It is the Lord's business to judge the actions of those outside the church, but he asks us to deal with problems inside.

To use this 'touch not mine anointed' scripture is not a reasonable application of the principle. None of us are trying to harm our brother. If he is to be entreated, we must be allowed to say these things, without fear of unreasonable defences.

Are all pastors now exempt from accountability from the brethren? J I Packer and Al Mohler will be delighted that we won't be challenging them any more! Paul withstood Peter--a 'prophet', if you like--to the face.

His level of activity can hardly be matched. But, paradoxically, therein lies the problem. There are only so many hours in the day. The vast amount of time he spent carrying out political duties meant that there was little time left for what was supposed to be his chief role--that of pastor.

Are we not all subject to the rebuke of our brothers in Christ? Now, being in politics as well as in the gospel ministry (something I now feel was a mistake), it is understandable that he would be accountable by his supporters for his actions on the political scene as well.

When Paisley said that he would never sit down in government with Sinn Fein/IRA, we believed him. Only a few months later, he broke his promise. This was, to many of his friends, an act of betrayal. It left a huge question mark over his integrity. Now, note the reactions of his fan-base: people who questioned his U-turn were shouted down in a most shocking way, ironically reminiscent of how Paisley had been shouted at down the years when protesting at the behaviour of others!

Tony Lopez-Cisneros wrote:
Rick: A Similar Incident Happened To Me When I Was A Sales Associate For Richman Bros

Do you not understand that we should expect most murderers, rapists, child molesters and criminals generally to be heterosexual, since they make up the vast majority of the population?

Oh, and know this Tony: that your willingness to engage in this immoral war against Iraq has meant that the Christians, who had a fair degree of freedom under Saddam, are now suffering terrible persecution.

free pres wrote:
Paul
On the same basis then how do you explain Ephesians 5. 25? can any husband love his wife as Christ loved the church (and gave himself for it)?

Yes, God tells us to do something like this, and we must try! Yet, we know we won't manage it, and we confess our failing to our Father.

But the OT law of God demands perfect obedience, or you die. I'm glad I'm not subject to that! The Christian has perfect righteousness: would anyone care to try and improve that by law-keeping?

Perhaps the issue can be looked at like this: advocates of the Law have to believe that, when the Word says we are DEAD to the Law, it means we're dead only to some of it! For example, the Law told the Hebrews to keep ALL the Sabbaths, not just Sunday, but how many Christians do that?

Could you also tell me where the Christians are going wrong. I promise I'll give it due consideration. (Please don't refer to anything the Church of Rome does, because that organisation is antichrist.)

The reality that most of professing Christendom is apostate is no excuse for tarring God's people with the same brush, then running off to some Galatian-type religion.

I'm not being unkind, but now we know there are those who are clever and can say the Hebrew equivalent of Jesus, can we stop using it all the time? Everyone knows it's 'Jesus Christ'. No-one's interested in hearing any other name.

It reminds me of those who try to impress with the use of the currently-fashionable 'Yahweh', and end up almost spitting while trying to pronounce it.

Oh, yes. The sabbath: you're meant to 'keep' ALL the sabbaths. And, by the way, you Christians who claim to keep the sabbath: you better make sure you keep it as perfectly as Christ did, or you're not keeping it. Then you'll have no option but to flee to Christ. I'm sorry, but there's no other option.

Finally, could people stop saying that those who say the ten commandments are done away with are people who want to go out and sin freely? That's unkind and unfair. Don't insult them because you don't get it.

You're right about the idolatry issue and the Satanic ecumenical movement. That's why the law needs to be made known through preaching. The whole purpose of the law is to bring knowledge of sin.

I was hoping no-one would suggest that people like me wanted to go out and sin against God. If I was, say, a serial adulterer, it would clearly be wrong.

Let me try this analogy: when New York was under British rule, murder was against the law. When the US gained their independence, murder was still not allowed. Why? Is it because they were still under British law? Note, they didn't say, 'Now that we're not under the British law forbidding murder, we can kill people whenever we want'. No: they realised it was a moral absolute of God, which was obvious even to their dulled conscience.

I cannot find anywhere in the NT an indication that God's law has been split up, and that one bit applies to us and another doesn't, never mind splitting the ten commandments up.

With these surveys, there needs to be a clear option which excludes the others. For example, with this survey, if I was looking for piety but not prudence, I couldn't select the first option, and so on.