Thanks for the MacArthur compliment (though maybe not meant as that). Nevertheless, I can respect your comment about agreeing to disagree.

Madyar, what you call "eating our own," some of us call defending the faith. We defend our faith from attacks that come from outside of the faith and from attacks within the faith. So let's not get misty or sentimental about defending the faith.

In honor of those famous and appropriate words uttered to Rob Bell by John Piper. Farewell John Piper.

Philomath777, no attitude here. Dont get squeamish or thin-skinned on me from a simple rebuttal. I assumed you were use to comments and retorts but maybe not. I hate to have to waste characters explaining things to touchy people in comments section.

Daniel Paul, yes as Christians we interpret the Bible. I think you should maybe look up the word "interpret." Never thought I would have to defend interpreting the bible. Secondly, I am for using God's word for our standard. Obviously you do not follow the flow of this conversation.

Not Popes, but indeed Protestants who can think and interpret the Scriptures for themselves. Who also do not feel they should be ashamed or shrink back from interpreting God's word or discussing His doctrines.

Oldstudent, the verse "actually" says, But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. (1Ti 2:12 NAS) It does not simply say authority but also says "teach." Therefore, NJBeliever is right to quote this verse in relation to women preachers. Also the very fact that the lady would be a typical preacher in a church implies authority. Secondly, the Scripture...more

Oldstudent, the verse "actually" says, But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. (1Ti 2:12 NAS) It does not simply say authority but also says "teach." Therefore, NJBeliever is right to quote this verse in relation to women preachers. Also the very fact that the lady would be a typical preacher in a church implies authority.
Secondly, the Scriptures refer to God in reference to gender as male and never female. Though NJBeliever could have been a little more precise in his or her language the point is still accurate. Furthermore you did not deal with the fact that NJBeliever brought up the fact that Jesus was male. Jesus was male and God.
Thirdly, NJBeliever pointed out that this idea of God being your man was not consistent with the Bible. You seem to think that this concept is identical with the church being the bride of Christ which it is not. So it is not proper for a woman to think of Christ as being their man nor is it proper for a man to think of Christ as being his woman. Dont confuse biblical imageries with worldly, fleshly imaginations and analogies.less

Whats going on with Christian Post? CP is determined to promote TD Jakes and his brood of false teachers. This article shows no journalistic objectivity or for that matter any Christian discernment. Think about this, Brady says that God is the "breasted one" and that "he needs relief." How sad is it that CP would refer to Brady as a "dynamic pastor." It seems that Christian Post is simply Charisma...more

Whats going on with Christian Post? CP is determined to promote TD Jakes and his brood of false teachers. This article shows no journalistic objectivity or for that matter any Christian discernment. Think about this, Brady says that God is the "breasted one" and that "he needs relief." How sad is it that CP would refer to Brady as a "dynamic pastor." It seems that Christian Post is simply Charisma lite now. CP please get your act together!less

You all rant and rave about MacArthur's statement but no one, I mean NO ONE, has shown where his assertions contradict the Bible.At the end of the day, this just shows that you all think not according to the Scriptures but according to the flesh. MacArthur hit you all in the gut. He showed how your cry for freedom and patriotism is not grounded in the bible but in some civil religion that is not b...more

You all rant and rave about MacArthur's statement but no one, I mean NO ONE, has shown where his assertions contradict the Bible.At the end of the day, this just shows that you all think not according to the Scriptures but according to the flesh. MacArthur hit you all in the gut. He showed how your cry for freedom and patriotism is not grounded in the bible but in some civil religion that is not biblical. So dont hate him but thank MacArthur for showing you all your errors.less

protectfreedom, how about protecting the bible. Instead of giving examples why not address his point about Romans 13, which you have not done. This is not FOX News.

Prophet, Macarthur has already stated that he felt that the Revolutionary War was contrary to Rom 13. So again address his biblical assertion. Instead of looking for possible inconsistencies.

Again, another person proves my point. Here is Chesia, who I would assume is a Christian. Even though she is a Christian she says forget the bible. WOW! So regardless of what the bible says or those who try to make their decision with a Christian world view, she says "forget that." So in order to address Macarthur's assertion, Chesia says just forget the Bible and lets applaud the uprising.

Again, notice Cheisa point: Forget the Bible, lets just applaud them for their attempts at freedom. So I would say shame on you Cheisa and those that agree with simply dismissing the bible and a biblical perspective.

Jervott, so Rom 13 and 1 Pet two is dealing with humility? Strange answer no biblical basis for this and you show no exegesis regarding the text. Again as was my point earlier, the only answer people are making is to take scripture out of context

Jvervott, whats your point? My point is simply prove by scripture that macarthur's assertions are wrong. You are talking about muslims and love and way out stuff. Settle down and focus on the issue.

Jverott, you are crazy, man. but i like you. Cyrus is not under the authority of Babylon. This is not a situation of government and subjects but of governments vs governments. Now if you want to debate the issue of wars or nations at war that is a different issue. Therefore, the issue that you raise does not deal with Romans 13 or 1 Pet 2.

Prophet, these evangelicals (which I am one) will tell you that you rebel against the government when government laws forces you to obey man rather than God (Acts 5:29: Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than men!)

Jvernott, David never rebelled against Saul. He killed the man who he held to be the blame for Saul's death because he did touch God's anointed one.

Jvernott, you only validate my point. you cannot make your point by using the Scriptures so you try to use sarcasm. which you do poorly. At least if you are going to use sarcasm use good, witty, and do i do dare say truthful sarcasm to make your point. but your sarcasm is tired and lazy.

Since so many agree with pburwell, let me quickly show the flaw of his statement. First notice he says that Macarthur is not comparing Scripture with Scripture. well 1 pet 2:13 makes the same point as Romans 13. So macarthur isnt simply picking and choosing scripture. Secondly, even if a government is oppressive that doesnt mean that you can rebel by braking the law, unless the laws direct you to ...more

Since so many agree with pburwell, let me quickly show the flaw of his statement. First notice he says that Macarthur is not comparing Scripture with Scripture. well 1 pet 2:13 makes the same point as Romans 13. So macarthur isnt simply picking and choosing scripture. Secondly, even if a government is oppressive that doesnt mean that you can rebel by braking the law, unless the laws direct you to break God's law. But even his point about standing against an oppressive government by breaking the law is absurd because many say that they are under an oppressive government even here in the US, so should we advocate anarchy here?less