"The angels, both good and evil. The Bible speaks not only of holy angels, Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26, and of wicked angels, which kept not their first estate, II Pet. 2:4; Jude 6; but also makes explicit mention of elect angels, I Tim. 5:21, thereby implying that there were also non-elect angels. The question naturally arises, How are we to conceive of the predestination of angels? According to some it simply means that God determined in general that the angels which remained holy would be confirmed in a state of bliss, while the others would be lost. But this is not at all in harmony with the Scriptural idea of predestination. It rather means that God decreed, for reasons sufficient unto Himself, to give some angels, in addition to the grace with which they were endowed by creation and which included ample power to remain holy, a special grace of perseverance; and to withhold this from others. There are points of difference between the predestination of men and that of the angels: (1) While the predestination of men may be conceived of as infralapsarian, the predestination of the angels can only be understood as supralapsarian. God did not choose a certain number out of the fallen mass of angels. (2) The angels were not elected or predestined in Christ as Mediator, but in Him as Head, that is, to stand in a ministerial relation to Him." - Louis Berkhof - Systematic Theology
At no time did I say Pharoah's acts weren't his own or that he doesn't have responsibility for his actions or that he had no choice. But I don't know how anyone could read the text as plainly as it is in Exodus, Romans and other places and not see that God definitely influences people by either secondary means, his direct actions, or by withdrawing his Spirit or by sending an evil spirit as he did with King Saul.
If this bothers your conscience, then ignore it at your own peril. You either build who you want God to be in your own mind, or you let God tell you who he is. God's purposes are his own and they are manifold. If he wants to hardened someone's heart for the purposes of showing his power and might in judgement over an entire civilization of people, that is his prerogative. Place whatever caveat you want on God's actions over Pharaoh except that God did nothing and let Pharaoh just do what he was already going to do. That is obviously not the meaning of the text. God is not impotent and when the text says he does something, he did something.
I'm not saying people don't have free agency. I'm not saying God chooses for us. I'm saying God, who rightly so holds every human life in his hand; God who can take life or give it at his own command in perfect justice; He works for His own good pleasure His will. If that means creating a vessel of wrath fitted for destruction, then so be it. Those are His words, not mine. How else do you explain entire civilizations that God allowed to exist with no special knowledge of him, doomed from their inception. Our loving God didn't have to save one person and he would have still been perfectly loving. To insinuate that our loving God has to by the necessity that you place on him restrain his judgement on the wicked whom he created in order for you to call him loving is disgusting and naive. It diminishes the grace that he offered you. We should look at Pharoah and say, "there, but for the grace of God, go I."
I don't condemn your statements but rather admonish you to examine whether your ideas about God are His ideas, or your ideas. I once stood where you are and put God in my box, and I'm sure I still do in areas that I am still blind. I only call your idea disgusting and naive because I certainly am disgusting and naive in far too many areas of my own life. Thank our creator that his grace is greater than our sin. I have no doubt given what you wrote that He loves you with His redeeming grace and if we met in person I would call you brother.
Exodus 4:21 is the setup. God says he will harden pharaoh's heart so that he will not let the people go.
It's mentioned numerous times that God hardened his heart throughout the narrative. He's not they only one. Deut 2:30, Josh 11:20, Isa 63:17. Ask mention God hardened individuals and whole people groups.
Paul confirmed this is Romans 9:17.
God raised people up, hardens their hearts fire they purpose of God showing his power over them in their destruction.
Romans 9:16 NKJV [16] So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.
Just looking into it a little bit, it would seem Obama undid an executive order Bush put into place that was more restrictive on accessing former presidents' records. I don't see how it sealed this records to a further extent. A lot of people during Bush disagreed with his version of the presidential records executive order and tried to reverse it but failed. Obama returned the rules to what Reagan's version said.
Maybe I'm missing something, but if a meme is mistaken, even about Obama, someone should say something.
It's my hope that the evidence will be presented in court, and when the "jury" ignores it, or the judge over-rules it, or tosses it but the American people see it... when GEOTUS goes to jail and over half the country knows it's injustice while the rest all cry tears of joy: that's the time for the WH military to show up at the jail and take charge. That's when the military trials can take place. Where more evidence can be shown. The real Cabal dark evidence and America can wake up en masse. Q created rumors. Jan is leaving bread crumbs for those asleep to follow, but God knows when the real evidence will be presented.
At least that's the movie I would right.
It was fulfilled in the book of Maccabees by Antiochus IV. It's very convenient for you to leave out the first 12 verses of the prophesy which quite obviously were fulfilled by Alexander the great and Antiochus IV. It's been obvious and picked apart for 2000 years. The date when the temple was cleansed is well established as December 25, 165 B.C. If we count back 2,300 days from then, we come to the year when Antiochus Epiphanes began his persecution in earnest (171 B.C.).
Your style of prophetic reading is not new. It was done my William Miller in 1844 to predict the return of Christ and tragically this lead to the creation of Seventh-Day Adventists, the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Novel interpretation is dangerous and anyone reading this and considering it should pick up a church history book instead and learn what Christians have been teaching for the past 2000 years. I'm not saying everyone in the past is correct, but it's important to know what the majority opinions have been going back to the Fathers.
Because anonymity allows people to say things that aren't true without repercussions. Or, it allows people to say the darkest part of their sinful heart without risking their reputation. One suggestion I've seen him make is to have two comments sections: one for real and verified people, and a second that is for anonymous persons (and bots). That way there is no censorship, but you would have to choose to click on the second string anon board to see it (and the verified board would essentially be promoted).
I like this idea. We have all seen the filth on 4chan, the wild west of anonymity. We should have freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean there should be no risk in speech. Think of those fake Patriot Front protestors. They ran like little bitches once their masks were torn off.
One thing the religious right needs in America is to be more bold in their speech and stand up to the left. It's a risk to get doxed. But that's why we need the fear of God in anyone that would risk stepping on our property.
The KJV was created to get rid of the margin notes in the Geneva Bible (they were not favorable to kingly authority). Both KJV and Geneva were over 80% from Tyndale.
On a side note, my dad crossed out the name James in his Bible's forward and wrote "faggot" in it's place. God rest his soul, he was based.
The use of the White House is a benefit provided to the President of the United States for his personal use outside of his working time there. Does the President pay income tax on the private use of this benefit? I bet there is some specific law excepting it... but on face value this is exactly the same crime that Weisselberg is serving time for.
The only thing I would add to his speech is that based on his premises about poor people in the world, the absolute fastest way for us to help the planet and reduce suffering is to setup systems that enable the poorest people in the world to get out of poverty as fast as possible. The primary system that does this is capitalism. The second most important is a constitutional republic (although even this isn't necessary).
Show proof of any order from Hitler, Himmler or any other high ranking official to anyone to execute Jews in mass. There were multiple concentration camps. We have thousands of Nazi documents. Where is a shred of evidence of this plan of extermination. Where are the autopsies proving death by zyklon B? Where is the proof of this six million number? We're there 6 million Jews to start with in German occupied territories?
The cherry on top of all the lack of evidence are the laws and outrage towards anyone who dares to say anything against the official narrative. Revisionists don't praise Nazis or deny their evil, they only look for what really happened.
12 But above all things. It has been a common vice almost in all ages, to swear lightly and inconsiderately. For so bad is our nature that we do not consider what an atrocious crime it is to profane the name of God. For though the Lord strictly commands us to reverence his name, yet men devise various subterfuges, and think that they can swear with impunity. They imagine, then, that there is no evil, provided they do not openly mention the name of God; and this is an old gloss. So the Jews, when they swore by heaven or earth, thought that they did not profane God's name, because they did not mention it. But while men seek to be ingenious in dissembling with God, they delude themselves with the most frivolous evasions.
It was a vain excuse of this kind that Christ condemned in Matthew 5:34. James, now subscribing to the decree of his master, commands us to abstain from these indirect forms of swearing: for whosoever swears in vain and on frivolous occasions, profanes God's name, whatever form he may give to his words. Then the meaning is, that it is not more lawful to swear by heaven or by the earth, than openly by the name of God. The reason is mentioned by Christ -- because the glory of God is everywhere inscribed, and everywhere shines forth. Nay, men take the words, heaven and earth, in their oaths, in no other sense and for no other purpose, than if they named God himself; for by thus speaking they only designate the Worker by his works.
But he says, above all things; because the profanation of God's name is not a slight offense. The Anabaptists, building on this passage, condemn all oaths, but they only shew their ignorance. For James does not speak of oaths in general, nor does Christ in the passage to which I have referred; but both condemn that evasion which had been devised, when men took the liberty to swear without expressing the name of God, which was a liberty repugnant to the prohibition of the law.
And this is what the words clearly mean, Neither by heaven, neither by the earth. For, if the question had been as to oaths in themselves, to what purpose were these forms mentioned? It then appears evident that both by Christ and by James the puerile astuteness of those is reproved who taught that they could swear with impunity, provided they adopted some circuitous expressions. That we may, then, understand the meaning of James, we must understand first the precept of the law, "Thou shalt not take the name of God in vain." It hence appears clear, that there is a right and lawful use of God's name. Now, James condemns those who did not indeed dare in a direct way to profane God's name, but endeavored to evade the profanation which the law condemns, by circumlocutions.
But let your yea be yea. He brings the best remedy to correct the vice which he condemns, that is, that they were habitually to keep themselves to truth and faithfulness in all their sayings. For whence is the wicked habit of swearing, except that such is the falsehood of men, that their words alone are not believed? For, if they observed faithfulness, as they ought, in their words, there would have been no necessity of so many superfluous oaths. As, then, the perfidy or levity of men is the fountain from which the vice of swearing flows, in order to take away the vice, James teaches us that the fountain ought to be removed; for the right way of healing is to begin with the cause of illness.
God himself takes an oath by his own name, and the Torah speaks many times to people taking proper oaths in God's name. Take a step back and look at God's Word on the whole and don't take one verse out of context to justify a simple and negligent view that there is no proper place for swearing by God's name. Oaths have place in the law and properly bind us in our marriages and most importantly, bind our faith that we might be reminded of the severe penalty from God for breaking our oaths in His name.
Man doesn't have free will. We have free agency. We can only act according to the complete definition of who we are and what we experience.
God allows evil to magnify his grace. No sin, no redeemer, no God-Man, no sacrifice, no grace. God made the garden, and it was all good, but heaven will be better.
Question: if glorified man cannot sin in heaven, does he still have free agency? If glorified man's agency is so altered by his perception of the grace bestowed upon him so that his mind shall never conceive of violating his Lord's law again, then his agency remains free, but his actions remain Holy.