| Page 8 - Out Loud Continued This is probably the response with which I [James] found the most disagreement: "I [Curtis] correct, rebuke (not reveal - it's not Sunday school) my children with the intent they will repent and seek forgiveness from me. This is a prerequisite for them to receive forgiveness from the Father." When I [James] read it I sensed you were putting yourself at the same level as God. Only God is perfect in His judgment and can require absolute repentance from all those who sin against Him. It's difficult to explain this to someone who doesn't understand the fatherless society in which we live. But the reality is there are generations of children who haven't a father; most were abandoned while others were either abused by their fathers or quite simply absent emotionally, spiritually and physically. Consequently, these generations have not only turned to hate their temporal fathers, they have also turned to hate their heavenly Father as well. The earthly father is the intellectual prerequisite to understanding the heavenly Father. Simply, the dad represents God to the child, and preconceived notions as well as misconceptions about God are formed by the child through the relationship with the earthly father. So, much about a person's relationship with God depends greatly upon the relationship with the dad. In a society plagued with fatherless children, two things occur. First, children grow to hate their fathers as well as God, correlating their fathers' abandonment/abuse/neglect with that of what God will do and has presumably done to them. Second, a fatherless society, now full of "god-haters," finds difficult the task of breaking this "hate cycle" since there are now few in the society not affected by fatherlessness who are able to help others cope. Whatever the detailed reasons for each fatherless situation,* one thing is certain: because the father is the head of the family on earth, the father and his image has been assaulted and emasculated without impunity by demonic forces, its goal of ultimately destroying humanity by first destroying the father and the family. Everything in society is geared to this one cause of destroying the father: (1) illicit relationships of fornication disguised as "playing house"; (2) the feminization of the pulpit by the "ordinations" of women clergy; (3) the seemingly exponential rise of feminism; (4) abortion; (5) homosexuality; (6) welfare; and the list goes on. (*The fatherlessness described herein does not refer to those who have tragically lost their parents by death. Although not to discount the anguish one experiences through the loss of a father, there is a notable difference between this and the complete failure of a father to a child.) No, James, you sensed wrong; I was not putting myself at the same level as God. I was being realistic concerning who I am to my children. I know only God is perfect in His judgment - that's why He gave us Scripture by which we can judge. But you are wrong believing only God can require absolute repentance from those who sin against Him. The Biblical mandate of spanking demonstrates otherwise. For instance, when my child sins against me - lying about taking a cookie for instance - God calls for me to chasten my child for no other reason than to bring that child to repentance. Granted, all sin is against God, but this sin is also against me; therefore, I have a God-given responsibility to not only expect that child's repentance, but also to demand it through discipline. "And you have forgotten the exhortation which is addressed to you as sons, 'My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, Nor faint when you are reproved by Him; For those whom the Lord Loves He disciplines, And He scourges every son whom He receives.' It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? But what if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits, and live? For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He disciplines us for our good, that we may share His holiness. All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have bee trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness” (Hebrews 12:5-11). So, when I wrote that my children's repentance and forgiveness sought from me is a prerequisite for them to receive forgiveness from the Father, I wasn't lying or placing myself level with God: "Furthermore, we have had fathers of our flesh, which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?" (Hebrews 12:9, KJV). How much more difficult for a fatherless child to accept God's forgiveness without first receiving forgiveness from an earthly father? Extremely difficult. I and an entire generation know all too well. ------- "I don't see hiding from the inevitable a sufficient solution. Can you find a person [excluding Christ] who went through life without their pride clouding their actions? This was another one I learned over time. When my wife and I used to disagree I used to simply shut up for a sufficient time to allow my temper to calm. The only problem was that my nature never opened up to see the wisdom from her point of view. Scripture states we are "one" for a very good reason. When the two come together in thought it is a much more balanced and complete thought than just the one-sided. We both understand the "headship" and "submission" described in scripture, but we also understand we each contribute to the whole. This understanding of "unity" has risen our marriage to heights we never before imagined. One designed by God." James, I think you misunderstand when I wrote, "I want to stop arguing." That's all I meant; I didn't intend for you to think I "shut up" and abruptly end all communication with my wife. Undoubtedly, you understand the destruction such causes a marital relationship. And, yes, pride is a terrible killer. If only the husband would be his wife's leader and lose his pride; many divorces would be averted. Many lives would be saved. I can only imagine what our country would resemble, a fine incentive for working hard in my marriage by simply being the husband to my wife. ------- "'I [Curtis] think you have to figure out who I'm rebuking, James. Is it BushCo? Or is it those who make excuses for BushCo? Let me know. Both. And I [James] think neither one will fulfill God's will as He has given it. Your perspective is still that a change in our legal leadership will solve our problems. Scripture states our problem is that we don't submit to the example our Shepherd has left. As followers of Christ, we are not of this world and need to turn our focus to His Kingdom." These words sound nice and flowery, yet they're disjointed with no real thrust behind them. I believe, James, you aren't reading my words; you're only approaching my words (at least at the time when you wrote the above [your] words) with assumptive conclusions. I want BushCo supporters, Christians, to repent and eventually bring to pass a regime change as a voting-block. As I said before, this is the system in which God gave us to work, and what a gift of a system it is, too. If submitting to such a system isn't submitting to God, then I don't know what else is. By the way, instead of "thinking" my rebuke is not God's will, I want you to know with complete certainty as I do: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1). ------- "Sorry. Certainly didn't mean to offend you. I just had flashbacks of you in [...] class passionately asking everyone "if a dead man could make a choice?" And ever after that day, [the instructor was] seeking you for Calvinistic support in a class filled with more Arminian tendencies." How dare you offend me!! AAHHH!!! Did you notice that the instructor didn't approve of my opposition to BushCo, either? Maybe he just didn't like the coming rebuke? I believe what we've been debating transcends a simple Calvinist vs. Armeniam duel since the both of you - a Calvinist and an Arminian - seem to support BushCo, simultaneously. The instructor, by the way, is a great guy - talk about passionate. ------- Marketing for members is based off a worldly, business model. Its design, basically, takes samples of the market area to find out what people scoff at as well as what appeals to them, and the church reacts accordingly to "reel them in." "I agree with the observation, but maybe not the reaction. We MUST be rooted in God's word but also intelligent concerning reaching different people. When Peter spoke to the Jews he could use terms like 'Messiah' which they were familiar with. He could even convict their conscience as those who rejected the Messiah. However, when Philip spoke to the Gentiles he used terms like 'savior' and 'Lord' and did not try to convict their conscience as those who crucified Christ. There must be some thought and action concerning how do we convey Christ's word in a manner which those receiving can understand." There are two categories of people within Scripture: Jew and Gentile. Paul was for the Gentile. Paul didn't market the area to see what was appealing. Paul just preached Christ: offensive to some, life-giving to others. That's the way it is. That is the recipe for preaching the gospel. It has nothing to do with marketing, which by the way invites the world into the church instead of convicting the world. ------- "What about the concern of not becoming attached to worldly things [relics]? Review the opposite side of this and find the Catholic church which instituted a policy to never sell [or give away] a relic. While thousands are starving in the streets, the church has grown so attached to these worldly things she will NEVER sell them. Instead they would take the last coin from a dying beggar to acquire more. Our best and foremost example of a correct Christian church is the ones of the first century where they met in simple homes breaking bread and reading the "Word". I'm afraid our Catholic friends have influenced us to the belief that we can better glorify God with pretty windows and symbols which our physical nature can easily grasp. In contrast to this, I think we'll find God's word stating our actions and our prayers are that which glorify Him." Worldly relics? You mean like cars and houses, T.V.’s and pool tables? Those are worldly relics. What about the concern of not becoming attached to those worldly things? Doesn’t seem to be much of a rush by the church to dump that stuff. I wasn’t talking about the first century church, or the sins of the Catholic Church. I wasn’t talking about solid gold statues of the Virgin Mary, either. I was talking about simple things such as BIBLES, CROSSES, STAINED GLASS – things the article mentioned which were being dumped by churches because of their “offensive” nature. These aren’t worldly relics. A car is a worldly relic. But Bibles!?!?! Come on. This is ridiculous! ------- "And be careful of this 'All His children' stuff. God's not loving to every human being, particularly the unrepentant rapists, murderers, adulterers, molesters, etcetera. (What about Paul? Was he an unrepentant murderer when he received the graceful vision on the road to Damascus?) " The point is Paul could've chosen to deny God but didn't, and according to Armenian tendencies, Paul was able to choose of his own free will to repent and serve God. If Paul did not repent, you bet your life God would have repaid "those who hate Him to their faces, to destroy them; He will not delay with him who hates Him, He will repay him to his face" (Deuteronomy 7:10). There is a reason Paul declared himself the chief sinner (1 Tim 1:15). The key is repentance. God offers salvation to all who repent, but not all will repent. Get it? |