-
Posts
114,301 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
571
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by RETIREDFAN1
-
Vol.XX No.VIII Pg.4 October 1983 No Works, No Law? Robert F. Turner I'm surprised that some brethren haven't started a "movement" in which they affirm their "freedom" from having to work; a "liberty" that allows them to do nothing. After all, didn't Christ himself say, "Work not for the food that perisheth..."? (Jo. 6:27). And, how long will it be until we hear brethren questioning the need to be baptized and basing their contention upon 1 Cor. 1:17, "Christ sent me not to baptize..."? Now most students would know how to answer anyone who seriously used these verses to teach such things. The emphasis in these texts isn't on the phrases after the word "not." Our Lord didn't teach "work not at all," but rather the need to be concerned about working for another type of "food" — "...but for the food which abideth unto eternal life." Nor did Paul say that baptism is unnecessary. He was emphasizing his work as an evangelist when he said, "...but to preach the gospel." It is strange, therefore, to hear some brethren affirm their so-called "freedom" from law and works by citing "ye are not under law" (Rom. 6:14) and "not by works" (Tit. 3:5) in order to justify their claim. Why is it that some so easily see the misinterpretations of Jo. 6:27 and 1 Cor. 1:17 and then so badly misinterpret Paul's statements? "Not under law" and "not by works" are not even the point of emphasis in these verses, much less a denial of law and works. The statements in both texts which follow the word "but" are what the writer is emphasizing: "...but under grace" and "...but according to his mercy." Just as working for food and being baptized were not being minimized, being "under law" and having "works" to do aren't being excluded either. Under law? Certainly we are. But there is a difference between being under a system of law (and seeking justification by that law) and being "under law to Christ," (1 Cor. 9:21). It isn't law as such that Paul had in mind when he speaks of "the curse of the law," (Gal. 3:13), but a system requiring perfect obedience, (Gal. 3: 10-12). We are not under that kind of system but we are under law, for "...where there is no law, neither is there transgression" (Rom. 4:15). Works to do? Yes. But there is a difference between works that are an attempt to earn salvation, and works that are an expression of faith and an attempt to do God's will. Rom. 4:45 illustrates this well. "Him that worketh" is not the man seeking to please God through obedience, but one seeking to work perfectly so that he can earn salvation, God owing it to him as a debt. "Him that worketh not" isn't one who does nothing, but one whose attempts at obeying God are imperfect. Grace and mercy are needed as we submit ourselves to God's will or "law" for we imperfectly seek to do the "good works" we were "created in Christ Jesus" for (Eph. 2:10). It is this of which Paul speaks in Rom. 6:14 and Tit. 3:5. David Smitherman
-
Long before he found fame riding alongside fellow 70’s heartthrob Erik Estrada in the hit TV series “CHiPs”, Larry Wilcox took on a very different role, one far less glamorous and that won him few fans. In May of 1967, the then 19-year-old, knowing the draft was looming, followed in his older brother’s footsteps and joined the Marine Corps. His unit, the 12th Marines, fought in Vietnam in the I Corps which ranged in areas from Dong Ha to the DMZ and Con Thien, and eventually, the Tet Offensive.
-
49 years ago today, March 18, 1975, McLean Stevenson's character Col. Henry Blake dies in the M*A*S*H episode "Abyssinia, Henry", its third season finale. Out of all the main characters on the show, Henry Blake was the only one to have been killed off. In order to evoke genuine emotions of shock and sadness from the actors, the final O.R. scene was kept a secret from the cast, with the exception of Alan Alda, until immediately before filming; only then was the last page of the script handed out. After the final scene was finished, the end-of-the-season wrap party was canceled due to the poor mood of the cast. After the news of Col. Blake's death shocked the world, the May 4, 1975, episode of Cher’s variety show's opening shot was of "Henry Blake" paddling a raft and looking at the camera hollering, "I'm OK!" I'm OK!"
-
VERY CRITICAL ALERT!!! PRAY FOR DISCERNMENT!! Hello Christians!! I'm sure you know that NIV Bible was published by Zondervan but is now owned by Harper Collins, who also published the SATANIC BIBLE. The NIV Bible has now removed 64,575 words from the Bible including Jehovah, Calvary, Holy Ghost and Omnipotent to mention but a few. The NIV Bible has also now remove 45 complete verses. Most of us have the Bible on our devices and phones. Try and find these Scriptures in NIV Bible on your computers, phones or any other device right now if you are in doubt. Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 23:14; Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46; Luke 17:36, 23:17; John 5:4; Acts 8:37...... You will not believe your eyes. Refuse to be blinded by satan and do not act like you just don't care. Let's not forget what the Lord Jesus said in John 10:10 (KJV). "The thief (referring to Satan) comes but to kill, to steal and to destroy...) SOLUTION: If you must use the NIV Bible, BUY AND KEEP AN EARLIER VERSION of the Bible. A hard copy cannot be updated. All these changes occur when they ask you to update the App on your phone or laptop, etc. There is a crusade geared towards altering the Bible as we know it. NIV and many more versions are affected. by Robyn Lewis
-
Remind @BarryLaverty and @PepeSilvia to fill theirs out.....lol
-
Vol.XX No.VIII Pg.3 October 1983 God Has Spoken," But... Dan S. Shipley God "hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in his son..." (Heb. 1:2). But men have also spoken unto us. With excellency of speech and persuasive words of wisdom, they have troubled us with many variations of a perverted gospel; all different from that preached by the apostle Paul and other inspired men (Gal. 1). Missionaries have taken the doctrines and command- ments of men throughout the world. It has been printed on slick paper with the latest in sophisticated printing equipment and mass mailed to millions. It has been embellished with impressive and professionally produced TV specials featuring slick orators and moving testimonials. And, not without results. More people have been more influenced in religion by what men have spoken than by what God has spoken. Denominationalism itself is a living monument to the influence of false doctrine. Doctrines of men denominate and divide, not the doctrine of Christ. Denominationalism offers men many ways to be wrong; the doctrine of Christ offers men one way to be right. Not that denominations do not claim to follow the Bible. Notice this affirmation from a popular creed-book: "The Holy Scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith, or thought requisite or necessary to salvation". To which we say, "Amen!" However, in the same creed-book may be found "articles of faith" and practice that are not contained in the Holy Scriptures and certainly cannot "be proved thereby". One, for instance, says that "we are justified by faith only..." The Scriptures say otherwise (Jas. 2:24). Many believe and are influenced by what this and other denominations teach concerning justification by faith only. They think it to be Bible doctrine, but God has never spoken thusly. Elsewhere, the same creed-book gives instructions for the baptism of infants. From whence cometh such a practice? From heaven or from men? The same could be asked concerning another statement about baptism. "Let every adult person, and the parents of every child to be baptized, have the choice of sprinkling, pouring, or immersion." The NT knows nothing of baptism by sprinkling or pouring; only an immersion, a burial (Rom. 6:4) as the word itself indicates, and as demonstrated in the baptism of the Ethiopian in Acts 8. Infant baptism and sprinkling as baptism are practiced, not to please or obey God, as some may suppose, but in response to doctrines invented by men. God deserves better. It is not enough to be "religious" and well intentioned. Fellowship with God is possible only as we abide in the doctrine of Christ (2 Jn. 9). That requires knowing Truth (Jn. 8:32) and making it the standard of everything believed and practiced in the name of religion. False prophets and false teachings offer false hope. We need to be sure about our salvation! — and we can as we "prove all things" by the gospel standard (1 Thss. 5:21).
-
Ok ....you talked me into a change.....lol
-
I got em losing round 1.....lol
-
Interesting Baseball Memes and Trivia......
RETIREDFAN1 replied to RETIREDFAN1's topic in Major League Baseball
-
I hope not.....lol.....
-
Well that was different....guy sees alien invasion.... everyone thinks he's crazy so he kidnaps his sons and runs.....BUT, turns out he really WAS crazy and there were no aliens...lol
-
Did mine......
-
Tuesday......
-
Brackets should open up around 6.......
-
Encounter
-
Music Television, MTV 40 Years Ago! MTV was in full swing in March of 1984, and here are some of the videos the channel was showcasing during the week of March 17, 1984! This list, provided by MTV and published by Billboard Magazine, is just a sample of the videos the channel was highlighting this one particular week, it is NOT a list of EVERY video or artist that were in the channel’s rotation. Tap on the image below for full viewing enjoyment!
-
The calculus controversy began in the early 1690s when Newton claimed that Leibniz had plagiarized his work. This was after the Royal Society received a letter from Fatio de Duillier, a Swiss mathematician and Newton's friend, claiming that Leibniz had learned of Newton's unpublished work on calculus during his visit to London in 1673. Leibniz denied the allegations and insisted on his independent discovery. The Royal Society, which Newton presided over, set up an "impartial" committee to decide on the matter, but it was far from unbiased. In 1713, the committee published a report, written by Newton himself, which unsurprisingly concluded that Newton was the true inventor of calculus and that Leibniz was a fraud. The dispute was bitter and divisive, straining relations between English mathematicians and their continental European counterparts. In the years following, the English largely stuck to Newton's notation of fluxions while the Europeans used Leibniz's notation. Today, historians generally agree that both Newton and Leibniz independently developed the fundamental principles of calculus, albeit with different notations and approaches. Both made substantial contributions, and the notation of calculus used today is primarily that of Leibniz. But the controversy itself is a historical testament to the high stakes and intense rivalries that can exist in the world of science and mathematics. Source: Physics in history
-
The Bone Collector