members, click to sign in..

5,185 active users!!Bandwidth
FRIDAY
OCT 24, 2014
Home
NewsSITE
Events & Blogs
New Audio & Video
BroadcastersNew Stuff!
Local Church Finder
Live Webcasts
Sermons by Bible
Sermons by Topic
Sermons by Speaker
Sermons by Date
Staff Picks
CommentsALL -4 min
Top Sermons
VideosPDFs
Daily Log
Photos
StoresNew Stuff!
Online Bible
Hymnal
Daily Reading
Our Services
Submit Sermon
Members Only

 
RELIGION, CURRENT EVENTS, TECHNOLOGY Subscribe to the breaking newsWhat is RSS?
FRONT PAGE  |  10/24/2014
FRIDAY, APR 5, 2013  |  81 comments
Florida Democrat Sen. Bill Nelson endorses gay marriage
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) has endorsed gay marriage, the latest in a string of lawmakers to change his position on the issue.

“If we are endowed by our Creator with rights, then why shouldn’t those be attainable by Gays and Lesbians?” Nelson said in a statement to the Tampa Bay Times. “Simply put, if The Lord made homosexuals as well as heterosexuals, why should I discriminate against their civil marriage? I shouldn’t, and I won’t.”


CLICK HERE to Read Entire Article
www.washingtonpost.com

Basics of Courtship #1
  START  
  Recommended sermons | more..
•  God's View of Homosexuality, 1 • Pastor John MacArthur | 8/8/2010
•  The Bible and Homosexuality • Dr. Stephen Jones | 4/9/2007
•  Marriages MADE in Heaven! • Dr. John Barnett | 9/8/2002
•  The Problem of Sodom • Dr. James White | 5/8/2011

   10/24/14  |  Federal judge swims upstream: No constitutional right to gay... • 1 comments
   10/23/14  |  No marriage licenses for anyone? • 12 comments
   10/22/14  |  Having failed at Miss. polls, 'gay' activists go to court • 10 comments
   10/21/14  |  Hillsong's Brian Houston on Gay Marriage: 'I Believe the... • 22 comments
   10/18/14  |  Gay marriage becomes legal in Arizona • 16 comments
MORE RELATED ( MARRIAGE ) NEWS | MORE..
   10/23/14  |  Memorial service held for Ian Paisley • 14 comments
   10/23/14  |  Shooter In Canadian Parliament Attack Has A Possible Connection... • 5 comments
   10/23/14  |  Pastors Flood Houston Mayor's Office With Sermons • 24 comments
   10/18/14  |  Gay marriage becomes legal in Arizona • 16 comments
   10/18/14  |  Ted Cruz: "Real Risk" Of Pastors Being Jailed For Preaching... • 12 comments
OTHER CHOICE NEWS | MORE..
   06/02/14  |  A Letter to SermonAudio From a Missionary to Haiti • 10 comments
   02/07/14  |  Bringing the Gospel of John to Every Home in Austin, TX • 31 comments
   01/07/14  |  SermonAudio Partners with RFC for the 2014 Family Conference at... • 1 comments
   01/01/14  |  Happy New Year from SermonAudio! • 29 comments
   12/10/13  |  SermonAudio Broadcaster Loses Historic Church Building To Fire • 3 comments
OTHER CHOICE NEWS | MORE..

COMMENTS | show all | add new  
    Sorting Order:  
· Page 1 ·  Found: 81 user comment(s)
News Item4/12/13 4:20 AM
backtobasics  Find all comments by backtobasics
San Jose John wrote:
It's much more fun to discover truth first by yourself, using your own Bible than to wait for some confession to teach you

Yet sadly some folk despite their grand testimonies of Bible learning and despite their Bible alone beliefs never come to an understanding of many basic Bible truths neither can they adequately explain what they believe. C H Spurgeon saw the need for a catechism 'a great safeguard against the errors of the times'. Those in error have more chance of being challenged by reading the 1689 Confession of Faith with scripture proofs than they may ever have in many an average modern-day Bible believing 'evangelical' church.

Spurgeon's catechism

'Spurgeon sought to recover and reclaim the middle ground, or biblical path, between a man-centered Arminianism on the one side and a deistic Hyper-Calvinism on the other. The Prince of Preachers believed this catechism walked in that narrow way.'

Basic Bible TRUTH

Don't wait-it is already here!

81

News Item4/11/13 5:31 PM
Lurker  Protected NameFind all comments by Lurker
Christopher000 wrote:
Lurker Wrote:
Personally, I hate flys. Disgusting creatures.
Ditto.
I lived on a farm for a year or two while in one of several foster homes when I was a kid. There was a calf that died and they dumped it in the middle of a field (I wasn't aware of it) While wondering around one day, I passed by it, laying on its side. I wondered how it got out and figured it must be sick because I saw that it was breathing. Well, its sides were not moving because it was alive and breathing, I found out. You know what flies do and there must have been millions. Necessary part of nature, I guess.
I'm gonna be sick.
Yuck! The breathing dead. I know what you mean, Chris. I was born and raised on a farm till I was 15 so... been there, seen that, done that.

I enjoy using metaphores in my comments whenever possible because of the dual interpretation. While I literally hate literal flys, I also hate biblical contradictions which is the fly in the ointment Observer was speaking of. Equally disgusting creatures.

Thanks for sharing your experience.

80

News Item4/11/13 4:30 PM
Christopher000 | Rhode Island  Find all comments by Christopher000
Lurker Wrote:
Personally, I hate flys. Disgusting creatures.

Ditto.

I lived on a farm for a year or two while in one of several foster homes when I was a kid. There was a calf that died and they dumped it in the middle of a field (I wasn't aware of it) While wondering around one day, I passed by it, laying on its side. I wondered how it got out and figured it must be sick because I saw that it was breathing. Well, its sides were not moving because it was alive and breathing, I found out. You know what flies do and there must have been millions. Necessary part of nature, I guess.
I'm gonna be sick.

79

News Item4/11/13 3:07 PM
Lurker  Protected NameFind all comments by Lurker
Observer wrote:
Hey bro
If we are under the same covenant as the people of the OT and baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign, then why were the Jews who converted required to undergo baptism?!
Beats me.
Observer wrote:
Also, if this were the case, this would surely have been the strongest possible argument against the Judaizers who wanted non-Jews circumcised. But, guess what? Paul instead says that he opposed their view because circumcision obliges observance of the whole law!
Gal 5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

Seems clear enough to me probably because there is a difference to being baptized into Moses and being baptized into Christ.... being partakers of the promises of the first covenant and being partakers of the better promises of the better new covenant. The continuity the paedo's need to defend infant baptism just isn't there..

Observer wrote:
Just another BIG fly in their ointment. BUT we know that that does not worry them, because they don't care to be biblical.
Personally, I hate flys. Disgusting creatures.
78

News Item4/11/13 3:02 PM
Mike | New York  Find all comments by Mike
San Jose John wrote:
It makes me yawn too--and I actually approve of (most of) it. I actually envy my fellow church members who have the patience to plow through the likes of Calvin's Institutes and the Canons of Dort and explain it to people like me. I tried several times to study these myself but never had the patience. Too "dry" for me.
It's much more fun to discover truth first by yourself, using your own Bible than to wait for some confession to teach you. Although it's also fun and even comforting to see how often these confessions end up agreeing with that which you yourself have already learned.
Yes, and we can always put into effect that which John Yurich says, (paraphrasing,) dispense with the unbiblical parts of confessions, canons, flower petals, synods, creeds, etc.
77

News Item4/11/13 2:50 PM
John UK | Wales  Find all comments by John UK
Observer wrote:
Sorry John, I was not ignoring you. Just missed your post.
Personally I would want to distance myself as much as possible from the Presbys and since they mostly choose to call themselves Reformed I would avoid that term.
John I liked your post of 4/11/13 10:32 AM!
Yes, thank you Observer. I can see much more than I did last time. It does help to see their argument in more depth, even if it is scripturally defective. I guess the Reformation didn't do much for the nonconformists, even though it, under God, restored the wonderful doctrines of grace to the forefront, particularly the doctrine of justification by faith alone in Christ alone, without which faith no man will be saved.
76

News Item4/11/13 1:26 PM
Observer  Find all comments by Observer
Lurker wrote:
I suppose the covenant theology clan will now argue ...
Hey bro

If we are under the same covenant as the people of the OT and baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign, then why were the Jews who converted required to undergo baptism?!

Also, if this were the case, this would surely have been the strongest possible argument against the Judaizers who wanted non-Jews circumcised. But, guess what? Paul instead says that he opposed their view because circumcision obliges observance of the whole law!

Just another BIG fly in their ointment. BUT we know that that does not worry them, because they don't care to be biblical.

John UK wrote:
Tell me, do you think "Reformed" Baptist is a bit of misnomer, in light of this? Maybe this is why the UK churches were called Particular Baptists.
Sorry John, I was not ignoring you. Just missed your post.

Personally I would want to distance myself as much as possible from the Presbys and since they mostly choose to call themselves Reformed I would avoid that term.

John I liked your post of 4/11/13 10:32 AM!

75

News Item4/11/13 12:37 PM
San Jose John | San Jose, CA  Find all comments by San Jose John
Mike wrote:
What is it makes me yawn when I read this stuff? When has man not over-reacted to things?
It makes me yawn too--and I actually approve of (most of) it. I actually envy my fellow church members who have the patience to plow through the likes of Calvin's Institutes and the Canons of Dort and explain it to people like me. I tried several times to study these myself but never had the patience. Too "dry" for me.

It's much more fun to discover truth first by yourself, using your own Bible than to wait for some confession to teach you. Although it's also fun and even comforting to see how often these confessions end up agreeing with that which you yourself have already learned.

74

News Item4/11/13 11:42 AM
Lurker  Protected NameFind all comments by Lurker
Observer wrote:
What about the promise of land?

As I have said repeatedly the Abrahamic covenant is NOT the new covenant, and such confusion and evil arises due to a complete misunderstanding of the bible!

That the covenant God made with Abraham is eternal is foundational in supporting the error of infant covenantal baptism (8th day circumcision). Every promise God made to Abraham was fulfilled when Solomon finished the first temple....

Act 7:17 But when the time of the promise drew nigh, which God had sworn to Abraham, the people grew and multiplied in Egypt, Till another king arose, which knew not Joseph.

1Ki 8:56 Blessed be the LORD, that hath given rest unto his people Israel, according to all that he promised: there hath not failed one word of all his good promise, which he promised by the hand of Moses his servant.

I suppose the covenant theology clan will now argue that the promises given by God through the hand of Moses were not the same as made to Abraham even though the sign of the covenant was exactly the same.

73

News Item4/11/13 10:34 AM
SteveR  Find all comments by SteveR
Observer wrote:
Duh!
The question was:
Which of the personal promises to Abraham is he appropriating to himself?
Abraham IS, and heir to all the promises not limited in that piece of land

Psalms 2:8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

72

News Item4/11/13 10:32 AM
John UK | Wales  Find all comments by John UK
SteveR wrote:
cv wrote:
"If there is no guarantee, then it stands to reason that they should very much doubt."
Doubt?
Hoping against hope & not staggering at these Promises are family traits
Romans 4:18 Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.
Romans 4:19 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara's womb:
Romans 4:20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
Steve, have you not read the OT? How that Abram, under his barren wife's direction, took to himself his servant for wife, hoping that through her he might get the promised son? And even then, he tried to get God to accept Ishmael as his promised son, instead of relying on the impossible, a son through his wife Sarai.

Even so, you wish to get sons for Abraham via an incorrect route, while all along it is God who raises up sons for Abraham in his own and sovereign way. Thus you are no better than Abram, who was most imperfect, and who took the physical route rather than the promise route.

Gal 4:28

71

News Item4/11/13 10:20 AM
Observer  Find all comments by Observer
SteveR wrote:
Know Ye not the Scriptures?
Joshua 21:43 And the LORD gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein.
Duh!

The question was:

Which of the personal promises to Abraham is he appropriating to himself?

70

News Item4/11/13 10:13 AM
SteveR  Find all comments by SteveR
Observer wrote:
What about the promise of land?
Know Ye not the Scriptures?

Joshua 21:43 And the LORD gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein.

69

News Item4/11/13 9:59 AM
Observer  Find all comments by Observer
SteveR wrote:
Hoping against hope & not staggering at these Promises are family traits
Abraham had very specific promises.

One wonders what promises Steve has in mind that WE should not stagger at? Does the word of God teach that believers' children are the elect?

Which of the personal promises to Abraham is he appropriating to himself?

Does he suppose that God is going to bless him with a numerous posterity?

Maybe that God is going to be the God of his children, when the NT shows the spiritual fulfillment of this promise relates solely to those who believe?

What about the promise of land?

As I have said repeatedly the Abrahamic covenant is NOT the new covenant, and such confusion and evil arises due to a complete misunderstanding of the bible!

Christian parents should be an example in love and service, seek to bring their children up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, pray fervently and incessantly for their salvation, make sure that they sit under a sound ministry, expostulate with them etc. knowing that their labor in the Lord will not be in vain and trusting that God who is a faithful father to us will deal kindly with them even if they remain unconverted.

We don't need magic water or made up promises!

68

News Item4/11/13 8:43 AM
SteveR  Find all comments by SteveR
cv wrote:
"If there is no guarantee, then it stands to reason that they should very much doubt."

Doubt?
Hoping against hope & not staggering at these Promises are family traits

Romans 4:18 Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.

Romans 4:19 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara's womb:

Romans 4:20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;

67

News Item4/11/13 5:57 AM
Observer  Find all comments by Observer
CV wrote:
If the children are santified and holy because of this relationship, then what advantage does infant baptism bring?
CV, excellent point.

BUT don't forget we are dealing here with the "Reformed" who all think that they arrived theologically speaking during the Reformation. So they like parroting their Fathers in the faith without any concerns for what the Bible actually says.

The biblical truth is devastating to their cause.

66

News Item4/11/13 3:55 AM
CV  Find all comments by CV
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?2Cor6:14,

Do not intermarry. Ezra 9:2, Deut7:3

"For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy" 1Cor7:14

Paul is here addressing the marriage union between a believer and an unbeliever. Such union ought to make this unholy. But instead, the unbelieving spouse is santified (NOT SAVED) because of the belieiving spouse. "Else", says Paul, "were your children unclean; but now are they holy". Paul could not talk like this if there was another criterion that sanctified the children. If infant baptism was legitimate, then all you needed was one parent and baptism, not the sanctification of the marriage union. But, Paul says, the children would have been unclean without the santification of the marriage. Which argues against Infant Baptisms claims.

The question still stands! If the children are santified and holy because of this relationship, then what advantage does infant baptism bring?

65

News Item4/11/13 12:12 AM
John UK | Wales  Find all comments by John UK
cv wrote:
If there is no guarantee, then it stands to reason that they should very much doubt.
Excellent point CV.
64

News Item4/10/13 7:52 PM
Observer  Find all comments by Observer
SteveR wrote:
Ireanus 140 AD, 70 years after the destruction of Jerusalem...and he didnt Baptize himself..did he?
Sorry, you lose.
The Lord didn't baptize himself either, but he was not a baby. Ditto the Apostle Paul or anyone else in the NT.

What could he possibly mean?

63

News Item4/10/13 6:48 PM
SteveR  Find all comments by SteveR
Observer wrote:
Protestants believe in the right of private interpretation. So Steve's thesis that this was to address the worry of private interpretation (in the absence of an infallible Pope to interpret it for them ) is a complete nonsense.
You really are a child in this area, arent you?

Dozens of heresies were confronted and overcome in the Canons of Dordt. Protestants, like their Catholic brethren earlier, proved their willingness to persecute their own just like you have proven on the messageboard for months.

The only difference is that Protestants of that era were interesting & intelligent, while you have shown the most unremarkable aptitude for these articles of faith despite centuries of giants that have provided insight into them

62
There are a total of 81 user comments displayed | add new comment |Subscribe to these comments
Jump to Page : [1] 2 3 4 5 | last
Last PostTotal
Military preps team for Ebola response in US
john uk from wales: " mike sounds like you could use a good cup of coffee, elmer...."
-1 min 30 
Is Supporting the Death Penalty 'Christian?'
jim lincoln from nebraska: "i wonder if this is the real john y.? his unholiness..."
-5 min 89 
Canada mosque teaches 4-year-olds how to behead
john uk from wales: " dopey which one of the two kept harping that he had the..."
-11 min 238 


Our Vision of God
Bill Parker
The Man Who is Equal With God

Zechariah 13:7-9
Sunday Service
13th Street Baptist Church
Play! | MP3 | RSS


Danny Bond
God's Word Does not Fail

Gleanings from Romans
The Word Transfer
Play! | MP3

Lin Brown
Lovest Thou Me More

Grace Particular Baptist
Sunday Service
Transcript!Play! | MP3

Blog 10/23/14
When God Changes your Plans

New York Gospel Mission
&ldq­uo;the heart of man plans his way, but the lord...

Blog 9/20/14
Protestant Gender Hypocrisy

Grace Community International
dear prayer warr­iors, a friend who as an educ­at­or...

Sponsor:
See Why ISIS Is Faithful To the Koran

See Why ISIS Foll­ows the Koran, Muh­amm­ad, Etc. - & So-C­alled "Mod­er­ate" Musl­ims Don't
www.puritandownloads.com/th..

Sponsor:
Westminster Assembly's Grand Debate

Prepub 19.95 +s/h. Papers on Congr­eg­at­ion­al­ism/ Presbyt­er­ian­ism. 12/14 Napht­ali Press
www.naphtali.com/news

Sermon: Preaching of George Whitefield
E. A. Johnston






                   
It is but a short step from the critical to the hypocritical. ... Anonymous

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
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.