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

other one and eric, I want to compliment both of you on keeping the debate civil. I know it is difficult to do when we believe so strongly in our positions, whatever those may be. Sam, you are so right, there is a lot out there that is just down right hooey. However, like you said, if you study the background of the globalists, it is very plain to see what is "REALLY" going on and sort of steer clear of the hooey! Not, everyone has the time to study all there is to know about certain issues. So, I think it helps that many can do their own studying and sort of bring their results here to the Boards. And even then, we must be careful and wiegh everything out according to the Word. eric, I totally agree that God is in charge. If that means that Kerry wins, than God has a specific reason for that to happen. I think it's a huge stress reliever to step back and and know, as Christians, that no matter what happens, God is in charge and He has a perfect plan in place. It may not be the plan that we think is right, but none-the-less, it is His plan. Thanks again both of you and yod too, for keeping this thread civil. I wish they could all be like this. YBIC, Bradley

LadyC, I implore you to really take a close look at the federal marriage ammendment. Although it appears on the surface that it is against gay marriages, it really is worthless because it also states on the back end that the issue of "civil unions" (which is just as bad as marriage) is going to be left up to the individual states. So, someone who wants to look anti-gay, can promote the life out of the federal marriage ammendment and it won't really do anything towards stopping "civil unions" between same sex couples. So, I say that just because George W. Bush is backing the federal marriage ammendment doesn't really mean that he is anti-gay. I'm sorry to use that word "anti-gay", it sounds so horrible, but I am not sure what other word one would use to describe the stance of being the opposite of "pro-gay". I don't have a problem with you taking issue with some of the things on the list. As David Bay stated before he started the list, if you can prove him wrong, or if you can find other "good fruit", he would like to hear from you so that he can update his list. David clearly points out, documented evidence for each occurence on the list. I would love for you to show exactly how he is wrong, by presenting proof to the contrary rather than just stating that you don't agree. Please don't take my requesting this as me wanting to pick a fight with you or argue with you. I am humbly asking you to show me otherwise, so that if you are correct, that I might change my stance. Thanks for understanding! YBIC, Bradley

Mike, I agree that you can get more than enough protien from non-meat foods. I was on a "vegetarian" diet (for 7 years), for the sole reason of personal discipline. Vegertarian and Vegan are two different diets. Vegetarian diets are no meat, except some (like myself) eat salmon and some other fish that were high in Omega-3 fats, the good kind. Vegans don't eat anything meat and they don't eat any dairy or fish either. I think the health benefits were great. However, with out eating meat, sometimes I would then substitute more carbs than I should have and I found that I could gain weight just as easily without eating meat as when I did. Several times throughout those 7 years I did crave meat, but was able to keep myself at bay. It wasn't until I decided that I wasn't going to be a vegetarian any more that I started eating meat again. I have gained a lot of weight since I started eating meat again. I am not sure if that has to do with some of the personal challenges I was going through, or all of the extra protein my body has had to accomodate for. I guess the only way to really find out, is to go back on the vegetarian diet again and see if I lose the weight that I have gained. Hmmmm.... We are not required by the Bible to be vegetarians, as godrulz pointed out, Jesus Christ ate meat. Luk 7:34 The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners! Luk 7:35 But wisdom is justified of all her children. Luk 7:36 And one of the Pharisees desired him that he would eat with him. And he went into the Pharisee's house, and sat down to meat. (KJV) On another note, beware of the person who comes to you and says that the Bible teaches that it is wrong to eat meat, because it clearly does not say that, in fact, it says quite the opposite in the following verses: Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]: (KJV) Just my 2 cents - Hope that answers some of your questions! YBIC, Bradley

President Bush -- Bad Fruits versus Good Fruits By David Bay - Cutting Edge Ministries In so many occasions in my life, when contemplating a specific course of action, I have found it highly helpful to make a list of pro's and con's. Once I have completed this list, I would then examine it carefully; if the pro's outweighed the con's, then I would take the action contemplated, but if the con's outweighed the pro's, then I would not take the action. In this hot debate amongst Christian brethren over whether the fruits (actions) of President Bush were of such Biblically "good fruit" nature to allow Fundamental, Bible-believing Christians to consider him "Born Again", I have created a list showing the fruits I have seen since he became a candidate for President in 2000. On the left, I have listed the "bad fruits" I have seen, and on the right, I have listed the "good fruits" he has produced. Remember, words do not count: just actions. Words spoken at a Prayer Breakfast do not count, as they are only words. And, please don't repeat the Urban Legend about Mr. Bush leading a young man to salvation; we all know that story was fabricated. I am speaking of actions President Bush has taken since becoming President that we would consider Biblical "Good Fruits". Here is my challenge: I have listed the bad fruits and good fruits of President George Bush. Please print this form out and add any bad or good fruit you can think I have missed, simply print this form out, add the fruit I have missed and either mail it to Cutting Edge Ministries or fax it to 803-356-2860. Good Fruit: CWA Praises Bush for Dr. Hager

OK - I'm really torn on this whole issue. I totally am against many of the things that Bush has done while he has been in office, claiming that he is a Christian and yet, his fruits don't show it... I base that statement on the article below. Here is my challenge. Like many have said here... A vote for anyone other than Bush is actually helping the Kerry campaign. At this point in the game anyway. If we could actually get a candidate that ALL CHRISTIANS would agree on, then I think that we would have a significant chance of putting that person in the white house because if ALL CHRISTIANS would vote for the same person, we would far out weigh any candidate on the ballot. There in lies the challenge, how do we get ALL CHRISTIANS to vote for someone other than George Bush, without splitting the Bush vote and promptly giving the win to Kerry? I really do struggle with this... catsmeoow, I really admire your stance and I appreciate where you are coming from. Do you think that if there were a candidate that was a strong Christian on the ballot that you agreed with that you would change that vote? Mike Irish, I think your idea (about the posters and all saying "Jesus Christ for President") is a novel one and if we could get enough people to do it, it might have an impact, but I think that again, we would be throwing those votes away and almost surely, John Kerry would be our next president. John Kerry is SCARY! Hey, now there's a slogan! :oww: :oww: However, so is Bush... So, what are we to do? Most Christians believe that Bush is this strong Christian that is leading the Christian Right, among many others, when it's obvious by the article below that he is not showing good fruit. NOW - PLEASE DON'T GET ME WRONG... I AM NOT SAYING THAT I DON'T THINK BUSH IS A CHRISTIAN - I am saying that I agree with the following article in terms of the fact that George is not producing good fruit. There is a Christian on the Contitution Party ballot. http://www.constitutionparty.com As others have pointed out, this is a good replacement candidate, but can we get enough people, "Christian" or not, to vote for this man (or someone other than Bush) to make a difference? Don't you think that as Christians we should be able to make a difference in the outcome of our elections instead of just saying, things like... "Well, I don't want Kerry, so I'll just vote for Bush (or whomever is on the Republican ticket for that election). Well, with all of that being said, I would love to get y'alls feedback on a possible solution... I am going to post the article in a seperate post so that this post doesn't get too long! YBIC, Bradley

yod, Because your question (an excellent one) went off topic for this thread, I took the liberty of starting a new thread here to answer it. Click Here for your Answer YBIC, Bradley

But it could! And, you know what? Maybe they didn't have anything to do with it, but do you think satan did? Could it be possible that HE is orchastrating events that will set the stage for his short reign on the earth? I really have two main points: 1.) Whether it is the work of the Illuminati or just merely satan (which they are almost one in the same), the INTENT of the what they did to Mr. Berg was to stir up emotion on the part of the West/Christians/Jews. Based on the responses I read, just on this site alone (I can't imagine how bad some of the non-christian sites got) it seemed to have worked. And, if that didn't work, putting the story way down on the news list (behind the prisoner abuse scandal) seemed to work too. I don't think that we as Christians should allow ourselves to be manipulated by these events and want to go out seeking to destroy EVERY MUSLIM in the world, because of what a handful of evil people are doing. 2.) Alot of what David Bay presents makes sense, especially if you read the 400+ pages on his site that describe the history of the Illuminati and the secret societies, and what their agenda is regarding setting up the world for "the christ". Of course, we know that this is the "false christ" or the "antichrist". But, many, many poor souls will be duped into believing that the "antichrist" is the real Jesus Christ, and nothing could be farther from the truth. So, when I see that these events are taking place that COULD be linked to the Illuminati (whether they are or not), it makes me realize that we are truly living in the very last of days, and that, my friend excites me because I know that we will all be going home soon. I respect your beleifs and understand that this may be a bit too much for you to swallow, but I think that it helps to have an open mind, as you have had, and just at least LOOK and SEE for yourself, what MIGHT just be happening here. Besides, there are many who come and read these posts, that don't post replies, but are fed and encouraged by the information they read. YBIC, Bradley

Cats, Alison (Only4Him777) and I can't wait! We look forward to meeting you when NONE of us will ever experience pain again. My whole premise behind posting about the events of the War on Terror is to help show that we are truly in the very last days, if not hours! We both can just FEEL it! Praise and Honor and Glory to His Name! YBIC, Bradley

yod, Did the longer posts by other one shed some light on your questions? Edited: Ooops! I didn't see that you had already started posting your questions! Unforunately, the graphic of the decapitated head used by "Memphis-Mitzraim" a little know masonic group, doesn't copy across. David Bay is not posing this information as total factual information. Rather, he is looking at patterns that occur regarding the well-known illuminati number of 11 (as well as many others). He is saying that it is interesting how all of these things line up. Then in his conclusion he writes: So, you be the judge. You determine yourself, what you believe. I just think it is wise to look at all of the different angles. No, I don't think that every single event is performed and or ordered by the illuminati, however, if someone is allowing themself to be controlled and manipulated by satan, than it is possible that satan is the one orchestrating events using a multiple of persons and or groups. YBIC, Bradley

Are you coming back soon? Yes it is beautiful AND EXPENSIVE... Especially the closer you get to the coast! :x: Wasn't the joker green? Hmmmm... do I hear the batmobile? :suspect: YBIC, Bradley