Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

If I’m wrong about Erika Kirk, my conscience is clear. My intent stayed clean. I erred on the side of Scripture, which treats the mistreatment of widows as a serious offense before God. But if you’re wrong, and you spent this season demonizing a grieving widow, manufacturing suspicion, and...

NatlyDenise_'s profile picture

NΛTLY DΞNISΞ

62,698 subscribers

108,021 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Nachrichten & Politik
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Leave. The. Widow. Alone. Scripture is unambiguous about this. From Exodus to the words of Jesus himself, God makes it clear that he hates the mistreatment of widows. Erika Kirk lost her husband in a brutal, public tragedy, and the way some self professing Christians have mocked, policed, and attacked her grief is deeply unbiblical. This just reveals pharisaical hearts. If your version of “Christianity” calls you to mistreat someone based on flippant conspiracy x-threads, then my friend, you are indeed in a CULT, not exercising Christianity.
3:45

Leave. The. Widow. Alone. Scripture is unambiguous about this. From Exodus to the words of Jesus himself, God makes it clear that he hates the mistreatment of widows. Erika Kirk lost her husband in a brutal, public tragedy, and the way some self professing Christians have mocked, policed, and attacked her grief is deeply unbiblical. This just reveals pharisaical hearts. If your version of “Christianity” calls you to mistreat someone based on flippant conspiracy x-threads, then my friend, you are indeed in a CULT, not exercising Christianity.

NΛTLY DΞNISΞ

28,832 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

.Allie Beth Stuckey clarifies that “asking questions” of Erika the CEO is NOT the same as mercilessly cyberbullying Erika the widow. If you’re engaged in such behavior and aren’t pricked by the Holy Spirit, then the Holy Spirit is probably not within you. Allie says, “We can ask questions and be a critical thinker. BUT if you can’t do that without relentlessly and mercilessly mocking Erika Kirk, you’ve got a soul sickness… …If you DO feel good about that… That’s not an indication that what you’re doing is OK. That’s an indication that you are calloused. You worship the god of self. You worship the god of money. You worship the god of entertainment. You worship the god of sensationalism- not the God of scripture. …If you don’t have the Holy Spirit, then you can keep feeling good about really awful things for a long time.” 🎥:
1:43

.Allie Beth Stuckey clarifies that “asking questions” of Erika the CEO is NOT the same as mercilessly cyberbullying Erika the widow. If you’re engaged in such behavior and aren’t pricked by the Holy Spirit, then the Holy Spirit is probably not within you. Allie says, “We can ask questions and be a critical thinker. BUT if you can’t do that without relentlessly and mercilessly mocking Erika Kirk, you’ve got a soul sickness… …If you DO feel good about that… That’s not an indication that what you’re doing is OK. That’s an indication that you are calloused. You worship the god of self. You worship the god of money. You worship the god of entertainment. You worship the god of sensationalism- not the God of scripture. …If you don’t have the Holy Spirit, then you can keep feeling good about really awful things for a long time.” 🎥:

Jackie Chea ⚖️

117,165 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

“I think that um in order to see what is substantially sick and wrong about Erika and Turning Point and to give Candace the benefit of the doubt and to support her, I think it requires religious discernment…” This is the exact opposite of the truth. He then goes on to call Erika “that Scottsdale gold digger.
2:36

“I think that um in order to see what is substantially sick and wrong about Erika and Turning Point and to give Candace the benefit of the doubt and to support her, I think it requires religious discernment…” This is the exact opposite of the truth. He then goes on to call Erika “that Scottsdale gold digger.

Natalie Jean Beisner

62,718 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

.Candace Owens mocks Dana Loesch quoting scripture: “Widows! WIDOWS! Widows! The WIDOW! You shall honor THE WIDOW!” *laughs* “You shall worship THE WIDOW! I’m gonna keep telling you THE WIDOW, and you will see we are BIBLICAL here!” She says it’s a grift and, “They just find whatever Bible verse they want and tell you, ‘This is what it means!’” But if these verses DON’T mean that we are to protect and defend widows, then what DO they mean? Candace tells you it’s meaningless but provides you no alternative reading of the scripture. Could that be because she’s in direct rebellion to it & Dana was correctly rebuking her?
0:57

.Candace Owens mocks Dana Loesch quoting scripture: “Widows! WIDOWS! Widows! The WIDOW! You shall honor THE WIDOW!” *laughs* “You shall worship THE WIDOW! I’m gonna keep telling you THE WIDOW, and you will see we are BIBLICAL here!” She says it’s a grift and, “They just find whatever Bible verse they want and tell you, ‘This is what it means!’” But if these verses DON’T mean that we are to protect and defend widows, then what DO they mean? Candace tells you it’s meaningless but provides you no alternative reading of the scripture. Could that be because she’s in direct rebellion to it & Dana was correctly rebuking her?

Jackie Chea ⚖️

40,236 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

If you work at OpenAI, and you find it uncomfortable to read all this on the sidewalks in front of your office, but you STILL don’t act — then you've accepted you’re on the wrong side of history. It's as simple as that.
2:08

If you work at OpenAI, and you find it uncomfortable to read all this on the sidewalks in front of your office, but you STILL don’t act — then you've accepted you’re on the wrong side of history. It's as simple as that.

Rutger Bregman

66,978 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Former Democrat Senator Joe Manchin just said the quiet part out loud about his long-gone party...and he said it on MSNBC. Manchin explained exactly why he left...and he hit the nail on the head for all of MSNBC to hear. He’s a centrist. And that no longer works in the party of radicals. “The Democratic Party that I know, went so far left that people like myself couldn’t remain identified as a Democrat.” “And you can’t tell people that you’re wrong if you don’t believe, like I do, that you spend more time worrying about people that are able bodied, capable people of working that don’t work, than you do those who will work.” “This is the perception that came. But then telling them, hey, if you don’t believe like me, if you’re not in this line of theology, ideology, then you’re absolutely wrong.” “That’s not who we are.” “The pursuit of happiness, that’s my responsibility. Taking an oath of office to defend and protect the constitution, I’m going to do that.”
0:37

Former Democrat Senator Joe Manchin just said the quiet part out loud about his long-gone party...and he said it on MSNBC. Manchin explained exactly why he left...and he hit the nail on the head for all of MSNBC to hear. He’s a centrist. And that no longer works in the party of radicals. “The Democratic Party that I know, went so far left that people like myself couldn’t remain identified as a Democrat.” “And you can’t tell people that you’re wrong if you don’t believe, like I do, that you spend more time worrying about people that are able bodied, capable people of working that don’t work, than you do those who will work.” “This is the perception that came. But then telling them, hey, if you don’t believe like me, if you’re not in this line of theology, ideology, then you’re absolutely wrong.” “That’s not who we are.” “The pursuit of happiness, that’s my responsibility. Taking an oath of office to defend and protect the constitution, I’m going to do that.”

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

251,102 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

NEW: Matt Walsh says if any of Candace Owens' claims were used as evidence in a court of law, she would be laughed out of the room. Walsh said Owens' attacks on Erika Kirk are not only factually wrong, but also morally wrong. "The whole crux of the matter here is not just that Erika is a grieving widow, but that she is innocent of the accusations that are being made or implied against her."
3:27

NEW: Matt Walsh says if any of Candace Owens' claims were used as evidence in a court of law, she would be laughed out of the room. Walsh said Owens' attacks on Erika Kirk are not only factually wrong, but also morally wrong. "The whole crux of the matter here is not just that Erika is a grieving widow, but that she is innocent of the accusations that are being made or implied against her."

Collin Rugg

463,291 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

“If he thinks you’re for him, you’re good. Right? And if you switch sides and become for him, you become Secretary of Health and Human Services. But if you’re his enemy it doesn’t matter what your politics are. If you say he’s stupid, which he is, if you say he is wrong, which he is, if you say he’s a criminal or sleezy, which he is, and all of these people are willing to say that, then you’re his enemy.” President of the Society for the Rule of Law George Conway 🇺🇸🚫👑🐸 speaking with Chris Hayes on MSNBC All In with Chris Hayes about the Trump DOJ indictments via #StudiGo mobile studio
6:28

“If he thinks you’re for him, you’re good. Right? And if you switch sides and become for him, you become Secretary of Health and Human Services. But if you’re his enemy it doesn’t matter what your politics are. If you say he’s stupid, which he is, if you say he is wrong, which he is, if you say he’s a criminal or sleezy, which he is, and all of these people are willing to say that, then you’re his enemy.” President of the Society for the Rule of Law George Conway 🇺🇸🚫👑🐸 speaking with Chris Hayes on MSNBC All In with Chris Hayes about the Trump DOJ indictments via #StudiGo mobile studio

StudiGo

334,044 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

Dear Christian participating in the attacks against Erika Kirk, You are bringing a curse upon yourself, your spouse & yes, your children if you continue to engage & in the cruel campaign of gossip & slander against a widow & her orphan children You better be 100% sure Erika is guilty.. so sure you willing to swear upon your very life & the lives your children. This is not me cursing you.. this is me telling you what God says will happen to anyone who mistreats a widow: Exodus 22 vs 22-24 “Do not mistreat a widow or the fatherless. 23 If you do and they cry out to me, I will certainly hear their cry. 24 My anger will be aroused, and I will kill you with the sword; your wives will become widows and your children fatherless.” God will not be mocked. Whatever you sow you will reap. God is the same yesterday today & forever. You are removing God’s cover over your life by continuing to participate in this evil. You know it is not of God because if you have the spirit of God in you, He is bearing witness that this is not right. God hates slander gossip & He says He is the defender of the widow. God will defend Erika against you. That’s His WORD.
1:16

Dear Christian participating in the attacks against Erika Kirk, You are bringing a curse upon yourself, your spouse & yes, your children if you continue to engage & in the cruel campaign of gossip & slander against a widow & her orphan children You better be 100% sure Erika is guilty.. so sure you willing to swear upon your very life & the lives your children. This is not me cursing you.. this is me telling you what God says will happen to anyone who mistreats a widow: Exodus 22 vs 22-24 “Do not mistreat a widow or the fatherless. 23 If you do and they cry out to me, I will certainly hear their cry. 24 My anger will be aroused, and I will kill you with the sword; your wives will become widows and your children fatherless.” God will not be mocked. Whatever you sow you will reap. God is the same yesterday today & forever. You are removing God’s cover over your life by continuing to participate in this evil. You know it is not of God because if you have the spirit of God in you, He is bearing witness that this is not right. God hates slander gossip & He says He is the defender of the widow. God will defend Erika against you. That’s His WORD.

Melissa Tate

59,189 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

So evil exists, God exists, God willed evil to exist. He didn’t create it, He couldn’t. He’s holy, holy, holy. But He didn’t prevent it The Problem of Evil — John MacArthur // March 17, 2007 You have to understand that this issue of the problem of evil is the big issue, the big one in even evangelical Christianity, as well as liberal Christianity – everybody trying to save God from this biblical definition. Let’s assume for a minute that God doesn’t have the power or willingly limited the power for a greater good, human freedom; or doesn’t have the knowledge. In any case, guess what; evil exists and God exists, and God has no power over evil, and evil dominates the world, and it is beyond His control. The universe is out of control; it’s out of control and the most crucial point. So just exactly how, may I ask you, is God all of a sudden going to get the knowledge of the future that He needs to bring this deal to an end, and how is He going to exercise the power to end it, and how is He going to overturn His immutable decision in the past to give the creature autonomy? How is God going to define the end of everything in the way the Bible says He defines it if He’s not even in control of it, because He will not or cannot exercise the power, or doesn’t have the knowledge? Maybe global warming has more power than God. So I ask you this: Which god would you like? Would you rather have a god trying to get control of evil or a God completely in control of it? It’s obvious. It’s heresy to say the world is full of evil apart from a predetermined plan and purpose by God far beyond the willy-nilly human choices. So evil exists, God exists, God willed evil to exist. He didn’t create it, He couldn’t. He’s holy, holy, holy. But He didn’t prevent it. It occurred in a rebellion against Him. But He willed and ordained that it occurred. In fact, if you study the Bible carefully, you can see many ways in which God designs to use evil things – natural evil, moral evil, supernatural evil – for His own purposes, even eternal evil, sometimes to bring fear and terror and conviction on the unregenerate, sometimes to bring chastisement and discipline on God’s people, sometimes to humble them. And in the case of Job, He turned Satan loose for horrendous evil in the life of Job. You remember that Jesus said to Peter one day, “Satan desires to have you that he may sift you like wheat”? Remember that, Luke 22? And if I’d had been Peter I’d have said, “Well, you told him no, right?” Jesus said, “Actually, I told him yes, have at him.” What? “So that when you’re converted, you can strengthen the brethren.” There’s a remedial purpose in this. “As you come through that difficulty and come out the other side, you’re going to be able to strengthen the brethren.”It was 2 Corinthians 12 where Paul says, “There was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan.” A lot of discussion about what that is. Pretty clear. Messenger is aggelos. A satanic messenger is a what; a demon. I don’t think Paul had a demon in his life, I think that’s the demon that was leading the false teachers who were ripping and shredding the Corinthian church, and Paul prayed three times that it might be removed, and the Lord didn’t remove it. Why? He says twice in 2 Corinthians 12, “to keep me from exalting myself, to keep me from exalting myself.” If God so designs He will use a demon-led false teacher association to rip up a church to humble the pastor. He’s in control of all of that, of all of it.
5:28

So evil exists, God exists, God willed evil to exist. He didn’t create it, He couldn’t. He’s holy, holy, holy. But He didn’t prevent it The Problem of Evil — John MacArthur // March 17, 2007 You have to understand that this issue of the problem of evil is the big issue, the big one in even evangelical Christianity, as well as liberal Christianity – everybody trying to save God from this biblical definition. Let’s assume for a minute that God doesn’t have the power or willingly limited the power for a greater good, human freedom; or doesn’t have the knowledge. In any case, guess what; evil exists and God exists, and God has no power over evil, and evil dominates the world, and it is beyond His control. The universe is out of control; it’s out of control and the most crucial point. So just exactly how, may I ask you, is God all of a sudden going to get the knowledge of the future that He needs to bring this deal to an end, and how is He going to exercise the power to end it, and how is He going to overturn His immutable decision in the past to give the creature autonomy? How is God going to define the end of everything in the way the Bible says He defines it if He’s not even in control of it, because He will not or cannot exercise the power, or doesn’t have the knowledge? Maybe global warming has more power than God. So I ask you this: Which god would you like? Would you rather have a god trying to get control of evil or a God completely in control of it? It’s obvious. It’s heresy to say the world is full of evil apart from a predetermined plan and purpose by God far beyond the willy-nilly human choices. So evil exists, God exists, God willed evil to exist. He didn’t create it, He couldn’t. He’s holy, holy, holy. But He didn’t prevent it. It occurred in a rebellion against Him. But He willed and ordained that it occurred. In fact, if you study the Bible carefully, you can see many ways in which God designs to use evil things – natural evil, moral evil, supernatural evil – for His own purposes, even eternal evil, sometimes to bring fear and terror and conviction on the unregenerate, sometimes to bring chastisement and discipline on God’s people, sometimes to humble them. And in the case of Job, He turned Satan loose for horrendous evil in the life of Job. You remember that Jesus said to Peter one day, “Satan desires to have you that he may sift you like wheat”? Remember that, Luke 22? And if I’d had been Peter I’d have said, “Well, you told him no, right?” Jesus said, “Actually, I told him yes, have at him.” What? “So that when you’re converted, you can strengthen the brethren.” There’s a remedial purpose in this. “As you come through that difficulty and come out the other side, you’re going to be able to strengthen the brethren.”It was 2 Corinthians 12 where Paul says, “There was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan.” A lot of discussion about what that is. Pretty clear. Messenger is aggelos. A satanic messenger is a what; a demon. I don’t think Paul had a demon in his life, I think that’s the demon that was leading the false teachers who were ripping and shredding the Corinthian church, and Paul prayed three times that it might be removed, and the Lord didn’t remove it. Why? He says twice in 2 Corinthians 12, “to keep me from exalting myself, to keep me from exalting myself.” If God so designs He will use a demon-led false teacher association to rip up a church to humble the pastor. He’s in control of all of that, of all of it.

Terri Green

16,778 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

🚨 BREAKING: Erika Kirk tears up after fiercely firing back at anyone justifying the assassination of Charlie Kirk "You're SICK. He's a human being. You think he deserved that? Tell that to my 3-year-old daughter...excuse me." "You wanna watch the high-res the video of my husband being m*rdered? And laugh? And say he deserves it? There's something very sick in your soul and I pray that God saves you. I pray, because that is what is so wrong. The internet in this world has dehumanized us." She has every right to feel this way.
1:30

🚨 BREAKING: Erika Kirk tears up after fiercely firing back at anyone justifying the assassination of Charlie Kirk "You're SICK. He's a human being. You think he deserved that? Tell that to my 3-year-old daughter...excuse me." "You wanna watch the high-res the video of my husband being m*rdered? And laugh? And say he deserves it? There's something very sick in your soul and I pray that God saves you. I pray, because that is what is so wrong. The internet in this world has dehumanized us." She has every right to feel this way.

Eric Daugherty

667,455 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

He wants you know why you’re not honoring the DOGE-style audit of TPUSA that Charlie wanted, Erika Kirk. Can you answer that question (and why you’re taking TPUSA MORE into the Pro-Israel cause when Charlie had turned on it)? Or are you going to play the grieving widow card?
1:41

He wants you know why you’re not honoring the DOGE-style audit of TPUSA that Charlie wanted, Erika Kirk. Can you answer that question (and why you’re taking TPUSA MORE into the Pro-Israel cause when Charlie had turned on it)? Or are you going to play the grieving widow card?

Ginny Robinson

33,548 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Robert De Niro originally wanted to play Max Cherry in Jackie Brown, the role that eventually went to Robert Forster. However, Quentin Tarantino had written the role with Forster in mind and had already promised him the part. Tarantino explains… “I wrote Jackie Brown, and I decided at some point in writing the script that Robert Forster would be terrific as Max Cherry. So, while I’m still writing the script, I bump into Robert Forster - we go to the same coffee shop. ….so I decided I’m gonna give him the part, because I figure, look, this would be a big, big deal part. So if I don’t give him the part, then once I’m done with it and it gets out in the town, then it’s gonna be Gene Hackman and Paul Newman and people like that, and it would be pretty hard to say no to. But if I just give him the part right now, I’ve got the juice to get it through, and now I can’t take it back because I wouldn’t be a man of my word. So to lock myself into that decision, I give it to him before I finish writing it. And then now comes the time to do it. Robert De Niro reads it, and he wants to be in it, but he wants to play Max. And I go, “Well, look, you would be a fantastic Max, but I’ve already given that to Robert Forster, and I’m a man of my word. I can’t take it back.” Now, De Niro is very much a man of his word, so he understands that. He gets that. And he’s just like, “Yeah, yeah. That’s just disappointing. It’s just regretful.” I go, “What?” “Well, just because, you know, you were thinking about him, so you wrote it for him. But if we had had more dinners and hung out a little bit more, then you would have been thinking about me and you would have written it for me. And I understand what happened, but that could have been changed if we had spent more time with each other before this.” And so he kind of gives me the – “just think about it for a couple of days, all right? - and then let’s talk again. Maybe Bob (Robert Foster) could play Louis, the other guy.” So then I actually have Bob read Louis with me, and then read Max. And if that could work, maybe that could work. But no, everything that made him perfect for Max made him wrong for Louis. And so I get on the phone with De Niro — and I go, “Yeah, you know, I explored that. But no, everything about him that makes him perfect for Max makes him wrong to play this ex-convict guy.” And he goes, “Yeah, yeah, I get that. I get that, I get that, I get that. Okay, so tell me about this Louis character.” And I go, “You would consider playing Louis?” “Yeah, it’s a good character. It’s a good movie. I wanna be part of it. It’s a good character. I wanted the other character, but yeah, this is a good character. I’d be happy to play it.” I go, “Well, you didn’t let me know that before.” He goes, “Well, I didn’t wanna let you off the hook. I wanted you on the hook. But now if that ship has sailed, then let’s talk about Louis.” And then it was a done deal.”
5:57

Robert De Niro originally wanted to play Max Cherry in Jackie Brown, the role that eventually went to Robert Forster. However, Quentin Tarantino had written the role with Forster in mind and had already promised him the part. Tarantino explains… “I wrote Jackie Brown, and I decided at some point in writing the script that Robert Forster would be terrific as Max Cherry. So, while I’m still writing the script, I bump into Robert Forster - we go to the same coffee shop. ….so I decided I’m gonna give him the part, because I figure, look, this would be a big, big deal part. So if I don’t give him the part, then once I’m done with it and it gets out in the town, then it’s gonna be Gene Hackman and Paul Newman and people like that, and it would be pretty hard to say no to. But if I just give him the part right now, I’ve got the juice to get it through, and now I can’t take it back because I wouldn’t be a man of my word. So to lock myself into that decision, I give it to him before I finish writing it. And then now comes the time to do it. Robert De Niro reads it, and he wants to be in it, but he wants to play Max. And I go, “Well, look, you would be a fantastic Max, but I’ve already given that to Robert Forster, and I’m a man of my word. I can’t take it back.” Now, De Niro is very much a man of his word, so he understands that. He gets that. And he’s just like, “Yeah, yeah. That’s just disappointing. It’s just regretful.” I go, “What?” “Well, just because, you know, you were thinking about him, so you wrote it for him. But if we had had more dinners and hung out a little bit more, then you would have been thinking about me and you would have written it for me. And I understand what happened, but that could have been changed if we had spent more time with each other before this.” And so he kind of gives me the – “just think about it for a couple of days, all right? - and then let’s talk again. Maybe Bob (Robert Foster) could play Louis, the other guy.” So then I actually have Bob read Louis with me, and then read Max. And if that could work, maybe that could work. But no, everything that made him perfect for Max made him wrong for Louis. And so I get on the phone with De Niro — and I go, “Yeah, you know, I explored that. But no, everything about him that makes him perfect for Max makes him wrong to play this ex-convict guy.” And he goes, “Yeah, yeah, I get that. I get that, I get that, I get that. Okay, so tell me about this Louis character.” And I go, “You would consider playing Louis?” “Yeah, it’s a good character. It’s a good movie. I wanna be part of it. It’s a good character. I wanted the other character, but yeah, this is a good character. I’d be happy to play it.” I go, “Well, you didn’t let me know that before.” He goes, “Well, I didn’t wanna let you off the hook. I wanted you on the hook. But now if that ship has sailed, then let’s talk about Louis.” And then it was a done deal.”

Gangster Cinema Central

83,591 Aufrufe • vor 4 Tagen

Evil exists, God exists. God wills evil to exist. He did not create it, He could not create it, but He did not prevent it. He ordained it, He willed it - here it comes, listen carefully - because He had a purpose for it; He had a purpose for it - a purpose. Why Does Evil Dominate the World? — John MacArthur // March 4, 2007 If God is not in total control of evil, if He has not ordained it – listen - and if He does not have it under complete control at every millisecond of history, then this universe is out of control at the most crucial point. If God is not in control of this completely, then how and when will He get the knowledge and the power to get it under control? And I would ask you this: would you rather have a God trying to get control of evil, or a God completely in control of it? Take your choice. But the God of the Bible is in complete control of evil for His own purposes. It is really heresy to say that the world is full of evil apart from a predetermined plan and purpose by God that is far above the willy-nilly choices of people. So, what do we know up to now? Evil exists, God exists. God wills evil to exist. He did not create it, He could not create it, but He did not prevent it. He ordained it, He willed it - here it comes, listen carefully - because He had a purpose for it; He had a purpose for it - a purpose. This is critical: He had a purpose for evil. What is that purpose that God had for evil? Before I answer that question - and that’s the fourth in our little outline - let me read the Westminster Confession from the 1700s; some great theologians and biblical scholars put this together. Listen carefully: “God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass:“ Yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second-hand causes taken away ... sinfulness proceeds not only from the creature; proceeds only from the creature and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither ... can be the author and approver of sin.” But then, says the Westminster Confession, all that God decrees and all that God providentially brings to pass is all to the praise of His glory - and they got it right.The reason for God ordaining evil is for the praise of His glory. Let me ask you a simple question to help you answer the question - the bigger question: is God more glorious because of sin existing or less glorious? Pretty easy question to answer, isn’t it? That really is the ultimate question. Throughout all the eons of eternity, will God receive more glory from His creatures because sin existed or less? And, friends, that’s really all that matters, is the eternal glory of God. So, it’s fourth down, and we’re on the ten-yard line, and I’m pulling out the winning play and we’re going for six for the victory. Turn to Romans 3 - and I want you to track with me a little bit; can’t take time to develop all of this, but I’m going to give you a good start. Wish I could build context; we don’t have time. But let’s look at chapter 3 and verse 5. Opening statement: “But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say?” Grab that phrase: our right - unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God. And Paul uses the first of a series of verbs; this one happens to be sunistēmi, translated demonstrates in the New American Standard. It is a verb that means to disclose, to reveal, to put on display, to show. Our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God. Another way to say that would be, would you really understand the righteousness of God if you didn’t understand unrighteousness? Isn’t there something to be gained by the contrast? Paul has been showing that God is faithful to His promises to Israel, and their sin and unbelief cannot alter God’s covenant, cannot alter God’s faithfulness.
8:11

Evil exists, God exists. God wills evil to exist. He did not create it, He could not create it, but He did not prevent it. He ordained it, He willed it - here it comes, listen carefully - because He had a purpose for it; He had a purpose for it - a purpose. Why Does Evil Dominate the World? — John MacArthur // March 4, 2007 If God is not in total control of evil, if He has not ordained it – listen - and if He does not have it under complete control at every millisecond of history, then this universe is out of control at the most crucial point. If God is not in control of this completely, then how and when will He get the knowledge and the power to get it under control? And I would ask you this: would you rather have a God trying to get control of evil, or a God completely in control of it? Take your choice. But the God of the Bible is in complete control of evil for His own purposes. It is really heresy to say that the world is full of evil apart from a predetermined plan and purpose by God that is far above the willy-nilly choices of people. So, what do we know up to now? Evil exists, God exists. God wills evil to exist. He did not create it, He could not create it, but He did not prevent it. He ordained it, He willed it - here it comes, listen carefully - because He had a purpose for it; He had a purpose for it - a purpose. This is critical: He had a purpose for evil. What is that purpose that God had for evil? Before I answer that question - and that’s the fourth in our little outline - let me read the Westminster Confession from the 1700s; some great theologians and biblical scholars put this together. Listen carefully: “God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass:“ Yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second-hand causes taken away ... sinfulness proceeds not only from the creature; proceeds only from the creature and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither ... can be the author and approver of sin.” But then, says the Westminster Confession, all that God decrees and all that God providentially brings to pass is all to the praise of His glory - and they got it right.The reason for God ordaining evil is for the praise of His glory. Let me ask you a simple question to help you answer the question - the bigger question: is God more glorious because of sin existing or less glorious? Pretty easy question to answer, isn’t it? That really is the ultimate question. Throughout all the eons of eternity, will God receive more glory from His creatures because sin existed or less? And, friends, that’s really all that matters, is the eternal glory of God. So, it’s fourth down, and we’re on the ten-yard line, and I’m pulling out the winning play and we’re going for six for the victory. Turn to Romans 3 - and I want you to track with me a little bit; can’t take time to develop all of this, but I’m going to give you a good start. Wish I could build context; we don’t have time. But let’s look at chapter 3 and verse 5. Opening statement: “But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say?” Grab that phrase: our right - unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God. And Paul uses the first of a series of verbs; this one happens to be sunistēmi, translated demonstrates in the New American Standard. It is a verb that means to disclose, to reveal, to put on display, to show. Our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God. Another way to say that would be, would you really understand the righteousness of God if you didn’t understand unrighteousness? Isn’t there something to be gained by the contrast? Paul has been showing that God is faithful to His promises to Israel, and their sin and unbelief cannot alter God’s covenant, cannot alter God’s faithfulness.

Terri Green

24,466 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

MOTU breaks the lore that's IN THE THEME SONG yet people are praising it, don't get me started on everything else it gets wrong. IF you wanted Barbie the movie with He-Man, then you'll love it... if you wanted a He-Man that actually paid attention to the lore and respected it, then watch the 87 film, at least that gets "caveman" He-Man right...
1:12

MOTU breaks the lore that's IN THE THEME SONG yet people are praising it, don't get me started on everything else it gets wrong. IF you wanted Barbie the movie with He-Man, then you'll love it... if you wanted a He-Man that actually paid attention to the lore and respected it, then watch the 87 film, at least that gets "caveman" He-Man right...

MEAD The 4K💿 Master (Tom Connors)

23,541 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

ERIKA KIRK: “He built a machine, and all of you are a part of that." Erika Kirk live at the This Is the Turning Point Tour
1:39

ERIKA KIRK: “He built a machine, and all of you are a part of that." Erika Kirk live at the This Is the Turning Point Tour

Turning Point USA

256,001 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

#WATCH | East Champaran | Jan Suraaj Founder Prashant Kishor says, "As far as the issue of ceasefire is concerned. I read the statement of EAM Dr S Jaishankar, who is an educated and sensible person. He said that the ceasefire was done on the initiative of Pakistan. I am thinking that if Pakistan wanted a ceasefire, it means that the army is doing the right thing; we were defeating Pakistan. So if Pakistan wanted a ceasefire, why did we agree to it? The Army should have let it go on for two more days. If Pakistan did not wish for a ceasefire, then what he is claiming is wrong...When Pakistan was on the backfoot and was begging you for a ceasefire, then why did you do the ceasefire?... It is in front of you, whatever he is saying is wrong..."
1:51

#WATCH | East Champaran | Jan Suraaj Founder Prashant Kishor says, "As far as the issue of ceasefire is concerned. I read the statement of EAM Dr S Jaishankar, who is an educated and sensible person. He said that the ceasefire was done on the initiative of Pakistan. I am thinking that if Pakistan wanted a ceasefire, it means that the army is doing the right thing; we were defeating Pakistan. So if Pakistan wanted a ceasefire, why did we agree to it? The Army should have let it go on for two more days. If Pakistan did not wish for a ceasefire, then what he is claiming is wrong...When Pakistan was on the backfoot and was begging you for a ceasefire, then why did you do the ceasefire?... It is in front of you, whatever he is saying is wrong..."

ANI

175,510 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

BEFORE THE BLESSING COMES THE SEED — HOW GOD ANSWERS PRAYERS Everything God gives us comes in seed form. When you truly understand this, you won't feel frustrated or disappointed when you ask God for something and it doesn't come packaged the way you expected. Often, when you ask God for a bumper harvest, He gives you fertile land, a bag of seeds, the wisdom to sow, and the strength to work. Then He says, “Here is your harvest.” If you don’t understand this about God, you may become offended. You’ll look at someone else reaping a harvest and say, “Lord, that’s what I want!” And God will say, “That’s exactly what I gave you.” The difference between you and that person is this: he recognized that the answer was hidden in the seed. Many people don’t recognize how God answers prayers. They discard the very thing that holds their miracle because it doesn’t look like the final product. The law of increase is this: almost everything God gives you will come in a form that doesn’t resemble your request, but within it is the fulfillment. Most Believers lack the discernment to recognize how increase and greatness truly come. Watch the full sermon titled "The Law of Increase (Exploring The Mysteries of Increase)" on our YouTube channel at Koinonia Global. #ApostleJoshuaSelman #TheLawOfIncrease #ExploringTheMysteriesOfIncrease #KoinoniaAbuja #KoinoniaZaria #KoinoniaGlobal
3:49

BEFORE THE BLESSING COMES THE SEED — HOW GOD ANSWERS PRAYERS Everything God gives us comes in seed form. When you truly understand this, you won't feel frustrated or disappointed when you ask God for something and it doesn't come packaged the way you expected. Often, when you ask God for a bumper harvest, He gives you fertile land, a bag of seeds, the wisdom to sow, and the strength to work. Then He says, “Here is your harvest.” If you don’t understand this about God, you may become offended. You’ll look at someone else reaping a harvest and say, “Lord, that’s what I want!” And God will say, “That’s exactly what I gave you.” The difference between you and that person is this: he recognized that the answer was hidden in the seed. Many people don’t recognize how God answers prayers. They discard the very thing that holds their miracle because it doesn’t look like the final product. The law of increase is this: almost everything God gives you will come in a form that doesn’t resemble your request, but within it is the fulfillment. Most Believers lack the discernment to recognize how increase and greatness truly come. Watch the full sermon titled "The Law of Increase (Exploring The Mysteries of Increase)" on our YouTube channel at Koinonia Global. #ApostleJoshuaSelman #TheLawOfIncrease #ExploringTheMysteriesOfIncrease #KoinoniaAbuja #KoinoniaZaria #KoinoniaGlobal

Koinonia Global

18,965 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr