Frank wrote: You mean when JohnUK called me a slammer and primarily a heresy hunter, he meant that? My goodness, how could someone who is filled with such love say that about, Ladybug and I. JohnUK, if you are still reading this thread, please clarify this. I know you never apologized for saying those things to me, but I just thought that perhaps you misspoke.
And of course John UK never does what he now condemns, ahem!
I remember a spat with one Troll Spotter where John and Michael went to town on him and seemed to hound him off the board.
John UK wrote: This is a very clever move, Ahem. Congratulations! If you do not regard me as a Christian brother but a Jesuit troll, that means that you don't have to love me like you love the saints. Yes, I am full of admiration for your tactics. However, the LIVING Lord Jesus is not impressed, and I trust he will have words with you, lest you go down deeper into the pit you are making for yourself. I would not wish to see that happen, because I am filled with joy of the Holy Ghost and desire your blessing and sanctification, even though you would have me separated from my brethren and sisters on this site.
Funny how you use a deplorable tactic and then turn on someone else when they point it out. Real cute!
Obviously, this hyped up holier than thou gives you a real buzz buddy, because you use it at every opportunity to run people down, now even speaking for God himself. Wow! How special are you?
As for your further tripe I think you've damaged your own reputation and don't need help to self destruct, especially when you've got your goad mate to help.
John UK wrote: I realise Ahem has behaved like Joseph's brethren, but then I expect that of him.
Nice tactic learned from the devil viz. label someone to distance yourself and make sure the label is one that the other person you're trying to draw to yourself would not want to associate with so that he distances himself too.
You're beginning to post like a Troll and a Jesuit one at that.
John UK wrote: Ahem, do you see the difference? Brother Saint Michael from across the pond blesses me, and I am blessed. But when I am blessed, you do not rejoice but call me a wiseguy. It's as if you do not like to see people blessed. Is something wrong? If so, why not mention it and we can all pray for you.
Don't you ever tire of your holier than thou tripe?!
Building strawmen arguments, committing logical fallacies, diving down rabbit holes is all you're good for - you and your buddy Michael H. I'm sure I'm not the only one here who doesn't believe a fraction of your self professed love and service to the Savior.
Appears to me that even the sisters on this board have seen through you wise guys.
John UK wrote: To Ahem and Analysis, I am filled with joy of the Holy Ghost.
Another fallacy viz. claiming exclusivity to a blessing and thereby assuming that others do not enjoy this, or that they must be incorrect doctrinally. Mr wiseguy would do well to take a chill pill and step back from the affray to examine himself before his pride cause him a mighty fall.
Anonymous rebel wrote: i visited MBTS a while back, and got to see Spurgeon's library in person. It was quite inspiring I must say. I also must say that, against the rules, I touched Spurgeon's personal study desk. Probably shouldn't have done that, but it's kind of hard not to, you know?
Yes, idolatry affects people in some strange ways.
John UK wrote: A most wonderful thing has been happening. While others have been back and forth with Mr Graham, I have been thinking about the doctrines of John MacArthur and especially his "Lordship Salvation" theory. There was a time when I would have accepted this, but having read through the article I posted about Mr Spurgeon's own testimony, along with subsequent comments from Iain Murray's Banner of Truth book, I am now seeing things differently.
More foolishness from Mr blown about by every wind. Incredible to think that Christ should be accepted as Savior but not Lord. When did he stop being The Lord Jesus Christ?
John UK wrote: ..God has even ensured that the regular preacher could not attend, and arranged for a lay preacher, who could hardly put two words together, to preach the message which resulted in that mighty conversion. Praise the Lord!!!!!!
Nice little dance, which doesn't actually have anything to do with Spurgeon's story. Like many he learned then to come as a child, but not with a childish understanding! Doesn't exactly wash with your no theology gospel. The fact is that in circles where the Bible is properly taught, including in Spurgeon's own church, there are always those who make coming to Christ difficult for themselves because they start thinking of election etc and make that the basis of their action. Spurgeon had been there and so wrote extensively, including writing an entire book viz. "Around the wicket gate" to help those who like him did not understand what it meant to believe and the various problems people have in coming to faith. The answer is not to ditch theology, but explain and apply it, as Spurgeon does in his sermons and other writings. For confirmation of all this I refer you to his autobiography. Anyways, I'm done with the foolishness being displayed here. You can have your free parting shot in favor of BG.
John UK wrote: Alas, yes. But hey, if you can get sinners to read the great Puritan tomes, and listen to lengthy sermons, go for it, and let me know how you get on. You may find it harder than you think.
Who mentioned referring them to the Puritan tomes or subjecting them to lengthy sermons?
Your cheap justification of your ecumenism is noted. How long before yours turns, like Graham's, to Rome?
What about your elder preaching the gospel? I mean distinctly evangelistic messages like the ones which we've been referred to at the Met Tab? Or is it beneath him?
John UK wrote: This is my real world. What's your's?
Sure I'm ignorant. Make you feel even better? Keep up the insults. We've come to expect them. I've already answered your question and it's a far cry from Spurgeon's day. If Spurgeon preached theological gospel messages, how much more do we need them today, instead of the dumbed down Graham gospel? I'll take Spurgeon over Graham any day!
John UK wrote: Alas, Ahem, you missed the main point. I purposely put in (PLEASE NOTE) for the benefit of D who is convinced that the new birth comes without anything. But our dear brother, in his account of his conversion, which I found to be most thrilling and worth talking about, was in turmoil BEFORE he ever understood the SIMPLE command of God: "Look unto me". So much for all his theological training earlier in his life. Maybe we should have more simple gospel presentations, if we make things so complex we MISS THE MAIN POINT. Now read the article again, and read it for joy, instead of a means to attack me. It will do you better spiritually.
Why do you assume I don't rejoice at Spurgeon's conversion? Makes you feel superior?
He knew a great deal and this showed him how far he fell short. God used it to work deep conviction of sin in him. Do you suppose that the Methodist's message would have meant anything to him without such conviction? You're grasping at straws to justify your gospel absent of all doctrine position.
John UK wrote: Read the rest of Charles Spurgeon's testimony and subsequent comments and an example of Spurgeon's own gospel preaching. This is great stuff! http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/helpseek/spurgeon.htm
What knowledge did he have already of the gospel? His grandfather and father were both ministers, and his dear mom spoke affectionately to him of the things of the Lord and wept for her unconverted son. He was no theological ignorant. If you read his autobiography you'll see he grew up reading and admiring the great Puritan tomes in his grandfather's library! If you preached that same message to someone who is completely ignorant of the bible and Christianity, are you seriously telling me you'd expect a conversion? Boy you're really messed up. In case it passed you by, we're living in a post Christian world where the majority don't even have the benefit of a basic Sunday School education! You claim to live in the real world, and use that to insult those who you can't agree with. In reality you deny the very gospel to the people because they need greater light than you're prepared to give them for fear of being too theological.
s c wrote: Unprofitable, many like to be selective in the questions to which they respond. And, if they cannot answer them, they will either move on to another topic, put words in your mouth, pull things out of context or offer up some emotionally manipulative dissertation. If some of your questions are not answered,it's probably because some cannot give a reasonable answer to them.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: What I am saying and the question you chose not to answer on my example of Paul, is where do you see the necessity of an unbeliever to have to believe all the truths of Scripture in order to repent and believe? That borders on a works salvation. Maybe my understanding of what you are saying is wrong.
Preaching the gospel is preaching a specific set of doctrines, no? I've shortened these to Christ and his work, specifically his cross work. But, this means the man on the street has to understand that Christ is God incarnate, what this means, why he had to come etc Also, given today's ignorance on things biblical can one safely preach even these specific doctrines without the backcloth of the fall, man's inability to please God, God's holiness and righteous anger etc ? In other words the alternatives are that we preach, persuade and beseech based on a full orbed gospel of the grace and mercy of God in Jesus Christ or rely on a defective works based gospel such as BG's at which not even a Roman Catholic can take offense.