Results 41 - 60 of 74
|
||||||
Results from: Notes On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Theo-Minor Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | Guidelines on rebuking | Matthew | Theo-Minor | 125829 | ||
You're absolutely right. Correcting is necessary. So let's start here. Be mindful of who you attribute credit for such things. It seems to me that all you've accomplished is to plagerize the Word of God in calling it your own, and by writing this jumbled mess, I got the impression that what you really wanted was a pat on the back. Here's a passage you might find interesting: Judges 15:16-18 And Samson said, With the jawbone of an ass, heaps upon heaps, with the jaw of an ass have [I] slain a thousand men. And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking, that he cast away the jawbone out of his hand, and called that place Ramath-lehi. And he was sore athirst, and called on the Lord, and said, [Thou] hast given this great deliverance into the hand of your servant: and now shall I die for thirst, and fall into the hand of the uncircumcised? You can hardly make anything out of that mess. I know this will seem insulting to you. My intentions are good. "This is my own work, and there is no copyright on it" is about as prideful as I've heard in a long time. Theo-Minor |
||||||
42 | Guidelines on rebuking | Matthew | Theo-Minor | 125878 | ||
Look Leslie ... You cited 116 passages to substantiate what amounted to little more than a paragraph once you take all the references out. That was overkill. The note was barely intelligible with all the notations, and it took me several minutes to digest the simplicity of what you were trying to say because it was too hard to make a coherent sentence out what I consider little more than a mess. I looked up the passages you cited, and most of them had nothing to do with the topic at hand. Point of fact, most of them had nothing to do with what you were saying. You quoted scriptures that directly regard to the selecting of church elders, the admonishing of other Christians, the chastisement of other Christians, etc. The original question you were responding to was when to rebuke someone that is NOT a Christian, and the answer to that, when you are a relatively young Christian that doesn't have the knowledge to know the answer to that question, is never. Further, recognizing that the person asking was lacking knowledge, you shouldn't overload them. If I were a young Christian, that would have intimidated me. Then it would have confused me. God is not the author of confusion (I know that passage refers to something else, but the principle is appropriate). Now, consider what I said judgmental if you wish, but I considered it instruction. We will know a vine by its fruits. What I saw was an overkill of scripture, poorly quoted according to their contexts and applications, and this is indicative of someone that wants to impress other people. If your truest intention was to instruct with all thoroughness, then my mistake. I willingly own my error and apologize. If your intention was to impress with overkill, then my instruction was good and appropriate. Whichever the case may be, it was still overbearing, confusing, and potentially intimidating to a young Christian. Remember that less is more. We only need two or three witnesses to establish a matter. In this particular case, one set of scripture says virtually everything you said. See 1 Thess 5:12-26. In direct regard to "your work," all I saw was a bunch of quotations. When I compared them to one of my study bibles, the quotations were awful familiar in organization. I will not say you copied someone else's work, but I will say that it is suspicious to me. Take my words for what they are worth. My intentions are good. But I'm done with this conversation unless we have something nice to say to one another. I don't want strife, and I'm certain it's not wanted on this forum either. Theo-Minor |
||||||
43 | Guidelines on rebuking | Matthew | Theo-Minor | 125925 | ||
I still don't think I was judgmental. I made a reasonable observation according to what I saw. I also explained myself thoroughly in the second note and made plenty of reasonable, logical statements that it "seems" you are going to ignore. To forgive is to give up your right to do hurt back to someone that has done hurt to you. You are not giving up that right, but throwing in a comment at the end of this most recent note in order to get the last word. That's not really forgiveness, so don't insult my intelligence. Have your last word. I'm done. Theo-Minor |
||||||
44 | Guidelines on rebuking | Matthew | Theo-Minor | 125926 | ||
WalkingTalkingBible "LeslieN, are you a new convert? I ask because you seem a little lifted up in your own eyes." That is basically what I was getting at. You put your note as a whole much more loving and eloquent than I did. I think all I managed to do was insult with poorly chosen words. Theo-Minor |
||||||
45 | should I avoid the appearance of evil? | Matt 18:6 | Theo-Minor | 126464 | ||
I gave good examples. I backed it up with examples. I expected opinions. No one has refuted anything. A man and a woman come together and they are one flesh. This is a covenant. No one has demonstrated that such a union does NOT constitute a marriage. No one has demonstrated that I am wrong. This has been even more nasty than I ever expected from Christians. I have been ridiculed, insulted, called names, rebuked, and otherwise ostracized ... and without a shred of substantiation to support any of this behavior. Ban the topic. That's what you do with all the others. I expect it of you. We wouldn't want to discuss the credibility of an alternate point of view. This is more like an opinion forum. Well heap another slab of pride on my plate, thank you very much. I've never been treated so poorly, and every one of you that insulted me the way you did, I have grave doubts of your true Christianity. Try reading the scriptures. And while you're at it, explain why David had both wives AND concubines, and why God would have given him many more things "like these" to have prevented the one act of adultery. You people are a disgrace to treat another the way you have. And I forgive you. Theo-Minor |
||||||
46 | should I avoid the appearance of evil? | Matt 18:6 | Theo-Minor | 126478 | ||
That's what I SAID! Fornication is prostitution, not sex between an unmarried couple. You haven't proved a thing. You talk marriage, marriage, marriage, but you fail to demonstrate how the joining is considered as such a joining when Paul clearly tells us that such is the case. Even when it's a PROSTITUTE! Hence the reason it is bad to lay with a prostitute, because they are adulterers. Refute with sound doctrine and scripture that proves your case. What you've quoted doesn't refute what I've said. It only declares that a thing called "marriage" exists. You have not adequately demonstrated what marriage is, or where it comes from, or how such a covenant is made. I HAVE. I am not wrong until you prove it with sound scripture. Your opinion doesn't count. Theo-Minor |
||||||
47 | should I avoid the appearance of evil? | Matt 18:6 | Theo-Minor | 126479 | ||
"The Greek word for 'fornication' (porneia) could include any sexual sin committed after the betrothal contract. ...In Biblical usage, 'fornication' can mean any sexual congress outside monogamous marriage. It thus includes not only premarital sex, but also adultery, homosexual acts, incest, remarriage after un-Biblical divorce, and sexual acts with animals, all of which are explicitly forbidden in the law as given through Moses (Leviticus 20:10-21). Christ expanded the prohibition against adultery to include even sexual lusting (Matthew 5:28)." (Dr. Henry M. Morris) An elaborate opinion, but still an opinion. |
||||||
48 | Sex only after called husband and wife. | Matt 18:6 | Theo-Minor | 126480 | ||
I concur with this. He goes in unto her, and knows her, and she is his wife. Theo-Minor |
||||||
49 | Theo-Minor, Can you show me one case ? | Matt 18:6 | Theo-Minor | 126490 | ||
You wrote: [How about the example of David, with his wives AND his concubines? I guess this wasn't okay, seeing that David was a man after God's own heart. ... God didn't say it so okay. God did send Nathan to rebuke him for having sex with Bathsheba (2 Sam 11-12). ... I think God announced Adam and Eve as husband and wife. We will rebuke you, as long as you pronounce error. Admit you are wrong.] You are right on one score, and have not refuted me. "God did not say it, so okay," in regard to concubines. In fact, he gave them to David. Many of them were the wives of Saul. Bath-Sheba he rebuked David for because she was another man's wife. This is adultery, not sex outside of marriage, and this does not address the issue of whether or not sex makes two people one flesh in covenant. "I think God announced" is an opinion (I think being the key words here), not a scriptural fact. So again, you've proven nothing. I will admit I'm wrong, and gladly, when you prove it. Theo-Minor |
||||||
50 | Am I wrong? | Matt 18:6 | Theo-Minor | 126491 | ||
That is just not the case. There are plenty of examples of a man going in to a woman, and taking her, and she being his wife. Your comment is motivated by opinion. It is not factual. Further, it doesn't address things like concubines. Theo-Minor |
||||||
51 | should I avoid the appearance of evil? | Matt 18:6 | Theo-Minor | 126539 | ||
Dear justme, 1. "Oh my! My wife and I read your response and we were stunned!" [ ... the anticipated opinions I shortly expect ... Case in point. ] 2. "What you have stated is rediculous if not HERESY!" [ Opinion, unsubstantiated by scripture. This is just name calling. ] 3. "Sex outside of marriage with a boyfriend/girlfriend is not a sin, because there is no such thing as sex outside of marriage." And yet you also wrote "Their real marriage in truth occurs when the man "goes unto her", the act of conjugal joining IS the marriage, because the two have become one flesh." Your statements are outrageously flawed!!!" [ Jesus defined the binding attribute of marriage. "Have you never read that the two are become one flesh? What God has joined together, let no man put asunder." The two 'becoming one flesh' is a joining by God, and this occurs between two people that have sex. The Corinthian example sets precedent to show that such is the case, even if the woman is a prostitute. Hence, the reason prostitution is bad; it is adultery. My statements do not contradict, nor are they 'outrageously flawed.' If a couple are having sex, they are not dating, they are married according to scriptural precedent. Such is the case even in rape. Deut 22:28-29 "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife ..." ] 4. "Fornication, PRENEIA is illicit sexual intercourse. ... This would include sex between any boy and girl who are not married to each other." [ There is nothing perverted or unlawful about one man and one woman coming together, staying together, and honoring God together. This is only your opinion. "porneia (por-ni-ah); from porneuo (porn-yoo-o): harlotry (including adultery and incest)." This is the literal definition. As Vine's says, it is "illicit" sex. That means "unlawful, or unsactioned by custom or law." See Leviticus chapter 18 for a detailed list of said unlawful/perverted sexual acts according to biblical custom. ] 5. "To suggest that sex between boyfriend and girlfriend is not a sin is not Biblical in any way shape or form." [ To state plainly that it is sin without any scriptural substantiation is presumptuous and opinionated. ] 6. "Read 1 Corinthians 6:12-20 and this states beyond any doubt and very specfically as to what is immoral. Am I to believe this Scripture doesn't apply to today?" [ It does specifically state what is immoral. Verse 13 says that the body is not for fornication, and verses 15 and 16 define said fornication in direct context as lying with a harlot. This proves nothing, does not refute what I've said, and does not, at any time, say anything about two consenting adults in a monogamous relationship. As for today ... it still applies. We still shouldn't lay with prostitutes. ] 7. "If marriage only IS a marriage when intercourse is possible then please tell me what do you tell some young married man who has lost his legs and manhood in a war, like the war we are in now?" [ I didn't say that sex was the only way to be married, only that two people that have engaged in such are married. Marriage is a promise between a man, a woman, and God. You can promise to be together, but not have sex, but if you have sex, you are one flesh, and the promise is made in the act. ] 8. "The answer to the couples question as to should they be baptised is most certainly and positively NO!! How can their hearts be right when they are living together?" [ Whether their hearts are right is not for you to determine. Only God knows their hearts, and their conscience should not be judged by you. You're wrong in saying they shouldn't be baptized. "they are saying I have repented, and turned away from sin ... This is not saying perfection ..." If you're not perfect, then you are as guilty as they. Pull the beam from your eye, hypocrite. Sin is sin. If sin bars them, sin bars you. ] 9. "Marriage is not mans standard of tradition, but is the standard the Lord has made, it is not only sin in mans eyes, but is by Gods standard, Hebrews 13:4." [ This Hebrews passage does not say what marriage is, how it comes to be, that it is sin if you are not married, or that the act of sex does not make you married. You have proved nothing. Further, marriage is God's standard. The ceremony is man's standard. Again, you prove nothing. ] 10. Your final insults, based upon nothing but opinion, presumption, and idealistic teaching, are not worthy of a Christian. You should have refuted me with sound doctrine, or stated your opinion in a polite manner if you couldn't refute. This could have been discussed politely. Now it will not be discussed at all beyond this post. Go back to your mob. Theo-Minor |
||||||
52 | should I avoid the appearance of evil? | Matt 18:6 | Theo-Minor | 126542 | ||
I made a sound argument. You did not refute it. You called me names, insulted my credibility, slandered me, and treated me like dirt. I meant what I said in my parting question-post. I have sincere doubts as to your Christianity. You have been a loveless person to me. You undoubtedly saw my post, made an instant decision of fault, screamed out your opinions and insults ... but I am positive you did not objectively weigh what I said for credibility. Had you do done so, perhaps you would have been a little less ugly. And I am leaving, since knowing you, you are likely wondering why I'm posting if I was "leaving" last night. It would be the sort of loveless, critical behavior I've come to expect from you. I'm tying up loose ends now that I'm calmed down from the scourging of the mob. Theo-Minor |
||||||
53 | Is my assessment of them wrong? | Matt 18:6 | Theo-Minor | 126548 | ||
As I've had to point out to everyone so far, you are proving your case based on opinion. What you said, while credible in a worldly circumstance, is not scriptural. The sixties example is not something that pertains to two Christian individuals. I didn't say, at any time, that promiscuous behavior was appropriate. I said that those that were already doing the act were married. That means, don't leave, don't cheat, don't break up, live together, share the hardships, raise the children together, etc. What I suggested in no way relieves them of the responsibility of their actions. I said they are married, not living together and having sex and just saying they are married until the convenient time comes to break up because they aren't getting along. You, and everyone else, are grossly underestimating what I said. You think I'm trying to advocate sex outside of marriage, but that's simply not the case. I'm advocating that what God has ALREADY joined together, let no man put it asunder. Further, you should reread the post now that your Sunday fury fire has worn down a bit. You'll see that I also told them to "go get married in the eyes of men" so they would not be a stumbling block. Hence, I told them: 1. Their action was not right, but irrevocable. 2. The act made them married by the union. 3. They need to get married by ceremony for the sake of other people, and to witness it before men. 4. That they shouldn't let anyone condemn them for what they've already done. 5. That they can be baptized, because, according to the people on this forum, we all have sin anyway. Since all sin is the same, they are just as qualified as anyone else for baptism. To this list of sound, reasonable responses, I was called names, slandered, ridiculed, and completely discredited on all accounts. And not one person did it with scripture. I got beat ugly with opinion-sticks. Stultis was the only person on the forum that considered the matter objectively for even a second. HE saw what I was saying, and why. No one else, including you, saw it, because their opinions were shining too bright. This my closing post to you. Try scripture in the future. It works better sometimes than opinions. Theo-Minor |
||||||
54 | Is my assessment of them wrong? | Matt 18:6 | Theo-Minor | 126591 | ||
I never said, "If it feels good, do it." I said, "They did it, so they are married and are bound by the parameters of marriage, not free to be promiscuous." Theo-Minor |
||||||
55 | Do Ghost's exist? | Luke 24:39 | Theo-Minor | 126435 | ||
Hey Emmaus, I sort of agree with you, and I sort of don't. Forgive me for not making the references right now, but there are in fact references to support this ... There are accounts of people "sleeping" in death, sleeping [because] they're dead. If that made any sense at all. The best story I can bring to mind is the story of the witch of Endor calling up the spirit of Sammuel, who was quite irritated that she had disturbed his sleep. Take a look at that story and see what you think. I don't remember the exact wording. Perhaps that isn't the case at all. Elijah would not have been sleeping in death. He didn't die. He was taken up in a whirlwind. The same is [believed] of Moses by the Jews of the day. It is believed, despite the Deuteronomy account of his death, that Moses was also taken up in the same way. Josephus recounts the events in that fashion, according to the Pharisaic historical traditions, and Jude talks about the body of Moses being fought over by Michael and Satan. In addition, the Revelation, whether speaking futuristically, historically, symbolically, etc., plainly mentions "two witnesses" that each do certain types of miracles. They are able to turn waters to blood, call down fire from heaven, dry up the sky so it doesn't rain during the time of their prophesying, or to bring plagues upon men as often as they desire. This, to me, is a clear depiction of Moses and Elijah; Moses who brought the plagues and turned the Nile to blood, and Elijah who called down fire from heaven and pronounced a drought. Both of these witnesses in the Revelation are "taken up" in a cloud. Then this in addition to the appearance of both Moses and Elijah on the mountain with Jesus. If Moses had died in the body, his spirit would have been "sleeping" in Abraham's bosom. Instead, he had a glorified body, much like the ones we expect to receive ourselves eventually, and was present with Elijah on the mountain. This is not saying that the Bible is incorrect. Josephus claims that Moses concluded Deuteronomy that way because he didn't want the Israelites to worship him. Josephus understood his time and religion far better than I do, so I won't say he's wrong. I simply don't know. It makes logical sense to me that Moses also was taken up, though the scripture in Deuteronomy plainly disagrees. *Shrug* It's food for thought. Theo-Minor |
||||||
56 | Did Jesus purify the temple twice? | John 2:15 | Theo-Minor | 126202 | ||
I've had to reconcile myself to that one as well. Matthew, Mark, and Luke tell of the overturning of the tables and such as being during his triumphant entry into Jerusalem. John says it was the year before or so. The best solution I've found is similar to Ray's. John's Gospel, according to some scholars, is dated to the 90's AD. If the events took place in the 30's AD, that's a 60 year gap. In short, John was jotting down at the age 70 or 80 what he experienced at the age of 15 or 20. There are some other juicy ones you might want to wrap your brain around. Take a look at the woman that washes Jesus' feet with tears, etc. Luke's version is quite different. Then there's the "going back to Nazareth" scene that happens in the beginning of the ministry in one gospel, but towards the middle of another. In one case, he's just getting started. In the other, he's already well established and performing miracles in Nazareth. So did he go twice? The best way to look at this is to view it as a car crash. The four witnesses writing the testimony of the gospel are all seeing the same accident, but from different corners of the intersection. Matthew heard the scream of the tires, smelled the burnt rubber, and noticed a rock in the road that caused the driver to swerve and have an accident. Mark saw the car swerve, but never saw the rock. He too heard the scream of the tires, but from his corner he couldn't smell the burnt rubber. But what Mark saw that Matthew didn't was the look of panic on the driver's face as they realized they were about to wreck. John was in the corner store. He heard the tires scream, but he didn't smell the burnt rubber. He didn't see the panic on the driver's face. He didn't see the swerve or the rock in the road. But John was the first one to reach the car when he came out of the store. He ran straighaway to the car and got to hear the driver's last words before he died. Standing next to the car, he could then smell the burnt rubber, and through the driver's own account of things before he died, John learned of the rock in the road, the swerve to avoid it, and the panic the driver felt when he saw that he was bearing down on a passing vehicle. One thing all three of them saw were the smashed cars. Some of them saw it happen. Others weren't around. (remember that the sheep scattered) But they all saw the mess. They all saw the body of the one person being toted away. Then Luke arived on the scene and asked some detailed questions about what happened and did the best he could to establish some order and chronology of events, starting with the rock in the road that Matthew saw and John could verify by the driver's own words. It next moved on to the swerve that John didn't see but could relate according to the driver's words. Matthew and Mark could both testify to it directly. Then to the unique material that the driver was panicked, based on what Mark saw on the driver's face. Then he recorded the crash itself as seen by Matthew and Mark, with the addition of what audible details and testimonial details from the driver John could provide. Finally, he concludes with the fact that there is a crash. The harmony of the gospels is very akin to this in my estimation. Each has unique material not found in the others, and the details of matching scenarios are often different. This thing actually makes them credible. If they all matched perfectly, they would be suspicious of having been copied from one another. Instead, we have corroborating accounts from four different perspectives. In a court of law, this would establish the event as a fact. I hope this gives you food for thought. Theo-Minor |
||||||
57 | Meaning of John 12:24-25 | John 12:24 | Theo-Minor | 126217 | ||
Hey angel - kalos ... I looked up a few words, and if either of you do any Greek study (actual study into syntax, tense, possession, etc.), you might find this interesting. The word is first singular. "die" once. Second it is of the tense "to be" or "to die." It might be worth consideration that what he is trying to say here is that he is "ready to die every day." This would fit nicely with the context going back to 15:29. He is discussing baptizing people for the dead (because they were doubting bodily resurrection; See 15:12-19), and showing how ignorant that is because they are putting themselves in jeopardy hour by hour ... over what? A faith in no resurrection? So he could be saying here: "And why do we stand in jeopardy every hour? I swear an oath by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, that I [am ready] to die every day. If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what does it advantage me if the dead do not rise? Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we [may] die." I had always viewed the "I die daily" in a spiritual sense, but I have, admittedly, never paid it that much attention. When the topic came up about dying to self, I don't think I've ever really used that passage. I tend, instead, to say, I'm dead to the law, or dead in Christ, or the old man was crucified with Christ, etc. This was a good note you guys posted. I learned something. Theo-Minor |
||||||
58 | God the Son as a confession of faith | John 17:22 | Theo-Minor | 126588 | ||
[1st John 2:27 But the anointing which you have received of Him abides in you, and you need not that any man teach you, but as the same anointing teaches you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it has taught you, you shall abide in him.] [Hebrews 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts, and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:] [Romans 2:14-15 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another.] [Romans 13:9 For this, You shall not commit adultery, you shall not kill, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness, you shall not vocet; and if there be any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."] [2nd Timothy 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished to all good works.] [Matthew 23:34 Wherefore, behold, I send to you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them you shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall you scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:] [2nd Peter 1:19-21 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto you do well that you take heed, as to a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns, and the morning star rises in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.] [1st Timothy 1:5 The goal of our instruction is love from a pure heat, a clear conscience, and sincere faith.] The scriptures are to be interpreted by the individual, through the Holy Spirit, by the understanding and inspiration of love. They are not open to private interpretation, because the New Testament writings are those of prophets, and no scripture of prophecy is open to private interpretation. Love is the goal of their instruction, as well as the commandment of Christ, so when in doubt, look to love. When lacking direct statements, your heart will bear witnesses to your deeds by your conscience, and you will show the works of the law written on your heart. By this will you be judged when lacking direct command. Let the Spirit be your guide. You do not need any man to teach you. All you need will be found either in the scriptures, which are profitable for doctrine, correction, etc., or in your heart by a spirit of love through the Holy Spirit. If anyone disagrees with this post, I expect the disagreement to be a polite exchange, founded in solid, contextual scripture. Don't call me anymore names. Theo-Minor |
||||||
59 | God the Son as a confession of faith | John 17:22 | Theo-Minor | 126589 | ||
I reread my concluding paragraphs in the previous post. I think I was a little confusing. Let me reword that so it makes better sense. No man needs to teach another. All Christians get their learning from the same source. The scriptures are to the profit of all Christians for learning, and are understood by the Holy Spirit and through a spirit of love. While the interpretations are come to individually as the Holy Spirit guides, they are not of private (or various) interpretations. If guided by the Holy Spirit and viewing the scriptures through the inspiration of love, all Christians will come to the same general conclusions. In the few instances that the scriptures are not clear, the Holy Spirit and the inspiration of love are the guidelines for interpretation, not some authority's opinion, unless the opinion is credible and within the bounds of the doctrine of Christ. Theo-Minor |
||||||
60 | searching for the truth | 1 Cor 11:3 | Theo-Minor | 125754 | ||
The "perfect" is identified in Ephesians 4:11-16. The perfecting is when we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ. This, unity in faith, is the answer on the fleshly level. The spiritual and individual level of perfection is a new and glorified body in the resurrection. (Phillipians 3:11-12) It is my "opinion" that the gifts are still for today. There is no scripture suggesting that the gifts will pass away barring "perfection," as stated earlier in this exchange. I do not think the body of Christ has been perfected. There are too many people misguided, and there are too many divisions in the church to believe there is unity in faith. The problem with the gifts is not their availability to us today, but the selflessness it requires to be worthy of such gifts. Until we relearn humility, selflessness, and self sacrifice, we will never see clear to the faith it takes to perform such miracles. This is my opinion on the matter. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |