Jim Lincoln wrote:
When you have church leadership, they do lead.

Neil wrote:
Q&A should be during or immed. after the sermon so preachers will be held accountable for their doctrine (1 Cor. 14:32,35). Sadly, I've seen few churches that practice this, despite the fact that Jesus Himself asked & accepted questions (some say this was std. Rabbinical practice).

It's more pronounced in the seeker churches, where length of service is determined by parking capacity. There is little chance for the younger men who have the gift of teaching to exercise those gifts, but doing so would eliminate seminaries, which the paid preachers are in no hurry to do, since it creates a barrier for entry into their "profession." They don't like competition for "their" pulpit.

Mark M. wrote:
I'm afraid with the latest senator jumping to the Dems side that it will be a dark time for conservatives. There is actually no telling what kind of mad laws will be passed now that the Republicans can't block the process. Look for common sense to make a comeback in the mid-term elections,

The Republicans couldn't "block the process" when they controlled Congress for 12 years, and both Congress and the White House for 6 of those years.

Guinness wrote:
Again I submit that your implicit working definition of taxation is too narrow and quite novel.

In America, there is a presumption that our government's right to tax us (and to do anything else for that matter) comes from the people's inherent rights that are ceded to the government. In Europe, the presumption is that the people's rights come from the government (originally from the king) that are ceded to the people (usually after a war or two). That difference alone is enough to account for the apparent misunderstanding here.

Government schools are the novelty, having been invented only about 150 years ago. Prior to that, all education was private.

Regardless, the Bible makes it plain that parents are responsible for their childrens' education. Home schooling is the norm, at least biblically speaking. Trusting Satan's minions to educate the kids is insane.

Mark M. wrote:
Televangilists and pastors from the "mega-churches" that accept homosexual marriage only serve to confuse the layman, most of which are quick to accept the teaching of someone in authority, as to what the word of God says. I think the true Bible believing church is perfectly right to show the world what the Bible says about sin. If culture changes for the worse, as it's bound to do, at least we were there trying to warn people.

Frank wrote:
Now if the church is properly defined not as a denomination, a creed, or a building, but as those who are born again, from above, then there will be not disagreement in the church as to same sex marriage or the sin of homosexuality. So, as usual I am confused by "Dr." Mohler's comments.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Something else that President "The Bumbler" Bush didn't stop. It might have not been possible to stop North Korea from becoming a nuclear power, but not enough was done by him or the Billy Clinton Administration.

But there's no biblical reason at all to fear that the world will be destroyed by nuclear war, since the cause of the destruction of the world is already known - and it isn't nuclear war.

I deny that apologetics is a primary responsibility of believers. While it is perhaps helpful for believers to understand the distinction between Christianity and other religions (especially if they came out of a false religion), the main thing is to understand the fundamental assertions of Christianity. I think this can be done without reference to the thousands of variations of false religion, which seems to be the preoccupation of apologetics.

Neil wrote:
Robert, I see Theonomy is not your real objection to Wilson. That is a side issue.
Paul *did* reason with those at the Areopagus, the exact opposite of what you make of it....