It's what happens when one is half Calvin/half Arminian, like Bill. He becomes confused, frustrated, and finally incoherent.
Serving two masters the way he does causes the basis of his ranting to be in conflict from the get-go, and inevitably leads to a total collapse of logic that he can only counter with belittling others and childish cartoons.
quote:Originally posted by Gifted Child:quote:Originally posted by Bill Gray:quote:Originally posted by vplee123:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bill Gray:
In the Christian faith, we call all fellow Christian believers our brother or sister -- for we truly are in the same family -- the Family of God.
Ah, yes, indeed. And you used that arguement (sic) the other way when trying to say that Mary had other children. I told you brother could have many meanings. Remember?
Hi VP,
Matthew 12:46-50, "While He was still speaking to the crowds, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. Someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You." But Jesus answered the one who was telling Him and said, "Who is My mother and who are My brothers?" And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, "Behold My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother."
bg
Two thousand years ago brother could mean ( and did everyday ) cousin,
in-laws, even females. You've been told that many times. Jesus is an only child.
I see you want to go to the cross again. OK. Jesus gave, by way of John, his
Mother, spiritually to the world. He gave his Mother to John to take care of her.
Mary is our spiritual Mother. said Jesus.
It's against Jewish law for someone to give a family member
to a non-family member when there are living family members.
Are you with me? Jesus could do this because there are no
other family members. Are you saying Jesus breaks his own laws?
Again, Jesus is an only child.
So Bill will find it, Gifted. He'll scroll right past since it's inside the quote area. 
quote:It's against Jewish law for someone to give a family member
to a non-family member when there are living family members.
Are you with me? Jesus could do this because there are no
other family members. Are you saying Jesus breaks his own laws?
Again, Jesus is an only child.
quote:Originally posted by b50m:
So Bill will find it, Gifted. He'll scroll right past since it's inside the quote area.quote:It's against Jewish law for someone to give a family member
to a non-family member when there are living family members.
Are you with me? Jesus could do this because there are no
other family members. Are you saying Jesus breaks his own laws?
Again, Jesus is an only child.
b50m,
From what I've been seeing so far, Bill Gray is not
going to like this.
-K-
He won't so he will just pretend it's not here. That is how he works.
quote:Originally posted by Bill Gray:quote:Originally posted by buffalo:
Bro. Bill, Is there a predetermined number to be saved at the Trib?
Hi Buffalo,
What do you think? I am interested in hearing your thoughts on this.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
Bro. Bill,
I do not claim to interpret the writings contained in the Bible.
As far as to the notion that a pre-determined number to be saved I see it argued ; from “a few” to “144 thousand”. since the bible tells us that ‘a few’ cannot exceed eight souls and there can certainly be no argument as to the meaning of 144 thousand; we must argue that not even the Apostles or Mary herself would be safe in the case one person who’s righteousness might exceed that of one on the list resulting in someone being bumped off.
A paradox it would seem. The logical remedy likely would be to construct some interpretation that would allow one to circumnavigate the dilemma such as the trib or one of it’s cousins.
We must then rely on the dynamics of interpretation to ,at some point, include enough of us as to not disappoint the lavishness of heaven.
What say ye Bro. Bill?
quote:Originally posted by buffalo:quote:Originally posted by Bill Gray:quote:Originally posted by buffalo:
Bro. Bill, Is there a predetermined number to be saved at the Trib?
Hi Buffalo,
What do you think? I am interested in hearing your thoughts on this.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
Bro. Bill,
I do not claim to interpret the writings contained in the Bible.
As far as to the notion that a pre-determined number to be saved I see it argued ; from “a few” to “144 thousand”. since the bible tells us that ‘a few’ cannot exceed eight souls and there can certainly be no argument as to the meaning of 144 thousand; we must argue that not even the Apostles or Mary herself would be safe in the case one person who’s righteousness might exceed that of one on the list resulting in someone being bumped off.
A paradox it would seem. The logical remedy likely would be to construct some interpretation that would allow one to circumnavigate the dilemma such as the trib or one of it’s cousins.
We must then rely on the dynamics of interpretation to ,at some point, include enough of us as to not disappoint the lavishness of heaven.
What say ye Bro. Bill?
Bro. Bill will be back in a minute. While he's gone I think more than 144,000
will come out of the Shoals area. Most of whom will be Indians.
Hi Buffalo,
In an earlier post, you ask me, "Bro. Bill, Is there a predetermined number to be saved at the Trib?"
And, I answered your question with a question, just to see what kind of field we are playing on, "Hi Buffalo, What do you think? I am interested in hearing your thoughts on this."
Now, you tell me, "Bro. Bill, I do not claim to interpret the writings contained in the Bible."
Why not? The Bible is God's User's Manual for mankind -- why would you not want to have the best possible understanding of what it teaches? If you were given a new medication with which you are totally unfamiliar -- would you not read the instructions before taking the new medicine? The same is true of your spiritual health -- why would you take "spiritual medicine" without a good understanding of what it is and what effects it could have on your spiritual life?
But, let's go back briefly to address your original question: How many will be saved during the Tribulation? We know that, when the Tribulation begins -- all the Christian believers will be gone, raptured, taken into heaven for the duration of the seven year Tribulation. However, we do know from the Bible, Revelation 7:9, there will be "a great multitude, which no one can count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches in their hands."
And, in Revelation 7:14, we are told, "These are the ones who come out of the great Tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb."
Revelation 9:16 tells us, "The number of the armies of the horsemen was two hundred million; I heard the number of them."
So, Revelation 7:9 tells us that those saved in the Tribulation will be number too large to count -- and Revelation 9:16 tells us of the army of two hundred million. Based upon that, I would say that those saved during the Tribulation will be a number much greater than 200 million -- what, in the billions, more?
And, this is after the billions of Christian believers had already been raptured. So, we are talking about a very great number of saved saints who will spend eternity in the presence of God. Wow!
Then, you tell me, "As far as to the notion that a pre-determined number to be saved I see it argued; from “a few” to “144 thousand.” Since the bible tells us that ‘a few’ cannot exceed eight souls and there can certainly be no argument as to the meaning of 144 thousand; we must argue that not even the Apostles or Mary herself would be safe in the case one person who’s (sic) righteousness might exceed that of one on the list resulting in someone being bumped off."
Buffalo, let's break this down for a better understanding:
You say, "As far as to the notion that a pre-determined number to be saved I see it argued; from “a few” to “144 thousand.”
I am not sure where you found these number nor why you relate them to the people who are to be saved. Please tell us where you got this understanding.
Then, "Since the bible tells us that ‘a few’ cannot exceed eight souls. . ."
Where do you find this definition? Possibly you are thinking of 1 Peter 3:20, "Who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water."
This is not defining "few" to be eight -- but, only saying that the eight were but a few.
Matthew 22:14 "For many are called, but few are chosen." What does this mean? We have to look at this through the lens of Matthew 7:13-14, "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it."
We know that not just eight people will be saved. And, we know that the number of those saved will be in the billions -- and we know that God has not set a specific number, or quota, of those who can and will be saved. So, that "few" represents billions of people saved from the Old Testament times through the New Testament, or Church Age, up to the moment of the Rapture -- and, it includes those billions (too many to count) saved during the Tribulation. That "few" is quite a large number. No quota seen here.
And, of course, the 144,000 (Revelation 7:4, 14:1-3) we know will be Jewish evangelists, chosen by God, who will be evangelizing the whole world. That will be like having 144,000 Jewish Billy Grahams or Greg Lauries on the streets every day -- sharing the Word of God and bringing souls to repentance.
You continue, "we must argue that not even the Apostles or Mary herself would be safe in the case one person who’s (sic) righteousness might exceed that of one on the list resulting in someone being bumped off."
Here, again, you are assuming that God has set a quota of how many will be allowed to be saved. Not true. And, I am not sure where you got this misunderstanding. We read in 2 Peter 3:9, "The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance."
No, God has not set a quota on salvation. For we know from John 3:16 that He opened the door for everyone, who will receive His "free gift" of salvation -- to be saved, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."
So, whoever, by grace, through faith in Jesus Christ -- will believe and receive His "free gift" of eternal life -- is saved (Ephesians 2:8-9). No quota!
Next, you say, "A paradox it would seem. The logical remedy likely would be to construct some interpretation that would allow one to circumnavigate the dilemma such as the trib or one of it’s cousins."
A paradox, an inconsistency? No. Your suggestion "to construct some interpretation that would allow one to circumnavigate the dilemma such as the trib" is one the reasons the church has divided into so many different denominations and churches, following many different theologies.
No, what we need is to go back to a Christian church model which follows the full teachings of the Bible, God's Written Word, as it was given to us. Over the millennia we have had so many who have been made uncomfortable with what the Bible truly teaches us -- and have picked and chosen certain verses and passages, while excluding others, to mold a "theology of comfort" for themselves.
What we need are Christian believers who will say, "Yes, Lord, I believe your Written Word to be inspired, inerrant, and literal -- and Your full revelation for my salvation and to guide me in my daily Christian walk. I accept and follow Your teachings and not the man-made theologies which have flooded the world."
When we can do that -- we will have the pure Christian church -- and no need to "construct some interpretation that would allow" anything except full obedience to the Written Word of God.
Until we can do that, we will always have misunderstandings among Christian believers; we will always be providing fuel for the untruths flowing from the atheist/secularist world; and we will have aberrations and cult churches. Let's go back to the Biblical church of the 120 believers who waited and prayed in the Upper Room -- and the 12 apostles who lead them spiritually in their worship of God and in Christian fellowship.
Finally, Buffalo, you tell me, "We must then rely on the dynamics of interpretation to, at some point, include enough of us as to not disappoint the lavishness of heaven. What say ye Bro. Bill?"
Well, Buffalo, what I say is that your questions (posted for whatever reason) have given me good material for sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that, I thank you.
Other than that, your attempt to post somewhat snide, cutesy comments such as this last one leads me to several thoughts: Are you really a Christian believer -- or are you trying to impress our atheist Friends by seeking feebly to bait me -- or are you one of our atheist Friends, perhaps Deep or Fish, in drag?
But, whatever, thank you for the questions and for this opportunity to share my thoughts on the Written Word of God, the Bible.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
In an earlier post, you ask me, "Bro. Bill, Is there a predetermined number to be saved at the Trib?"
And, I answered your question with a question, just to see what kind of field we are playing on, "Hi Buffalo, What do you think? I am interested in hearing your thoughts on this."
Now, you tell me, "Bro. Bill, I do not claim to interpret the writings contained in the Bible."
Why not? The Bible is God's User's Manual for mankind -- why would you not want to have the best possible understanding of what it teaches? If you were given a new medication with which you are totally unfamiliar -- would you not read the instructions before taking the new medicine? The same is true of your spiritual health -- why would you take "spiritual medicine" without a good understanding of what it is and what effects it could have on your spiritual life?
But, let's go back briefly to address your original question: How many will be saved during the Tribulation? We know that, when the Tribulation begins -- all the Christian believers will be gone, raptured, taken into heaven for the duration of the seven year Tribulation. However, we do know from the Bible, Revelation 7:9, there will be "a great multitude, which no one can count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches in their hands."
And, in Revelation 7:14, we are told, "These are the ones who come out of the great Tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb."
Revelation 9:16 tells us, "The number of the armies of the horsemen was two hundred million; I heard the number of them."
So, Revelation 7:9 tells us that those saved in the Tribulation will be number too large to count -- and Revelation 9:16 tells us of the army of two hundred million. Based upon that, I would say that those saved during the Tribulation will be a number much greater than 200 million -- what, in the billions, more?
And, this is after the billions of Christian believers had already been raptured. So, we are talking about a very great number of saved saints who will spend eternity in the presence of God. Wow!
Then, you tell me, "As far as to the notion that a pre-determined number to be saved I see it argued; from “a few” to “144 thousand.” Since the bible tells us that ‘a few’ cannot exceed eight souls and there can certainly be no argument as to the meaning of 144 thousand; we must argue that not even the Apostles or Mary herself would be safe in the case one person who’s (sic) righteousness might exceed that of one on the list resulting in someone being bumped off."
Buffalo, let's break this down for a better understanding:
You say, "As far as to the notion that a pre-determined number to be saved I see it argued; from “a few” to “144 thousand.”
I am not sure where you found these number nor why you relate them to the people who are to be saved. Please tell us where you got this understanding.
Then, "Since the bible tells us that ‘a few’ cannot exceed eight souls. . ."
Where do you find this definition? Possibly you are thinking of 1 Peter 3:20, "Who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water."
This is not defining "few" to be eight -- but, only saying that the eight were but a few.
Matthew 22:14 "For many are called, but few are chosen." What does this mean? We have to look at this through the lens of Matthew 7:13-14, "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it."
We know that not just eight people will be saved. And, we know that the number of those saved will be in the billions -- and we know that God has not set a specific number, or quota, of those who can and will be saved. So, that "few" represents billions of people saved from the Old Testament times through the New Testament, or Church Age, up to the moment of the Rapture -- and, it includes those billions (too many to count) saved during the Tribulation. That "few" is quite a large number. No quota seen here.
And, of course, the 144,000 (Revelation 7:4, 14:1-3) we know will be Jewish evangelists, chosen by God, who will be evangelizing the whole world. That will be like having 144,000 Jewish Billy Grahams or Greg Lauries on the streets every day -- sharing the Word of God and bringing souls to repentance.
You continue, "we must argue that not even the Apostles or Mary herself would be safe in the case one person who’s (sic) righteousness might exceed that of one on the list resulting in someone being bumped off."
Here, again, you are assuming that God has set a quota of how many will be allowed to be saved. Not true. And, I am not sure where you got this misunderstanding. We read in 2 Peter 3:9, "The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance."
No, God has not set a quota on salvation. For we know from John 3:16 that He opened the door for everyone, who will receive His "free gift" of salvation -- to be saved, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."
So, whoever, by grace, through faith in Jesus Christ -- will believe and receive His "free gift" of eternal life -- is saved (Ephesians 2:8-9). No quota!
Next, you say, "A paradox it would seem. The logical remedy likely would be to construct some interpretation that would allow one to circumnavigate the dilemma such as the trib or one of it’s cousins."
A paradox, an inconsistency? No. Your suggestion "to construct some interpretation that would allow one to circumnavigate the dilemma such as the trib" is one the reasons the church has divided into so many different denominations and churches, following many different theologies.
No, what we need is to go back to a Christian church model which follows the full teachings of the Bible, God's Written Word, as it was given to us. Over the millennia we have had so many who have been made uncomfortable with what the Bible truly teaches us -- and have picked and chosen certain verses and passages, while excluding others, to mold a "theology of comfort" for themselves.
What we need are Christian believers who will say, "Yes, Lord, I believe your Written Word to be inspired, inerrant, and literal -- and Your full revelation for my salvation and to guide me in my daily Christian walk. I accept and follow Your teachings and not the man-made theologies which have flooded the world."
When we can do that -- we will have the pure Christian church -- and no need to "construct some interpretation that would allow" anything except full obedience to the Written Word of God.
Until we can do that, we will always have misunderstandings among Christian believers; we will always be providing fuel for the untruths flowing from the atheist/secularist world; and we will have aberrations and cult churches. Let's go back to the Biblical church of the 120 believers who waited and prayed in the Upper Room -- and the 12 apostles who lead them spiritually in their worship of God and in Christian fellowship.
Finally, Buffalo, you tell me, "We must then rely on the dynamics of interpretation to, at some point, include enough of us as to not disappoint the lavishness of heaven. What say ye Bro. Bill?"
Well, Buffalo, what I say is that your questions (posted for whatever reason) have given me good material for sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that, I thank you.
Other than that, your attempt to post somewhat snide, cutesy comments such as this last one leads me to several thoughts: Are you really a Christian believer -- or are you trying to impress our atheist Friends by seeking feebly to bait me -- or are you one of our atheist Friends, perhaps Deep or Fish, in drag?
But, whatever, thank you for the questions and for this opportunity to share my thoughts on the Written Word of God, the Bible.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
Attachments
Images (1)
Hi Child,
You tell me, "Two thousand years ago brother could mean (and did everyday) cousin, in-laws, even females. You've been told that many times. Jesus is an only child."
If that were true, then why did the disciples tell Jesus, in Matthew 12:47, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You."
Using you logic, they should have just told Jesus, "Your brothers are standing outside."
Actually, the Biblical term used to include Christian brothers and sisters is: brethren; not brothers. Brothers means brothers; sisters means sisters -- brethren means all Christian believers.
Next, you say, "I see you want to go to the cross again. OK. Jesus gave, by way of John, his Mother, spiritually to the world. He gave his Mother to John to take care of her. Mary is our spiritual Mother. said Jesus."
Show me in this in the Bible: Mary is our spiritual Mother. said Jesus.
Jesus gave Mary into the care of His disciple, John, for him to care for her in her elder years. No where in the Bible can you show me where He made her the "spiritual mother" of the world. Boy, according to you Roman Catholics -- Mary is one busy lady. She is the Mother of God, she is the Queen of Heaven, and now she is the Spiritual Mother of the World. Wow! Why do we even need God? Mary takes care of everything we need.
Once again, Child, I will ask: Where do you find this in the Bible?
Finally, you declare, "It's against Jewish law for someone to give a family member to a non-family member when there are living family members. Are you with me? Jesus could do this because there are no other family members. Are you saying Jesus breaks his own laws? Again, Jesus is an only child."
Show me this law in the Bible.
Child, I keep asking you to show me proof in the Bible of the statements you make -- and you always ignore my requests. That tells me that you cannot -- so, you just ignore me. The only place you can find your false doctrines is in your man-made Roman Catholic Traditions -- and the only support you or the church hierarchy has for these false teachings is the apocrypha or in the mind of the so called "infallible" popes and bishops. No Christian Biblical support whatsoever.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
You tell me, "Two thousand years ago brother could mean (and did everyday) cousin, in-laws, even females. You've been told that many times. Jesus is an only child."
If that were true, then why did the disciples tell Jesus, in Matthew 12:47, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You."
Using you logic, they should have just told Jesus, "Your brothers are standing outside."
Actually, the Biblical term used to include Christian brothers and sisters is: brethren; not brothers. Brothers means brothers; sisters means sisters -- brethren means all Christian believers.
Next, you say, "I see you want to go to the cross again. OK. Jesus gave, by way of John, his Mother, spiritually to the world. He gave his Mother to John to take care of her. Mary is our spiritual Mother. said Jesus."
Show me in this in the Bible: Mary is our spiritual Mother. said Jesus.
Jesus gave Mary into the care of His disciple, John, for him to care for her in her elder years. No where in the Bible can you show me where He made her the "spiritual mother" of the world. Boy, according to you Roman Catholics -- Mary is one busy lady. She is the Mother of God, she is the Queen of Heaven, and now she is the Spiritual Mother of the World. Wow! Why do we even need God? Mary takes care of everything we need.
Once again, Child, I will ask: Where do you find this in the Bible?
Finally, you declare, "It's against Jewish law for someone to give a family member to a non-family member when there are living family members. Are you with me? Jesus could do this because there are no other family members. Are you saying Jesus breaks his own laws? Again, Jesus is an only child."
Show me this law in the Bible.
Child, I keep asking you to show me proof in the Bible of the statements you make -- and you always ignore my requests. That tells me that you cannot -- so, you just ignore me. The only place you can find your false doctrines is in your man-made Roman Catholic Traditions -- and the only support you or the church hierarchy has for these false teachings is the apocrypha or in the mind of the so called "infallible" popes and bishops. No Christian Biblical support whatsoever.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
Attachments
Images (1)
quote:Originally posted by Bill Gray:
Hi Child,
You tell me, "Two thousand years ago brother could mean (and did everyday) cousin, in-laws, even females. You've been told that many times. Jesus is an only child."
bg-- ** And that is still true today. **
If that were true, then why did the disciples tell Jesus, in Matthew 12:47, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You."
bg-- ** Because that's who was standing outside, But no blood brother. **
Using you logic, they should have just told Jesus, "Your brothers are standing outside."
bg-- ** Our logic wasn't used. Don't change what was said. **
Actually, the Biblical term used to include Christian brothers and sisters is: brethren; not brothers. Brothers means brothers; sisters means sisters -- brethren means all Christian believers.
bg-- ** Don't try to redefine the already defined. It's matter of history.**
Next, you say, "I see you want to go to the cross again. OK. Jesus gave, by way of John, his Mother, spiritually to the world. He gave his Mother to John to take care of her. Mary is our spiritual Mother. said Jesus."
bg-- **Using your logic why would Jesus say anything?
Show me in this in the Bible: Mary is our spiritual Mother. said Jesus.
Jesus gave Mary into the care of His disciple, John, for him to care for her in her elder years. No where in the Bible can you show me where He made her the "spiritual mother" of the world. Boy, according to you Roman Catholics -- Mary is one busy lady. She is the Mother of God, she is the Queen of Heaven, and now she is the Spiritual Mother of the World. Wow! Why do we even need God? Mary takes care of everything we need.
bg--- ** Yes, She's all this and more. Very busy **
Once again, Child, I will ask: Where do you find this in the Bible?
Finally, you declare, "It's against Jewish law for someone to give a family member to a non-family member when there are living family members. Are you with me? Jesus could do this because there are no other family members. Are you saying Jesus breaks his own laws? Again, Jesus is an only child."
bg-- **This Jewish law is correct. I don't think all the laws are in the Bible?**
bg-- ** using your logic, John at the foot of the cross, is now the son of Mary.
We know that's not true, but Jesus needed to say certain things to be sure
they were done according to his word. Jesus gave his mother to all of us.
No one is expecting you or anyone to except that. She's my spiritual
mother, And I call her "MOM". **
Bill
Just so I understand what is going on here, you two are saying that Jesus had no siblings?
quote:Originally posted by Trutooit-II:quote:Originally posted by Henhouse Prowler:
To turn the conversation a bit, reading this stuff about the Brother Shane gave me the shivers. Don't take it personally Peter, I appreciate your reverence for the guy, but this sort of illustrates the main criticism that i have with most churches in my denomination (COC). That is, they have become preacher-centric, which can be illustrated by how the members discuss and treat the preacher. I have a great church home and I'm very happy there, but it has taken years of searching to find a place that is not centered around the preacher or the sermons.
I really don't intend to ever be in a church again where the preacher is exalted as if he were some sort of priest or prophet again. Not criticizing Launch Point, although it may sound like it, I'm speaking generally about the church world that I see (southern US evangelical).
He's your brother? Don't take fellowship seriously do you?
What?
quote:Originally posted by Peter Rielly:
LOL!!!
That's my problem with "Christians".. making an idiotic judgement based on ZERO facts. I do not attend his church, but I know the man personally and have for 16 years. Some blurb you read on a website gives you ZERO insight on what Bro Shane is about. People talk extremely highly of Bro Shane, that's because they respect his passion for the Lord... I wish I had an ounce of the fire for Christ he has. So yeah, to in anyway degrade him without any first hand knowledge is offensive. He has more integrity in his pinky toe nail than 90% of the men on this planet have in their entire body. Never does he take credit, only thanks God that he can be used to deliver a messge that helps folks find their way to Him. Only God gets glorified in Shane's heart.
Who downgraded that guy? Who judged him?
I didn't say anything about him, if you actually bothered to READ. I said your comments about him reminded me of something that goes on in my denomination, not his, that I don't think is healthy. Nothing negative was said about him or his church.
That goes for you too Bill. What you wrote in the previous post is equally unfounded.
quote:Originally posted by Music Guy:
I'm enjoying the discussion!
As a member of Launch Point, I believe that one of the things our leadership team and church tries to restrain from happening is to promote the pastor position to be somewhat of a CEO type position. I'm sure we've all seen a congregation destroyed due to the fall of one person. After all, pastors are really imperfect people just like all of us...which is a totally separate discussion.
Shane, our pastor, is far from the CEO type anyway
I personally love that he also has a "real job" in addition to his role at the church. That in itself says a lot about what kind of guy he is to me.
...enough about Shane.
The LPC church model is really simple and built around 3 things:
1. Gatherings (a time where we all come together with an equal emphasis on worship and teaching)
2. Life Groups (very important to come together in smaller groups very similar to what happened in the early church and spend time together in fellowship and the word)
3. SEO (Servant Evangelism Opportunities) This is what we were doing when helping the UNA students move into the dorms as mentioned in the Times Daily story. We also stand at intersections on hot days and pass out FREE water and drinks, hang FREE light bulbs on doors, give away FREE breakfast to those waiting in line outside of retailers on the day after Thanksgiving sales, etc. with the SEO activities.
We'll be at the Ritz Theater in Sheffield again on Sunday @ 10:30 am. Y'all come!
Music Guy, I hope your church keeps up the good work. I think I'll swing by for a visit sometime.
quote:Originally posted by semiannualchick:quote:Originally posted by Peter Rielly:
Brother Shane is a GREAT MAN OF GOD!! I love that guy. If you get your feelings hurt easily, don't go to one of his sermons. He tells it like it is based on the Word of God. If you get your toes stepped on during a sermon, then he is talkin to you!! lol
Awesome man though...just awesome. There are not enough good adjectives to describe him, and if you are seeking a church home I urge you to attend one of his services.
Nothing wrong in respecting a man of God but be careful that you don't put him high on a pedestal.
It can come falling down all around you.
another masterful and inspired post... LOL
It can't fall down around me... Anthing Bro Shane does is under his control and has nothing to do with me. The same you said could be said for any preacher anywhere.... They are in a leadership position spiritually, and if they make a mistake it is magnified. I was simple telling you what kind of man I KNOW Shane to be... not using absurd speculation like you were.
quote:Originally posted by Henhouse Prowler:quote:Originally posted by Peter Rielly:
LOL!!!
That's my problem with "Christians".. making an idiotic judgement based on ZERO facts. I do not attend his church, but I know the man personally and have for 16 years. Some blurb you read on a website gives you ZERO insight on what Bro Shane is about. People talk extremely highly of Bro Shane, that's because they respect his passion for the Lord... I wish I had an ounce of the fire for Christ he has. So yeah, to in anyway degrade him without any first hand knowledge is offensive. He has more integrity in his pinky toe nail than 90% of the men on this planet have in their entire body. Never does he take credit, only thanks God that he can be used to deliver a messge that helps folks find their way to Him. Only God gets glorified in Shane's heart.
Who downgraded that guy? Who judged him?
I didn't say anything about him, if you actually bothered to READ. I said your comments about him reminded me of something that goes on in my denomination, not his, that I don't think is healthy. Nothing negative was said about him or his church.
That goes for you too Bill. What you wrote in the previous post is equally unfounded.
I wasn't directing my post to you.
quote:Originally posted by Peter Rielly:quote:Originally posted by Henhouse Prowler:quote:Originally posted by Peter Rielly:
LOL!!!
That's my problem with "Christians".. making an idiotic judgement based on ZERO facts. I do not attend his church, but I know the man personally and have for 16 years. Some blurb you read on a website gives you ZERO insight on what Bro Shane is about. People talk extremely highly of Bro Shane, that's because they respect his passion for the Lord... I wish I had an ounce of the fire for Christ he has. So yeah, to in anyway degrade him without any first hand knowledge is offensive. He has more integrity in his pinky toe nail than 90% of the men on this planet have in their entire body. Never does he take credit, only thanks God that he can be used to deliver a messge that helps folks find their way to Him. Only God gets glorified in Shane's heart.
Who downgraded that guy? Who judged him?
I didn't say anything about him, if you actually bothered to READ. I said your comments about him reminded me of something that goes on in my denomination, not his, that I don't think is healthy. Nothing negative was said about him or his church.
That goes for you too Bill. What you wrote in the previous post is equally unfounded.
I wasn't directing my post to you.
Oh sorry Peter. My bad, must've read it wrong.