members, click to sign in..

6,015 active users!!Bandwidth
FRIDAY
OCT 31, 2014
Home
NewsSITE
Events & Blogs
New Audio & Video
BroadcastersNew Stuff!
Local Church Finder
Webcast LIVE NOW!
Sermons by Bible
Sermons by Topic
Sermons by Speaker
Sermons by Date
Staff Picks
CommentsALL -14 min
Top Sermons
VideosPDFs
Daily Log
PhotosNew Stuff!
Stores
Online Bible
Hymnal
Daily Reading
Our Services
Submit Sermon
Members Only

 
USER COMMENTS BY “ HELPS ”
All Comments
All Types Sermons News Blogs Events Store
RECENTLY-COMMENTED SERMONS | MoreLast PostTotal
Sermon Abraham, watching and waiting | Pastor Chalan Hetherington
B.McCausland
"A wholesome and edifying word.Thanks"
-5 hrs 
Sermon Is This The Thanks He Gets | Pastor Mike Richter
Jeanette davis from iowa
-5 hrs 
Sermon Imprecatory Praying - Part 1 | John Weaver
Grateful from City of the Great King
-6 hrs 
· Page 1 ·  Found: 150 user comments posted recently.
News Item10/29/14 4:16 PM
Helps | UK  Find all comments by Helps
• Posted 48 hours ago
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
70
comments
The Change to Sunday

.... John 20.1 we find guidance on whether the Christian sabbath should be the seventh day or the first day of the week. The answer of all but a very small minority of Christians down the centuries has been – the first day. The authority for this is the example of the church of the New Testament, which was no doubt commanded by God, through the apostles. The special day for Christians was distinguished from the Jewish sabbath, and set on the day of Christ’s resurrection.

The Lord rose from the dead on the first day of the week, and in John 20.19 and 26 we observe that other appearances of the resurrected Lord were also on subsequent first days. Verse 19 reads – ‘Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst.’ He stands amidst his people, and pronounces his peace upon them, on what came to be called, 'the Lord’s Day'.

Verse 26 reads: 'And after eight days again?.?.?.?then came Jesus.' We would say after seven days, but the Jews started counting on the first day and finished counting on the last day and so they made seven, eight. The text intends to tell us that the Lord appeared the very next Sunday....

more..


News Item10/29/14 9:29 AM
Helps | UK  Find all comments by Helps
• Posted 55 hours ago
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
70
comments
There is an excellent article on the Lord's Day at the Met Tab website:

Remember the Lord's Day

Well worth a read to help your considerations.


News Item10/23/14 8:32 AM
Helps | UK  Find all comments by Helps
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
12
comments
Christopher000 wrote:
I can understand someone who doesn't really believe and wanting to make a quick buck, but it's always hard for me to believe that any born again Christian would relate and promote such storys if they weren't accurate and true.
We have to question the legitimacy of most of these experiences.

The apostle Paul had a genuine experience, but just look at 2 Corinthians 12 and see how Paul dealt with his experience. What he heard were unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter (v4). What he saw, he'd rather not say in case anyone thought too highly of him (v6), and in case he was tempted to think too highly of himself the Lord gave him something to keep him humble (v7).

If we accept the apostle as a pattern then this is how we'd expect anyone granted a special vision/revelation to be dealt with by the Lord and how we'd expect them to deal with their experience. If they proclaim it from the roof tops and try and make money from writing books etc, we have to wonder about their motives if not the genuineness of their experience. And you already know, even from those on SA, that not every person who claims to be a Christian is one.


News Item10/21/14 1:05 PM
Helps | UK  Find all comments by Helps
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
136
comments
SteveR wrote:
Ye know not the Scriptures
Cyrus was a type of Christ, Jonah was a type, Melchizedek, Joseph too even the Brass Serpent destroyed by Hezekiah was a type of Christ....
Actually you are the ignorant one. You cannot just pull Types out of thin air. I suggest you study the subject in detail before pontificating.

Also, the king in the book of Esther is Ahasuerus, not Cyrus!

As for Ahasuerus, Bishop Hall writes:

"In all the carriage of Ahasuerus, who sees not too much headiness of passion ? Vashti is cast off for a trifle ; the Jews are given to the slaughter for nothing : his rage in the one, his favour in the other, is too impotent. He is not a worse husband than a king : the bare word of Haman is enough to kill so many subjects. No disposition can be more dangerous in great persons, than violence of affection mixed with credulity. The seeming inequality of human conditions! “The king and Haman sat down to drink, but the city of Shushan was perplexed.” It is a woeful thing to see great ones quaff the tears of the oppressed, and to hear them make music of shrieks."

Hardly a type of Christ!!


News Item10/15/14 5:38 PM
Helps | UK  Find all comments by Helps
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
136
comments
John UK wrote:
Bro, I am limited in what I can read and listen to. I've no doubt Dr Masters will have some good things to say.
Both Frank and Unprofitable Servant have got straight to the heart of what I was saying - it is a matter of the heart not the actions.......
No doubt bro, but that does not and cannot counter those who say that they should have choirs, bands, electric guitars, CCM etc, in church because for them (so they claim) it does not distract from the heart being engaged in worship. To them the so called worship wars are all about personal preference, and preferred music styles and nothing to do with the Lord's standards and requirements.

Anyways, as I said, I was only trying to be a help.

Lord bless bro.


News Item10/15/14 5:04 PM
Helps | UK  Find all comments by Helps
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
136
comments
John UK wrote:
I rather fear, bro, that it would end up too intellectual.
Brother John, you should know by now that in his public ministry Dr Masters does not do 'intellectual' but rather 'biblical' and practical. Dr Masters preached and then wrote a number of articles which later became a book which was entitled "Worship in the Melting pot". The first 4 articles are on the Met Tab website. The fifth I can't find in print but happened to come across the YouTube recording of his sermon which covers the ground of the fifth chapter. In this sermon he looks at the biblical evidence for what constitutes worship and how so much of what passes for worship is anything but. I appreciate it is an imposition on your precious time, but I was trying to be helpful in pointing to the sermon in the hope that it might offer some much needed clarity on the issue. It was not my intention to press the issue, but rather that it may make a contribution to the debate. Alas....it's not to be.

News Item10/15/14 4:05 PM
Helps | UK  Find all comments by Helps
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
136
comments
John UK wrote:
Well bro, you know what it's like. A teacher of Israel was once told, "Ye must be born again" and he had not a clue what the Lord was saying to him.
Now how are you going to define "worship"? Can it be defined, or is it something so deeply spiritual and heartfelt that it cannot be described?
Five people are in a church, two are weeping, one has his arms in the air and is expressionless, a woman is singing with a big smile on her face, and one is mouthing words but no sound comes out. So which one is worshipping?
p.s. This is not a trick question.
For clarity of thought we need definitions. When is prayer prayer and not worship or is all prayer worship? Is groaning worship? How would we know, if first we didn't seek to discover from the bible what is meant by worship? We want to be biblical but without biblical definitions?

Hence my gentle encouragement to hear the sermon first and then to discuss.


News Item10/15/14 3:21 PM
Helps | UK  Find all comments by Helps
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
136
comments
John UK wrote:
Which, being interpreted, means, "I don't agree with your rather mystical, experiential description of worship, so why not listen to the good Dr and get straightened out on what true worship is."
Now you're putting words in my mouth.

News Item10/15/14 2:26 PM
Helps | UK  Find all comments by Helps
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
136
comments
John UK wrote:
God bless you, bro!
There are countless people in the world who have a little part of their house to be like an altar, and when they go there to worship, they light a couple of candles and go through their daily office, looking upon a crucifix or statue of Mary or a photo of the current pope, and they say the Lord's Prayer, recite a creed, do their rosary thing, and they have been told it is worship of God.
When I was born again, I didn't need anyone to tell me what worship of God is, for the Lord Jesus Christ made me a worshipper of God, knowing that the deepest worship of all comes in the silence, with heart prostrated before the Majesty in Heaven, receiving life from the True Vine, energised by the Holy Ghost, trembling before the Mercy Seat sprinkled with blood of the Lamb, going within the veil into the Holy of Holies, looking upon the Great Spirit in admiration and thankfulness and joy and fear.
Be interested on your thoughts on Dr Masters' sermon.

Every blessing.


News Item10/15/14 1:30 PM
Helps | UK  Find all comments by Helps
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
136
comments
John UK wrote:
I'm surprised no-one has differentiated between the affections and the emotions; there is the source of the problem.
Psalms only - no music?
Ahem, check out the psalmist himself.
That is definitely one part of the problem. The more basic problem however is that no one is defining what the bible means by 'worship'. Which is why I posted up Dr Master's sermon on how God defines 'worship'.

God bless.

Ladybug - great quote from Spurgeon. Spot on!


News Item10/15/14 9:56 AM
Helps | UK  Find all comments by Helps
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
136
comments
Mike wrote:
How does one experience awe, minus the experience or the senses? Could you describe it? I did read the article. Perhaps too quickly, for I found no condemnation of music as such.
He did say this:
"We cannot worship God with our eyes and ears, or nose and hands, for they are “flesh” not “spirit.” “Must worship in spirit and in truth” excludes everything that is of the natural man."
Way too general. Should we assume he never participated in corporate worship? Did he not see anything? Hear anything?
What I find in Pink's writing that is agreeable is, he recognizes that worship is a heart matter, and not the externals people assume are worship. The condition of the heart determines whether that which is done is worship, and only the regenerate can do so.
The following may help:

Peter Masters - Let God define worship


News Item10/13/14 6:10 PM
Helps | UK  Find all comments by Helps
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
280
comments
Brother Lurker

He continues:

"...Had this lion set upon the prophet for hunger, why did he not devour, as well as kill him? ...Since we know the nature of the lion such, that he is not wont to assail man, save in the extreme want of other prey. Certainly the same power that employed those fangs restrained them, that the world might see it was not appetite that provoked the beast to this violence, but the overruling command of God. Even so, O Lord! thy powerful hand is over that roaring lion, that goes about continually seeking whom he may devour : thine hand withholds him, that though he may shed the blood of thine elect, yet he cannot hurt their souls ; and while he doth those things which thou permittest and orderest, to thy just ends, yet he cannot do lesser things which he desireth, and thou permittest not...."

Bishop Hall

His contemplations on the Old and New Testament are overflowing with pithy and unusual observations such as you will not find anywhere else. I highly recommend that work to anyone interested. It is THE single best commentary I have ever encountered.


News Item10/13/14 5:45 PM
Helps | UK  Find all comments by Helps
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
280
comments
Brother Lurker

You may enjoy the following quote and especially its application to SteveR's beloved RCC and the Anabaptists

"..Violent events do not always argue the anger of God ; even death itself is to his servants a fatherly castigation.

But, O the unsearchable ways of the Almighty! The man of God sins, and dies speedily : the lying prophet that seduced him survives ; yea, wicked Jeroboam enjoys his idolatry, and treads upon the grave of his reprover. There is neither favour in the delay of stripes, nor displeasure in the haste ; rather whom God loves he chastises, as sharply, so speedily, while the rest prospers to condemnation : even the rod of a loving father may draw blood. How much happier is it for us, that we die now, to live for ever, than that we live a while, to die for ever!"

Bishop Hall


News Item10/13/14 4:31 PM
Helps | UK  Find all comments by Helps
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
26
comments
SteveR wrote:
..wicked act of self styled Christians ....the spirit of the anabaptists
Shameless lies by an RCC protagonist to libel the poor Anabaptists.

If you want facts, don't believe anything SteveR posts. Do your own research. Here are a few links which completely demolish the lies posted by him.

In our time - Dicussing The Taiping Rebellion

Britannica on the Rebellion

Note especially: "Taiping Christianity placed little emphasis on New Testament ideas of kindness, forgiveness, and redemption. Rather it emphasized the wrathful Old Testament God who demanded worship and obedience." This is more akin to Presbyterian Dominionism.

Wikipedia on the Rebellion

Note particularly the paragraph commencing, "At the age of thirty-seven...." If true, it would appear that Hong had his delirious visions before he ever read anything Christian!

Finally, The American Baptist and Hong

Roberts refused to baptise Hong and disowned his version of the faith.


News Item10/8/14 6:14 PM
Helps | UK  Find all comments by Helps
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
106
comments
Unprofitable Servant wrote:

the art of teaching, going from the known to the unknown.
...Thanks again for all the helpful posts you put out.
Brother UPS

You are a gracious man, and I thank you for the interaction. I always appreciate your posts, even if sometimes I disagree with them. You bring great value to this website, and I for one am glad to make your acquaintance.

I do hope that you appreciate that I was not trying to point score, but genuinely trying to understand your hermeneutic in respect of the first ever prophecy recorded in the Bible.

The principle that I discern in the interpretation of that prophecy I believe can be applied to much of the prophetic genre. So we know from the passage that Christ was to be a man (the seed of the woman), and hence we see the incarnation. We also know that he was to engage in battle against Satan, that serpent, and be the victor, albeit that in the process he would be wounded, intimating that Christ must suffer etc.

As you say, we must let the word of Christ dwell in us richly in all wisdom. May the Lord help us all to know the depths of the riches that are laid up for our blessings.

Every blessing to you.


News Item10/8/14 3:53 PM
Helps | UK  Find all comments by Helps
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
106
comments
Unprofitable Servant wrote:
The passage in Genesis talks about the seed of the women. Eve certainly took it literally when she had Seth. If something is stated figuratively, we take it figuratively. I don't see that as inconsistent with a literal approach.
Thank you for clarifying that "literal" does not mean a literal face value, or carnal interpretation. I also accept that figurative language may be used to describe literal events.

However, even given all you say, I cannot see how the use of the word "seed" should prompt you to read Gen 3:15 in a figurative way. With the benefit of hindsight of course one can see the figurative nature of that verse, but taken in isolation as a prophecy I can understand Eve's mistake. The point is that it was a mistake nonetheless. In this I see a parallel not just in Jewish hermeneutics, but also in dispensational hermeneutics - the desire to accept the literal face value instead of the spiritual reality of verses. This is especially true in the prophetic genre where more often than not, especially in relation to the spiritual work and kingdom of Christ, the carnal or face value is used to communicate the spiritual reality. The Lord uses things we can understand to describe realities in the spiritual realm.


News Item10/8/14 10:44 AM
Helps | UK  Find all comments by Helps
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
106
comments
Unprofitable Servant wrote:
...
I believe that Christ bruised Satan's head at the same time Satan was bruising His heel. The crucifixion was both a bruising of the seed of the women, when the Lord of life, died and was laid in a borrowed tomb. And a crushing of Satan's head by the finished work on the cross and the glorious resurrection of our living Lord. ...
I see a difference between interpretation and application which I view as manifold. God bless.
Brother UPS

Thank you for your post. I agree with your understanding of Gen 3: 15, however, I am still struggling to understand why you would move away from a crudely literal interpretation of it when the prophecy is found in a historical book.

By crudely literal, I mean a carnal understanding that the Saviour would literally crush a serpent's head and would in the process receive a bruise.

What, in the context, makes you move away from the literal interpretation?

How would you defend your view if someone were to approach you and argue that this did not happen at Calvary, because the Lord received more than just a bruised heel and there is no record of any serpent present, let alone the Lord treading on one's head?


News Item10/7/14 5:40 PM
Helps | UK  Find all comments by Helps
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
106
comments
Unprofitable Servant wrote:
Off the top of my head, and this will probably incur the wrath of Lurker, but he is a nice guy so it won't be too bad, I would say the answer to your question is yes.
UPS, I hope you will forgive the intrusion into this discussion. May I ask, how do you decide whether something is to be taken figuratively or literally?

For instance, do you recognise the proto-evangel at Genesis 3:15? If so, how did you decide to see the figurative here and not the literal; in other words how is it you did not expect the Saviour to literally step on a serpent (Satan), and the serpent bruise the Lord's heal only in the work of salvation?

This could have been the case literally, if we had not known the events that passed in the New Testament. But clearly a dispensationalist's literal expectations would have been somewhat disappointed, just as the Jewish literal expectation of a deliverer King was disappointed.

I am curious to learn how a body of believers who distinguish themselves from others based on their "literal" approach to the Bible decide when the text is literal or figurative.

I hope you will not read into this post anything other than curiosity.


News Item10/5/14 6:50 PM
Helps | UK  Find all comments by Helps
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
230
comments
John for JESUS wrote:
Lurker...
Amos 9:11-12 NKJV
“On that day I will raise up The tabernacle of David, which has fallen down, And repair its damages; I will raise up its ruins, And rebuild it as in the days of old; That they may possess the remnant of Edom, And all the Gentiles who are called by My name,” Says the Lord who does this thing.
The source says the Gentiles who are called by His name are also going to be with Israel when He rebuilds the tabernacle of David. This is important because it showed the early Christians how God had a plan which included Gentiles also, so they shouldn't try to make them Jewish.
What relevance would James' version of the quote have in the situation, since according to your carnal understanding of the prophecy David's tabernacle was not raised up etc?

If you look carefully at his citation (not the same words used by Amos) the clear implication is that Gentiles would seek when David's tabernacle was raised etc this being one of the reasons for it being raised!


News Item10/4/14 7:15 PM
Helps | UK  Find all comments by Helps
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
230
comments
John for JESUS wrote:
Amos 9:8, 11, 14-15 NKJV
“Behold, the eyes of the Lord God are on the sinful kingdom, And I will destroy it from the face of the earth; Yet I will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob,” Says the Lord . “On that day I will raise up The tabernacle of David, which has fallen down, And repair its damages; I will raise up its ruins, And rebuild it as in the days of old; I will bring back the captives of My people Israel; They shall build the waste cities and inhabit them; They shall plant vineyards and drink wine from them; They shall also make gardens and eat fruit from them. I will plant them in their land, And no longer shall they be pulled up From the land I have given them,” Says the Lord your God.
cf Acts 15.16. James explains that the in gathering of the Gentiles is the fulfillment of this prophecy!

So much for your literal hermeneutic!

Or are you saying that James did not know what he was talking about?

Jump to Page : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


Rock of Ages

Elder Samuel Ashwood
Virgin Conception Of Christ

Luke 1:34-38
Special Meeting
Sovereign Grace Church
Play! | MP3 | RSS


E. A. Johnston
America Revival Or Ruin

Ambassadors For Christ Intl-US
Teaching
Staff Pick!Play! | MP3

Rev. John S. Mahon
Biblical Manhood

Morningside Bible Church
Grace Community...
Play! | MP3

Kevin Swanson
Evolution vs. Christ

Firm Foundations 17
Reformation Church (OPC)
Play! | MP3

Don Bell
God of Purpose, Purpose of God

Lantana Grace Church
Sunday - PM
Play! | MP3

Bob Vincent
Why I Believe in God

Rejecting Atheism
Grace Presbyterian Church
Play! | MP3

Ken Wimer
Petition to God, Deliverance

Book of Psalms
Shreveport Grace Church
Play! | MP3

Blog 10/27/14
Seasons and Rhythms of Life

New York Gospel Mission
&ldq­uo;why are you cast down, o my soul, and why are you...

Sponsor:
Paul Washer: "Most Useful Bible Study"

See what Paul Washer calls the most useful Bible study tool in hist­ory. Click here!
www.puritandownloads.com/sw..

Sermon: Help, My Church is a Prison!
Robert Rubino






                   
Teachers may instruct heads but only God instructs hearts. ... Matthew Henry

City: Las Vegas, NV
Gospel of John
Cities | Local | Personal
MOBILE
iPhone + iPad
Church App
Android
Church App
Kindle + Nook
BlackBerry
Windows Mobile, Nokia
Chromecast TV
ROKU TV
Pebble Smartwatch
Kindle Reader


HELP
Knowledgebase
Broadcasters
Listeners
Q&A
Uploading Sermons
Uploading Videos
Webcasting
Tips & Tricks
YouTube Screencasts

FOLLOW
Weekly Newsletter
Staff Picks Feed
Site Notices New!
RSS | Twitter | Facebook
SERVICES | ALL
Local Church Finder | Info
MP3 Play & Download
Mobile Apps
Podcasting
Video Support
Live Webcasting
Transcription Service
HIFI Option
Business Cards
SOLO | MINI | Domains
Favorites
QR Codes
24x7 Radio Stream
INTEGRATION
Sermon Browser
HTML Codes
WordPress
Twitter
Facebook
Logos | e-Sword
SOAP API

BATCH
Transfer Agent
Protected Podcasts
Upload via Email
Auto-Upload Sermons
Auto-Blog Import
Picasa | FTP | Dropbox
ABOUT US
SermonAudio.com is the largest library of audio sermons from conservative churches and ministries worldwide. All broadcasters must adhere to the Articles of Faith.

Our Services | Testimonials
Broadcast With Us!
Support Us
Advertising | Local Ads
CONTACT
info@sermonaudio.com
Copyright © 2014 SermonAudio.com.