Michael Hranek wrote: John UK Again, I will say it this way, it saddens me that some are just not getting it. This imho "one eyed" refusal to listen and honestly think through all that is going on and involved reminds of a quote by Golda Meir: "Peace will come when they love their children more than they hate us." At the moment Brother Saint some seem to have such an entrenced animosity towards BG and the RCC (both of which we would say are wrong, the RCC in its Idolatry and BG in his ecumenism) that they refuse to consider the genuine new believer involved, even if they are a tiny remnant indeed. Imho even Ian Paisley who is famous for being outspoken against the RCC and BG didn't seem to be this hostile
Okay Michael, let's consider the new converts from BG crusades or from Kenneth Copelands messages. They are most blessed indeed and they have their sins forgiven and eternal life with our blessed Savior and Lord. What a wonderful thing it is for someone to repent and come to the living Lord and Savior and have all their sins forgiven.
Now after that is said and I meant that sincerely, they should then come out from apostate religions, like mormonism or catholicism. And they should never be told to return to them. I have two eyes.
Dorcas wrote: Well Frank, here we go again down rabbit tails and building up strawmen, now we are looked at as a 'lynch mob' because we won't stand with BG and his his false RC ecumenical method of drawing sinners to Christ. Unbelievable ... Yes it has been quite enlightening to say the least.
Me neither sister and I fully understand. They are simply changing the discussion and they don't even realize they are doing it apparently. They remind me of Jim from Lincoln saying he is an independent and yet everything he says is that of a democrat. BG is an ecuminist and a lover of Rome and yet his ministry is okay, well not really okay and on and on it goes. Many people have claimed salvation through Benny Hinn's ministry, but then ... I will end my thoughts by saying this; BG's ministry was based upon false doctrine, namely he is a clear ecumenist and a clear follower of Rome. I can take Rick Warren out of context and come up with the same silly arguments to support him; well not really support him I could care less whether God used BG to convert folks; that is between BG and God. And, I could care less whether He used Kenneth Copeland or Benny Hinn.
Now they even want to discuss my 4 point calvinism.
John UK wrote: Dear Frank, these are terrible words, brother. The Lord Jesus is receiving sinners to himself, all over the world, through so many different ways that it would be impossible to list them all here; receiving sinners, that is, those for whom he died and rose again, he is seeing of the travail of his soul and shall be satisfied, he calls them lovingly and powerfully, he has loved them with an everlasting love, and they are our brothers and sisters throughout the world, but because they were converted at a crusade meeting, you don't really care less, you would try to persuade them to "deny that heretic" in the pulpit through whom Jesus called them????????!!!!!! Try giving them a hug and exclaiming, "Praise God! Another trophy of God's grace! Another brand plucked from the burning!" Has Christianity become so cold to you, that you are hardened to the feelings of your brethren and sisters who are truly converted? Maybe we should look at what true conversion is, and what it is not?
Well Pilgrim, you have now stepped over the line. My comment about caring less only concerned itself with BG crusades and not those who were converted. Your opinion of me speaks volumes. No response is necessary. I do forgive you though!
Michael Hranek wrote: Frank I hope you comprehend (go back and read carefully) neither John UK nor myself promote the pro-RCC, ecumenical BG. He is wrong, we don't attend, endorse or encourage anyone to attend his crusades in the least. Personally I was in the face (literally) of the local prime player who brought Franklin Graham to our area telling him he was wrong to do so over the BGEA participation with endorsement of Roman Catholicsm. __ was enraged. My "stand", what I object to, my precious brother in Wales may state his differently, but what I object to is a "lynch mob mentality" against BG and those who do endorse him, invite him to crusade/celebrate/put on a big ecumenical religious show (Why, Even the heretic Benny Hinn, AND Hyper-Whatevers do not deserve that) Expose such as Kenneth Copeland and events such as 'laughing revivals' in the fear of the Lord, absolutely. Lynch them? No! And that hopefully ought to be entirely sufficient for our brothers and sisters
Well separation from and strong reproving are not what I would call a lynch mob mentality. And why would you lynch those others and not BG? Yes Michael, the problem is I do comprehend. Why not just stay with my post and argue it? Deal with Ro. 3:8.
ladybug wrote: well said Frank, your comment stops this merry-go-round, rabbit trail, continual back and forth debate dead in its tracks.
Thanks ladybug and dorcas! I am completely bewildered how these folks can say what they are saying. When confronted by doing evil (BG's crusades) so that good could come (those who were converted through them) Paul said this:
Rom 3:8 And not [rather], (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.
And yet, they can somehow defend BG by saying folks were saved through his heresy; therefore it was okay. Nothing and I mean absolutely nothing supports their pick and choose thoughts.
But, I thank God for this discussion because it has been a learning experience for me; that is for sure.
This debate appears to be between some level of Calvinism versus some level of Arminianism. My theology would be strongly in favor of a level of Calvinism and election, but no limited atonement. Now other than sharing that with the Arminians, theologically I am separate from them. Now when I witness to someone or for that matter conduct most of the affairs of life, I do that primarily with Arminian principles; such as when I witness, the thought never enters my mind as to whether or not this person is one of Godâ€™s elect or not. That is His responsibility, not mine; He says to go into all the world and proclaim the gospel as we all know. If the person isn't motivated by my witness, that doesn't mean this person is or is not part of the elect, and like an Arminian, I would agonize for this lost soul. Now Godâ€™s commandments to us are His revealed will, Deu. 29:29 and those things are the only things I am responsible for. With that thought in mind, I am strongly against BG and his crusades and I could care less whether God used him to bring folks to Christ or not. BG is ecumenical and pro RCC; that is enough for me and should be enough for any believer. Those supporting BG are using a non-Christian greater good concept; not 2 Cor. 6:17. God doesn't need our sinning.
James Thomas wrote: Fellow Floridian Frank, I appreciate your comments here on the forum. Blessings to you! I would have a question on your post in relation to the verse below. Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, â€śThe kingdom of God is not coming in ways that can be observed, (Luke 17:20 ESV) I can observe that piece of land if I were to fly over there. So you know....I am not attempting to defending RT with my question.
Thanks fellow Floridian for your comment. When I connect verse 21 with yours I would say that Christ was telling them that â€śHeâ€ť was the kingdom and if they had Him, then they were in a sense already in the kingdom of God. In other words, He wasnâ€™t, at that time, going to set up a literal kingdom. He resided in some of them, so they in that sense already had the kingdom. The Jews, to include His disciples, thought that when the Christ came into the world, He would set up a literal kingdom at that time.
Luke 17:20 Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed,21nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or 'There!' for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you."
Chris, I understand your thoughts about this issue. Clearly they are trying to get society "and the church" to accept homosexuality and homosexual marriage.
Now I don't mind someone telling me that I shouldn't discriminate against them, but when they tell me I can't speak out against them or tell them they will face God's wrath unless they repent and believe, then they have gone too far. They are defining discrimination to suit them and are in effect discriminating against me.
But, I thank God that I am a stranger and a pilgrim in this world and it is only a passing puff of smoke until I am in my final home where none of these things will ever be an issue.
Anyway, there is no sin that I can think of that destroys a society more than homosexuality or perhaps abortion.
s c wrote: Furtick of Elevation church calls Christians "haters". We are haters of the world; if he would care to crack open the Bible, he would find that God is too. And he might want to consider that those who were building the Tower of Babel were seeking to "elevate" themselves as well. That didn't work out either.The higher the horse,the further the fall. He would do well to get off his.
Agree SC with your thoughts. If won't be long until it will be illegal to be a practicing biblical Christian.
 Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you [from their company], and shall reproach [you], and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake. (Luk 6:22 KJV)
 He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both [are] abomination to the LORD. (Pro 17:15 KJV)
 The sacrifice of the wicked [is] abomination: how much more, [when] he bringeth it with a wicked mind? (Pro 21:27 KJV)
 He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer [shall be] abomination. (Pro 28:9 KJV)
Helen wrote: So I am a "terrorist"because I believe the jews are entitled to their land...? Make no sense to me at all. I have it my bible and I do NOT agree with replacement theology which I think is unbiblical. And yes, I have heard all the arguments and cutting from bible verses and their allegorrising from this camp. Don't bother remind me. It's a blessing to see God's tremendous promise being fullfilled through that nation Israel and even though they live in a great fall away nowadays God will save them through Jesus in the days to come. If you can get this, it's only by the Holy Spirit... A true gift, a Grace from your heavenly Father. Blessings to all who read this and Merry Christmas Helen
Helen, I agree with your comment about the Jewish homeland. God brought them back and no one will ever remove them again from the land that God promised them. When Christ returns, He will set up His kingdom there and all of the remnant of the Jews will be saved. Replacement theology is wrong.
Michael Hranek wrote: Brother Saint John UK Wales Scripture tells us clearly: He (or she) who has the Son has life.
Why would you think it necessary to add (or she) to your comment. I have never heard anyone on this forum that would say salvation was only for males. It would appear you are trying to be politically correct? Anyway, scripture teaches that for salvation purposes, there are neither males nor females; only sinners that need and receive the grace of our Lord and Savior. And of course men and women are spiritually equal in God's eyes.
Sorry brother I was just stopping by the thread and couldn't resist.
Anne wrote: Dorcas, I often read through SA's news and comments but, honestly, it's near the end of my day and by that point I pray for many posters but don't have it in me to comment. My neighbor is showing the amazing strength God only can provide. She watches her husband tear at her through the kids - oh, the manipulation - but returns it with grace. Actually, it's me who's been blessed! I can offer her little more than prayer; but isn't that everything!
Anne, I can't imagine the emotional turmoil this lady must be going through. She is to obey her husband as unto the Lord, but she has to decipher what that means when her husband is trying to lead her away from the Lord. In other words, she has to obey the Lord first and foremost when there is a conflict of interest. Anyway, I will pray for her right now. I agree with you about prayer. We have access to the Creator of the entire universe and He is our Father and King. And, He has an open door policy. Thanks for bringing this up for the rest of us. We will now see how the Lord deals with this.
Fearneby wrote: God will not use women in the pulpit therefore all that the Anglican congregations will get from those whom God will not use, (male or female) is humanistic religious empty words. But that suits the Liberals. Christians don't even go there because they hear the Word of God and obey. Because of the worldly destruction of family, marriage and the roles of men and women in marriage the false church confuses the Scripture precepts. This demonstrates the Anglican church is of the world - And NOT of Christ. 11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. 1Tim.2.
I agree fully with you. I also note that Paul mentioned Eve being deceived thousands of years after that deception being noted as one of the reasons for women should not teach. I personally believe that women are still more prone to deception and that is why they can't be teachers.
1517 wrote: Frank, The AFA is an overt political organization. Loose theology, but tight conservative politicking is my assessment of them.
Thanks! I knew nothing abour the AFA, but I'm sure you are correct. Well I agree with you that their theology is probably pretty loose since they invited a RC to their prayer meeting. That is unless Jindal was first converted at a Billy Graham crusade.
My first thought is why would they want this fellow at a prayer service? The below is a little of his history from the internet. He does appear to be a "political" conservative though.
Jindal was raised in a Hindu household, but he converted to Christianity while in Baton Rouge Magnet High School. During his first year at Brown University, he was received into the Roman Catholic Church. His family attends weekly Mass at Saint Aloysius Parish in Baton Rouge.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: People I am stepping away from SermonAudio for a time for personal reasons. I want thank all the godly brothers and sisters for their fellowship in the gospel and all the blessing they have been to me. God bless, Unprofitable Servant.
I agree with the others. You are an encouragement to all the brothers and sisters and your wisdom is appreciated. If you ever need anything, just holler.
Head Man wrote: Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
Of course the above is well said. I have pondered who the antichrist is, like most of us have done. It is okay to ponder. I think the antichrist will be a secular muslim, the false prophet is "who knows", maybe someone from the far east? and the great whore that drives the movement will be the pope or the vatican if you like. I am pretty flexible in all of this except the part that Rome will play. They are the great whore.
I am glad they posted this article because many don't know just how repressive the Saudi regime is. Bibles and Christianity have long been banned from their country.
One thing for sure is these Christ hating Muslims are serious about their faith, but seriously wrong. Come Lord Jesus come quickly.
Cody wrote: John Yurich , Jow do you know what is in the bible? You are catholic yall aren't supposed to read the bible only the priest. The reason for that is so the people will stay dumb in the scripture and not know whats biblical and what isn't
Cody, I remember debating one time with a real catholic apologist, yes they do exist, and I asked this fellow why they put to death all those who wanted the scriptures in their own languages. His response was because people are ignorant and they would have interpreted it wrong. Amazing. He also told me that because I understood RC and rejected it after being baptized and confirmed in the RCC, that I had excommunicated myself and was forever damned. That is one of the most blessed things that anyone has ever said to me. They are like the Muslims; say a few magic words and you belong to them. Anyway, since the bible is now available in all languages, they allow their followers to read it, but they can't disagree with what the pope and his council say it means.
So there is a fine line now; they can read the scriptures because the RCC can't stop that, but they can't go against the established teaching of their satanic cult. ALL CULTS ARE THE SAME IN THAT RESPECT.
All you had to do was to sort of deny election and the total and complete sovereignty of God without really denying it and your comment would have been acceptable. In other words, it is okay to use the term God elects, but unless you do it in a way that denies what you just said, folks will disagree with you. You have to learn to say something without really believing what you are saying and saying it in a way that denies what you just said. You need to be more of a politician, in my opinion. But, you are trying to give all the glory to our Lord and Savior and that is clear to me. Others want to share in that glory and it won't work.
Oh, you are off ignore unless you disagree with me on an issue.
John UK, I disagree with the way you presented the gospel to that lady.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: tne man is innocent until proven guilty, but if Drudge is correct then he should resign, or if he does not then his party should replace him as speaker (should have happened long ago) Not holding my breath for either one to take place. Also, don't have to spend time criticizing Republicans, our "independent" who favors the godless democrats (hey it was their convention) will do so.
Well said brother, well said. And of course Boehner and Nancy what's her name, both nominated a Jesuit priest as the house chaplain.
Cezar, our constitution has no religious or moral test. The supreme court has ruled that abortion is legal and that homosexual marriage is up for grabs, so how does one of those politicians in the constitution party take an oath to obey our current laws, and then really try to undo them. Wouldn't that be taking an oath to not obey God?