members, click to sign in..

4,123 active users!!Bandwidth
WEDNESDAY
APR 23, 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 -9 min
Top Sermons
VideosPDFs
Daily Log
Photos
StoresNew Stuff!
Online Bible
Hymnal
Daily Reading
Our Services
Submit Sermon
Members Only

 
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 23, 2014 | TIPS Subscribe to the breaking newsWhat is RSS?
COVER Page ALL News CHOICE VIDEOS User COMMENTS
FRIDAY, MAY 24, 2013| 83 comments| 2 commentaries
Research: Many Churchgoers Not Open about Their Faith

While many Christians know Scripture proclamations such as "For I am not ashamed of the gospel . . ." (Rom. 1:16), not all churchgoers are particularly transparent or open about their faith, research reveals.

According to the survey, 66 percent of American churchgoers agree Christians should seek out honest feedback about their spiritual life from other Christians.

Churchgoers also seem to think they live out their faith in a manner that is evident to others. Just 14 percent of churchgoers agree with the statement: "Many people who know me are not aware I am a Christian," while 72 percent disagree with the statement. ...


CLICK HERE to Read Entire Article
www.lifeway.com

|  FOCUS  |  Audio commentaries on this news item | more..
Research: On Churchgoers... • 150+
David L. Gilpatric | Center Effingham Baptist
Play! | RSS
Research: Many Churchgoers... • 150+
Mohan Krishna | Garfield Ridge Baptist Church
Play! | RSS

Christ's death relevant today?
|  START  |  Recommended sermons | more..
•  Evidences of Genuine Faith • Dr. Mark Minnick | 3/8/2011
•  Christ's death relevant today?Dr. Alan Cairns | 4/6/2009
•  Saved By Grace Through Faith • Jeff Noblit | 1/12/2007
•  Faith vs. presumption?Dr. Alan Cairns | 11/2/2009

   03/21/14  |  Are Young Christians ‘Embarrassingly Ignorant’ of Their Faith? • 7 comments
   03/17/14  |  In a Majority of Nations Most People Link Morality to Faith in... • 4 comments
   08/04/13  |  At Christian Companies, Religious Principles Complement Business... • 10 comments
   05/24/13  |  Faith healers charged with murder after 2nd death • 32 comments
   05/01/13  |  Margaret Thatcher's letter to nine-year-old boy about Jesus • 6 comments
MORE RELATED ( FAITH ) NEWS | MORE..
   04/22/14  |  IRS Confirms Abortions are Eligible for a Tax Deduction • 2 comments
   04/20/14  |  China on course to become 'world's most Christian nation' within... • 14 comments
   04/16/14  |  SermonAudio Tip: SermonAudio App v2.2 for Android Mobile Devices • 48 comments
   04/16/14  |  As Titanic sank, he pleaded, 'believe in the Lord Jesus!' • 10 comments
   04/13/14  |  Feminists Go Bonkers Over Kirsten Dunst’s One, Simple Comment • 40 comments
OTHER CHOICE NEWS | MORE..
   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
   07/27/13  |  3 Dead When Bus Carrying Teens Crashes in Indiana • 34 comments
OTHER CHOICE NEWS | MORE..
   04/23/14  |  Southern Baptist Summit: ‘Stop Spreading Falsehoods • 3 comments
   04/23/14  |  Michelle Obama Declares Naps More Important Than Church • 12 comments
   04/23/14  |  Scientists stunned by the public’s doubt of Darwin • 4 comments
   04/23/14  |  Most Voters Favor Prayer, Minus Jesus, at Public Meetings • 5 comments
   04/23/14  |  Bill Gothard Breaks Silence on Harassment Claims by 30 Women
OTHER RECENT NEWS | MORE..

COMMENTS | show all | add new  
    Sorting Order:  
· Page 1 ·  Found: 83 user comment(s)
News Item6/2/13 2:48 PM
D.Forsyth  Find all comments by D.Forsyth
Lurker wrote:
This is what happens when one doesn't understand covenants
A Biblical Refutation of Dispensationalism by Arthur Pink
83

News Item6/1/13 5:11 AM
John UK | Wales  Find all comments by John UK
SC wrote:
Hi John, trust you are doing well.
I popped in and saw the discussion with Lurker on John 15. If I may offer a simpler explanation.
The OT people were a mixed multitude. But they were a vineyard planted by the Lord (Is 5). I think this is what the Lord is alluding to here as he says v5 "ye are the branches.." which includes Judas who was never a true believer.

Blessings to you and Lurker.

Hello bro and thanks. The origin of the debate began as Frank and I were working out how he that hath not shall be taken away even that he hath.

But the mode of salvation throughout seems to me most important. God sees Adam fall. All born "in Adam" subsequently are born in death. The sinning "in Adam" condemns all men, and no amount of effort will ever change that. If God is going to have anyone in heaven, there is a need of redemption and the life-giving power of the Spirit. God sees the atonement of Christ as the only way to accomplish such a thing, and provides it for his elect, to be appropriated by faith, thereby reversing the condemnation by means of forgiveness and imputing righteousness, of which Abraham was the forerunner. He trusted God, we trust God, and are saved both by Jesus Christ. I'll mail later, bro.

82

News Item5/31/13 10:53 PM
Lurker  Protected NameFind all comments by Lurker
John UK wrote:
Bro, I think Ingleesi would take you to task for saying that, especially as it was his edited Baptist Confession that I linked to. You won't find anywhere in that confession which alludes to paedobaptism or 7th day circumcision.
I didn't say or imply it did, John. What I said was that if I agreed to that article I'd also have to agree with infant baptism because it (covenant theology) claims that the covenant made with Abraham remains unbroken by God to this day.

Since our discussion had digressed, I'll say no more.

81

News Item5/31/13 6:28 PM
SC | UK  Find all comments by SC
Hi John, trust you are doing well.

I popped in and saw the discussion with Lurker on John 15. If I may offer a simpler explanation.

The OT people were a mixed multitude. But they were a vineyard planted by the Lord (Is 5). I think this is what the Lord is alluding to here as he says v5 "ye are the branches.." which includes Judas who was never a true believer.

The purpose of the illustration is not to explain what it means to be "in" Christ but to enforces a moral duty for those denominated the Lord's people (in this case the Israelites) to abide in Christ, and his word to abide in them so that they may be fruitful and prove themselves his true disciples thereby glorifying God the Father.

Of course, given this image, those of Israel who are not true Israelites (to whom his word means nothing) will wither away and be removed - hinting that this was what had always happened but also what will continue to happen to them. Judas in this sense represents a branch which is rejected.

I am not sure that I have explained it that well, but hopefully you get the gist.

Blessings to you and Lurker.

80

News Item5/31/13 4:10 PM
John UK | Wales  Find all comments by John UK
Lurker wrote:
Have a look at "stick to the book's" most recent post. This is what happens when one doesn't understand covenants. Pity.
Anyway, this LBCF article read identical to the same WCF article and is the cornerstone of covenant (reformed/Presby) theology. If I agreed to that article I'd also have to agree to Paedobaptism because it claims that the covenant made with Abraham remains unbroken by God to this day. Which means that eighth day circumcision remains in full force and effect to this day. This is false as I've previously posted.
Bro, I think Ingleesi would take you to task for saying that, especially as it was his edited Baptist Confession that I linked to. You won't find anywhere in that confession which alludes to paedobaptism or 7th day circumcision. Why not? Because the old covenant is obsolete. It is finished. There are no more temples made by men with holy of holy places, and blood of bulls and goats and lambs and human high priests, and sacrifices and smoking censers and days of atonement or scapegoats and Lord's goats.

But bro, all of these things are now real. The type is replaced by the antitype. The sacrificial lamb, the passover, is now the Lord Jesus Christ. That is the only difference.

79

News Item5/31/13 3:50 PM
Lurker  Protected NameFind all comments by Lurker
John UK wrote:
Lurker
See what you think of GOD'S COVENANT
Have a look at "stick to the book's" most recent post. This is what happens when one doesn't understand covenants. Pity.

Anyway, the LBCF article reads identical to the WCF and is the cornerstone of covenant (reformed/Presby) theology. If I agreed to that article I'd also have to agree to Paedobaptism because it claims that the covenant made with Abraham remains unbroken by God to this day meaning eighth day circumcision remains extant to this day. This is false as I've previously posted.... see here

Beauty is the Zion covenant of peace aka COG and bands is the Sinai covenant and together they formed the first covenant with Israel which they broke so God broke them both to form the New Covenant in His Son.

As I said countless times, Jesus came as the first covenant and ascended to the Father as the New Covenant. To say nothing changed in the first covenant since Abraham is to say Jesus suffered the shame of the cross in vain. But this is what Jesus did on the cross.

78

News Item5/31/13 3:32 PM
Stick to the Book  Find all comments by Stick to the Book
Lurker wrote:
I wrote "...under the first covenant ecomomy those who named the name of God were promised life in return for obedience."
To which you responded "Arminian heresy".
Biblical warrant.... Deut 30:15-18
Those verses you quote do not support your Arminian hypothesis that man's action prompts God to act. And that if man does not act accordingly then the Lord goes into a bad mood and rejects His elect.

As for the verses remember, As Paul states, "For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel"

I wish you would understand election better.

Again your quote, "under the first covenant ecomomy those who (a) named the name of God were promised life (b) in return for obedience"

(a) God provides the power in the sinner to respond to spiritual matters. 1Cor 2:14. Thus when a sinner has reached this point he is regenerated and the Holy Spirit is working in his heart.

(b) "Obedience" viz human action. You have implied that God will only save the sinner *IF* he does something in return. This puts the controls in man and takes them away from a 'sovereign' God.

(c) Your last point (prev post) implies losing salvation after being saved. That will never happen to the elect of God who are the only ones saved - By God alone.

77

News Item5/31/13 1:03 PM
John UK | Wales  Find all comments by John UK
Lurker

See what you think of GOD'S COVENANT

Just in case we are thinking of different things.

76

News Item5/31/13 11:57 AM
John UK | Wales  Find all comments by John UK
Lurker wrote:
OK. Let's sum up.
John 15:2 spoke to Judas who never saw the New Covenant. It may be concluded, then, that Jesus gave a principal which transcended both the first and new covenants or it was specific to the first covenant.
If the former, then many of the prophets are in error where God swore that the unclean, uncircumcised in heart and flesh will not enter the NC. Not to mention 1 Cor 6:9, Gal 5:21, Rev 22:15.
If the former, NC preservation of the saints (Jude 24, 2 Tim 1:12) is out the window.
If the latter, biblical harmony prevails.
You decide.
Bro, it seems to me that you believe in two separate covenants with two separate ways, the NC and OC.

Whereas I see only one covenant of grace, which God extends to men, as the means of justification, and therefore of glorification.

The old covenant merely shadowed the new; they worked with what they had revealed to them. But they were still only saved by grace, by faith alone in Christ alone.

Who is the focal point in heaven, to whom all men look, whether OC saints or NC saints? Surely 'tis the Lord, the slain Lamb? Were the OC saints saved by such an one? Yes, it is the only way to be saved. Men do not change their nature when covenants change.

75

News Item5/31/13 11:30 AM
Lurker  Protected NameFind all comments by Lurker
John UK wrote:
No, I don't think he did.
OK. Let's sum up.

John 15:2 spoke to Judas who never saw the New Covenant. It may be concluded, then, that Jesus gave a principal which transcended both the first and new covenants or it was specific to the first covenant.

If the former, then many of the prophets are in error where God swore that the unclean, uncircumcised in heart and flesh will not enter the NC. Not to mention 1 Cor 6:9, Gal 5:21, Rev 22:15.

If the former, NC preservation of the saints (Jude 24, 2 Tim 1:12) is out the window.

If the latter, biblical harmony prevails.

You decide.

stick to the book wrote:
The "relevance" is to your unBiblical heretical utterance posted below.
I hate rabbit trails but I'll help you out with one of your complaints.

I wrote "...under the first covenant ecomomy those who named the name of God were promised life in return for obedience."

To which you responded "Arminian heresy".

Biblical warrant.... Deut 30:15-18. Look it up assuming you have a bible. If not, here

74

News Item5/31/13 10:41 AM
John UK | Wales  Find all comments by John UK
Lurker wrote:
Good answer, John. Next question: Did Judas Isacriot live to see the New Covenant inaugurated?
Hello bro. No, I don't think he did.

But then, nor did John Baptist or Simeon or Anna the prophetess.

73

News Item5/31/13 10:38 AM
Stick to the Book  Find all comments by Stick to the Book
Lurker wrote:
Completely irrelevant to the topic of the discussion
The "relevance" is to your unBiblical heretical utterance posted below.
May God bring you into His counsel.

ps; Considering you asked for an explanation that was a pretty unChristian reply. Perhaps therein lies your problem.

72

News Item5/31/13 10:37 AM
Lurker  Protected NameFind all comments by Lurker
John UK wrote:
Mornin bro. Well I have always thought that was the case, otherwise why did he teach them that?
Good answer, John. Next question: Did Judas Isacriot live to see the New Covenant inaugurated?
71

News Item5/31/13 5:39 AM
John UK | Wales  Find all comments by John UK
Lurker wrote:
No where to go, John. However, I'll leave you with a question. Were the twelve disciples among the branches Jesus spoke of in John 15:2?
Mornin bro. Well I have always thought that was the case, otherwise why did he teach them that?
70

News Item5/30/13 11:43 PM
Lurker  Protected NameFind all comments by Lurker
John UK wrote:
However, keep going, as I am not at all sure about this passage.
No where to go, John. However, I'll leave you with a question. Were the twelve disciples among the branches Jesus spoke of in John 15:2?
stick to the book wrote:
You asked why I said Arminian in response to your post below quoted above.
1) Does election by God work or not? Eph 1:4,5. Rom 9:11. Is God sovereign over His creatures or subordinate to their choices/actions?
2) Quote; "in return for Obedience" = Viz if man did something (human works) then God would respond posditively??? - This puts man in charge and God subservient to mans actions (or works).
3) What you are apparently saying here is that we can lose our salvation. Thats Arminian.
Election began before the foundation of the world. Election covers all God's elect in the OT and NT. (Rom 9:6) Election consequently followed by calling/regeneration saves the elect by the hand of God alone. Zero contribution by man
Sigh.

Completely irrelevant to the topic of the discussion, rabbit trail.

69

News Item5/30/13 4:10 PM
Stick to the Book  Find all comments by Stick to the Book
Lurker wrote:
1) "There was no such thing as preservation of the saints under the first covenant ecomomy.
2) Those who named the name of God (whether Israel of Edom) were promised life in return for obedience.
3) Those who didn't keep covenant were broken off and cast into the fire
You asked why I said Arminian in response to your post below quoted above.
1) Does election by God work or not? Eph 1:4,5. Rom 9:11. Is God sovereign over His creatures or subordinate to their choices/actions?
2) Quote; "in return for Obedience" = Viz if man did something (human works) then God would respond posditively??? - This puts man in charge and God subservient to mans actions (or works).
3) What you are apparently saying here is that we can lose our salvation. Thats Arminian.

Election began before the foundation of the world. Election covers all God's elect in the OT and NT. (Rom 9:6) Election consequently followed by calling/regeneration saves the elect by the hand of God alone. Zero contribution by man

68

News Item5/30/13 12:45 PM
Frank  Contact via emailFind all comments by Frank
John UK wrote:
Phew! That's a relief, bro!
Frank, your lengthy post was a delight to read. Christ-exalting! Saint-edifying! I could read that sort of post all the time.
Glad it was a blessing to you! I think it is good that you are engaging Lurker and I am enjoying your stance. I'm not sure, but it would appear that he is advocating some type of hyper-dispensationalism? Those who do that find God working in different ways all the way through Acts. But, as I noted before, God's way was always salvation through grace and through grace alone, from the beginning, but I will admit that is sometimes hard to see in the OT, but true none-the-less. Anyway, your posts and insistence have likewise been a blessing to me.

Mt. 25:29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.

I have not considered the above, but it would certainly appear you are correct, although my original thoughts centered around how we "listen" and to what we "listen" to. Thanks! But, then I took the listen idea and plugged it into John 15, so I think you could argue doing it here.

67

News Item5/30/13 10:55 AM
John UK | Wales  Find all comments by John UK
Lurker wrote:
Sorry to cause confusion, John. This is what Jesus said....
Jhn 15:2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.
This is what I hear you say....
Jhn 15:2 Every branch [that seems to be] in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.
Wouldn't it make sense to take Jesus at His word?
Matthew 25:28-29 KJV
28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.
29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.

Ahhh Frank. This shows that a man may hath and hath not at the same time.

Am I not right?

Lurker, if a man is "in Christ", it is impossible for him not to bear fruit, because it is not HIM bearing fruit, but the natural process of life and growing. However, keep going, as I am not at all sure about this passage. I will give my thoughts in the meantime, so I am not claiming to know the answers.

66

News Item5/30/13 10:39 AM
Lurker  Protected NameFind all comments by Lurker
John UK wrote:
Bro, now I am even more confused.
If what you say is right, there is very little in the four gospels which relate to us, because it was old covenent teaching.
Whereas the new covenant, which I see in John 15, is about the impossibility of being good in the natural man ("there is none that doeth good, no, not one"), but every reason to expect good from a "new ceature" which is receiving its nourishment from The True Vine, connected to Jesus Christ, as The Root, which feeds and supports the branches which are truly connected.
Therefore, if there is NO fruit (natural man) there is no genuine connection, there only SEEMS to be one, which would explain the tares in among the wheat, which the Lord will separate on the great day.
Sorry to cause confusion, John. This is what Jesus said....

Jhn 15:2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.

This is what I hear you say....

Jhn 15:2 Every branch [that seems to be] in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.

Wouldn't it make sense to take Jesus at His word?

Gone for the day.

65

News Item5/30/13 6:13 AM
John UK | Wales  Find all comments by John UK
Lurker wrote:
Now, John. You knew we couldn't possible be too far apart.
Now that we went through that, does the John 15:6 text read differently? Can you see the broken off branches as once being fruitful "in Jesus" (John 15:2) but fell away and ended up broken off and cast into the fire; Judas Iscariot being an obvious example? And this because the first covenant was still in full force and effect until Jesus ascended to the Father?
Bro, now I am even more confused.

If what you say is right, there is very little in the four gospels which relate to us, because it was old covenent teaching.

Whereas the new covenant, which I see in John 15, is about the impossibility of being good in the natural man ("there is none that doeth good, no, not one"), but every reason to expect good from a "new ceature" which is receiving its nourishment from The True Vine, connected to Jesus Christ, as The Root, which feeds and supports the branches which are truly connected.

Therefore, if there is NO fruit (natural man) there is no genuine connection, there only SEEMS to be one, which would explain the tares in among the wheat, which the Lord will separate on the great day.

64
There are a total of 83 user comments displayed | add new comment |Subscribe to these comments
Jump to Page : [1] 2 3 4 5 | last
Last PostTotal
Lincoln police arrest man distributing Christian tracts
unprofitable servant from georgia: " jim lincoln apparently countries in western..."
-9 min 22 
Michelle Obama Declares Naps More Important Than Church
elise from scotland: "john yurick....what do you do at your saturday vigil services?"
-11 min 12 
Most Voters Favor Prayer, Minus Jesus, at Public Meetings
thorlie: "this evil society when it is not trying to remove the bible - it is..."
-18 min 


Danger of Antinomianism

Bill Parker
The God of Salvation

The God of Salvation
Sunday School
Eager Avenue Grace Church
Play! | MP4 | RSS


Lewis Kiger
God can burn barley field

Memorial Heights Baptist
Sunday Service
Play! | MP3

Scott T. Brown
His Hand is Stretched Out

Hope Baptist Church
Sunday Service
Play! | MP3

E. A. Johnston
Deceived Church

Ambassadors For Christ Intl-US
Special Meeting
Play! | MP3

Sermon:
Let Me Hear Thy Voice
James Taylor (Redhill)






                   
To carry care to bed is to sleep with a pack on your back. ... Thomas Haliburton
Site-Wide RSS & Podcast | Help
Select Podcast Format | Help

HTML Embed | More
Flash Widget | More
Our Staff Picks | Info
Featured Sermon | More

City: Austin, TX
Gospel of John
Cities | Local | Personal
MOBILE
iPhone + iPad New!
Church App
Android New!
Kindle + Nook New!
BlackBerry
Windows Mobile, Nokia
ROKU TV
Kindle Reader

FOLLOW
Staff Picks Feed
Site Notices
RSS | Twitter | Facebook
HELP
RSS & Podcasts
Uploading Sermons
Uploading Videos
Webcasting
Favorites
Tips & Tricks
YouTube Screencasts

NEWSLETTER
View Latest Issue
Subscribe
Unsubscribe | Change
Privacy Policy
SERVICES | ALL
Local Church Finder | Info
MP3 Play & Download
Mobile Apps
Podcasting
Video Support
Live Webcasting
Transcription Service
Business Cards
SOLO | MINI | Domains
QR Codes New!
24x7 Radio Stream
INTEGRATION
Sermon Browser
HTML Codes | WordPress
Twitter
Facebook
Logos | e-Sword

BATCH
Transfer Agent
Protected Podcasts
Upload via Email
Auto-Upload Sermons
Auto-Blog Import
Picasa | API | 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.