WatchingForJesus

1Cr 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

deadman, You are correct, satan CANNOT stop God. And though losing one's salvation is a debatable subject (debated many times here on this forum and throughout history), I do not wish to debate that subject in this thread. However, please read the following verses and let me know how you interpret them. And, of course, any one else who would like to put in their 2 cents. Please keep in mind, that I am being very pragmatic with my approach. I appreciate you bringing this up because it appears that I should also add the following to back up my theory that some christians "by name" could get left behind. THIS OF COURSE IN NO WAY INSINUATES THAT THEY WILL LOSE THEIR SALVATION (if they really are a Christian - certainly not for us to determine), they may, however, have to go through the tribulation. Jesus is saying that those that get "caught up" with the "cares of this life" (success, materialism, shopping, hollywood, disease, worldwide peace, etc.) could have that day take them unawares. Why else would he tell us to pray "ALWAYS" that we may be accounted worthy to escape all these things? Also the parable he told about the 10 Virgins - To save space I am only going to put the chapter it's located in rather than copy the whole parable here. Matthew 25 In this parable, Jesus tells of 10 virgins (Christians) who are waiting for the bridegroom (Jesus) to return. Because the bridegroom "tarried", 5 of the virgins (Christians) were off "shopping" for oil (caught up with the cares of life) when the Bridegroom returned. Afterward, the virgins came to the door, But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not. (Mat 25:12) There is also the 7 letters to the churches. Many believe that although these letters were written specifically to 7 churches that were around at the time John had his vision, the 7 letters represent specific eras within the age of the Church. With that belief, we look at the Church of Laodicea. This is another example of those who are caught up with the "cares of life", indeed so rich that they have "need of nothing". Although He says that He will spue them out of His mouth, He gives them the ability to overcome, as He overcame by giving their life, which could possibly be the only way to save themselves once they have entered the tribulation. At the risk of starting a whole new topic in this thread, my last statement could lead someone to believe that salvation is based on works. However, keep this in mind, before Jesus came to earth with His ultimate sacrafice, salvation WAS based on works. During the age of grace, ending with the rapture of the church, salvation is based on GRACE alone. During the tribulation, the age of grace has ended, and the 70th week of Daniel has begun and therefore a return to salvation based on WORKS. Those who are alive during the tribulation (excluding the 144,000) will only be saved if they do not take the "MARK", which unfortunately means, they more than likely will be beheaded, putting them in a completely seperate category in heaven: Thank you so much for questioning me! Sincerely In Christ, Bradley

Have you ever stopped to think about what God meant when he said that there would be a

AMEN! Isn't it interesting the news shows, the history channel, and many others are all talking about the impending doom coming on the earth. For those of us who know the Truth, these events are but wonderful signs pointing to His soon return. Everyone living on earth today can feel some MAJOR CHANGE approaching. Unfortunately, many will be sucked up in to the "lie" of the antichrist, believing that he is their saviour. Thank you for this timely message. I pray that we all have the courage to step-up and share with others the "why" behind all of the "crazy things" that are happening in world and to the earth. You know they are thinking about it... Sincerely In Christ, Bradley

I feel like I am late to the dinner table here on this discussion, but hopefully, some of you are still here. I have read this entire thread from the beginning to end in one sitting, since this is my first time back to the boards in quite some time. This is an excellent discussion and one that is worthy of some serious time and concern. Many of you have posted your concerns about the "emerging church" movement and I think that they are all valid. My wife Alison and I have studied this topic quite a bit as we are "volunteers" with Roger Oakland's ministry at www.understandthetimes.org Roger has spent many, many hours studying this movement and the dangers that it represents. Here are two commentaries written by Roger exposing the dangers of the "emerging church": The Emerging Church: Last Days Apostasy and a Return To Darkness Contemplative Prayer Or Terror? I encourage you to take the time to read them as this topic will soon become as popular as the debate on "purpose-driven". Roger outlines, in the first commentary, exactly how the "purpose-driven/seeker friendly" movement has set the stage for the "emerging church". Be on guard, for in the last days there will be a great "apostasy" or "falling away" of the church: As much as Alison and I would like to see a major transformation and call to repentance of these misguided churches, we believe we are living in the very last days before Christ returns for His bride. Remember: For over 2000 years, men have rejected the Truth. There is only one Absolute Truth and that is the Word of God itself. The simple message of Jesus Christ's atonement for sin on the cross, has not changed one bit in the last 2000 years. We don't need to "change our approach", just so that someone will come to be "entertained". We need to be bold in the Spirit and let people know that without Jesus, they are sompletely and eternally seperated from God. THERE IS NO OTHER WAY - PERIOD!

And from whom have you hear this? Have you witnessed this first hand? If not I don't think you should be perpetuating something that may not be true. In 40 chapters in PDL, Rick Warren references 1000's of Bible verses. He devotes a chapter to the importance of regular bible study, of journalling your meditation on scripture, and memorizing scripture. I am on my third read through PDL, and Rick Warren sure seems like a straight-shooting, "tell it like it is" preacher to me. Allison, "My way" is a reference to Christ, who is speaking these words if you look at the verse in context. For those that don't know, The Message is a paraphrase from Pastor Eugene Peterson. serotta, I can't speak for John (lcpguy), but I can speak for myself. I have heard it first hand from my brother, who has been to Rick Warren's church. My brother (an assitant pastor) is sold out on this guy! As, my darling wife, Alison (Only4Him777), pointed out, my brothers church now stays away from preaching the gospel truth, because it is too controversial and it offends too many people. Instead, they are more in favor of preaching (if you can call it that) on managing your money, managing your marriage, and managing your life. Topics that "tickle the ears", because that will bring in more people to the church. He says, that once these people are in the church, than you have the opportunity to share the gospel with them. But ------ If the gospel is not being preached, when are these people going to hear the truth? So many people are going to church, nowdays, to "feel good" about themselves, especially since 9/11 and yet, they have no idea, that they are not saved. Rick Warren, is promoting this and getting more and more churches focused on growth, by "blending" in to the world and becoming more "worldly", so that you can attract more "unchurched" people into their congregation. As, pointed out already in this thread, we are not to be of this world. I'm sorry, but if Rick is using out right "garbage" for references to scripture, I don't care if he makes a 1,000,000 references in his book. If he is referencing, paraphrases, he is NOT REFERECING SCRIPTURE. YBIC, Bradley

Now you're talkin'! Probably dreaming... but I totally agree with you there! I guess where I have a challenge with your other reasoning, allowing them to have rights because they are humans. At what point does this fall under the category of tolerance? And, at what point does it fall under the category of absurd? Based on your reasoning, than you would agree with the fact that if someone one is robbing you, than they, as a human, have certain rights, and if you step over those "rights" than YOU could be the one that ends up in jail. That is ABSURD. But, that is the law! When someone is living in sin, does that mean that we should then bend over backwards to make life easy for them (tolerance)? Well, then maybe we should, God will judge them rightly, so why not make there life easy here, it sure is going to be difficult for eternity. By the way... I'm not calling you dense! Just a little stubborn around the edges :x: :oww: YBIC, Bradley

watchingforjesus, pat roberts just summed up everything i've been trying to say, and did it much more efficiently than i did. so that's the crux of the issue... will we support a federal ammendment? or will we sit on our hands and let activist judges change it for us? thanks mr&mrs for posting that letter! LadyC, This has been my point all along... and I am glad that Mike posted this letter too! According to this paragraph... The Defense of Marriage Act already defines marriage "how we would like it to be defined". I don't understand why we would need anything more than this. OK, so you say we need a constitutional ammendment that will allow the federal government to enforce the definition of marriage on the states. If we could actually get a federal marraige ammendment that would do just that, and only that, than I would be in favor of that. (And yes, dear LadyC, you helped change my mind that an ammendment to the constitution would be OK - as long as it was the will of the majority of the people) However, as the current amendment stands it isn't going to preserve the sanctity of marriage one iota. I have already established that, right? So this statement... is pure poppy cock. The "current" federal marriage amendment will actually "concrete" the decision of "civil unions" as being up to the states. So, this really does nothing to preserve a timeless institution. LadyC, stay with me on this... If this current federal marriage amendment passes, there will be NO fighting the states about civil unions, because they will be protected by this amendment to decided on civil unions as they see fit. So, if this passes, then the states can decide (as they are already starting to do anyway) through the judicial system instead of the legislative system (where a majority vote would be used). And, it would be "protected" for them to be able to do that, through this amendment. What really gets me going is the individuals, who know better, like President Bush and dare I say Pat Robertson (I'm assuming a person in his position would know the facts about this amendment) who are pushing for this amendment making it look like they are pro sanctity of marriage, when in fact they are promoting a poison pill and saying that it's all going to be OK if this passes. And, I hate to go one step further, and add, that possibly... Christians are being intentionally duped here! Does any of this make sense to you? Regardless, though about any of this... God is still in charge and somehow, this is all a part of his plan. Maybe we don't understand how God thinks, but everything happens for a reason, for HIS GLORY! Someday, when we are in heaven, we will all look back on this and say, OH... that's why He did that, or allowed that! YBIC, Bradley

LadyC, You've got to be quick. LOL!!! Point well taken from your previous post! However, based on that... like you said, getting a federal marriage ammendment passed that would actually allow the federal goverment to tell the states what to do would never happen. If it would never happen, is that because it goes against the "will of the people"? IMO, pushing for the current federal marriage ammendment is a waste of time for Christians, because it won't create the outcome that they desire. Standing behind the federal marriage ammendment to "show" that you are on the side of the Christians is also pointless, UNLESS ONE THINKS THAT MOST CHRISTIANS DON'T TRULY UNDERSTAND THE WHOLE AMMENDMENT! Does that make sense to you? Again I say, that the only way that we, as Christians, are going to be able to obtain our desired result is to take it up with the individual states, since getting a federal marriage ammendment that actually "works" to sanctify marriage between one man and one woman is impossible. Can we agree on that? Remember, we got off on this tangent because I don't think that it means a hill of beans that George W. Bush supports the federal marriage ammendment. YBIC, Bradley

LadyC, We can agree on the fact that we are both opposed to homosexuality and that it is clearly pointed out in the Bible that it is a sin. We agree that God defined marriage. We can also agree that laws were not supposed to be written by the judicial branch. That is why each state has it's own legislative branch. That is where we differ in our opinion. I think that the individual states should have the power to decide (yes, based on the "will of the people, not the judicial branch). You think (correct me if I am wrong) that the federal government should step in and protect the "will of the people". I would love to see that happen, but at the same time, here is the challenge. If we let the federal government tell the states what to do on this issue, then what is to stop them from telling the states what to do on many other issues. To the point, where states start to lose their individual sovereignty. The same sort of issue comes up in regards to allowing the UN to tell the United States what they can and cannot do. Although, I sadly think that one day, there will be some form of world government that ushers in the AC and the world government will be policed all the way down to the local police stations. But, that's a whole nuther topic. Believe me LadyC, I am very torn about this because I believe strongly in the rights of our constitution, the way our forefathers set it up. But, I also agree strongly that something should be done to stop the "civil unions". I fear, based on the situation that you mention about lobbyist groups, that there really isn't anything we can do, on a legal level. Especially if the judicial branch is going to do what it just did in Mass. However, based on catsmeow's post, I think the only thing that we as Christians can do is get down on our knees and pray. I would like to say that I appreciate you keeping your cool as we discuss this. That is to be admired, because I can sense your frustration, but you have not allowed yourself to lash out. YBIC, Bradley

Great post catsmeow! :t: AMEN! I just hope that we still have time to make things right again... based on what is happening in the world and the fact that homosexuality seems to be on a run-a-way freight train, I don't know how much longer we have here. Fortunately there are several verses in the Bible that make it clearly evident that when God judges this nation, along with the rest of the world, we won't be anywhere to be found here on earth. (And even if you believe in the Post-Trib rapture, we will still be protected from God's wrath if we are still here.) For those of us who have already accepted Jesus Christ as our personal Lord and Savior. Here is one of them: 1Th 5:9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, (KJV) You have a very sweet spirit catsmeow! YBIC, Bradley

LadyC, That is a very valid point and one that I struggle with. The current federal marriage ammendment (even if it does actually pass) isn't going to be worth the paper it's written on because of the back end part that allows the states to decide what to do about "civil unions". In regard to the Constitution Party, their stance is this --- In no way, shape, or form should the federal government start telling the states what they can and can not do, which is why they are opposed to the federal marriage ammendment. Although I understand how you can smell hypocrisy here, to me, it is more of a dilema. Truthfully, the ONLY way that we can have an effect on "civil unions" between same sex couples is to fight it on the individual state levels. This is where I think that the churches and Christian Leaders need to be spending their time, because frankly, it does no good to "back" the federal marriage ammendment. Here is my point on Bush backing the federal marriage ammendment. Just because someone says they are in favor of the federal marriage ammendment, doesn't make them a Christian. Am I judging wether he is a Christian or not? NO!!!!! Of course, only God knows that! However, it is stated in the Bible that we shall know them by their fruits. Mat 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Mat 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.(KJV) Based on my previous post about "W's" fruits, frankly, he doesn't bear much good fruit, and so it really has to make you wonder. That is all I am trying to say about that. YBIC, Bradley

:oww: :oww: :oww: :oww: John made a funny! That was hilarious and a sad, but true, commentary about our president. I would comment more on the whole "W" thing, but I don't want to take this thread off topic either, so please go here for my comments on that. Bush Wacked Makes me wonder John, if the "world religion" of the tribulation is going to be one of ecumenism and tolerance, how are the Islamic extremists going to fit in the picture? Will they be beheaded too? Will it be for the wrong reason? Or, as some have suggested, with the way the media, the president and now many others around the globe are promoting Islam... maybe this will be the whole world religion! Again, to keep from highjacking the thread, I started a new topic under controversial issues to address this. So, if you, or anyone else wants to respond to the last question, please go here to do it. New Topic YBIC, Bradley

JesusisGod2, I totally agree with you on this point, and it truly saddens me that the media is as biased as it is. I think what pains me worse is the millions of people that have no clue that they are being spoon fed propaganda by the media so that the media can try to enforce their own agenda. I am torn on the whole presidential debate thing. I do not want to take this thread off topic by getting into it here so I would like to lead you to my post in a more appropriate thread so that maybe you can help shed some light on my dilema. See My Post Here YBIC, Bradley