Practical application of Pentecostal theology in politics, economy and social issues
THANKSGIVING DAY In the autumn of 1621 the Pilgrims and the Wampanoag tribe met together to celebrate the colony’s first successful harvest. Today here in America we pause to celebrate a day of
There is absolutely no question that Paul did repent (i.e., had a change of direction in his heart), as is clearly attested to in scripture. Therefore, the question being raised isn’t really an issue of exactly where (or when) this change within him may have occurred, other then how it relates to having occurred before or after his salvation. If his salvation preceded his repentance, then surely it must be attributed completely and entirely to God’s grace (and foreknowledge), given that Saul/Paul was a “chosen vessel.” (see Exodus 33:19;Acts 9:15.)
Peter spoke (to the whole house of Israel) on the day of Pentecost and instructed them to “repent and be saved.” However, Paul preaches a slightly different message that makes little to no mention of repentance being required as a condition of salvation, referring to his message of salvation by a new name, “the gospel of the grace of God.” (Acts 20:24.) In fact, Paul states that it is the goodness of God that leads one to repentance in Romans 2:4.
Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and
longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to
repentance?
Repentance, at some point, is what God commands of all men (Acts 17:30)… but why is there so little mention of it in all of Paul’s epistles if it is thought to be a prerequisite to salvation?
Is it because the Gentile nations were not under the law (as Israel was) and would simply not relate to repentance in the same way that Israel did?
Romans 4
[15] Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no
transgression. [16] Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by
grace…
This question has evolved from another question (that was downvoted twice, for reasons I do not understand) that is posted here:
Guest;
This is what we KNOW thus far Link Hudson
– there was no turkey – came later with the masons
– natives brought 5 dead deer
– few pilgrims shot some birds for supper
– there were plenty of meat and fruit pies
– may have been some gravy {not too sure}
– there were no stores so no black friday sales
– Englishmen eat together – both puritans and criminals
BUT there was a great celebration of FREEDOM
It was significant theologically as a first harvest feast
governor thanked GOD for the natives for teaching them how to hunt and survive the cold winter – most Englishmen who came were craftsmen or city criminals with no farm / hunt skills
None of the pilgrims had proper papers and did NOT follow the migration process. They actually fled in a caravan, storm the eastern sea border and simply entered Jan Dixon Sykes
Yes many of them were real criminals running from the law in Europe and proceeded to establish gangs that held the common wealth trade some of which illegal gun and drug related Gerardo de Dominicis
No it did not work too well for the native citizens, but somehow by the grace of GOD here we are 500 years ALL thankful for SUCH history
Guest;
The pilgrims arrived to no ones land. The natives didn’t consider the land their own so it wasn’t an “invasion”. Turkeys are American birds and could be found in North America (the Aztecs used to eat it before the Spaniards arrived and called it guajolotl).
Guest;
Like a welcome festival?
Guest;
The pilgrims arrived to no ones land? Gerardo de Dominicis HOW can anyone claim that? What about Columbus and his illegal conquistadors who burnt down whole civilizations? No ones land too?
Guest;
I read the book 1492 and i learned a lot from that. Before Columbus there were thriving cities with better sewage systems than Paris at the time. It was truly a devastating disaster.
Guest;
Just south of st. Louis was Cahokia i believe.
Guest;
Gerardo de Dominicis Paula Peters, a member of the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe and an expert on Wampanoag history told me the real story.
“This is not revisionist history,” Peters promised. “This is history that’s just been overlooked because people have become very, very comfortable with the story of happy Pilgrims and friendly Indians. They’re very content with that — even to the point where no one really questioned how is it that Squanto knew how to speak perfect English when they came.”
Here’s what really happened.
In 1614, six years before the Pilgrims landed in modern-day Massachusetts, an Englishman named Thomas Hunt kidnapped Tisquantum from his village, Patuxet, which was part of a group of villages known as the Wampanoag confederation. (Europeans had started visiting the northeast of what is now the United States by the 1520s, and probably as early as the 1480s.)
Hunt took Tisquantum and around two dozen other kidnapped Wampanoag to Spain, where he tried to sell them into slavery.
“It caused quite a commotion when this guy showed up trying to sell these people,” Mann said. “A bunch of people in the church said no way.”
Tisquantum escaped slavery — with the help of Catholic friars, according to some accounts — then somehow found his way to England.
He finally made it back to what is now Massachusetts in 1619. As far as historians can tell, Tisquantum was the only one of the kidnapped Wampanoags to ever return to North America, Peters notes.
As far as historians can tell, Tisquantum was the only one of the kidnapped Wampanoags to ever return to North America.
But while Tisquantum was in Europe, an epidemic had swept across New England.
“The account that’s recorded by Gov. Bradford of Plymouth Plantation is that there’s a shipwreck of French sailors that year on Cape Cod,” Mann said. “One of them carried some disease and it wiped out a huge percentage of the population in coastal new England. … The guess is it was some kind of viral hepatitis, which is easily communicated in water. It exploded like chains of firecrackers.”
When Tisquantum returned to Patuxet, he found that he was the village’s only survivor.
“Into this bumbled the Pilgrims,” Mann said. “They had shown up in New England a few weeks before winter. … Up until the Pilgrims, the pattern had been pretty clear. Europeans would show up, and Indians would be interested in their trade goods, but they were really uninterested in letting [Europeans] permanently occupy land.” Often, armed native people would even force Europeans to leave if they attempted to stay too long. “Patuxet ultimately becomes Plymouth,” Peters explained. “They find this cleared land and just the bones of the Indians. They called it divine providence: God killed these Indians so we could live here.”
Guest;
Natives were not resistant to bacteria like Europeans were. And Europeans were not as resistant to parasites as the natives were. Bacteria spread through America like a wildfire.
Guest;
“The graveyard of [Tisquantum’s] people became Plymouth Colony.”
Massasoit, a local Wampanoag leader, didn’t trust Tisquantum. “He looks at this guy and smells trouble,” Mann said. Massasoit kept Tisquantum under what was essentially house arrest until the Pilgrims showed up and promptly started starving to death.
Patuxet wasn’t the only native village decimated by the plague. The entire Wampanoag confederation had been badly hit — as much as 75 percent of the Wampanoag population was wiped out, Mann said. But the Narragansett, a rival neighboring group, basically weren’t affected by the disease at all. That put the Wampanoag in a precarious strategic position. Massasoit had an idea.
“He decides we’ll ally with these guys, set up a good trading relationship, control supply of English goods, and the Narragansett won’t be able to attack us,” Mann said.
On March 22, 1621, Massasoit went to meet with the Pilgrims. He brought Tisquantum along to translate.
Guest;
If one checked the Catholic records of Mexico you would find millions of deaths recorded during that time.
Guest;
Gerardo de Dominicis you are just plain wrong about the land property customs Up until the Pilgrims, the pattern had been pretty clear. Europeans would show up, and Indians would be interested in their trade goods,
but they were really uninterested in letting [Europeans] permanently occupy land.”
Often, armed native people would even force Europeans to leave if they attempted to stay too long
Guest;
Again NOT true Gerardo de Dominicis Plymouth was a native built and owned village settlement overtaken by the pilgrims