Great Sermon! This sermon is very relevant to these times even though it was preached over 20 years ago. It speaks, not only to men and women's roles and duties in marriage, but also touches, presciently, on what was illegal and unlikely at that time, namely, so-called, same-sex 'marriage'. I heartily recommend this sermon and thank Loughbrickland RPC for recording it and uploading it on SermonAudio (an organisation that also deserves our thanks for enabling this and other great sermons to be so widely disseminated.)
Great Sermon! Well done, Dr. Mackereth for refusing to be cowed by the unrighteous legislation which called for you to address a man as a woman if that man so wished it. May the Lord strengthen you and bless you in your stand for Him and for His righteousness.
Interesting Q & A! Ron Hanko's response to his first question reveals an inconsistency in his interpretive principle. David Silversides, in his first talk, quoted Psalm 145 v 9 as a 'proof text' for the doctrine of the Lord's common grace toward Mankind. Psalm 145 v 9 reads, The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works. Rev Hanko, in disputing Rev Silversides position, in HIS first talk, said that 'all' in the first clause of v 9 is to be understood as meaning 'all His works' from the 2nd clause. Rev Hanko, in his first talk, said that 'all his works' referred to God's creation, something which he further defined in that talk as excluding Mankind, for no good reason that I can fathom. Verse 10 reads, All thy works shall praise thee, O LORD; and thy saints shall bless thee. So then, in this Q & A Rev Hanko now says that 'Thy works', in verse 10, is to be interpreted as meaning 'Thy saints' and, further, that v 10 supports his position in the debate. So, God's 'works' are to be defined differently in two adjoining verses? Is that a sound exegetical principle?
Great Sermon! 29th Nov 2020. It's seven years since this sermon was preached and if anything the situation has worsened. LGBT supporting Joe Biden seems to the likely next President. Rev Silversides provides much needed biblical teaching about the scripture twisters who try to neutralise the Bible's clear condemnation of homosexual practice. A 'must listen' for those Christians who wish to be faithful to God in the coming days.
WayneR wrote: After the Election D. Scott Meadows https://heraldofgrace.org/after-the-election-2/ Disappointed? Cast down? A sermon worth reading to get us all back to trusting God.
I got as far as the end of the paragraph that states, ''Even if Nero were our next President, as a Christian you know that the fundamentals of our faith remain unshaken, certain glorious things are still true, and weâ€™re glory-bound in Christ Jesus! Neither a President Trump nor a President Biden could change that.''
Before I read more, I'd like to know if the minister preaches faithfully from Romans 1 and if he takes the message contained therein to the unchurched in his neighbourhood, or not. Anyone who glibly references the Emperor Nero, as he does, needs to convince me that he's not just all talk, especially considering Biden's professed support for all things LGBT. Biden may not be Nero but many Democrats who support the various LGBT groups would love the chance to emulate that Satanic despot.
Maybe the minister would like to take a banner with the words from Leviticus 18 v 22 printed on it to his nearest 'Gay' Pride event next year, after Biden's made president (Lord, 'no') and then preach the same sermon?
Hugh wrote: As for my fellow Brit who asserts that President Trump is an perceived as an embarrassment outside the USA, I disagree with this assessment, for sure he is perceived as such, BUT only by the fake news media which in the UK is every bit as fake as the media in the US; I give you the BBC as a prime example.
Hugh, I totally agree with your post, especially the part I've quoted.
I agree with Jim Lincoln (for a change) regarding Trump's apparent 'confession of faith'. Anyone who calls The Lord God 'the Boss' doesn't really know Him. Matthew 7 v 21, Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. James 2 v 19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
Informative Sermon! Kevin Swanson asks a rhetorical question in light of Man's depravity and governmental corruption: ''Would it shock you to learn that Trump or Obama had organised a paedophile sex ring?''
Well, of course, the answer to that would be, ''Yes, it would shock me to the core to learn that.'' In fact, I wouldn't actually believe it unless there was cast-iron proof. Surely that is the correct response to 'conspiracy theorists' that spread such nonsense?
Jim Lincoln wrote: the Puritans were doomed to fail because they believed in....
The Puritans were 'doomed to fail', were they? And yet, Mr Lincoln, you quote, at length, the Puritan, Richard Baxter, in your post on an article on SermonAudio entitled, ''Thereâ€™s Less Than 1% Chance of Catching Covid-19 Flying''. It seems to me that a Puritan theologian can be called upon by you when he supports some point of yours but the whole movement's eschatological emphasis can be discarded by referring to another preacher's Dispensational views of eschatology when it suits you on that occasion. Is there a consistent and honourable explanation for using a Puritan's views to support your point whilst declaring Puritanism itself to be a failure?
Jim Lincoln wrote: excerpt from, "The Deadly Dangers of Moralism " https://tinyurl.com/yapvm8uy This of course is true for England also,âť—đź‘Ť
That quote from MacArthur is a totally inappropriate one in relation to the Kirstie Higgs case. The teaching assistant's case isn't about trying to change the nation's morals through the law but about a citizen's right to criticise the government's sex education policies for schools, in supposedly private posts among Facebook 'friends'. An employer doesn't have, or shouldn't have, the right to overturn the citizen's more fundamental right to freedom of expression, even if ( or especially if ) a State funded organisation objects and sacks the individual for saying something against said policy. That is the crux of the matter and those kinds of freedoms and rights are being repeatedly eroded for Christians in the UK.
Jim Lincoln wrote: If they happen to influence anyone for voting for Biden--good for them
According to Joe Biden's website: ''During the Obama-Biden Administration, the United States made historic strides toward LGBTQ+ equalityâ€”from the repeal of â€śDonâ€™t Ask, Donâ€™t Tellâ€ť to Bidenâ€™s historic declaration in support of marriage equality on Meet the Press in 2012 to the unprecedented advancement of protections for LGBTQ+ Americans at the federal level.'' https://joebiden.com/lgbtq-policy/
During SC Justice Brett Kavanaughâ€™s confirmation hearings, Kamala Harris tried to get him to call the Obergefell ruling that forced states to recognize same-sex â€śmarriageâ€ť one of the â€śgreat moments in the history of the Supreme Court.â€ť
Professor Robert A. J. Gagnon commented; â€śHow can any Christian vote for such a person or even fail to cast an effective vote to stop her election?'' Gagnon added that a â€śvote for Biden/Harris is a vote for..cross-sex puberty blockers, mutilation surgery, mandatory Drag Queen Story Hour and â€śtransgenderâ€ť speech rules, and abortion. Donâ€™t be foolish.â€ť https://www.cfnews.org.uk/united-states-joe-biden-picks-planned-parenthood-ally-kamala-harris-as-running-mate/
Spoiled! This debate was spoiled for me by the peculiar need of the presenter to witter inanities and by Mr. Antwi's lack of clear pronunciation. Wasn't it possible, in the whole of the UK, to find a native born English Pentecostal minister able to defend his beliefs?
Great Sermon! David Silversides gave, clearly, the more persuasive and cogent arguments in favour of common grace. In fact, I thought Rev. Hanko let the debate become a little too personal and sounded quite aggressive at times.
Good Sermon I thought this sermon was quite informative but what was very irritating was the insistence of some member of the congregation on talking over the speaker. Why don't these members just let the preacher preach?