SITE NOTICE | MORE..$1 Signup Sale! For a limited time, your church can begin broadcasting on SermonAudio today for only $1 in setup charges (normally, $150). Get on the map + mobile and join the largest, conservative sermon movement on the web!
Christopher000 wrote: Steve, I wish you'd give US a big break. You know he is a great guy; never having said an improper word to anyone until you began hitting hard in response to polite posts. He tries to help John Y with the truth using nothing but the Bible; no opinions, and in response, you accuse him of hatred. You bring out the worst in him when I know that he would prefer to have a simple, civil conversation. I really don't get it because you know the Roman system is bursting with fatal doctrines and rituals, yet you fight against those who expose them using God's own words. I remember you, youself, recommending that John Y move on to a church that doesn't add to or subtract from the Bible, etc, so I don't understand the incessant defense of a system whose own manmade doctrines and dogmas trump the very word of God.
Steve is still receiving treatment for his pathological hatred of God's true people. In the meantime please note that he just cannot help himself. So, please be patient with him.
SteveR wrote: Its not just 'look' or 'hear' me but its ACCEPT me. FB people have a huge desire to be accepted, in exchange they have shown willingness to 'like' issues to be accepted by their peers. The Gay and Lesbian community has harnessed social media to promote their agenda, while conservatives have used it mainly to promote things like gun rights. I have no doubt that people become more like their FB friends, and why that correlation has led to credit companies to use the resource. People will not only accept the values of their friends, they will become more like them. As for Chris, it seems he doesnt have a Church home to appreciate the spiritual analogy used. Maybe he has one and doesnt want to talk or ask questions openly here? I understand that, because he could never find a Church home that would match the Frankenstein combination of 'Christian values' expressed on this board
But you are happy being a RCC troll supposedly worshipping in a Protestant church?
Dorcas wrote: To US from Georgia, I have been reading posts and commenting from time to time on this board for a year. Your comments have always been most scriptural and respectful to others. The individual who posts here has not followed that path....I myself have been reviled as others have by his rhetoric. Haven't seen much grace or the love of others exhibited by him. My 2 cents on this subject.
He bears his father's image, but confuses him for the God of the Bible. What a terrible delusion!
bac2reality wrote: Where in the Word of God do you get the instructions to ditch the Word of God praise, and look to man the sinner for the alternative. I can see you hymn singers really enjoy the entertainment value of the music and lyrics of hymns. So much so that you can cast away God's Holy work of praise the Psalms. That is blasphemous idolatry. Obviously you greatly esteem and covet this work of sinners .... "Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." Luke 16:15. You ditch the inspired praise book which God has ordained for His Church and make up songs from other books when God has NOT commanded this. Ups you claim to have looked in my posts for supportive text of Scripture. YET you blatantly reject the entire Book of Psalms ordained by God for the very purpose of His worship and praise. Isn't that hypocrisy? _________ Lurker I see you are covetous of the composition of sinners over God's inspired praise too. _________ btw I've been reading an interesting article which demonstrates how immersionism is of papist origin.
Me thinks this ignorant person reads too much Presby literature and not enough Bible.
Didactic wrote: The Meaning of Baptism Quote; "Here our concern is with the word baptizein, the Greek word usually translated in the New Testament as "to baptize." With the rise of the Anabaptists, this word also became a subject of debate."
John Yurich USA wrote: Catholics are not infidels and unbelievers because they worship Jesus as God. Unbelievers and infidels don't worship Jesus as God. Catholics are against abortion just like Evangelical Protestants are.
Catholics emphatically DO NOT worship the Jesus of the Bible. If you had read your Bible, you would have known this.
But then you have no spiritual life, comprehension or logic, so it's no surprise that you struggle so with these issues.
Excellent Sermon!!! It is so refreshing to hear a sermon, not focused on Christianity but on Christ Himself who is so worthy of our seeking to know Him better! Brethren in Christ, I'm excited for you to hear this too. Christ is our all in all, let us seek Him for who He is! To know Him better, more thoroughly is everything!!
JD wrote: I am hitting the humanistic doctrines of the reformed hard today. Take heed. Repent. Believe the gospel. Jesus is coming again soon. You do not have much time. Salavtion is not by Jesus Christ plus election, it is by Jesus Christ plus nothing. Consider your soul! Jesus will save everyone who will trust in him. Call upon him today. He will save you, dear friend! He died for you so you could have eternal life as a gift.
Query wrote: ...Try this: Nehemiah 9:7 Thou art the LORD the God, ****who didst choose Abram***, and broughtest him forth out of Ur of the Chaldees, and gavest him the name of Abraham.. ....
Another good example to demonstrate how by restricting people to the "immediate context" rule WOMI tries to limit and undermine the teaching of scripture!
We had better stick to the scriptural rule of comparing spiritual things with spritual, because whilst the immediate context is important, it is not the end of exegesis - it is only a starting point. The scriptural rule forces us to look at God's mind and his revelation in other places so that we get a truer and broader picture.
The vain hope is that enough examples like this one may force the dud scud to abandon his methodology and adopt the scriptural one!
Mike wrote: Patrick, you might want to reconsider. There are many monikers also used here by those of the Reformed tradition. Quite often many monikers are used by a few posters, that it appear the Reformed carry much weight. No one is calling for their banning, in spite of how they impersonate and support "each other"
Mike wrote: ....The Darwinian, because of his stand, and if he were honest, would conclude that self sacrifice should lead to extinction, or at least a degeneration of the species. But of course he doesn't. Why is that?
Please don't give them ideas!
They struggle to explain why despite this wonderful and mysterious organising principle latent in matter called "evolution" people are as bad as they are, when they are supposed to be getting better and better - The ascent of man and all that...
And there you go giving them a plausible explanation which fits right in with their God forsaken beliefs!
Lance Eccles wrote: ...The infallible statements from the Pope are not just things he decides on the spur of the moment, they are usually the result of centuries of discussions by bishops and theologians. He needs a lot of cooperation. ...
That must be why historically the Popes have contradicted each other
Sir Straightforward wrote: I think this idea comes from Pragmatism 6:45, which says, "Thou shalt do silly things and attribute them to Jesus."
It would be the book of Pragmatism if it could be shown to work. But where is the proof? All past attempts to change society through political/economic means have failed and my book of pragmatism tells me that this is doomed to failure too!
BUT even more importantly the Bible tells me that Christians should have no part in such schemes to control the ungodly. If the preaching of the Gospel, which is "...the power of God unto salvation...", does not change people for the better (even if they remain unconverted) then what hope is there that any man devised scheme can do any better?
R. K. Borill wrote: ... However, I do not believe that a non-covenantal Baptist with an agenda is going to give the unbiased objective side of the doctrine of the Covenant. ...
Who says he is non-covenantal? Presumably you have read this in one of his works. Can you please provide references? Which of his works have you read?
And of course being a Baptist he must necessarily have an agenda. Presbys are the only ones who can approach the scriptures with any degree of impartiality!
Why don't you listen to the messages first and then come back and convince us all why you think he is towing a party line and not expounding the scriptures faithfully (as you first suspected, because no Baptist can ever do that! )
Very rarely do we come across a teaching series that deals with a profound subject matter with such consummate skill and ease as to make it understandable by the most uneducated. But one such series has been presented by Dr Peter Masters of the Metropolitan Tabernacle, London (also known as Spurgeon's Tabernacle - i.e. the church of which Spurgeon was a pastor) on the subject of the Covenants. This presents a contrast of the Preby and Baptist views. This is a ABSOLUTELY MUST HEAR series!!
These wonderful messages can be downloaded in zipped format at the following links: