members, click to sign in..

5,564 active users!!Bandwidth
WEDNESDAY
AUG 27, 2014
Home
NewsSITE
Events & Blogs
New Audio & Video
Broadcasters
Local Church Finder
Live Webcasts
Sermons by Bible
Sermons by Topic
Sermons by Speaker
Sermons by Date
Staff Picks
CommentsALL -14 min
Top Sermons
VideosPDFs
Daily Log
PhotosNew Stuff!
StoresNew Stuff!
Online Bible
Hymnal
Daily Reading
Our Services
Submit Sermon
Members Only

 
USER COMMENTS BY “ WOMI ”
All Comments
All Types Sermons News Blogs Events Store
RECENTLY-COMMENTED SERMONS | MoreLast PostTotal
Sermon When the Foundations are Destroyed | Rev. Rodney Kleyn
Lisa from Wales
"Clear bible focussed presentation. But we must remember this psalm in its..."
-2 hrs 
Sermon Worldliness: To What Are You Conformed? pt.1 | Nick Napier
Leslie from NC
-2 hrs 
Sermon God's faithfulness past, present and future | Voddie Baucham
Janine from Louisiana
-6 hrs 
· Page 1 ·  Found: 28 user comments posted recently.
News Item4/2/10 3:02 PM
WOMI  Find all comments by WOMI
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
8
comments
Who is going to say a word against this false prophet.

http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/prophetmanassehjordan?ref=mf


News Item4/2/10 3:01 PM
WOMI | Las Vegas  Find all comments by WOMI
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
14
comments
Who is going to say a word against this false prophet.

http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/prophetmanassehjordan?ref=mf


Survey11/3/09 6:07 PM
WOMI | Pretending to be a Calvinist  Find all comments by WOMI
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
108
comments
Mike wrote:
Almost. I would indeed expect a Calvinist to come up with such fuzzy stuff. Or perhaps a devil's advocate.

Mike wrote:
However, if he became flesh to become us, he became us so he could die in our stead, which he could not do otherwise than becoming flesh.
Scriptures speaks of Christ's incarnation as necessary for him to become us, not merely for him to die on the cross. If that were the case, he could had just incarnated into a lamb and the Father would had accepted it just like he did in the Old Testament. This truth does not negate the importance of his death but rather. Every time the Bible speaks of his incarnation, it's purpose is expressed as the means wherby he becomes us, not as a means for him to die.

Mike wrote:
What race would that be? Indy 500?
Well I will have to look that one up in my Calvinist hand book.

Survey10/30/09 4:38 PM
WOMI | Pretending to be a Calvinist  Find all comments by WOMI
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
108
comments
You have just annuled the essence of the incarnation. The Bible speaks of Christ becoming man as key to his redemptive act. He had to become one with the human race, because he needed to be us, if he were to be our substitute. And not only so, but I, as a Calvinist, would argue that he needed to become one with us if he is to represent the human race as Federal head. Otherwise it would be like a bunch of Mexican illegals holding office. His incarnation is not a vehicle for him to die, it is a vehicle for him to become us. He did not nor did he need to become flesh to die on the cross, he became flesh to become us. So the type has nothing to do with him being the first of his kind for he is not the first of his kind. He is the ONLY of his kind! Bless God!!!

You have also contorted the type of the first Adam. What ever is true of the first type has to be true of the antitype and vice versa. Romans 5 is speaking of a particular person, while Corinthians is speaking of a different race.

Thirdly, you have ignored the whole meaning of Romans chapter 5 which has everything to do with imputation and nothing to do with physiology.

Boy, I can make a good Calvinist. Ok which Presby wants to offer me membership?


Survey10/30/09 2:56 PM
WOMI | Bottom of the Calvinist Heart  Find all comments by WOMI
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
108
comments
John UK wrote:
And I will attempt to play the theologian.
Come on now. You could just ask me.

Survey10/30/09 2:47 PM
WOMI | Pretending to be a Calvinist  Find all comments by WOMI
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
108
comments
Mike wrote:
I don't think WOMI believes that. Or at least he didn't used to. Perhaps he was being facetious?

Hey, you did not answer my objection that I made earlier concerning your post that I responded to.

If we are righteous in Christ, if it is his righteousness that has been imputed unto us, as the last Adam, what does that say of the first Adam as the type?


Survey10/30/09 11:31 AM
WOMI | Bottom of the Calvinist Heart  Find all comments by WOMI
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
108
comments
Alan H wrote:
This discussion has prompted me to that effort. Don't assume you have it right; neither shall I. Only the Holy Spirit can reconcile that which seems contrary to us while we place the Scripture under the bare scrutiny of our own natural reason (or some one else's).
May the Lord bless you my dear friend.
So I have been used by the Holy Spirit here at SA. You see folks that is one more reason why you should be nice to me and not rally around "Ban Yamil!"

Ha!

I would agree with Alan's sentiments. We are dealing with one of the most profound and difficult portions of Scripture. We can glory in the fact that no matter what the interpretaion may be correct, Christ is the answer. If it leads us to a more awesome reverence and adoration of the work and person of Christ, then I say that your particular interpretation is close enough.

_______________________________________

Now, if Lurker can be a Calvinist and reject one of the most fundamental doctines of Reformed theology, then can I still be a synergist and believe that Christ saves only a predetermined few? I mean, its only fair.


Survey10/30/09 12:33 AM
WOMI | Pretending to be a Calvinist  Find all comments by WOMI
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
108
comments
Mike wrote:
So the idea apparently is, Adam represented us, thus when he sinned, we sinned. Therefore, this principle should apply such that someone who is, as an example, abandoned by his father as a child, sins the sin of abandonment. After all when the father sinned, the child must sin representatively. It's the Federal way. If the depravity is inherited, it is inherited directly from parent to child, (the parent being the Federal head of the unit family, as Adam is held to be Federal head of the human family) for the child must exist before he can have sin imputed to him.
sonofadam posted a quote which seems to agree: "It is a corruption of all nature - an inherited depravity which even infects small infants in their mother's womb"
The Federal relationship, if it is so, cannot end with the sin of, nor the death of the original head, but is representative on down the line, from parent to child. Therefore, when the parent sins, the child must sin in him.
Of course, this is bogus and unbiblical.
The Bible speaks of the First Adam and the Second Adam which is Christ. There is nothing in between, so your objection breaks down.

Also the first sinner was Eve not Adam. Yet Adam is the Federal Head.


Survey10/27/09 7:03 PM
WOMI | Bottom of the Calvinist Heart  Find all comments by WOMI
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
108
comments
Limay wrote:
As an Arminian type Yamil, you have not become cognizant of the difference between the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace.
cognizant? What does that have to do with anything?

Sounds like you learned a new word and you could not wait to use it.


Survey10/27/09 2:33 PM
WOMI | Bottom of Calvinist Heart  Find all comments by WOMI
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
108
comments
Lurker wrote:
Nay, Yamil. On the contrary it is you , Arlyss and Alan who seem to insist that unless Adam's actual sin and his nature are a package imputed to all his progeny, his headship is negated. I reject that premise but if someone is willing to present an argument for it with sound biblical evidence we can discuss it. So far all I've seen is this speculation from Alan's post:
"Christ redeems His people by the imputation to them of His righteousness. Must not Adam have ruined his, by the imputation to them of his guilt?" (Robert L. Dabney - The Fall and Original Sin)
lol

Actually I do not hold to the theory of Federal Headship of Christ.n I was just merely playing devil's advocate with Mike since it seemed that the Calvinists were not standing up to defend their distinctive view. I probably can give you a very formidable argument if you would really like.

Nevertheless, my point is that the Federal Headship of Adam is the foundation to your theology. So to see you not defend it, is like bombing your very own foundation to your TULIP.


Survey10/27/09 2:13 AM
WOMI | Bottom of the Calvinist Heart  Find all comments by WOMI
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
108
comments
Mike wrote:
Where is the need for us to be guilty of Adam's specific sin?
Because whatever is true of Christ as the second Adam must be true of his prophetic type (the first Adam). If the first Adam does not represent us in some measure, then it must be equally true that the second Adam (Jesus) does not represent us. You must ask yourself then, how does Christ represent us, if the first Adam does not represent us? What does it mean for Christ to be called Adam for that matter the second Adam? In what way is the first Adam a type of Christ?
Alan H wrote:
Yamil's question raises a valid point:
Be careful there. You can get yourself kicked out of here for such words.

Mike wrote:
A pleasantness, bro Lurker, that we should agree on this.
Ok this is starting to look weird. You have Calvinist and arminians siding with each other! Am I actually bringing unity to the forum? Ha!

I am not sure if Lurker understands what damage he is doing to his beloved TULIP. If he diverts from federalism, then he has no grounds to embrace the doctrines of grace.

Surely, I did not see this coming. Let's see how it all turns out.


News Item10/24/09 4:39 PM
WOMI | Bottom of the Calvinist Heart  Find all comments by WOMI
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
36
comments
Yep

Survey10/24/09 4:26 PM
WOMI | Bottom of the Calvinist Heart  Find all comments by WOMI
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
108
comments
Uh-ha

Finally someone looked it up in their Calvinist handy dandy answer book.

I am surprised that Lurker did not opt to mankind receiving Adam's guilt imputed to us. I would think of all people he would. Hi Lurker.

Mike, good explanation of Romans 5:13, although a little different than the way I would do it. Yet, you are the first one to actually deal with the text where this argument would be centralized.

The question you must ask yourself then Mike, is, how can the the imputation of the righteousness of Christ (the second Adam) be true on the believer if the guilt of Adam was not imputed unto us?

How can we solidarily received Christ's righteousness if it were not first true that we were solidarily guilty in Adam?


News Item10/23/09 7:03 PM
WOMI | Bottom of the Calvinist Heart  Find all comments by WOMI
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
36
comments
If you want a godless Bible, surely you do not have to demean the KJV to do so.

News Item10/23/09 6:59 PM
WOMI | Bottom of the Calvinist Heart  Find all comments by WOMI
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
8
comments
Sermonaudio for Android would be nice.

News Item10/23/09 6:54 PM
WOMI | Bottom of the Calvinist Heart  Find all comments by WOMI
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
16
comments
No homosexuals?

Survey10/23/09 6:35 PM
WOMI | Bottom of the Calvinist Heart  Find all comments by WOMI
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
12
comments
Why take the vaccine?

Have you guys forgotten so soon?

Save the cheerleader and save the world.


Survey10/23/09 6:30 PM
WOMI | Bottom of the Calvinist Heart  Find all comments by WOMI
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
108
comments
Michael Hranek wrote:
WOMI
Welcome back. To clarify does God require children to be punished for the sins their fathers have committed but they personally have not?
Yet do children inherit from their fathers the nature the bent to sin?
I know, I know I am not a Calvinist so I will step aside and let you discuss thing with them.
No you did not. YOu did not just go there.

Ha!

Hi John. I cannot believe you are still alive. I would had thought your hyper cousins would had disowned you and burnt you at the stake by now.

Well, its not a simple topic. In fact from what I perceive its one of the hardest to sort out.

Simple question... well let's try it again...

Does God pass the guilt of Adam for his original sin unto us?

In other words, if one should never commit one personal sin, will God still hold him liable for the sin of Adam simply becasue we were in Adam as out federal head?

Or does the doctrine of original sin speak only to the effects of Adam's sin to the race minus the solidary guilt.

I am not sure if I can get anymore simple than that without sacrificing clarity as to the question.


Survey10/23/09 5:02 PM
WOMI | Bottom of the Calvinist Heart  Find all comments by WOMI
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
108
comments
postulate wrote:
We are guilty as charged in God's eyes.
Our own eyes require to be opened to perceive this wretched estate.
This is part of becoming Christian consequent to which repentance will follow.
I believe you do not understand the question. The question is not if we are guilty. I do not think there is anyone that would say no.

The question is are we guilty in Adam. Has the guilt of Adam's sin imputed unto us? We know that we are guilty of personal sins but does God solidarily see us guilty of the very sin of Adam as our federal head.


Survey10/23/09 4:44 PM
WOMI | Bottom of the Calvinist Heart  Find all comments by WOMI
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
108
comments
To admit that in original sin one receives the guilt of Adam is also admitting (since it naturally follows) that one also receives the consequence. Those who believe that mankind receives the guilt of Adam accept the consequences as well. n Yet those who believe that one only receives the consequences of original sin and not Adam's guilt, make a strong distinction.

So is it correct to say that you believe that mankind has also received the guilt of Adam as our federal head?

Jump to Page : [1] 2


God Alone the Salvation
Mark Pannell
The Righteousness of God - 5

The Righteousness of God
Sunday Service
Eager Avenue Grace Church
Play! | MP4 | RSS

Christ Our Passover
Scott T. Brown

Ken Wimer
The Savior of Sinners

Gospel According to Luke
Shreveport Grace Church
Play! | MP3

Sponsor:
Emergency Food USA

Great tast­ing, healthy, GMO free emerg­ency food. Long term food and water stor­age.
www.emergencyfoodusa.com

Sponsor:
Pope Francis: Man of Peace? Free Video

Highl­ights & crit­iq­ues Pope Franc­is' pos­it­ions on Isr­ael, Islam, Hamas & much more!
www.puritandownloads.com/po..

Sermon:
Galatians 5:16-26
Ken Jones






                   
God never repents of His electing love. ... Thomas Watson

City: Austin, TX
Gospel of John
Cities | Local | Personal
MOBILE
iPhone + iPad New!
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
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.