Let's actually consider a couple of other Bible verses, from Proverbs 31. Please, note the sarcasm in my comments dripping like rain from the trees.
Pro 31:11 The heart of her husband trusts safely in her, so that he shall have no need of plunder .
This is preposterous! The Bible has the audacity to suggest that woman can be strong and capable? Her husband is actually supposed to be able to trust in her judgment and capabilities? What an outrage!
Pro 31:16 She considers a field, and buys it; with the fruit of her hands she plants a vineyard.
Yikes! You mean a woman is actually allowed to engage in an honest-to-goodness business transaction, even a transaction as significant as real-estate? Who would have thought it possible!
Pro 31:26 She opens her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness.
Wisdom!? Wisdom!? I thought only men knew anything about that. This is the last straw. A woman is capable and allowed to engage in deep thought and is actually able to speak with serious thought and wisdom?! This can't really be true, can it?
I hope you all get the point. All this dandy-rot about inferiority of women is just that. I understand, accept, and agree with the Biblical pattern of male leadership and authority in the home and church. But, many of these types of conversations about women just end up being insulting to women beyond the statements and intentions of the Bible.
So, let me ask a question. This is less about Jack Hyles, and more about "praying to receive Jesus," as the statement goes. I'm certainly not defending "easy-believism," but here is something to thing about.
Let's take a scenario. Assume it is a Sunday evening and the pastor is preaching a Gospel message. Then, at the close of the message, he gives an an altar call and invites those forward who wish to turn to Christ.
Now, suppose someone comes forward and kneels at the altar. That person knows he need Jesus. He knows he is a sinner in need of salvation. He's been convicted through the message and knows he can't save himself.
Anyway, now let's continue to suppose that while at the altar this person follows the pastor in a prayer. In this prayer, and with all conviction, he acknowledges his sinfulness and need of salvation. He expresses his belief in Jesus as the Son of God, and as very God, Himself. He confesses his belief that Jesus died and rose again. He further expresses his repentance. In short, with all the sincerity he is capable of, he surrenders his life to Christ.
Finally, let's suppose he dies in a car crash on his way home from church.
I also like to remember, as I've mentioned on other threads, that anyone can view these forums, whether or not they are members. If someone happens onto the forum and views a thread dealing with some doctrinal error, I think it is more beneficial to point out the reasons that doctrine is wrong.
I would never suggest we tolerate error or sin. We have a Biblical responsibility to expose and correct the error, but I think we have more opportunity to instruct and make a defense if we do so calmly, from the Scriptures than if we lambast someone.
I guess my point was that simply tracing lineage, itself, doesn't necessarily make a church correct or legitimate. Adherence to the Word of God is what's important. If I could trace my lineage back to Peter, himself, it matters not a wit if I do not rightly divide the Word.
I don't mean to muddy the waters, but regardless of suppositions about Adamski and his motives, it seems a legitimate question has been asked that would prove of value to other visitors to this forum. That is, as I understand the question, the 1611 KJV had 73 books; however, the KJV we adhere to today has 66 books, so why do we not accept the other books?
I understand the argument that those other books are acknowledged by the Catholic church. However, the Catholic church also acknowledges the rest of the books of the Bible. So, why do we not accept the others?
It seems a fair question. I have no personal interest in promoting them, as I don't use them, either, and I'm certainly not Catholic. But I would like to read the thoughts of others here as to why they are not accepted.
That's very true. Next election will be interesting. Very possibly, the Republican Party, as a reaction to this election, will abandon it's pro-life, pro-traditional family values positions and focus only on economic considerations. Morally, there will very likely be very little difference between the two major parties. When that happens, there may be a lot more of us voting for third-party candidates, too.
But, you're right, we need to get back to true witnessing and evangelism.
To me, a lot of the decline began in the '80's. Reagan was President and we got very complacent. I feel like God gave us a period of freedom to spread the gospel, but we as the church in America squandered it. We had immense communications resources and still had some credibility in society in general but we wasted our energy on the prosperity gospel and feel-good preaching.
Thank you, all for your prayers. I still need to inspect things some more when the light comes up, but my household seems to have fared pretty well through this. I have power, and as near as I can tell right now, I just have a messy yard.
Continue to pray. Many folks have not fared so well.
I certainly do not want to foster an argument. I do understand the reservations about Romney. I don't like him nor his religion much, either. Yes, Mormonism is wrong...no disagreement at all.
But, I have to consider...
If elected, is Romney likely to push the US toward becoming a Mormon country? That is highly unlikely to the point of being nonexistent. However, if re-elected is Obama likely to try to push the country further down a road of socialism and worse, marxism? I would say that is very likely to the point of being nearly a certainty.
If elected, who is more likely to appoint more conservative-minded justices to the Supreme Court? I would think the obvious answer is Romney. Of course, there are no guarantees. Even Roberts was a real let-down with his latest decision regarding healthcare. But, the probabilities point more in Romney's favor.
Much as I thought Joe Biden's behaviour last night in the VP debate was a joke and made him look foolish, he did make one accurate statement, "Keep your eye on the Supreme Court."
An "Obama-by-default" win has conseqences far beyond election night.