Radio Streams
SA Radio
24/7 Radio Stream
VCY America
24/7 Radio Stream
1084

My Favorite Things
Home
NewsroomALL
Events | Notices | Blogs
Newest Audio | Video | Clips
Broadcasters
Church Finder
Webcast LIVE NOW!
Sermons by Bible
Sermons by Category
Sermons by Topic
Sermons by Speaker
Sermons by Language
Sermons by Date
Staff Picks
CommentsALL -0 sec
Top Sermons
Online Bible
Hymnal
Daily Reading
Our Services
Broadcaster Dashboard
Members Only - Legacy

 
USER COMMENTS BY “ LONDONDERRRY ”
RECENTLY-COMMENTED SERMONS | MoreLast PostTotal
Sermon Travail of the Soul | Ken Wimer
Gay Marie Allen from Wisconsin
"Thank You Pastor, for another wondeful message faithfully preached! God..."
-6 hrs 
Sermon Scripture and the Biblical Counseling Movement | Nathaniel Pringle
Christa
-7 hrs 
Sermon What happened at Pentecost? | Chris DeLuna -9 hrs 
· Page 1 ·  Found: 20 user comments posted recently.
News Item5/17/12 6:10 PM
londonderrry  Find all comments by londonderrry
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
51
comments
westy wrote:
Well then, Love your enemy does apply then!
Hi Westy. I'm not 'bent on accusing her' but I find some of her actions very repugnant. I have no affiliation with this church or know a single person who has ever attended. If the minister is dispensationalist, than that is very sad indication of the times we live in today. And if he has lied about why he brought the lawsuit, that too is troubling. I just don't know if this information is true. Can you point me to one of the pastor's dispensational sermons online? Notwithstanding, I find Julie Anne's numerous insinuations of sexual sin very disturbing and worthy of condemnation. I certainly think that if someone was making unfounded accusations of this heinous nature against me or a member of my family, that a legal recourse might be the most godly course of action, when all else fails. Loving our enemies does not mean an absence of justice and while, it may not have been the wisest course of action, I think Julie Anne has much to answer for.

News Item5/17/12 4:21 PM
londonderrry  Find all comments by londonderrry
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
51
comments
westy wrote:
She did not bring a law suit against the Church or the Pastor...
Dispy's ARE a cult...
Hi Westy. Paul's purpose in 1 Corinthians 6 is that the people of God ought to settle their disputes within the confines of the Christian community. It seems clear to me that Julie Anne Smith was the initiator. She brought her dispute with the church into the public arena by posting comments about the church on a secular website. It appears to me (as I quoted Julie below) that these accusations of hers involved insinuations of sexual sins, which she has not proven. Not only that, but it seems that Julie persisted in making these sort of accusations over and over again. If these accusations are only malicious lies, than Julie doesn't appear to be much of a Christian and the prohibitions in 1 Corinthians 6 wouldn't apply. BTW, what is a 'Dispy'... a dispensationalist?

News Item5/17/12 1:31 PM
londonderrry  Find all comments by londonderrry
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
51
comments
westy wrote:
I wouldn't be so quick to crucify this lady. "Pastor" is clearly going against scripture.
Hi Westy. I don't know the Pastor or church in question, apart from the statement of faith written on the church website (which appeared to be orthodox.) What concerns me is that this woman is making sexual accusations via insinuations. I've been in a church before where I was virtually shunned and know the hurt that it can cause. I still wouldn't call that church a 'cult' because it did preach the gospel, even though we had differences on other issues such as images of Jesus and such. It may be the case that the Pastor is difficult, that there is a lack of love present and that they are not demonstrating love properly. I don't know. Even if all this was true, making sexual insinuations and calling the church a cult is beyond unacceptable as it it calling the ministry of the Word into disrepute. Reading some of Julie Anne's blog, it seems apparent that this is more of a personal issue, than a doctrinal issue and should never have been brought into the public arena through her numerous public attacks on this church and it's pastor.

News Item5/15/12 4:47 AM
londonderrry  Find all comments by londonderrry
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
51
comments
Having read some of the original postings that Julie Anne Smith wrote (either from her original blog or from the quotes on the lawsuit), she is making some very serious sexual insinuations about the Pastor and the church. Julie writes concerning the Pastor's teachings on modesty that he he spent 'a very unhealthy amount of attention' on the subject. What exactly does that mean? If she has an accusation to make, than make it, but making insinuations like this, without backing them up is pretty vile and desperate. The lawsuit quotes her as writing that the church 'turn(ed) a blind eye to known sex offenders in the church.' Again, what exactly does this mean? If you have an accusation to make, than make it, but making such comments by way of insinuation or innuendo is pretty disgusting, if you are not going to provide facts and proof.

News Item11/30/11 2:17 PM
Londonderrry | Northern Ireland  Find all comments by Londonderrry
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
33
comments
I think Gordon Clark defined a 'person' very well as 'a composite of propositions' and some propositions that the Son of G-d can rightfully claim cannot be equally claimed of the Father or the Holy Spirit (eg. 'I assumed a human body and soul'). The same could be said regarding the persons of the Father and Holy Spirit in their own unique propositions.

I found Clark's work on 'The Incarnation' incredibly helpful.

Dirk Yoder wrote:
Could someone define person please?

News Item11/27/10 10:18 AM
londonderrry | Northern Ireland  Contact via emailFind all comments by londonderrry
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
105
comments
Hi Lurker, Thank you for your post. 1. These are not mutually exclusive terms. Something that is: 'as sharp' can also be 'sharper' then any two edged-sword. They are not necessarily different (eg. My sportscar being as fast as any on the block doesn't preclude it from being faster than any other car on the block.) 2. Perhaps the question that we need to answer is what the purpose of G-d is in giving good gifts such as the preaching of the gospel to those whom G-d hates (Psalm 5:5) and whom G-d has reprobated (Romans 9.) This is why I quoted Psalm 69 which are the words of Christ (see v. 21 '...they gave me vinegar to drink.) in which Christ says 'Let their table become a snare before them: and that which should have been for their welfare, let it become a trap. Let their eyes be darkened, that they see not; and make their loins continually to shake.' There is a two-fold purpose in the preaching of the gospel. As this subject is digressing from your original point regarding Psalm 149 and exclusive psalmody, I'll end on that note.

News Item11/27/10 6:22 AM
londonderrry | Northern Ireland  Contact via emailFind all comments by londonderrry
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
105
comments
Lurker: Apologies. I thought you were trying to make a case against exclusive Psalmody in your interpretation of Psalm 149 and I was tring to understand the connection? Could you explain again why the sword of the spirit (Ephesians 6:17) is different from the two-edged sword of Hebrews 4? The two-edged sword has two edges for a reason as Hebrews 4 makes clear, in that it is a (v. 12) 'discerner of the thoughts and intents of the hear.' The sword reveals the heart in that (v. 13) 'all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of Him...' In Acts 2 we see Peter preaching at Pentecost and the two edged sword was used in that (v.37) 'they were pricked in their heart' and believed. We see the same sword used in Acts 7 where Stephen's sermon also (v. 54) 'cut to the heart...' and they murdered him. There is a point (no pun intended) for the use of two edges and not one. G-d's ultimate purpose is to glorify Himself in the preaching of the gospel and He does this by condemning the reprobate and in blessing the true church. Thanks for the thought provoking discussion.

News Item11/26/10 11:46 AM
londonderrry | Northern Ireland  Contact via emailFind all comments by londonderrry
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
105
comments
Hi Lurker: I'm just trying to understand your objection to my last point. Psalm 149:6 reads 'Let the High Praises of G-d be in their mouth and a two-edged sword in their hand.' Just to be clear... are you saying that this must be a physical manifestation (aka a literal sword) because the first part is spiritual in nature (aka 'praises of G-d?') It's certainly true that this verse finds it's ultimate fulfillment at the final judgment (vs. 9 'to execute upon them the judgment written...') and is therefore ultimately prophetic in nature. So what exactly is your objection? As a Christian, you must certainly believe these verses are infallible (1 Tim. 3:16), so if you take Psalm 149 as completely prophetic... what problem does this pose for exclusive psalmody? The OT Church sang about the judgment of Christ on the cross, using Psalm 22 'I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint...' for centuries? Are you suggesting this wasn't proper as it wasn't an experience they personally endured? Perhaps you could expound on your objections? Thanks.

News Item11/24/10 10:57 AM
londonderrry | Northern Ireland  Contact via emailFind all comments by londonderrry
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
105
comments
Hi Jessica, I'm sorry too to hear about your son. G-d grant you the desire of your heart in granting him repentance (DV). Regarding the verses you posted, let me make two observations. 1. The book of Psalms is a book of praise in which 150 inspired songs were compiled together over a period of 1000 years. Psalm 90 for example was composed by Moses and was included within the Psalter, while the 'song of Moses' was deliberately not included. Not all of the epistles written by the apostles ((1 Cor. 5:9, Col. 4:16) were meant to be included in the canon of Scripture as not all of the songs of the Old Testament were meant to be included within the divinely written book of praise that is the book of Psalms. 2. Even if it was the case that such scriptural songs were to be sung today, how does this advance your case for the use of uninpired hymns?

News Item11/24/10 8:22 AM
londonderrry | Northern Ireland  Contact via emailFind all comments by londonderrry
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
105
comments
Hi Lurker: 'be selective regarding which psalms to sing.' I agree that we shouldn't be selective. We should sing all 150 Psalms of David. It wouldn't make sense for Scripture to command us to sing Psalms (Psalm 105:2) and then to pick a few to the exclusion of others. 'and embedded precepts to obey...' The whole Word of G-d is to be obeyed and we are not to be selective, but we are to understand the meaning of Scripture by comparing it with rest of Scripture. 'Any thoughts regarding "the Lord's song" aka "the songs of Zion" mentioned in Psalm 137?' The songs of Zion of course are the Psalms themselves. 'It gives life while the twoedged sword is furbished for slaughter.' The sword is twoedged because it has two effects on people, even as Paul says of the Christian who brings the Word that (2 Cor. 2:16) 'to the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life.' G-d's Word is always successful in that it always achieves it's desired effect in saving the elect and heaping judgment on the reprobate. Psalm 69, which is messianic and the words and prayer of Jesus Christ says in v. 22 'Let their table become a snare before them: and that which should have been for their welfare, let it become a trap.'

News Item11/23/10 9:49 AM
londonderrry | Northern Ireland  Contact via emailFind all comments by londonderrry
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
105
comments
Hi Lurker, The saints of G-d are daily involved in spiritual warfare. 'This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare.' I Timothy 1:18. Also, 'the Word of G-d is quick , and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.' The church is engaged on a daily basis in spiritual warefare and ultimately 'the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints to execute judgment upon all...' Jude 1:14-15 I can sing Psalm 149 in this spirit. If someone cannot sing these verses then it only goes to show the disturbing effect that man made hymns have had in forming the shallow theology of most 'evangelical' churches.

News Item11/22/10 4:32 PM
londonderrry | Northern Ireland  Contact via emailFind all comments by londonderrry
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
105
comments
'And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.' Mark 14:26

If you take a look at any of the commentaries on e-sword, it's virtually universally acknowledged that Jesus was singing Psalms 113-118 in Mark 14:26, also called the Egyptian Hallel. This was traditionally sung by the Jews at the time of Passover.


News Item11/22/10 3:56 PM
londonderrry | Northern Ireland  Contact via emailFind all comments by londonderrry
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
105
comments
'Greetings, It is in my opinion that we should sing Psalms without a doubt.'

Glad to read that we agree on that. So many churches sing a few of the Psalms, but G-d has obviously given us an entire book of Psalms and every one of them was given to be used in worship. Jessica, would you also agree that every church and even every individual Christian should have a Psalter for use in the worship of G-d?

If churches and christians should be using the psalter to worship the Lord, then it follows that the overwhelming majority of 'evangelical' churches are disobeying G-d's command to sing psalms (1 Chronicles 16:19, Psalms 105:2, etc.) By far this appears to be a much, much bigger problem for the church then the handful of exclusive psalmist churches, because they are disparaging G-d's songs, the Psalms by ignoring them?


News Item11/22/10 3:46 AM
londonderrry | Northern Ireland  Contact via emailFind all comments by londonderrry
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
105
comments
Hi Jessica. I know the article above is with reference to exclusive psalmody, but maybe the best discussion point in subjects such is this is to question if the Psalms ought to be sung at all?

What do you think? Coming from a hymn singing background myself, I have found that most evangelical churches do not even have copies of the psalter in their churches and the ones that do don't use them. Most use massive hymnals with the inclusion of a handful of Psalms. Putting aside exclusive psalmody, is it proper for us as Christians to ignore G-d's Psalms in favor of hymns? For the most part, most churches engage in exclusive hymnody to the virtual exclusion of Psalms.

I would hope we could all at least agree here that G-d has given us a Divinely inspired hymnal in the Psalms and that we ought to use it?


News Item11/21/10 4:26 PM
londonderrry | Northern Ireland  Contact via emailFind all comments by londonderrry
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
105
comments
Hi Jim. I do sing the Psalms and I would agree with your post. Sadly there are many exclusive psalmist churches where the women dress immodestly and without headcoverings and where they use versions of the Bible, such as the NIV where verses are ripped out of the Scriptures (Matthew 12:47, 17:21, etc.) Singing the Psalms exclusively is certainly not proof that a church is scripturally solid. At the same time, it doesn't mean that psalm singing leads to false doctrine. I would argue just the opposite. When churches apostastize, they normally move in the opposite direction, such as the Free Church of Scotland. The church I think you are referring to in Ireland is also slowly moving away from exclusive psalmody in that members sing hymns outside of the worship service. Sadly, it too may abandon exclusive psalmody someday, because churches only move closer to G-d's Word or further away. That's why you almost never find apostate churches suddenly adopting exclusive psalmody. Just the opposite happens, they almost always abandon the Psalms for hymns. Why? I think there are lots of evangelicals that love to argue against exclusive psalmody, but who have never used a Psalter in their life. I think the best proof for singing the Psalms is to pick up a Psalter and sing to G-d.

News Item11/21/10 3:36 PM
londonderrry | Northern Ireland  Contact via emailFind all comments by londonderrry
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
105
comments
Acutally, a better question and more relevant to the discussion is this...

What is superior, a G-d breathed Psalm or a human composed hymn? In a age when the church is largely biblically illiterate, why are we replacing the Bible's hymns (Psalms) with our own? If we really and truly believe that G-d's Word is superior to man's, then why do most 'evangelical' churches not even use Psalters, nevermind use them exclusively?


News Item11/21/10 3:08 PM
londonderrry | Northern Ireland  Contact via emailFind all comments by londonderrry
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
105
comments
Actually it is the Roman Catholic view that whatever is not forbidden by G-d is approved by G-d (eg. hymns of human composition.) It is the protestant reformed view that proper worship is directed by G-d and we are to worship Him as He commands and not according to our own imagination. Incidently, many of the hymns that 'evangelicals' sing today are the exact songs sung in Roman Catholic churches. Why? Because many hymns are either dumbed down, arminian, feel good diddies that Rome Catholicism doesn't object too or because many hymns were actually written by Roman Catholics (eg. Faith of our Fathers, Crown Him with many crowns.) Rome wants to move away from Scripture and Scriptural songs (Psalms) while the Christian should want to move close to G-d's Word. Everytime a hymn is sung instead of a psalm: 1. An inspired song is replaced by an uninspired one. 2. A infallible Psalm is replaced by a hymn that is liable to error. 3. A Psalm written by the Holy Ghost is replaced by a song written by a man or woman who may not be holy. 4. A divinely authorized Psalm (Psalm 95:2) is replaced by one that is not divinely authorized.

News Item11/21/10 11:52 AM
londonderrry | Northern Ireland  Contact via emailFind all comments by londonderrry
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
105
comments
Michael, Part 2 to my earlier post.

Luther was most certainly a mighty man of G-d whom G-d used to start the Protestant Reformation, but he of course did not completely follow the Reformed view on worship, in that he permitted hymns of human composition. At the same time, he did not approve of the use of organs, going so far as to say 'The organ in the worship service is a sign of Baal.' In contrast to the Luthern church, the Reformers in Switzerland, the Netherlands and the British Isles, largely promoted the exlusive use of the Psalter in the worship of G-d. Most presbyterian and reformed churches continued this biblical tradition of going back to the Scriptures for our worship and songs until the 19th century. Having said that, Martin Luther promoted the use of the psalter in worship, actually putting metrical psalms to tune and incorporating them into the Lutheran worship service. Luther's preface to the 1545 Luthern Psalter sums it up so well: 'Every Christian... ought, in all reason, to make the Psalter his manual... For indeed the truth is, that everything that a pious heart can desire to ask in prayer, it here finds Psalms and words to match, so aptly and sweetly, that no man—no, nor all the men in the world—shall be able to devise forms of words so good and devout.'


News Item11/21/10 9:20 AM
londonderrry | Northern Ireland  Contact via emailFind all comments by londonderrry
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
105
comments
Hi Michael. As a former Roman Catholic myself, I became convicted by the Word of G-d that G-d himself and not a Catholic Pope or any other fallible 'human being' should dictate His own worship. The same G-d that consumed Nadab and Abihu with fire (Lev. 10) for offering strange worship is the same G-d whom we worship today. You are correct that worship of the letter does not ensure worship of the spirit, but the solution is not to conclude therefore, that there is no such thing as biblical worship. Jesus himself told the people, concerning the Pharisees "whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not." The point being that much of the Pharisees doctrine was biblical, but the Pharisees used it to justify themselves by the works of the law. This being impossible, Jesus exposed their hypocrisy in binding men with burdens that the Pharisees were unable to do themselves.

News Item11/21/10 5:19 AM
londonderrry | Northern Ireland  Contact via emailFind all comments by londonderrry
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
105
comments
"What's the difference between a man who writes a Biblical Sermon and a man who writes a Biblical Hymn?" Biblical mandate. Scripture commands (2 Tim. 4:2) the man of G-d to preach and teach, but we have no such command to compose our own hymns. Regardless of someone may feel, it's indisputable that a Psalm is superior in everyway to the very best of man made hymns.

If G-d has given us a divinely written hymnal, then with what biblical warrant do we add to His hymnal with our own songs? The Hebrews practised exclusive psalmody as did the ancient church and the reformers of the reformation, so why change the divine hymns used during the most glorious ages of the church for hymns written by fallible men. One other point, many, many hymns were written by arminians, arians, pelagians, catholics, homosexuals and other heretics of every sect. Very often these writers imposed their false doctrine into hymns. It has been said that heresy very often has been sung into the hearts of the church through the use of uninspired hymns and it is so true today.




Kevin Swanson
Time to Reject Noah's Flood?

A Test of Authority
Radio Broadcast
Generations Radio
Play! | MP3 | RSS


The Day the Sun Stood Still

Hourly: A Certain Man Drew a Bow
Dr. Bob Jones Jr.
Chancellor's Program
Staff Picks..

Mark S. Wisniewski
Cuando No Hay Santidad

2 Reyes 2023 - Spanish
Iglesia Nueva Obra en...
Play! | MP3

Sermon: …”Be With Me In Paradise”
Shawn Reynolds

SPONSOR

SPONSOR



SA UPDATES NEWSLETTER Sign up for a weekly dose of personal thoughts along with interesting content updates. Sign Up
FOLLOW US


Gospel of John
Cities | Local | Personal

MOBILE
iPhone + iPad
ChurchOne App
Watch
Android
ChurchOne App
Fire Tablet
Wear
Chromecast TV
Apple TV
Android TV
ROKU TV
Amazon Fire TV
Amazon Echo
Kindle Reader


HELP
Knowledgebase
Broadcasters
Listeners
Q&A
Uploading Sermons
Uploading Videos
Webcasting
TECH TALKS

NEWS
Weekly Newsletter
Unsubscribe
Staff Picks | RSS
SA Newsroom
SERVICES
Dashboard | Info
Cross Publish
Audio | Video | Stats
Sermon Player | Video
Church Finder | Info
Mobile & Apps
Webcast | Multicast
Solo Sites
Internationalization
Podcasting
Listen Line
Events | Notices
Transcription
Business Cards
QR Codes
Online Donations
24x7 Radio Stream
INTEGRATION
Embed Codes
Twitter
Facebook
Logos | e-Sword | BLB
API v2.0 New!

BATCH
Upload via RSS
Upload via FTP
Upload via Dropbox

SUPPORT
Advertising | Local Ads
Support Us
Stories
ABOUT US
The largest and most trusted library of audio sermons from conservative churches and ministries worldwide.

Our Services | Articles of Faith
Broadcast With Us
Earn SA COINS!
Privacy Policy

THE VAULT VLOG
The Day the Sun Stood Still New!
Copyright © 2024 SermonAudio.