Give us these kind of men

[Magenta]

Taste and see that the LORD is good; blessed is the one who takes refuge in Him.

 

[stonesoffire]

Paul, the original prosperity preacher.

~The Cheerful Giver2Co 9:6　 Remember this: The person who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and the person who sows generously will also reap generously.　
2Co 9:7　 Each of you must give what you have decided in your heart, not with regret or under compulsion, since God loves a cheerful giver.　
2Co 9:8　 Besides, God is able to make every blessing of yours overflow for you, so that in every situation you will always have all you need for any good work.　
2Co 9:9　 As it is written, "He scatters everywhere and gives to the poor; his righteousness lasts forever."　
2Co 9:10　 Now he who supplies seed to the farmer and bread to eat will also supply you with seed and multiply it and enlarge the harvest that results from your righteousness.　
2Co 9:11　 In every way you will grow richer and become even more generous, and this will cause others to give thanks to God because of us　
2Co 9:12


　 because this ministry you render is not only fully supplying the needs of the saints, it is also overflowing with more and more prayers of thanksgiving to God.　

Paul preached hellfire and damnation:

~
2Co 3:9


　 For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, then the ministry of justification has an overwhelming glory.　

That heretic wouldn't tell that Jew on TV hes' going to hell if he doesn't accept Jesus....

~
Rom 10:6　 But the righteousness that comes from faith says, "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will go up to heaven?' (that is, to bring the Messiah down),　


Rom 10:7　 or 'Who will go down into the depths?' (that is, to bring the Messiah back from the dead)."　


Rom 10:8　 But what does it say? "The message is near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart." This is the message about faith that we are proclaiming:　


Rom 10:9　 If you declare with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.　


Rom 10:10　 For one believes with his heart and is justified, and declares with his mouth and is saved.　


Rom 10:11　 The Scripture says, "Everyone who believes in him will never be ashamed."　


Rom 10:12　 There is no difference between Jew and Greek, because they all have the same Lord, who gives richly to all who call on him.　


Rom 10:13　 "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."　


Rom 10:14　 How, then, can people call on someone they have not believed? And how can they believe in someone they have not heard about? And how can they hear without someone preaching?　


Rom 10:15　 And how can people preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are those who bring the good news!"　


Rom 10:16　 But not everyone has obeyed the gospel, for Isaiah asks, "Lord, who has believed our message?"　


Rom 10:17　 Consequently, faith results from listening, and listening results through the word of the Messiah.　


Rom 10:18　 But I ask, "Didn't they hear?" Certainly they did! In fact, "Their voice has gone out into the whole world, and their words to the ends of the earth."　


Rom 10:19　 Again I ask, "Did Israel not understand?" Moses was the first to say, "I will make you jealous by those who are not a nation; I will make you angry by a nation that doesn't understand."　


Rom 10:20　 And Isaiah boldly says, "I was found by those who were not looking for me; I was revealed to those who were not asking for me."　


Rom 10:21　 But about Israel he says, "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and rebellious people."　

None of us can say for certainty that anyone goes to heaven or hell based on a life lived. On the deathbed, a lot of fearful people call on the name of the Lord. Why?

There is no other personal name for men to call on.

 

[Ariel82]

Um, Paul is showing in chapter 2 of Romans that no one does those things, and does away with anyone being able to or being good in chapter 3, and then concludes all are lost, Jew and Gentile.

That being said you're misapplying Scripture. Learn some 2 Timothy 2:15.

You are preaching in essence by misapplying this passage is saying people can get to heaven on their own merit. Clearly you don't understand Paul's argument in Romans 2.

A few lies from Ariel:



lolzzzz...nothing in the OP said a thing about the Gospel, you're way off track and now are making false accusations:



The above is a totally fabricated lie, and is unfounded. THAT is what is called slander Grace777.



Try reading Scripture for a change, maybe you'll get sound in doctrine. 2 Timothy 3 and 4 maybe? Matthew 7 maybe? Perhaps Christ and Paul were on a witch hunt too, lol!

I find it so interesting that I am being blasted by a professing believer for exposing false teachers, which Scripture is so replete with examples for doing so.

But the interesting thing is I am being attacked and slandered by some on a personal witch hunt on me because they say it is wrong to be on a witch hunt. Some people don't know Scripture.

To top all that off are the lies of Ariel in addition to this, then slamming my ministry as well in pure hypocritical fashion.

Maybe Paul was wrong in telling preachers to "reprove, rebuke, exhort" in 2 Timothy 3 & 4? Or, maybe, just maybe Paul was really showing us through all this what it looks like when people "will not endure sound doctrine" and accumulate false teachers unto themselves. No, Paul was not wrong, and the fact that people will not endure sound doctrine is seen within this thread. It is really, really saddening.

These are his responses to me..still have not seen him say what the gospel is, but apparently saying that makes me all those things.

So yeah, don't really feel like staying in this thread and people who "like" his statement means they agree with his assessment of me.

 

[Ariel82]

My reason for staying...

Let me lay out carefully what I sought to do in this thread before deciding it was pointless to continue this conversation and only because you asked Lynn.

I watched the video and thought about the questions and how I would have answered...my first post was to show that although I would have answered differently, I would not condemn Osteen based upon his incomplete answer as a false teacher.

Then I attempted to show how I might have answered differently and answer what i thought was the true rebuke in the video: how would Osteen have preached the gospel to people of other religions?

Then I realized the point of the OP was not to answer that question about how to spread the gospel, but to hunt "false teachers in the church"

At that point I lost interest because I would love to talk about how to preach and reach people of other faiths and bring them to the wonderful knowledge of Jesus.

Witch hunting? Not one of the things God has called me to do.

I only feel called to rebuke and judge people who I love as much or more than myself or if I feel God tells me to speak.

Otherwise I trust God to speak for Himself.

I came back to this thread to see if he ever clearly presents the gospel mesaage, but I don't hold my breath. Since he says it's not his point.,, but I ask, what is more important than proclaiming the true gospel?

The Op response, which got some "likes" so he he can feel justified cuz he has company...

What you sought to do was call names, and lie about a persons Gospel message, and offer slander upon persons for showing the false gospel of Osteen. You then commenced to calling names, slander and frankly lied about the Gospel I preach.

That was your objective, but you're still trying to mop up your mess by not owning up to what you've done.

This thread is for those who love and stand for the truth, so, it isn't for you.

******Yupppp...trollish, hypocritical behavior on her part. Then takes opportunity to say I don't preach the gospel. Very callow behavior on her part.

So I have waited and waited for his presentation of the gospel, but haven't found it.

Did research on Joel Osteen and agree that he is a false teacher of the prosperity gospel.

Still stand that burning witches is NOT biblical.

We are to mark false teachers, preach the true gospel to those they have received and pray for the false teachers.

That is what I believe God tells us to do.

So anyway, since I doubt the OP will ever apologize for his false accusations of me, or present the gospel in this thread, I will see you in another thread Lynn.

 

[royalscot]

has he read acts 15. and grace is a gift.

so the only problem is context

21 The eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you," nor again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you.1 Corinthians 12:

 

[PeterJens]

These are his responses to me..still have not seen him say what the gospel is, but apparently saying that makes me all those things.

So yeah, don't really feel like staying in this thread and people who "like" his statement means they agree with his assessment of me.

p4t - he is a super defensive guy who hides it under religious twaddle.
The problem with a black and white view of scripture, is you think you
have understood issue 1, so apply it to everyone.

What always amazes me is people are very keen to ascribe a lot of stuff
to the enemy when mostly it is people being people. I go for the understanding
why people believe, and if they are wrong over some basic moral issues correct
them.

Some people live in a world they think protects them, when it is just the morality
of their social group. Push that just a little, and you would be shocked how far
they will go without blinking. I have seen a society with no integrity, it stinks
and people die. Just look at how much money has been poured into Afghanistan,
and it is gone. They are a very sick society. But hey Jesus loves lawlessness
because that is what heaven is founded on!!!! No.

 

[oyster67]

The issue is really very simple:

Can a man stand up and tell others that they are sinners and that they are going to hell? Can he then tell them that the only way to be cleansed and go to heaven is by pleading the blood of Jesus and Jesus alone? If he cannot, then he should not be given a pulpit to preach behind.

 

[sevenseas]

I don't know you yet. I take people at their word.

You said you were an independent thinker. So? Did you see what Osteen said, (as compared to what Lawson panned him as saying?) Was Osteen honest? Because the way I heard it he was cloaking God into univeralism. That's either dishonest or deceived. If Osteen is a "life coach," a motivational speaker, or head cheerleader, that's not a problem. As a "Christian pastor?" BIG problem.

This is intentional, you know. The anarchists, (because by now, they aren't liberals either), are truly on a massive scale trying to teach people anything goes by tearing apart the very fabric of what makes civilization civilized -- The Biblical God. (As compared to all the other versions of god they do accept easily.) And Osteen is either a pawn in that game, or a player. He's a pawn, if he is that deceived. A player if he isn't deceived at all. Either way, he is a tool used against God.

There is no third choice. Either we are for God or against him.

So, yes! I am heated. I am very much against toying with who God is. And Osteen is either toying or is one of many toys.

(And, nope. I've got no idea what you were talking about with sock puppets. If you need me to understand that, you'll have to use something else. Might be a regionalism. Might be something commonly said in this century, but I'm still back in the last century, so I'm not up on 21st century. lol)

ok

try this again

I hate what the spirit behind this thread is

I don't think you like it either

do I think Osteen is all that? no I do not

sock puppet...A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception. The term, a reference to the manipulation of a simple hand puppet made from a sock, originally referred to a false identity assumed by a member of an Internet community who spoke to, or about, themselves while pretending to be another person.[SUP][1][/SUP]The term now includes other misleading uses of online identities, such as those created to praise, defend or support a person or organization,[SUP][2][/SUP] to manipulate public opinion,[SUP][3][/SUP] or to circumvent a suspension or ban from a website. A significant difference between the use of a pseudonym[SUP][4][/SUP] and the creation of a sockpuppet is that the sockpuppet poses as an independent third-party unaffiliated with the puppeteer. Sockpuppets are unwelcome in many online communities and may be blocked

in the sense I used sock puppet, I meant people are being untruthful in their responses as if they were their 3rd party

I tend to think from a to z when in a hurry or I don't care if someone understands or not...I do care if you understand

I have lost all respect for certain people on these forums because of their manipulations and goading each other on to ever greater nastiness

they clap when someone puts someone else down

fakes

they grunt and groan about Osteen not preaching the truth while they slam other Christians as hard as this forum will allow before they get banned

I am pretty sure some of them would censure Jesus or throw a Greek lexicon at Him and tell He is wrong

I'm less worried about Osteen who is much more of a motivational speaker, than I am about all these holier than holy types who run around trying to get everyone to agree on their judgement of who is going to hell so let's gang up on them

and no, I do not believe lordship salvation is biblical

 

[sevenseas]

I haven't knifed you. (With my temper, can't promise I never will, but haven't yet, and am trying not to.)

To me, this is about thin ice. Have fallen through a few times myself, so I'm warning people -- THIN ICE OVER THERE! WATCH OUT!

In this case, the name of the thin ice is Joel Osteen. That is very much the reason I'm on this thread.

I dodge pretty good. always one of the first picked for that game and often one of 2 left haha. I got moves

seriously, that is not why I posted in here. my reason is because of the fact that a number of videos have been posted now that are by lordship salvation exponents and yet that is not mentionned

however, if you do not agree with the video, you are a skanky hypocrite liar blaspheming ignorant lover of Joel Osteen because the guy in the video was bashing Osteen

you could have a better conversation with a bucket of rocks then some people and at least rocks would not call you names and twist what you say. I have to wonder if Jesus could have got some of them to put down their rocks because I think a few believe they may be above reproach

sinless even

 

[sevenseas]

Assault A
(And notice the five Assaults were 1-5, so no letters in that study at all)
"Believe whatever you want to believe."

The more I'm reading P4T, the more I agree with you that this isn't about truth so much for him as it is about being right.

But, again, even a broken clock is right twice a day. And to many of us this really is about Osteen teaching a foreign gospel.

I appreciate you answered a question that's been rattling around in the back of my brain -- "What's up with this Lawson guy?" Because of what you've written (And, of course I looked at the source lol), I now know I'd trust him like is trust _____. (Hey, I did say I'm not into calling out many, and the name in my head now is much loved by many, and that's okay, but I see problems with him like you and I see problems with Lawson. So let's just leave it at he's one of the variations listed in that "Assault List." Someone I don't trust.) I won't trust Lawson either.

But that doesn't make Osteen any better. I still see him as much worse. To me Lawson is thin ice. Osteen is like Devil's Snare in Harry Potter. There are two choices:
-- relax and let it sink you into the dark depths of humanism.
-- Have the Light destroy it.

This thread seems to be between the two choices. Do we relax and let Olsteen take out whoever he wants, or do we shine God's light?

all right Lynn!

you go!~

it's always about shining God's light

always

I don't believe we are supposed to bash people and that is what seems to give so many so much joy

oh

and a really big piece of that strawberry pie you offered way back or any kind you like for actually checking out the article I sourced!

all right!

 

[wsblind]

Joel Osteen is giving people what they want. He isn't deceiving the majority. He is giving the majority what they want. The folks who follow him are getting what they ask for and want. They don't want the truth, they want to be comfortable. So Joel steps in and gives them what they want. Those folks and Joel will answer to the Lord for their motives, but very few people are deceived by Joel. Joel teaches them what they WANT.

He is Tony Robbins to people who want to be 'better.' Joel will answer to the Lord if his motives are impure. So will the folks who WILLINGLY reject the truth for a chance to have a 'good' life in this world.

Lawson, on the other hand is deceptive and has deceived the majority that follow him.

Honestly, If I were either of these men and had to stand in their place at the evaluation at the Bema seat. I would take what Joel has coming to him rather than Lawson.

 

[TimeTravler]

[h=2]Give us these kind of women[/h]The ornament of a meek and quiet spirit,
which is in the sight of God of great price.

 

[Depleted]

Indeed it's your favorite sport isn't it?

See how many people you can get to join you and light the torches. Or crucify them with you?

Is it like hunting deer for you? Or are you more into lions, elephants and rhino?

He rides solo, so deer hunting, if lucky.

 

[Depleted]

It's sooo much easier now to go thru these posts since I put all those yapping, ankle-biting chihuahuas on ignore. They will absolutely wear you out with all the distractions. Now I can get thru 3 pages in a snap, & focus on what really matters.

You? Yeah, got that about you a while ago. You ride solo.

 

[Depleted]

It's funny, but hence a sock puppet is a false internet identity created to promote an agenda, this site has a lot of false sock puppets (other people acting like sock puppets) lol.

Ohhh, that's what a sock puppet is! Thanks!

Still confused, because I don't think 7 is a sock puppet. (I can think of one person on this thread I'm wondering about, but not most.)

 

[Depleted]

I'll be glad to help you with that one.

A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception. The term, a reference to the manipulation of a simple hand puppet made from a sock, originally referred to a false identity assumed by a member of an Internet community who spoke to, or about, themselves while pretending to be another person.[SUP][1][/SUP]
The term now includes other misleading uses of online identities, such as those created to praise, defend or support a person or organization,[SUP][2][/SUP] to manipulate public opinion,[SUP][3][/SUP] or to circumvent a suspension or ban from a website. A significant difference between the use of a pseudonym[SUP][4][/SUP] and the creation of a sockpuppet is that the sockpuppet poses as an independent third-party unaffiliated with the puppeteer. Sockpuppets are unwelcome in many online communities and may be blocked.


History

The term "sockpuppet" was used as early as July 9, 1993,[SUP][5][/SUP] but did not become common in USENET groups until 1996. The first Oxford English Dictionary example of the term, defined as "a person whose actions are controlled by another; a minion," is taken from U.S. News and World Report, March 27, 2000
Strawman sockpuppet[edit]

A strawman sockpuppet is a false flag pseudonym created to make a particular point of view look foolish or unwholesome in order to generate negative sentiment against it. Strawman sockpuppets typically behave in an unintelligent, uninformed, or bigoted manner and advance "straw man" arguments that their puppeteers can easily refute. The intended effect is to discredit more rational arguments made for the same position.[SUP][13][/SUP] Such sockpuppets behave in a similar manner to Internet trolls.
A particular case is the Concern troll, a false flag pseudonym created by a user whose actual point of view is opposed to the one that the sockpuppet claims to hold. The concern troll posts in Web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed "concerns". The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt (aka FUD) within the group.

See anyone you know yet?


Meatpuppet

The term "meatpuppet" (or "meat puppet") is used as a pejorative description of various online behaviors. The term was in use before the Internet gained public awareness, including references in Ursula K. Le Guin's science fiction story "The Diary of the Rose" (1976),[SUP][14][/SUP] the alternative rock band Meat Puppets, and the cyberpunk novelist William Gibson's Neuromancer (1984).[SUP][15][/SUP] Editors of Wikipedia use the term to label contributions of new community members if suspected of having been recruited by an existing member to support their position.[SUP][16][/SUP] Such a recruited member is considered analogous to a sockpuppet even though he/she is actually a separate individual (i.e. "meat") rather than a fictitious creation. Wired columnist Lore Sjöberg put "meat puppet" first on a satirical list of "common terms used at Wikipedia," defining the term as "a person who disagrees with you."[SUP][17]

[/SUP]Nevertheless, other online sources use the term "meatpuppet" to describe sockpuppet behaviors. For example, according to one online encyclopedia, a meat puppet "publishes comments on blogs, wikis and other public venues about some phenomenon or product in order to generate public interest and buzz"—that is, he/she is engaged in behavior more widely known as "astroturfing."[SUP][18][/SUP] A 2006 article in The Chronicle of Higher Education defined a meat puppet as "a peculiar inhabitant of the digital world—a fictional character that passes for a real person online."[SUP][19][/SUP][SUP][20][/SUP][SUP]

When I first found out what a sockpuppet was, the puzzle pieces started falling into place.

Here's the real power behind sockpuppets: when a person is hired to be one, the are usually given enough computer equipment to log on as several people at once! They use programs to make them look they're from different states & countries.

When you're arguing with 6-7 people at once in the BDF, you may be really arguing with one or two.[/SUP]

One might think joseph prince has sockpuppets in here because of how fast they will jump you for even questioning him.

Imagine that.

Selah.

And, as usual, I'm glad to just kind of scootchies around your self-absorbed posts. Yeah, thanks, but since I wouldn't trust you to water my Prickly Pear when needed, (and they never need watering), I'm not really into trusting anything you say.

 

[Depleted]

I wouldn't trust those that watched either! LOl

Instead, I'd trust the ones telling the truth, in love, that neither drowned the liar, nor agreed with him, and let the OWNER of the pool deal with him.

If the cage is unattached to the pool, I'd be helping to lug it away to protect the ones headed to the deep end. (Obviously, I'm not great with warning people about staying away from the deep end, or this thread would only be 2-3 pages long. lol)

The Cage Dude? He's already locked himself in the cage, so cool, literally a captive audience to present the gospel to.

Owner? It's been so long since I've gone to a private pool I forgot some have owners. The ones I know of (city pools and community pools) belong to the people -- not the Caged Dude. It belongs to the very ones in that pool. Isn't that what the church is like? God owns us but he gave us the church to take care of. Aren't we the ones who are supposed to protect the ones so naive they're heading to the massive confusion in the deep end? Otherwise, we're just watching. God isn't keen on people burying their talents to do nothing with them.

And side note: Assuming your age is indicative for averaging about how old your grandmother was, (you could have been a later child, so my math might be off), I wouldn't be surprised if your grandmother saw Bambi on a date. My first date with hubby included The Muppet Movie. Guys may not be fond of those kinds of movies, but they know gals like them. lol

 

[Depleted]

Why bother? If they are "the elect" and have been "chosen" it foes not matter, right?

Poke, poke, poke.

Having fun?

Wrong person, but, man! You are heartless!

Off to Iggy Land for you.

 

[Depleted]

hey, Lynn, we're Cold War brats. lol

remember "Trust, yet verify" ?

well, perhaps verify before deciding, too. just because someone says a person teaches "Lordship Salvation" don't necessarily make it so. i had to hear Osteen for myself before i decided anything about him, and not just a youtube snippet.

i'm so sad, i'm out.

I'm still in the jury room on Lawson, but what's leaning me to the "guilty" verdict is MacArthur explaining it. That's what 7's source was about -- MacArthur's book.

 

[MattforJesus]

Joel Osteen might be a pawn,for the players do not appear in public like that,for they are too elite to get their hands dirty,that is why secret societies,the inner circle,put out an outer circle,and let them do the dirty work,to get a light version of their ways out in society,and then let the ball roll from there until they become like the inner circle,for the inner circle is too extreme for the masses,they would not accept it,so the outer circle works on them that is something easy to swallow,and then the people eventually become like the inner circle.

Which what I am saying is Joel Osteen might not be on the level,and not misguided in what he believes,but he might be intentionally deceiving to produce hypocrites,get them caught up in the flesh,which is necessary to those that want a different world,all the while getting rich,a reward from the elite.

But I do not know,but either way I do not believe he preaches the truth for what it is.