Summations Only

Not only "says me" but says all the Bible believers I know and read and follow, thousands of them DA. You are in the liberal apostate minority on this as well as other issues. Well maybe it's getting to be a majority these days, in keeping with Biblical prophecy. Wrong side of the Bible in any case.

You don't know how to read the Bible if you think it's silent on evolution. We understand from the New Testament that "death entered by one man," meaning Adam, and if death did not exist until the disobedience of Adam then there is no evolution because it is built on death.abe: and if death had not come by Adam's sin then there was no need for Jesus Christ to come, who came to save us from that sin and the death that is its consequence. If you truly believe the Bible and the sacrifice of Christ for sin, you are missing a key ingredient by believing in evolution.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I judge you only by what you've written publically on EvC forum.

God doesn't use big numbers of people. Consider the story of Gideon, whose army God pared down to a very few. Consider the concept of "the remnant" throughout the Old Testament: the masses were not God's people, only the Remnant were God's people.However, it is in fairly recent times that the apostasy which includes belief in evolution, acceptance of homosexuality as a normal alternative lifestyle and other deviant beliefs, turned the main denominations away from the truth, leaving a relative few Bible believers who are the remnant of today.

You've judged me pretty viciously based on what I've written here, DA, yet you complain that I judge you on what you've written?

My "misguided understanding" of what you're written? Did you or did you not write that you support the theory of evolution, which I just pointed out violates some basic scriptural revelation about the entrance of death into the world? Did you or did you not excoriate me for rejecting homosexuality as sin, which is clearly spelled out in scripture? Did you or did you not call it a failure of Christian love to call sin sin?Own up to what you've said here. I haven't misunderstood you.

Typical liberal emphasis, DA. Yes it started with spiritual death, as the first thing that happened was that they lost communion with God through their spirits. But did Adam die a physical death or not? Of course he did, and that's what the NT is referring to. Real death, the real death Jesus died on the cross, which He wouldn't have needed to die if real death had not been the legacy of sin.

Yes I mentioned the thousands who share my beliefs, because you were trying to reduce my beliefs to me alone. No, I learned them from Bible believers down the centuries and share them with the thousands I mentioned who are true to the Bible today, which are no doubt really hundreds of thousands or maybe millions. I hope so anyway. In any case I am not at all alone in my beliefs, far from it.But if you are going to start competing over numbers then you need to recognize that numbers aren't of interest to God, He prefers the Remnant. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Excoriating me for defending the right of Christians to refuse to in any way support gay marriage is perhaps more accurate then, since you are into splitting hairs.Obviously you think it's OK for society to embrace gay marriage? Am I wrong about that? Correct me if so but your general trend of argument does suggest otherwise. And if you actually think that gay marriage is OK with Jesus Christ and doesn't violate the Bible and should be supported by law you clearly do not understand Jesus' own references to God's ordination of marriage as between one man and one woman.You also don't understand that Jesus IS Jehovah, who inspired Leviticus which lays out the sin of homosexuality and the punishment for it that God decrees.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That's only part of it, DA. Did He rise from the dead, from physical death? That is, was His resurrection a reality or not? Did He appear to His apostles in His resurrected physical body, risen from PHYSICAL death? Are we not told in Romans 5:9 that we are saved by His shed blood? Real shed blood? Real death? No, the death that entered the world with Adam was not only spiritual death but the death of the body. There is not one without the other. It is not mere spiritual life that Jesus' death gives us but real eternal life that includes the resurrection of our bodies. Which we need because the body died due to sin. There is no death without sin, as scripture also says, and that means physical death. The wages of sin is death. Real death.You really have been given a lot of liberal apostate misinterpretation of the Bible. Let me assure you that although there are plenty of apostates who share such nonsense with you, that there are plenty of traditional Bible believers who don't.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It would be nice if you would comment in context instead of switching around. Who cares what Westboro and the JWs think? I'm speaking in a very specific context in response to very specific things YOU have said.And you DID imply that I'm somehow alone in my beliefs or I wouldn't have bothered trying to answer you.I have no idea how apostate a person can be and still be considered Christian or "godly" but I wouldn't want to push the envelope myself.

Thought it might be apropos to put up a link to this classic, Christianity and Liberalism which is Presbyterian theologian and Princeton Professor J. Gresham Machen's response to the inroads of liberalism that were underway in the first part of the 20th century. I'm sure liberalism has "progressed," if it can be called that, since Machen's work, but the outlines are the same. This is the classic analysis of the watershed between orthodox Bible-believing Christianity and the false theology of liberalism.ABE: From the Introduction: The denial that real physical death is what Christ is saving us from as well as a denatured sort of "spiritual" death for instance.Also of course the embrace of the king of naturalistic thought, evolutionism.Particularly note: It is destructive because it makes use of traditional Christian terminology. /ABEABE: Please note: Those who deny that my beliefs are the orthodox beliefs need to reckon with Machen among other theologians who represent my beliefs, against those so many here prefer to believe are the true Christianity although it's all upstart modern revisionist theology. Believe what you please of course, you're entitled to be wrong, and you ARE wrong about what is the true orthodox Christianity.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I've so repeatedly said that race is not what I'm talking about I'd think I wouldn't have to continue to say it. But OK, although I don't think there can be such a thing as conscientious racism, let's get it established that I do not believe that absolutely any attitude that claims conscience is to be honored, such as racism. Racism is not justified in the Bible, despite a lot of weird attempts here to make it seem it is, but homosexual acts are clearly condemned. I'd make that my standard although I'd prefer to make universal cultural practice my standard.

First, since my Christian identity has been under assault from many angles in this discussion, it seems relevant to post information that vindicates my claim to it.Second, it may surprise you to learn that the limitation of nonChristian rights was precisely the case in the early days of America, most especially the very early days of the colonies but also the days following the Constitution and the establishment of the federal government. Court cases of that period condemned blasphemy of the Christian God and declarations of atheism among other things. We're talking a pro-Christian attitude that prevailed for some three hundred or so years before it was usurped by modernism and the anti-Christian sentiment we now see at EvC for instance. Christianity ruled in the culture and it ruled in the government. This in spite of the fact that the major Constitutional founders were anti-Christian themselves and traitors to the original Christian vision of earlier generations. They did, however, have a strong positive regard for Christian morality despite their rejection of the gospel.There IS a strong case to be made for that very view you find so odious in other words, though I know you aren't going to accept it now. My point is merely that your sentiment on the subject isn't as open and shut as you think. American freedoms were conceived and defended in the early years in the context of a strong pro-Christian understanding. Certainly not what today's revisionist constitutionalism would have one believe.Something similar was the case in the UK too, though actually Britain had much better Christian-affirming laws than the US Constitution gave us, thanks to that generation.Now it's all going under. You can rejoice.

You are arguing with ME, remember? You cannot impose what YOU think "discrimination" is about on MY argument. I am NOT talking about racism.Again, I do NOT accept the idea of conscientious racism, I don't care what various weird groups think. But I was explaining the basis for MY point of view. and racism, which you all keep trying to hang on me, is NOT justified in the Bible and is not part of my argument here. I'm talking about the Biblical view of marriage and of homosexuality. Because I'm talking about MY view of these things, which I believe is the view of those who would refuse to participate in a gay wedding ceremony. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.