Though it may be “politically incorrect” but within the realm of the will of God, forget what the EPA would do to all perpetrators of turning the center of a heathen’s mansion into a “dunghill”. Forget what the ACLU would do to a Midwestern town’s throng of people relentless scorning the misdeeds of a politician with a public “hissing”. Forget the sensual voices of those who have cut themselves off from all traditional mainstream Christian thought, liberal Christianity that now is wandering around from humility to impunity with unbelief itself.
Over time, I have panned those who struggle to come to their feet for some form of scrutiny, and a striking account of two things provided for universal thinking by the Divinity becomes inescapable, saying;
1. The evolution of we “shall suffer persecution” is excavated through blind rhetoric since the high precepts of Christ we do send all our efforts of esteem into are once again impossible to dis-prove, leaving the gate of faith wide open, and, ,
2. Of those “many infallible proofs” which if faith is still non-existent for an individual of reasonable breadth of openness finds all such contemplations foolishness, I ask to consider and reconsider what we all have to some degree been:
A.A non-believing Jewish historian named Josephus’ own references to Jesus (http://bit.ly/18Zv0w), or,
B.An appeal to your reasonable aptitude, admitting the possible absence of all your own comparisons and measures, the place where you have no knowledge and beyond reach, an untapped mass of rousing exploration. Again, reasonably admitting that such a place may indeed exist, could that place not also be inhabited?
As they also say, “just asking”. But then if asking, have already drawn your “reasonableness” under scope of question. Admittedly, I have been found out expressing a faith of comparing the lack of some completely authored by someone else in that place, whom neither He nor I hold animosities or doubts, but helplessly allow the floodwaters of love to all.
If I may make a annotation to a NT passage, I would like to with a specific purpose in mind. That purpose being presented here is to be assured that the equipment we just purchased (provided) is of the highest quality. It is neither to be scorned, refused or questioned. But these are the days many in the midst of "good soil" are doing just that, though some hesitate to say.
Most already see this coming a mile away souning off like seventy freighters. What, you might ask? Why of course, equipment used here is wholly Christian provided through a vibrant example of the Church of Christ Jesus. The annotation is here is an account for all "fully" to the Lord. Saying, living or dying, weak or strong - we all do so to the Lord, an understanding under command as I see it in Romans 14:1-12.
Now if such knowledge is for unniversal admonition of confidence of the very word of God, what will be the position of the recent development within the EC (Episcopal Church) and it's primates move to finalize a liturgy for same-sex marriage?
The point of being the first and biggest doesn't amount to squat to me for their newfound "rite". What does matter is the days are as they were foretold by the NT author. And while they move closer to their goal of ultimate deception of the elect by way of the cover of night (more stealth and deception), the world over, church, schools and gov't included, we here caught in this warp do our best to cope with Christian steathyness. Partnering in stealthy immorality by handing over to our mortal foe (the Devil) the sword and shield with the 1980's introduction of subtil changes. By slowly introducing them, surely, the resistance began to cave to stealt patterns that began to form in relationships.
Arrogant Skills Have Their Rewards
Ordination of Gays
and finally Same-sex Unions
How is it, we were not first "fully persuaded" so that when the "floods came", the "good soldier of Christ" chose not to retain the confidence to persevere? For if we don't press on in prayer to find Him in the hour of need, the hour will find us with others pressed with "temptation".
If that old caldren of heeding faithless responses because a mind is not first made up to first pray concerning what they were backed up to, some of these things are just too plain too make things "worse" (I Timothy 5:8).
At long last we have arrived to this point, the entreat of remedy (presenting themselves to God) is energized and held close by one of two approaches. As I see it, for some, the gathering of facts is literal, others cognitive, and the former will be the one to mix the two, not the latter. I will try to define this here. Curious though, which do you suppose stands the better chance of a way to sound doctrine?
At some point, we all send ourselves into understanding the things of God in the best, most undiluted way possible. We trust the Lord to invigorate that understanding within us (I would hope) to attend to the very things that please Him, for if we don't, we are on a path of reducing the message as less than divinely inspired.
Onward to that message. If allowed to steep a bit in the Spirit (hello fellowship of the terminal), that message is pulled together by that Spirit of love for each opposing conviction of mind, regardless of the recklessness formerly expressed by the subjects. He sees all, sees all talent, to unfortunate depravity, and supplies the need accordingly.
So unfashionable for some students of the word by the mere mention of spiritual discernment, some I believe would rather be hands off too much study of passages. I would like to remind them not to feel this way. For carnal / spiritual preparations of mind are just that, prepared. To reduce oneself out of the equation can be tricky to offset "private interpretations", but I have learned to read in faith by keeping this warning close to heart. As more info from the word is added, the authenticity of interpreting becomes solid, leading to a mind fed, readied, prepared.
So if already under the fellowship of the Spirit (If such a group were to somehow appear, and it does), we direct "affection""for all" (Ph. 1:8) His people. Now back to the preparation for entreating interpretation for all. Much like posting at T2O serves to potentially reflect the individual's deepest regard or departures, I think usually comes by way of these two in the world now so accustom to removing tradition, literal impressions or cognitive impulses.
The importance of correct interpretation is obviously what someone has left undone here, for they both can't be esteemed simultaneously. Question is, whom has ventured into the most hazardous exposure. Each feels duly justified in their "world" of biblical apologetics. Each finds error with the refusals of the opposing position. Unbiasedly speaking, the one in true error will be the one whom finds it hardest to come to the inspection table for any distance, so we hope all enter a honest appraisal to commit to search out His will.
It appears these whom inwardly find fault of the traditional outlook as being less than applicable, outdated and in need of change speak from a cognitive vantage point. A rather unhealthy (hazardous) extent of the natural laws of reason the Apostle Paul did use on occasion, limitedly, sparingly (I Cor 7:2, 11:14) in a much milder application. But who would dare go further to fully rest on items not supported anywhere, being a diluted form of care?
For if a deliberate and continual effort is made to express what seems right then in one's own eyes for all underlying justifications, could quite possibly be right in line to fulfill the seat of transgression, granting the "god of this world" access to unknowingly blind oneself. And if blind, and carrying a twisted understanding of the love of God, could be caught up in isolation theology, right where Satan would prefer others to commune with.
If somehow we find we are continually responding to the laws of nature without the applicable mixture of faith in all His admonitions, we do so heartedly, so easily throw off and forfeit any shred of a healthy self examination. For "if we would judge ourselves, we would not come under the comdemnation of the world" (I Cor 11:13). So, to isolate one's interpretations is to "wrest the scriptures" (II Pet :16), an arrogant skill removed of confidence in God's supply.
What would those godly founders think? In some ways, they were not all that different of knowing what inticements inflicted men of their time. In other ways, I'm not so sure, for, on occasion our Lord did stop short of informing due to the lack of capacity of some people, possibly unlawfull parameters of conscience. Hypothetically though, just what would those guys think?
Well, they just read the news of what this nation has endured the last 150 years up to about 40 years ago. After reading a short time several gasp and a few unintelligibe shouts filled the air in honest appraisal, the founders could not for the time help themselves. Then they began to see the 50s and 60s. Faith, prayer and the bible now removed as the standard remark of if nothing else, thanksgiving forced the founders but to stop and mourn incessantly.
"Gentleman, dismantle all those locks that keep liberty from being true. Once again we must do the right thing, using no prop of dividing our common interest of faith in the Christian God, and stumbling to ultimate discord due to stop-measure sects, let us restore the good of the people by responsible efforts. If that means the ineitable to preserve what still is, then let the choice be theirs, we must now answer the call of all their hostility to what we have formerly established. The very response to encounter is as it has always been, enlarge faith to happiness in peace, and reduce this monstrosity and identify all such idolaters of covetous power leaching."
Persuaded my brothers here know this all too well.