minimum12

    Nope, the NC law is good. Here’s the law:

    http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015E2/Bills/House/PDF/H2v4.pdf

    It is Trump who is being counterproductive:

    https://autogynephiliatruth.wordpress.com/2015/11/04/the-threat-to-women-and-girls-presented-by-transgender-bathroom-bills/

    Just to be clear, the objective of the law is only secondarily to protect individuals in multi-occupancy facilities from indecent exposure to those of the opposite biological sex. The primary goal, IMHO, is to defend the right of individuals and entities of NC to continue making that biological distinction without being sued into oblivion for sexual discrimination that violates public accommodation law.

    It is not desirable that such a law should have to exist in the first place, true. But it is a necessity under the circumstances. In terms of enforcement, the owner of a biologically specific restroom or changing facility would still be able to stop a man-dressed person from entering a female facility. In the uncertainty of the moment, the presumption of duty would be that the owner must look first to the safety of the biological females using the facility.

    The problem, and the reason a law like HB2 is needed, is that the ultimate long-range objective of the “androgenists” is the total eradication of biological gender as a legally, morally, culturally valid form of discrimination. Take down the barricade of biological sex, make it unlawful discrimination under public accommodation law, and you will have no means of stopping any perverts of any persuasion or attire from being within two feet of your unclad sisters, daughters, and mothers.

    Bottom line, Trump is being an ass on this issue, and honestly, the crazy justifications I’ve seen on this once-conservative forum in the desperate attempt to defend his rudderless triangulating on this issue make me just want to vomit.

    Peace,

    SR

  • The Donald Kneels to Political Correctness on Transgender Issues

  • Trump: I would change GOP platform on abortion

    04/21/2016 12:52:48 PM PDT · 463 of 797
    Springfield Reformer to Bryanw92

    No, everything starts with the blessing of God, or the lack of it. Those who build us a wall build it in vain, if God is not in it. There is no protection from personal moral corruption. God is not mocked. A nation that slaughters its unborn children, then does a calculus of lesser evils to justify continuing the slaughter, “that good may come if it,” is dealing in the perversion of justice, and may rightly expect to feel the hammer of God.

    Peace,

    SR

  • Trump: I would change GOP platform on abortion

    04/21/2016 11:28:34 AM PDT · 231 of 797
    Springfield Reformer to Amendment10

    The constitutional framework assumes the federal government would support states that wish to use the police power against murderers. Seeking a federal assertion of a right to life for the unborn is a legitimate objective in our federalism. But short of that, surely as one who honors the 10th you understand that it is the fed who began interfering and continues now to interfere with many many states seeking to stop the murder of the unborn. But for a man’s popular candidacy, this would not even be controversial on FR. Pro-murder didn’t used to work here. I guess times have changed.

    Peace,

    SR

  • Trump: I would change GOP platform on abortion

    04/21/2016 11:12:44 AM PDT · 157 of 797
    Springfield Reformer to TontoKowalski

    The day that platform change is made is the day I stop being a Republican.

    Peace,

    SR

  • "Trying Not to Die" Erick Ericksontwitter account

    04/17/2016 8:31:05 PM PDT · 44 of 52
    Springfield Reformer to SMGFan

    My brother died from a pulmonary embolism. It started with a broken leg that I suspect was not treated properly. The clots went from there to his lungs. One morning he didn’t wake up. He got, IMHO, shlock medical care.

    And if EE does or doesn’t get his own mortality, how the hell does anyone here know that? Know him personally? I didn’t think so. If he’s anti-Trump or anti-Cruz or whatever, so what? Let’s say he does get the seriousness of his condition (and I’m guessing he does). Then his commitment against Trump is a commitment he believes in so deeply he could face God the next day in good conscience. If that’s where he’s at, God bless him. Why change just because you’re closer to dying? Each day that passes we all get one day closer. If you believe what you believe so honestly you could face God the next day, what’s wrong with that? If not, why believe it now? Find something better to do with your time. You’ve only got so much of it.

    Peace,

    SR

  • Yet another old-earther accuses a creationist of believing in evolution

    04/12/2016 9:25:17 PM PDT · 42 of 102
    Springfield Reformer to 11th Commandment; backwoods-engineer

    No disrespect to either of you but I will believe it when I hear it for myself. This is the kind of “quote” that is easy to misconstrue. I’d want to hear it in context, word for word, exactly the way Ham said it.

    BTW, we did an experiment in my trial law class, where folks had to remember something they heard, when they hadn’t been prepared for it. This was an extremely bright group of young people (myself excepted, neither so young nor so bright), and all of them did poorly. The professor was highlighting the difficulty in getting accurate testimony based purely on human memory. So I hope you see that no offense to you is intended.

    Peace,

    SR

  • Yet another old-earther accuses a creationist of believing in evolution

    04/12/2016 10:07:02 AM PDT · 23 of 102
    Springfield Reformer to 11th Commandment

    I’ve tuned in to Ken Ham’s message for many years, and I am unfamiliar with him stating categorically that people who don’t believe in six literal days of creation are not Christians. I would think his position was more that they were in error, but certainly may well be Christians in spite of their error. Being he is reformed in his soteriology (IIRC), he would be unlikely to reduce salvation to a pop quiz. Do you have a specific quote in mind?

    Peace,

    SR

  • Stop Calling Ted Cruz a Dominionist

    04/09/2016 8:34:07 AM PDT · 198 of 204
    Springfield Reformer to Mechanicos; Silentgypsy

    It’s not that I’m a single issue voter. Think of it more as a threshold issue. I care about trade, jobs, US sovereignty, etc. I care more about liberty, the first and foremost of which is the inherent right to life enjoyed by every person made in God’s image, at every stage of their existence. A person who doesn’t grasp that principle is going to prove unstable when their moral system is stress-tested, no matter what else they may profess.

    I realize you’ve come to an adverse conclusion regarding Cruz, and all I can say to that is I’m sure you are being true to your own background and experience. I’ve made it a life principle to not try and be a mind-reader. Sure, I form my own private opinion about a person’s credibility, but I can’t bring myself to make an open charge of deliberate deception unless I have hardcore smoking gun evidence that the person did not believe what they were saying when they said it, like Hillary’s email to Chelsea about Benghazi, a direct and provable contradiction of her public statements. Does this open me up to an occasional deception? Possibly. But it’s also made it a lot easier for me to avoiding accidental infractions of the Ninth Commandment, which has a higher priority with me. It’s a choice people have to make on their own.

    And thanks for the kind words, SG.

    Peace,

    SR

  • Stop Calling Ted Cruz a Dominionist

    04/08/2016 7:58:30 PM PDT · 196 of 204
    Springfield Reformer to Mechanicos

    Correction. I had an election law case in Cook County once, but that was the only exception. Hated the commute, too. Fun case though. My client got on the ballot despite Madigan’s ballot “hit man” wanting her off. But she lost anyway. We tried.

    Peace,

    SR

  • Stop Calling Ted Cruz a Dominionist

    04/08/2016 7:55:17 PM PDT · 195 of 204
    Springfield Reformer to trisham

    No he’s not. He’s an ordinary Southern Baptist. I live next to real dominionists. They are nothing remotely like Southern Baptists.

    Peace,

    SR

  • Stop Calling Ted Cruz a Dominionist

    04/08/2016 7:52:55 PM PDT · 194 of 204
    Springfield Reformer to Mechanicos

    Doubt if we ever did cross swords. I’ve never practiced anywhere but Sangamon County. But going from “Ivy League Lawyers” to “Cruz is a Fake” is a sweeping generalization and a non sequitur I would not expect from someone with a federal practice. The “evidence” you’ve offered is subject matter that cannot be digested in a sound bite or two. It proves nothing close to your assertion. And his anti-Gang of Eight activity has been vetted by those who were there at the time as authentic. Again, you could theoretically win your point if you presented something other than “Cruz is Bad” dog whistle codes. For my part, I am willing to accept Cruz making principled adjustments as he learned what was going on.

    But that’s not my big issue. No candidate is perfect, and even if Cruz made some unforced errors on trade, I would be able to forgive him for that. What I cannot forgive or accept is any candidate who validates the taking of an innocent human life. Trump is for protecting innocent babies, unless the father is a rapist or a sibling of the mother. That is a wretchedly unprincipled position. The only candidate I am allowed by my faith to vote for in this campaign, out of all of them, is Cruz. Unless you count the quixotic campaigns of the Constitution Party and perhaps some others. But I speak of those who actually have a chance of becoming our next President. If Trump were ever to change position on this, I would still have many reasons to doubt him, but the decision would be more difficult. As things stand right now, it’s not even close.

    Peace,

    SR

  • Stop Calling Ted Cruz a Dominionist

    04/08/2016 4:09:44 PM PDT · 191 of 204
    Springfield Reformer to Mechanicos
    Cruz does not have an American compass.

    Sure he does. Way better than Trump's. I'm an attorney. I look for hard evidence. I don't buy off on the latest bit of yellow journalism. And what I've seen in terms of hard evidence has solidified my support for Cruz. But I understand this is a nearly impossible discussion to have anymore. Neither side is in a listening mood. We'll have to agree to disagree. Thanks for keeping it civil. That's becoming all too rare around here.

    Peace,

    SR

  • Stop Calling Ted Cruz a Dominionist

    04/08/2016 2:01:05 PM PDT · 185 of 204
    Springfield Reformer to Mechanicos

    Trump doesn’t have a constitutional compass. Trusting him to help us go back to somewhere he doesn’t know how to get to sounds a tragic comedy in the making. I truly do not understand why people are thinking that will work. To me it looks like the victory of emotion and desire over reason.

    Peace,

    SR

  • Stop Calling Ted Cruz a Dominionist

    04/08/2016 9:46:34 AM PDT · 182 of 204
    Springfield Reformer to Mechanicos

    All I know is the universal healthcare model requires government intervention in a free market system that ought not be there, and I oppose any candidate that recommends his own version of fascism mainly because he thinks he can do it more cost effectively than the previous fascist. This is not how we get the country back to principled conservatism. You want to know my plan? Simple. Get the fed back on its constitutional reservation and leave us alone. That’s all a free people should ever ask from its government. The rest is up to us.

    Peace,

    SR

  • Stop Calling Ted Cruz a Dominionist

    04/07/2016 10:56:37 PM PDT · 133 of 204
    Springfield Reformer to Iscool; Linda Frances
    Here’s his interview saying he’s for universal health care.

    Donald Trump: —the government’s gonna pay for it. But we’re going to save so much money on the other side. But for the most it’s going to be a private plan and people are going to be able to go out and negotiate great plans with lots of different competition with lots of competitors with great companies and they can have their doctors, they can have plans, they can have everything.

    Well then it's not universal healthcare then, is it...You are just as dishonest as Cruz...


    Actually, that's a pretty apt description of what Obamacare aspires to be.  The healthcare exchanges were originally supposed to be a kind of managed private competition. It doesn't work because the government involvement corrupts the natural behavior of the free market. It's really a fascist system, an unholy synthesis of government and private sector powers.  Here's a more complete transcript from which the above text is taken:
    Donald Trump: Obamacare’s going to be repealed and replaced. Obamacare is a disaster if you look at what’s going on with premiums where they’re up 40, 50, 55 percent.

    Scott Pelley: How do you fix it?

    Donald Trump: There’s many different ways, by the way. Everybody’s got to be covered. This is an un-Republican thing for me to say because a lot of times they say, “No, no, the lower 25 percent that can’t afford private. But–”

    Scott Pelley: Universal health care.

    Donald Trump: I am going to take care of everybody. I don’t care if it costs me votes or not. Everybody’s going to be taken care of much better than they’re taken care of now.

    Scott Pelley: The uninsured person is going to be taken care of. How? How?

    Donald Trump: They’re going to be taken care of. I would make a deal with existing hospitals to take care of people. And, you know what, if this is probably–

    Scott Pelley: Make a deal? Who pays for it?

    Donald Trump: —the government’s gonna pay for it. But we’re going to save so much money on the other side. But for the most it’s going to be a private plan and people are going to be able to go out and negotiate great plans with lots of different competition with lots of competitors with great companies and they can have their doctors, they can have plans, they can have everything.
    So you owe Linda Frances an apology.  Any reasonable reader of that text would be crazy if they didn't read that as universal healthcare. It absolutely is, at least in that interview, and that's from back last September, IIRC.

    Here's the thing people. There is real spiritual danger in running around trying to win political arguments by accusing fellow FReepers of dishonesty. There may be real dishonesty going on here. But I sincerely believe that almost 100% of the beliefs expressed here are sincerely held.  The person may or may not have done their research, or they may have a blind spot, but they are telling you what they really believe is true, and that's not dishonest. We are vessels of clay. We've got no business launching off on each other with accusations of the heart that only God could verify. No earthly political fight is worth the descent into this kind of hellish lovelessness. This makes me so sad I could cry.

    Peace,

    SR


  • The Reason He's Called Lyin' Ted

    04/06/2016 10:12:53 PM PDT · 45 of 95
    Springfield Reformer to NKP_Vet
    Sorry NKP but if your candidate is for killing an innocent baby on the condition that the dad is a rapist, he's not prolife. Period. Conditional murder is NOT prolife. If I were Cruz I would shout that from the rooftops and dare anyone to defy the logic of it. So when Cruz says Trump is not prolife I understand him to be telling the absolute truth because I can pick up what Donald is saying out of both sides of his mouth.

    Peace,

    SR

  • The Porn Catastrophe

    04/06/2016 6:47:36 PM PDT · 31 of 44
    Springfield Reformer to cherry

    There is a fair amount of plasticity to the human brain and it’s chemical engine. What I have read on the subject suggests that while sexual addition can be debilitating, and certainly can cause bad, life-changing decisions, there remains in the brain enough adaptive power to heal if the habit is broken. This is an important feature of recovery for addicts. If you go in telling them the fight is already over and they might as well accept their damaged brains, this not only bad science, but horrific for motivation. I believe that God in His grace has made it possible for anyone to be healed if they are willing to go the distance. Whatever bad training you’ve given your brain can be replaced with good training. Until glory we will never be entirely free of the memory of old sins. But we can overcome them and live healthy, rewarding lives that focus on loving, healthy relationships. And at the end of the day it is love that give you courage to do the good things you never thought you could do.

    Peace,

    SR

  • Live Thread--Wisconsin Primary--Tuesday, April 5, 2016

    04/05/2016 6:49:14 PM PDT · 672 of 1,606
    Springfield Reformer to SVTCobra03; DrewsMum

    Your link goes nowhere. Besides, I’ve already seen most of the supposed evidence, and it isn’t worth crap. I’m an attorney. Give me something I could use in court that would convict him of being a “dominionist.” If you don’t have that, you’ve got nothing but unfounded suspicion.

    Peace,

    SR

  • Live Thread--Wisconsin Primary--Tuesday, April 5, 2016

    04/05/2016 6:23:27 PM PDT · 486 of 1,606
    Springfield Reformer to heights; DrewsMum

    There is no evidence that Ted Cruz is a dominionist, unless you define “dominionist” down to mean a belief that Christians should have a positive influence on their culture, art, music, politics, science, etc. If that’s the meaning most Christians on earth are “dominionists.”

    If by “dominionist” you mean something more specific, state your definition and provide the smoking gun that proves it true. I won’t be holding my breath.

    Peace,

    SR

  • Why Trump is NOT Pro-Life

    04/03/2016 8:20:09 AM PDT · 17 of 21
    Springfield Reformer to Kaslin

    Good article, thanks for posting. Folks arguing a president’s position doesn’t matter are neglecting the extraordinary impact the president can have on the makeup of the judiciary. Of course his position matters, and that fact would be much easier to admit if Trump were convincingly prolife, which he clearly is not. I have a personal commitment to never vote for anyone who thinks murder is OK, not even for dog catcher , because it means they have a lousy moral compass that will fail under serious pressure. They don’t understand the most basic moral truth. How can we trust them with the more difficult problems? We can’t and shouldn’t.

    Peace,

    SR

  • Prayer Request-Updates (Sad Update at 1304)

    03/31/2016 9:32:54 PM PDT · 1,423 of 1,455
    Springfield Reformer to P-Marlowe

    So sorry to hear of your loss. May God grant you peace.

    SR

  • As Nominee, Donald Trump Would Do Incalculable Damage to the Pro-Life Cause

    03/31/2016 12:39:23 PM PDT · 47 of 50
    Springfield Reformer to don-o; L,TOWM; SubMareener

    Awesome testimony. What folks don’t understand is you can build a wall to keep the riff raff out, but it can’t protect you from the corruption within. If God doesn’t bless a nation, they’ve got nothing, no candidate promises mean a hill of beans, and the nation’s worst enemy will turn out to be that man in the mirror. God will not let this murder go on indefinitely.

    Peace,

    SR

  • Time to go

    03/29/2016 10:49:56 AM PDT · 141 of 333
    Springfield Reformer to jstaff; Jim Robinson; daniel1212; metmom

    Wish it wasn’t so. Pay no attention to the snark-meisters. They appear to be missing the point. Sites like this miss their purpose if they don’t serve to build a strong conservative brotherhood. Doesn’t mean we have to agree on everything. But this ease of cutting people out because they dissent isn’t helping us recapture the culture for conservatism. Personally, I think it is a calculated strategy to splinter us, and we are letting it happen, and we will be much weaker when this is all over, because we didn’t value what was really important.

    Note to JR and the mods: I’m not voting for any candidate ever who supports abortion, even if only in the exceptions. It’s a moral crime to kill a baby just because the dad was a rapist or a sibling of the mother. If you think that makes me a traitor, then you should act consistently with your convictions. That’s what I intend to do, and if it means losing my FR account, so be it.

    Peace,

    SR

  • It's a sewer out there.

    03/25/2016 3:58:48 PM PDT · 26 of 183
    Springfield Reformer to publius911; DiogenesLamp

    It’s not manly to violate God’s commands. It’s cowardice, the true antithesis of faith. False accusations are sin. No war is worth losing one’s soul for.

    Peace,

    SR

  • It's a sewer out there.

    03/25/2016 3:54:06 PM PDT · 16 of 183
    Springfield Reformer to dynoman

    People are more likely to say stupid things when they’re fighting mad. I know when my family gets attacked (rare, but it has happened), I can say things I normally might not say too. He’s an angry man right now, and if that’s as indiscreet as he gets when subjected to a personal nuclear attack like this, I’m OK with that.

    Peace,

    SR

  • Trump Supporter Derails CNN Segment by Accusing Fellow Guest of Having an Affair With Ted Cruz

    03/25/2016 12:11:25 PM PDT · 204 of 231
    Springfield Reformer to 867V309

    It was gibberish because it was a typo. “Categorically false,” meaning that everyone here repeating it as if it were true may be liable in a defamation suit. Not that it would actually happen that way, but repeating defamation does make one a potential party to the suit. FR could theoretically get dragged in. More problematic than any of that is the Ninth Commandment, don’t say false things about your neighbor. What does it profit if you gain an election but lose your own soul? If it’s true, it will be established as such. If not, it is a danger on every level to repeat it.

    Peace,

    SR

  • Ted Cruz: “Trump Threatened My Wife” [VIDEO]

    03/23/2016 10:48:08 AM PDT · 184 of 282
    Springfield Reformer to LS

    I don’t go for unproven defamation. The moniker “Lyin’ Ted” is just a popular mythology built on a shaky foundation of misinformation mixed with bias, and I am disappointed someone of your accomplishment feels the need to use it.

    Furthermore, if you cannot distinguish between an employee hiding her shady past and a prospective First Lady volunteering to have the world see her naked, then I suppose we are at a place past words. I cannot imagine a person of your intelligence being unable to make that distinction. It flummoxes me. The one is a world apart from the other.

    The question about “thick heads” is interesting. Very often, when a witness refuses to change their story, even when it hurts them, it is because they really believe it is true. Ted saw the Iowa event for what it was, staffers taking a reasonable inference and getting it wrong. Nothing in that event, at all, suggests Ted engaged in deliberate deception. Errors in judgment do happen. Ted tried to apologize for the event multiple times, but was rebuffed. My theory on why he was not “forgiven” is that he did not himself perpetrate any lie, so he couldn’t confess to a crime he hadn’t committed. After that, it was all about smearing him into the ground with weak arguments from innuendo. No smoking gun proof ever that he deceived anyone intentionally. Yet now here, I cannot go five minutes through a political thread without this nonsense cluttering what should be reasoned debate over the difference in substance between a life long conservative and a life long dem lib running as a “probationary conservative.” May God in Heaven have mercy on us all.

    Peace,

    SR

  • Ted Cruz: “Trump Threatened My Wife” [VIDEO]

    03/23/2016 9:57:54 AM PDT · 126 of 282
    Springfield Reformer to LS

    Not funny at all. The picture of Trump’s wife is public domain. In my generation that would’ve ended his bid for the presidency, boom, just like that. But Trump making ominous threats of exposing some secret is defamation by innuendo, something in which Trump has shown himself to be very skillful. I get Ted’s response totally. He’s a good man defending a better woman. I’d do the same and respect him for it and cannot for the life of me figure out why I feel like such an outsider on an allegedly conservative forum. The world is upside down.

    Peace,

    SR

  • * LIVE TUE 3/22 ELECTION THREAD (AZ and UT)

    03/22/2016 6:19:39 PM PDT · 209 of 1,356
    Springfield Reformer to mabelkitty

    Um, empowering local law enforcement to keep an eye on areas most likely to harbor Muslim terrorists is not a violation of posse comitatus. That would involve a use of the federal military. Ted’s a sharp constitutionalist, despite the FR mythology that has emerged to the contrary. He’s extremely unlikely to make such a basic mistake. That, BTW, is probably why the press “let him get away with it.” He’s advocating a legal and probably very intelligent strategy.

    Peace,

    SR

  • * LIVE TUE 3/22 ELECTION THREAD (AZ and UT)

    03/22/2016 6:09:48 PM PDT · 195 of 1,356
    Springfield Reformer to tatown

    Ping for later

  • Cruz Flies to Romney's Defense in Spat With Trump Over Mormonism

    03/20/2016 3:10:47 PM PDT · 279 of 396
    Springfield Reformer to Brookhaven
    1) Ted Cruz is without doubt NAR (New Apostolic Reformation) which holds the 7 mountains mandate as a core doctrine.

    2) 7MM has no scriptural basis—none whatsoever. It originated with a prophecy by a “modern apostle,” a man in the 20th century who believed he was an apostle just like Peter and John were apostles.

    3) NAR is not a cult, but it is standing awfully close to the edge of the cliff. It bears a strong resemblance to groups founded by Mary Baker Eddy (Christian Scientists) and Ellen G. White (Seventh Day Adventist)—groups that elevated the words of modern prophets over scripture.

    1) I am not aware of a single shred of evidence that Ted Cruz embraces the New Apostolic Reformation or believes in the 7 Mountain Mandate.  He is by the record a Southern Baptist with no reputation for teaching or believing anything outside of that particular orthodoxy.  I believe many people of good intention have been drawn into a "genetic fallacy" by assuming that Ted must believe everything his dad believes, or everything his supporters believe.  My own father and I had serious theological differences, yet had I run for office during his lifetime, I would have gladly accepted his support and his offer of prayer on my behalf.

    2) The Scriptures I have seen used to support the 7 mountain mandate have been completely inappropriate.  However, the broader concept of Christians interacting with and having a positive influence on the major areas of culture around them actually does have substantial Scriptural grounding, and various forms of it have appeared all through church history. One of the most recent and dramatic examples would be Calvin's concept of the vocation of a believer, that if you are a lawyer, lawyer like a Christian, if you are a creative, make songs and movies built on Christian principles, if you are a politician, approach public policy with the unashamed adherence to principles of godliness in public life.  Etc.

    Having said that, I agree that the 7MM, where it goes beyond the plain teaching of Scripture, has no authority, and in some groups has definitely gone to seed and become a false Gospel.  The problem is not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.  CS Lewis once said that Satan's greatest deceptions are those with a real grounding in a partial truth.  This is why I would be cautious about wild accusations without a good foundation in facts and evidence. What gets labeled as "dominionism" is really a collection of many things, some of which are sound, some of which are not.  Before setting up heresy courts and condemning people for things we don't understand, it might be better to be cautious and verify the charges first.

    3) I believe NAR in its most extreme forms is a heretical teaching, and I am personally a witness to some groups taking it to the cultic level. So that can and has happened. I've also seen other examples of almost any good doctrine you can imagine turned into a basis for someone to claim spiritual authority over weak-minded folks and grind them into the ground, where truth that should be liberating them is used to enslave them. Sad to see.

    So again, it's a case by case situation.  There is no evidence of which I am aware that justifies classifying Ted Cruz as a dominionist.  The articles I have seen claiming this, if you read them carefully, do NOT document their charges with sound analysis of primary sources.  Remember, with the left, it isn't the truth of the charge that matters, but the seriousness of the charge.  We should be on guard and not let them dupe us into making serious mistakes.

    Peace,

    SR
  • Cruz Flies to Romney's Defense in Spat With Trump Over Mormonism

    03/20/2016 2:34:13 PM PDT · 275 of 396
    Springfield Reformer to Springfield Reformer

    “you are suggesting to the reading “

    should be:

    “you are suggesting to the reader “

  • Cruz Flies to Romney's Defense in Spat With Trump Over Mormonism

    03/20/2016 2:33:00 PM PDT · 274 of 396
    Springfield Reformer to Mozilla

    You do realize there is no place where Ted’s dad actually said that, right? By putting quotes around those words, you are suggesting to the reading this was actually said. That is false, and you are misrepresenting what Ted’s dad said, in the extreme. I listened to the sermon from which that statement supposedly came. It’s not in there. Your own motives are no doubt innocent, but you are repeating what appears to be a calculated lie. If you are comfortable with that, that’s your business. I advise the reader to check primary sources and get past the propaganda.

    Peace,

    SR

  • Cruz Flies to Romney's Defense in Spat With Trump Over Mormonism

    03/20/2016 11:12:38 AM PDT · 192 of 396
    Springfield Reformer to Popman; trisham

    Indeed, I have looked at this accusation against Ted fairly closely and all I can come up with is that Ted is a traditional Southern Baptist. It is true that his dad has taught some things that are not typical Southern Baptist teaching. However, I heard the infamous sermon of record for this charge, and while I wouldn’t agree with some of it, it was typical “kingdom now” teaching prevalent in many charismatic fellowships, and a close cousin of postmillennial theory which has been around in one form or another since the formation of the Christian religion.

    BTW, There are extreme dominionists. I live next door to a whole nest of them. Lucky me. The junk they were putting in their dumpster was punching holes in my tires. But we were the bad neighbors for complaining about it. They’re going to rule the world someday, after all. How could they possibly be in the wrong?

    So I have a direct basis for comparison. The lefty loons raising the specter of a Ted Cruz dominionist theocracy consider it “dominionist” to impose heterosexual marriage and the right to life on people by operation of law. Folks need to check their sources. I don’t like Cruz playing nice with Mormons, but he’s no dominionist of any kind I would worry about. My neighbors are another matter altogether.

    But I suppose being Southern Baptist is kind of scary too, if the real problem is living out one’s Christian faith in the public sphere. I wish folks could see, this whole “dominionist” attack is really an attack on Christians in general who are trying to exert some influence in the marketplace of ideas. We are not loved by the world system, and we never will be until the return of Christ. That’s no reason to abandon the field.

    Peace,

    SR

  • Cruz Flies to Romney's Defense in Spat With Trump Over Mormonism

    03/20/2016 8:09:19 AM PDT · 110 of 396
    Springfield Reformer to kevcol

    Ping for later

  • Hovering over Rome: The Ghost of Martin Luther

    03/19/2016 1:42:02 AM PDT · 382 of 459
    Springfield Reformer to imardmd1

    When I was a youth a number of our fellowship would sing it. I don’t know much else about it. We did sing it with enthusiasm. I remember that. :)

    Peace,

    SR

  • Christian? Considering Trump Yes/No? Watch this.

    03/19/2016 1:37:24 AM PDT · 54 of 55
    Springfield Reformer to BereanBrain
    I seem to remember Jesus being accused of hanging out with sinners. Obviously it’s not a sin.

    God cannot be drawn into error or sin by associating with sinners.  We can. But having said that, the accusation against Jesus is misleading.  Jesus and any sound believer should engage sincere inquirers.  But do you think Jesus would casually enter a brothel and do nothing while sin continued in His presence?  An unrepentant sinner has chosen separation from God.  As you yourself have already said, God may well convict such a person.  You and I are not God.  While we have our imperfect natures in this life, we must watch to keep our robes unspotted.  

    It’s not our job to determine who is or is not a believer - Only God can know. God judges the heart.

    Wrong.  As noted earlier, we have an explicit duty to identify our siblings in Christ, and avoid unnecessary entanglements with those who continue to willfully rebel against God. Only God can determine their final outcome, and we should not presume to think they can never change. But while they are in a state of obvious unbelief, it is right and good to acknowledge their lostness, and an essential first step to leading them home.  

    What good is it of us to “recognize and distinguish brother from infidel”? Did not God (in the person of Jesus Christ) die for those who were lost? Do not be fooled - God is not willing that any should perish, but all come to repentance. That scripture only makes sense if Man does indeed have free will. Otherwise God is not all powerful, which we know is not the case.

    Infidel is Paul's word.  God's Spirit inspired Paul to say that. If you cannot see the good in making such a distinction, you are not fighting me, but divine truth breathed by the Spirit of God into the words of God's apostle.

    That God so loved the WORLD that he gave his ONLY begotten Son, that WHOEVER believes in Him will have eternal life.

    Whoever believes in Jesus will have eternal life. Yes.  Those who say they believe in Him but do not believe they are sinners, what is their estate?  Even the devils believe, and it does them no good, because they do not repent. Jesus didn't come for those who think they are perfect. Remember?  He came for the sick and the lost.  The two men in the temple, the one self-righteous, no acknowledgment of sin, the other feeling unworthy to even look toward heaven. The one counted himself blessed for how righteous he was.  The other begged God for mercy on him, a sinner. Repentance.  Which one went home justified?  "Believing" in Jesus without repentance is a crock.

    It does not say God has picked out his chosen, and you guys stay away from the unclean ones while you are down there, because there is no hope for them.

    Well, you are mixing truth with untruth here (not intentionally, I am sure). Your statement represents no one's actual theology that I know of. Yes, God did pick out His chosen.  He said so.  His apostles said so.  That's what it means to be chosen. He picked you.  But we don't "stay away" from the unclean ones. As I said before, we love the lost, we seek their salvation, we teach them the Gospel, we let our light shine so they may be attracted to it.

    But we do not delude ourselves that those who refuse to repent are our brothers and sisters in Christ, because they are not. And we do not accord them the high privilege of fellowship within the body of Christ, not until they have crossed the same threshold of faith all believers must cross to be recognized as believers.  The Gospel message has always been, "Repent and believe," and we have no authority to give place to another Gospel.

    No, God is not a being restricted by Time and Space such as you and I. God can, and does foreknow WHO will come to repentance. He sees it easier than I can look down a hall and see what’s at the other end.

    The "time tunnel" theory of predestination makes for fun science fiction, but it is not the teaching of Scripture. And not relevant to this discussion.

    Because He is the Alpha and the Omega, and He created time, and will cause it to pass away as well. In this way, God predestines to sanctification those who come to him, who he foreknows, but does NOT cause to happen, as the decision of belief is the responsibility of the person, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

    Again, this is fascinating speculation, but it's a red herring.  For purposes of our discussion, both an Arminian and a Calvinist should be able to draw the same conclusion, that believers can and must recognize those who believe the Gospel as their brothers in Christ and those who reject the Gospel as lost and the proper subjects of evangelism.  

    There is no construct you have to build on top of the bible to resolve the tension between free will and predestination. That tension only exists if you think of God as being limited by time an space, like us.

    Again, this is not relevant. The question before us, IMHO, is whether a believer can know and recognize another believer, based on Biblical criteria, the fruit of the Spirit, the fellowship of the Spirit, but most important of all, belief in the old-fashioned Gospel, that we must repent and believe in Jesus, else we are lost.  That is no man-made "construct" loosely floating on top of the Bible.  It is the divine message of the Scriptures, the heart and soul of the Christian faith, the very Gospel itself, and one cannot be a Christian without believing that Gospel.

    What were the early Christians KNOWN by - what spread the faith?
     Was it the fact that they met in churches (they didn’t), or kept to themselves (they didn’t)
    .

    Errors here. I have never once spoken against Christians showing love to the lost or to each other.  They do and they must.  But as to meetings, yes they did so meet, and it is astonishing you would suggest they did not.  Certainly they lacked buildings in some circumstances, but often they would meet in the homes of believers, and later the homes of the more prosperous believers were modified to accommodate regular gatherings of believers. And they were not random about admitting members.  You had to be a learner for a time before you were baptized, giving some evidence of faith, or as Jesus once said, showing the fruits of repentance.

    What changed the world was LOVE. The LOVE that the Christians held for one another and the unsaved was beyond anything ever seen. They would DIE for each other or even speak out to an unbeliever who would turn them in, and then that unbeliever would see that even when enduring a horrible death, that they still would not renounce that God was good. Read Foxe’s book of Martyrs sometime when you feel you are being persecuted.

    Again, when have I ever said a word against love?  I agree fully it was love that marked them as believers, yes, but they came by that love honestly, because they believed the Gospel, having repented of their former ways, and turned to faith in Jesus Christ. All of sin is anti-love.  That is what people must repent of. Without repenting from anti-love, they cannot love.

    BTW, I have read substantial portions of Foxe's Book of Martyrs, and my father read it before me.  It was a big part of my formation of faith.

    Incidentally, Foxe does not hold your view of election:

    http://www.covenanter.org/reformed/2015/8/17/john-foxes-notes-appertaining-to-the-matter-of-election-gathered

    Nor does he hold your view of separation.  If you read his book, you know these martyrs could have had a life of ease under Queen Mary if only they had been uncritical of the impurities in the English Church. Foxe in fact is thought to be one of the founding fathers of English puritanism, and given the price for purity the martyrs were willing to pay, it is no wonder hs book was such an inspiration to the movement.

    And WE are too troubled by having to put up with a few bad apples?
     Go to Syria or Iraq and claim the name of Christ and see what bad apples are!

    Red Herring.  This isn't about Islamic persecution of the body of Christ. This is about whether the Gospel is the challenging Gospel of Scripture, or the Gospel of an insipid universalism that rejects a distinction between saved and lost.

    Would a man venture to give his life for a righteous friend? Perhaps.
     But who would give their life for an enemy? We were God’s enemies. THIS is the power of Christ.

    Yes, because it was necessary for us to be loved before we could love in return. Likewise, we love the lost before they can return love to us in Christ, and so we follow His example.  But as I said before, love rejoices in the truth. If you love a lost person, you do not let them rest easy in their lostness. You must see that they are lost, and give them testimony from the word of God how they may be saved, that is, if they will repent and believe in Jesus.  For I am not ashamed of the Gospel, that first condemns a man by pointing out his failure to live up to the righteousness required by God, and then points to the way of relief, the payment for that sin in the blood of Jesus Christ.

    Who are your enemies?

    We wrestle not against flesh and blood, it is true.  Nevertheless, we do have enemies. Jesus said we should love our enemies, so we must have enemies. But our enemies are those who oppose their own best interests, more objects of pity than scorn, and always objects of our love, but not to be embraced for being something they are not.  If they are enemies of the cross, we cannot pretend they are just slightly offish brothers in the faith:
    Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample. (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.)
    (Philippians 3:17-19)
    The world has enough religion. It needs more of the Love of God.

    False dichotomy. The world needs the true religion, which is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the power of God unto salvation, that which takes a dead sinner and raises him to newness of life, and membership in the body of Christ.  

    No, I know it’s not that simple. It means you will love someone who does not love you back. They may never come to Christ. That’s uncomfortable. But we have to put our trust in God, not our view of the world.

    If we did not disagree on the understanding of fellowship, I would have no reason to disagree with you on this. However, if by love you mean we must turn a blind eye to someone being lost, or be afraid to say they are not a Christian if they fail to repent, then I'd have a problem with that.

    We should still love the sinner. We cannot share the Gospel without sharing with a sinner. You cannot influence anyone you don’t have a relationship with. This is why God sends his Holy Spirit even to the unbelievers - to struggle with them (See Romans 1:20-40)

    All true, and all irrelevant to the point, which is whether we can know with confidence someone who rejects the Gospel is lost.  This does not preclude their later conversion, but there is no sense wallowing in uncertainty over their present condition. In their unrepentant state they are children of wrath, and have only doom to expect at the end of their days.

    Interacting with someone is not being “yoked” with an unbeliever. That verse refers to attending religious rites of other religions or pagan rites with them! Or in a stretch, being married to them.

    I do not object to interacting with lost people.  I do it every day at work.  What I object to is cowering in some fearful place unwilling to say whether anyone is lost or saved because I might be misjudging them.  If they have for their testimony a belief no better than that of the devil, because their life remains unchanged, and they have no remorse for sin, then no good Christian should withhold from evangelizing them as a person who is definitely lost, whether they are the janitor or the pastor, a nobody or a national figure.  If they have rejected the Gospel, they are still in their sins, and will have a wretched eternity if they do not repent.

    May God bless your reading of His Holy Word.

    And you as well.

    Peace,

    SR

  • Christian? Considering Trump Yes/No? Watch this.

    03/18/2016 8:10:21 PM PDT · 52 of 55
    Springfield Reformer to BereanBrain
    I think you are confusing church discipline with personal interactions, and prophets with believers.

    No, I do not think that is the problem. There are differing duties as between the overseers and those they oversee, but all have an equal duty before God to avoid unseemly associations:
    Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
    (2 Corinthians 6:14-17)
    This is a general command.  It applies to all believers. It is not limited to the elders or to the exercise of church discipline.  It is an expression of our being set aside by God for His purposes and for fellowship with Him as His people.  How can we obey this command without being able to recognize and distinguish brother from infidel, believer from unbeliever? How could God command us to do what was impossible to do?

    Yes, the church is to have discipline. The Body of Christ is not equal to each believer. If it were, anything any believer in a church did would hold the authority of the church - it is clear it does not. This is why we have Pastors and Elders. I do not think I have the mantle of Peter, nor would I guess you do either.


    I understand church authority as a series of jurisdictions. Christ has jurisdiction over the entire body of believers. The elders have jurisdiction over the local fellowship.  The heads of households have jurisdiction over their family.  And individual believers have jurisdiction over their own spirits. In that sense every believer has some share of responsibility and capability to exercise spiritual discernment, and to steer clear of those who stand outside the teaching of the word of God.

    How does one know what is in the heart of another? This is why we must as believers tread very carefully.

    Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks:
    A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.
    (Luke 6:45)
    So we do have a divinely sanctioned way to discern what is happening in people's hearts, their testimony.  And while I agree with your principle of caution, I do not think we can allow that to paralyze us with fear that disables us from doing our duty, whether in our private jurisdiction, or as the head of a family, or as elders of a fellowship.

    Also, I don’t believe you can save someone by beating them over the head with their sins. Only the Holy Spirit can convict them of their sins.

    I do not recall suggesting beating anyone over the head.  But I can tell you this. Paul is right when he says that love rejoices in the truth.  There isn't a more loving thing you can do for somebody than to warn them that their lack of repentance from sin will send them into a horrific eternity. Some reader here will know of someone in their life, whom they love dearly, who rejects the plain truth of their need for redemption in Christ, who gives no sign of spiritual life, with whom there is no fellowship in the Spirit, nor any blossoming of the fruits of the Spirit.  Does this tragic person bring out some urge in a believer to beat them up with their sins? Hardly.  More likely it brings on hidden sorrow, private tears, prayers heard by no one but God, a desperate wish to trade places with that person, a passion to help them avoid the fate that approaches.  Love rejoices in the truth, because only in truth can there be healing.

    And yes the Holy Spirit convicts of sin, but far from shutting our mouth, we open it with the Gospel even wider, because we know that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.  We do plant, and we do water, though we acknowledge it is only God who gives the increase.

    As for trying to stop someone from joining the church, I will say what was said of Peter, by Gamaliel, rebuking the Pharisee
    Acts 5:38 For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. 39But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”

    This is a badly misapplied Scripture as you are using it. I have no doubt God used the unbeliever Gamaliel to protect the newborn Christian faith from persecution. But Gamaliel's example is not a directive of or to the ecclesia of Christ.  Rather, the elders of the local assembly are within their jurisdiction to reject false members, just as Peter did, and for the same reasons, which apply as well now as they did in the book of Acts. There is a test for fellowship:
    And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.
    (2 Thessalonians 3:14-15)
    So we see we are under apostolic command to avoid fellowship with wayward individuals, those who do not subject themselves to the teaching of Holy Scripture. Yet even in doing so, we do not treat them with pride or hostility, but with the urgent pleading of love, because it is as much for them as for ourselves that we set the barrier on fellowship.

    Get used to it, we ARE sheep. Sheep don’t grow wise, or sprout sharp teeth and claws - they rely on the Good Shepherd to protect them. Likewise so should we.

    The metaphor of the sheep is to teach us our dependence on our Great Shepherd.  But one cannot press a metaphor beyond it's limits.  We are also to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves.  And some of the sheep are also shepherds, the undershepherds, whose duty it is to feed and protect the flock God has put under their care:
    The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.
    (1 Peter 5:1-4)
    We see then there is a Chief Shepherd, Jesus, who has immediate jurisdiction over the elders, and these elders do care for the flock as undershepherds. The principle duty is feeding, but watching for the spiritual safety of the flock is also in view:
    Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
    (Hebrews 13:17)
    So these undershepherds must give account to the Chief Shepherd. Defending the fellowship from unbelievers and disobedient believers is not an option.  It is an obligation of the calling. Failure to do so will lead to grief:
    Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.
    (Acts 20:28-31)
    Failure of the elders to warn the sheep of the threat of wolves is a failure to love, and a refusal to obey their commission as the undershepherds God has called them to be. Failure of the sheep to heed the warnings of the elders is foolishness that leads to great danger, and a wise sheep will avoid the trap of making friends with wolves.

    Peace,

    SR
  • Christian? Considering Trump Yes/No? Watch this.

    03/18/2016 11:19:58 AM PDT · 50 of 55
    Springfield Reformer to BereanBrain; LowOiL

    And yet Jesus taught us that we would know false prophets by their fruit. There are things we can and should know about the spiritual state of others. That is not the same as becoming an accuser, which in Satan’s case is tied to his hatred of God and all manner of righteousness. Paul as apostle was not shy about holding people to account for their sins, even private sins, and even spiritual sins. Likewise Peter told Simon Magus, who had professed faith and even been baptized, that he was still in his sins.

    The Body of Christ has the right, the duty, and the ability to exercise spiritual discernment and protect the flock from wolves disguised as sheep. That’s what a shepherd does. We cannot accept rules of engagement with our spiritual enemies that would allow them to gain an advantage over us. We are to occupy until He comes, not be the food of wolves.

    Putting it bluntly, in any number of churches I have been a part of, if someone wanted to join who had no testimony of seeking forgiveness for his sins at the foot of the cross, the proper judgment of the elders would ordinarily be that this person did not yet understand the Gospel or their own dire spiritual state and would not be recognized as a Christian or allowed into church membership. This would not be an act of asserting spiritual superiority, which is what Jesus forbade, but it would be righteous judgment, which Jesus extolled.

    Peace,

    SR

  • Hovering over Rome: The Ghost of Martin Luther

    03/17/2016 10:04:28 PM PDT · 318 of 459
    Springfield Reformer to ebb tide

    Who can convey our sorrow for such a sin to the ears of that dead child but God Himself? And whom have we most offended in violently attacking one made in God’s image? God again. And so we have no recourse in such a case but to make our appeal for forgiveness to Him. And of all those who come to Him, He will not cast out a single one. We have His word on it.

    My question to you: Jesus spoke of two men in the Temple. To whom did the sinner appeal, the one who could not look to Heaven, but cried out, “God be merciful to me a sinner?” And to follow that up, which of the two men did Jesus say went home justified?

    Peace,

    SR

  • Hovering over Rome: The Ghost of Martin Luther

    03/17/2016 9:26:30 PM PDT · 314 of 459
    Springfield Reformer to ebb tide

    The person whom I’ve offended, of course.

    Peace,

    SR

  • Hovering over Rome: The Ghost of Martin Luther

    03/17/2016 9:22:02 PM PDT · 313 of 459
    Springfield Reformer to ebb tide; metmom
    Very well, if you have an explanation, I'd be glad to hear it. Because honestly, I don't get how your analogy is supposed to work. metmom invites likeminded Christians to a discussion on forgiveness, and somehow you think that is related to Hitler murdering Jews, and therefore justifies an accusation she is doing it from hatred. So you are right, I do not understand that. It seems you've skipped a few steps in your logic. But if you do have an explanation, I'm all ears.

    Peace,

    SR

  • Hovering over Rome: The Ghost of Martin Luther

    03/17/2016 9:09:38 PM PDT · 308 of 459
    Springfield Reformer to imardmd1

    Yes, a breathtaking and tragic example of the folly of making unfounded assumptions about what is in another person’s heart. We are not required to be willfully ignorant of real danger, but as Paul says, love thinks no evil. Wise as serpents, harmless as doves.

    Peace,

    SR

  • Hovering over Rome: The Ghost of Martin Luther

    03/17/2016 9:01:51 PM PDT · 307 of 459
    Springfield Reformer to ebb tide; metmom

    So let me see if I understand this. Hitler systematically murdered millions of Jews, and metmom invited fellow believers to an instructive conversation about the blessed state of being forgiven of sin, and somewhere in there I’m supposed to find an analogy? You may have topped it. I thought I had seen it all. But this is an extraordinary achievement. I cannot think of anything less likely to objectively communicate hatred than a forgiven person sharing with others the joyful though that we can know real forgiveness now in Christ.

    So just off hand, I’d say your mindreading antennae need some fine-tuning. Sounds about 180 degrees out of phase, and you might be missing an important signal or three.

    Peace,

    SR

  • How Microsoft copied malware techniques to make Get Windows 10 the world's PC pest

    03/17/2016 8:22:20 PM PDT · 3 of 45
    Springfield Reformer to dayglored

    ping for later ...