Brothers and Sisters, is it TIME FOR WRATH???

[Zaac]

Yeah...That wouldn't be history. That would be mythology. Maybe you could make an attempt to prove it is history, but I somehow doubt you will.

Why would I attempt to prove it? If you want to think it's mythology, that's what your heart wants to believe at this point.

If that is to be changed, it ill be the work of God.

Or less false. Someone's doubts have nothing to do with its validity or lack there off.

When they stand in opposition to God's Word it does.

Non-answer.

Answer. Just not the one you were expecting.

 

[IzzyPop]

Why would I attempt to prove it? If you want to think it's mythology, that's what your heart wants to believe at this point.

If that is to be changed, it ill be the work of God.

Can I call 'em, or can I call 'em?

When they stand in opposition to God's Word it does.






Answer. Just not the one you were expecting.

No. I fully expect nonsense answers that avoid the question from you. You and I have gone around before.

 

[KomissarSteve]

Why would I attempt to prove it? If you want to think it's mythology, that's what your heart wants to believe at this point.

If that is to be changed, it ill be the work of God.

Right, because we hold absolutely no responsibility over whether or not someone is open to God's Word.

Seriously, this is an extreme cop-out on your part. What do you think Jesus was talking about in the verse I quoted about a page back, when He said that the hypocrites to which He was referring "slam the gates of Heaven" in the face of their would-be converts?

God gives you that responsibility; He's not going to cause a miracle to occur and magically change the viewpoint of the person you're trying to convert. If you try to spread His Word without love, then as Paul tells us, it will ultimately be in vain.

 

[Zaac]

If you agree with ShieldOfFaith, as you have in this thread, then you're not spreading the Gospel; you're spreading the Old Testament. The Gospel is that God is Love and He wants to have a relationship with us, in this life AS WELL AS the next.

And thus this thread. Do not be deceived into thinking that the love of Christ can be separated from His wrath.

I am to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the Word of God. ALL OF IT.

Uh, dude? I'm not the one who has a problem with a hardened heart; I'm the one who's interested here in teaching the Good News - ie: that God is loving and forgiving.

Like was said before. Joel Osteen says the same thing. He's also branded a false teacher.

Quite frankly, it's your message that is counter-Scriptural:

From Psalm 103:
8 The LORD is compassionate and gracious,
slow to anger, abounding in love.
9 He will not always accuse,
nor will he harbor his anger forever;
10 he does not treat us as our sins deserve
or repay us according to our iniquities.

You haven't seen me espouse anything that runs counter to that.

I have nothing against God's Word; I hold quite a bit against those who would seek to pervert God's Word to fit their narrow social agenda.

I don't have a social agenda.

I try to be; I leave it to God to decide whether or not I'm an adequate follower of Him.

If Christ is in you, you don't haveto rty to bea Christian. You either are or you're not.

I didn't ask about your adequacy. I asked if you were.

 

[Zaac]

Can I call 'em, or can I call 'em?

Wow, you're patting yourself on the back because I gave the same response that I always do. Come here man.

No. I fully expect nonsense answers that avoid the question from you. You and I have gone around before.

Now see the above response.

 

[KalithAlur]

I picked, "Yes!" Why? I want to see this thread on Saturday Night Live.

There is a writer's strike going on, so now there is a way to keep the show going: Come to Christian Forums and read posts by Shield of Faith

 

[KomissarSteve]

And thus this thread. Do not be deceived into thinking that the love of Christ can be separated from His wrath.

I think nothing of the sort; I think it's you and SoF who have been deceived into thinking that one can preach about God's wrath without preaching about His Love.

I am to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the Word of God. ALL OF IT.

Is that so? Because I don't see much of the spirit behind Psalm 103 in your words.

Like was said before. Joel Osteen says the same thing. He's also branded a false teacher.

By whom?

You haven't seen me espouse anything that runs counter to that.

Sure I have; the message you have embraced so far has been one of God's Wrath, not of God's Love.

I don't have a social agenda.

I've yet to meet somebody who rails on about God's Wrath (no matter how slow to it God Himself has told us He is!) who doesn't have a social agenda.

If Christ is in you, you don't haveto rty to bea Christian. You either are or you're not.

I don't know what you've been reading, but the Bible tells us that Christians will still always sin and never perfectly follow Christ's teachings in this life. Therefore, I find it a little presumptuous for anyone to say that they're a Christian, since that implicitly means that they follow Christ's teachings.

 

[Zaac]

Right, because we hold absolutely no responsibility over whether or not someone is open to God's Word.

If I'm delivering God's Truth in love, my responsibility ends there. And if I have repeated what God's Word said in love, I could care less if someone thinks it was done with another motive. If folks want to harden their hearts just because they are not hearing what their itching ears want to hear , oh well.

Seriously, this is an extreme cop-out on your part. What do you think Jesus was talking about in the verse I quoted about a page back, when He said that the hypocrites to which He was referring "slam the gates of Heaven" in the face of their would-be converts?

No cop out. I know enough to know that God has not tasked me to convince anyone. If you receive the truth and there is an opportunity for further dialogue, we dialogue. But if folks reject what God says, ,there is no need for me to have a conversation with them to try and "convince" them.

God gives you that responsibility; He's not going to cause a miracle to occur and magically change the viewpoint of the person you're trying to convert. If you try to spread His Word without love, then as Paul tells us, it will ultimately be in vain.

And I say again, in this thread, not a single person has reason to state that I have said anything of God's Word that has not been done in love.

I agreed with what someone else said and yall disagreed with what he said and now because we're telling you what the Word of God says, it's being spread without love.

Gimme a break.

Dont' take this the wrong way too, but I'm simply not moved by this kind of silliness.

 

[Zaac]

I picked, "Yes!" Why? I want to see this thread on Saturday Night Live.

There is a writer's strike going on, so now there is a way to keep the show going: Come to Christian Forums and read posts by Shield of Faith

Best response I've seen!

This would be a wonderful thread to get on tv. Opportunity to share the Word of God with the masses...at least the masses who are up.

 

[Zaac]

I think nothing of the sort; I think it's you and SoF who have been deceived into thinking that one can preach about God's wrath without preaching about His Love.

The only way for you to conclude that on my behalf would be for you to unrighteously judge. You've seen me stand in agreement about preaching God's wrath. Did you somehow miss that I stated that God's love and His wrath are inseparable?

Why would I , as a man of God preach one without the other?

Is that so? Because I don't see much of the spirit behind Psalm 103 in your words.

I don't see much of the Spirit period behind yours.

By whom?

By the whoms who align themselves with God's Word.

Sure I have; the message you have embraced so far has been one of God's Wrath, not of God's Love.

Then your personal bias has blinded you and affected your ability to read. In my very first post I mentioned that God's Love and His wrath are inseparable. or did you miss that time as well as the subsequent times in other posts?

You appear to be on a "they don't know how to deliver the Gospel and I do" train and it got stuck in a dark tunnel where you only see what you want to be there.

I've yet to meet somebody who rails on about God's Wrath (no matter how slow to it God Himself has told us He is!) who doesn't have a social agenda.

And the word of God says in John 7:24
Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment."

I don't know what you've been reading, but the Bible tells us that Christians will still always sin and never perfectly follow Christ's teachings in this life.

I don't know what you've been reading either because the Bible says no such thing. But that has nothing to do with you "trying" to be a Christian. The Pharisees tried to be something they weren't. There are plenty of folks sitting in church trying to be Christians yet are a country mile from Christ.

Therefore, I find it a little presumptuous for anyone to say that they're a Christian, since that implicitly means that they follow Christ's teachings.

You again feel free to find it as whatever you like. I don't implicitly say anything. I follow the teachings of Christ. And when I don't, I confess it as sin and repent.

I'm not "trying" to be a Christian. I AM a Christian because I am indwelled by I AM.

 

[quatona]

No need to be bothered by that.

Then why are you talking at all?

Point being, folks on here will read whatever their bias directs them to and I have no control over it.

I tend to think that not having control over the way others process our statements does not mean I don´t care about how they process it.
If you (or I or whoever) speak to someone, you are the active part and you can be assumed to have an interest and a message. Unfortunately you are the only one who can be sure to know what your message is. This, to me suggests, that the speaking person can be expected to do their best to get this message across. If you don´t care about that, your predominant interest seems to be to talk for yourself.

Folks will make excuses to think whatever they want no matter what you say.

"Folks" includes you. Think about it.

People don´t know what you want to say, and language is notorious for being the source of misunderstandings. There is no point in blaming anyone for a misunderstanding, and there is no point in accusing people of misrepresenting you purposefully. The fact, however, is that you are the one who has an interest in getting your message across, and you are the one who didn´t succeed in case of misunderstandings.

What I find disturbing is that you don´t care much about your message, and this fact does not exactly make me inclined to care much for it either.

 

[KomissarSteve]

If I'm delivering God's Truth in love, my responsibility ends there.

From what I've seen, that's a pretty big "if" when it comes to people who rant and rave about God's Wrath and somehow seem to forget that that's only part of His message. So far, I've seen nothing of the sentiment behind Psalm 103 in either your or SoF's posts, so don't act like hearing God's Word is somehow bothersome to us; we're not the ones ignoring the verses that are inconvenient to the illustration of God as vindictive and quick to anger that you are spreading.

 

[Patashu]

Where did the big bang come from again??

Something. There's no proof it was God and no proof there wasn't, so why do we pick the former over an infinite multitude of other equally reasonable answers?

 

[RavenPoe]

Make love not war...

ooopps, I mean...

Preach love not wrath.

 

[Zaac]

Then why are you talking at all?

I'm typing.

I tend to think that not having control over the way others process our statements does not mean I don´t care about how they process it.

When I simply agree with what someone else says and it sets off a firestorm, no I don't care how you process it cause you've already processed it the way you wanted.

If you (or I or whoever) speak to someone, you are the active part and you can be assumed to have an interest and a message. Unfortunately you are the only one who can be sure to know what your message is. This, to me suggests, that the speaking person can be expected to do their best to get this message across. If you don´t care about that, your predominant interest seems to be to talk for yourself.

Pertaining to this thread, I clearly communicated what I intended to communicate. Bias reared its ugly head and it was interpreted as something else. Like I said, I don't care. People in here tend to hear what they want to hear. Still no sweat off my brow. I will press on in Christ.

"Folks" includes you. Think about it.

Sure does.

People don´t know what you want to say, and language is notorious for being the source of misunderstandings.

Are we even in the same thread? Have you even looked at my comment that sparked this?

There is no point in blaming anyone for a misunderstanding, and there is no point in accusing people of misrepresenting you purposefully.

I didn't blame anyone for misunderstanding. I flat out said that people's bias leads them to believe what they want and I could care less if someone purposely twists what I say to make a point.

The fact, however, is that you are the one who has an interest in getting your message across, and you are the one who didn´t succeed in case of misunderstandings.

The fact however is that I said what I intended to say, and someone with a preconceived bias took it someowhere else.

What I find disturbing is that you don´t care much about your message, and this fact does not exactly make me inclined to care much for it either.

Again, I don't care what you or anyone else finds disturbing. If I say what I intend to say and it aligns itself with God's Word, be disturbed. Be vexed. Be angry. Be against it.

I am not swayed from delivering the Truth just because folks are disturbed about something I didn't say.

 

[JGG]

Not only should the pastor teach wrath, but the pastor should teach that parishoners should take God's wrath into their own hands and murder hethens. It would be a more concise, more honest message.

 

[Zaac]

So far, I've seen nothing of the sentiment behind Psalm 103 in either your or SoF's posts, so don't act like hearing God's Word is somehow bothersome to us;

So far, as it's been clear since your first response to me what your agenda is, I'm not bothered by what YOU haven't seen.

 

[Harpuia]

That's because we don't need saving.
Oh and Christianity is a religion.

This one I'd have to agree with Zaac. It's not a religion. Some of us who people would classify as Christians would want nothing to do with the religion, and some of us would rather see the Church destroyed.

 

[tulc]

Absolutely!!! Why any pastor would purpose to preach of God's love without preaching of His wrath is crazy and is essentially false teaching. And yall can call Joel Osteen and tell em I said so.

Like was said before. Joel Osteen says the same thing. He's also branded a false teacher.

You must work in the Joel Osteen Ministries or something.

Did Joel Osteen take your lunch money or something?
tulc(I'm sure he's sorry by now)

 

[Zaac]

Did Joel Osteen take your lunch money or something?
tulc(I'm sure he's sorry by now)

tulc, he stood me up and started dating that meanie Victoria. How could he? No amount of sorries will ever mend my broken heart.

DEFINITELY J/K.