June A. Nadolny wrote: I wonder why take heed posted these sermons in 2012
That wasn't me. Sometimes people end up using previously used monikers. Happens.
Why are you playing the Devil's part here, constantly accusing everyone of everything under the sun?
UPS, thanks. Exactly what I'm thinking. She has an agenda and it's not nice. She clearly lives by contradictions which she's not prepared to explain to anyone. She's just another unaccountable professor of religion!
June A. Nadolny wrote: Website: Stop Baptist Predators Blogspot http://stopbaptistpredators.blogspot.com/2017/ Blog Entry of Christa Brown of JANUARY 25, 2017 - continued - Backward steps in 2016 Despite the decade's many gains, 2016 was a year in which that âhopelessâ word often took hold in my head. Not only was there the continuing flood of clergy abuse cases with the same awful patterns of cover-ups and do-nothingness, but there were also institutional decisions that made the Baptist badlands seem even bleaker. For starters, in 2016, the Southern Baptist Convention, this countryâs largest Protestant faith group, elected a known clergy sex abuse cover-upper as its president. It was as though the cover-up of child sex crimes had rendered the pastor promotion-worthy rather than making him subject to accountability. The Baptist General Convention of Texas, the largest statewide Baptist denominational entity, announced that it was abolishing its confidential file of abusive ministers. Though the BGCTâs public relations people spun this as a positive, survivors saw it for what it was -- a step backwards. - to be continued
I wonder what her agenda is in posting all this up on this thread?
June A. Nadolny wrote: take heed . . With respect to Spurgeon's comments commending RC Mystic âMadame Guyonâ, you give excuses, you make allowances, you show deference but With respect to John-UK, your professed âbrother in Christâ who also commended RC Mystic âMadame Guyonâ, you pronounce an unqualified censure
I see you have real problems understanding this thread, so let me make this very simple for you.
Spurgeon was wrong in his assessment of Guyon and if he were still alive, I would criticise him also. Difference is that Spurgeon would have been open to reassess his opinion and would have repented. John is nothing like Spurgeon either in attitude or knowledge.
If I am critical of both, how am I a respecter of persons?
You on the other hand can condemn Guyon but justify those who commend her! Not wise.
I'm glad you're done. Does this mean you'll now abandon the topic? Somehow I doubt that your appetite for being divisive will allow it.
June A. Nadolny wrote: you're a respecter of persons.
Not at all. Spurgeon has been in glory for a long time and does not need any censure from me. He knows better now. John UK is a divisive character who speaks out of both sides of his mouth and refuses to learn. Period.
You will note that since his departure it has been really peaceful here.
You are imitating him and trying to stoke the flames and cause division, which does not reflect well on you.
Why don't you start answering some questions instead of always posing them?
1. Was Spurgeon right in his assessment of Guyon? 2. If so, why do you condemn Guyon? 3. If you condemn Guyon, why do you seek to justify John UK and Spurgeon?
June A. Nadolny wrote: These are the words of C. H. Spurgeon, the "prince of preachers" Spurgeon had the greater light
If he had the greater light and was right in his assessment, why do you condemn Guyon?
You wrote 2/20/19 6:30PM
I would NEVER commend her or her works, nor refer to her as a "noble Christian woman".
Maybe you're still thinking through your own position on whether to commend a practicing Roman Catholic who never said that Romanism was wrong doctrinally or otherwise? Can someone who is genuinely born again remain in the Harlot church or remain silent about the gross errors she teaches and promotes? Can such a person genuinely have a closer "mystical" relationship to God than someone who obediently separates from the false church and walks by faith, not by mystical feelings?
Do you know what mysticism teaches or how the RC mystics still teach RC as a valid way to God?
June A. Nadolny wrote: That's just rubbish! Spurgeon lived from 1834 to 1892.
We know a great deal about Popery from the time of the Reformation, and from the writings of the Reformers and Puritans. All such resources Spurgeon had access to.
However, name me one volume written by either the Reformers or Puritans who wrote against Roman Catholic mystics. The mystics operated within the RCC, followed RC doctrine and practice etc and therefore were never the specific target of attacks by the Reformers or Puritans. Their specific form of "religion" has come to the fore in the 20th century as Rome stepped up her ecumenical efforts and attempted to fudge the differences between Protestants and Catholics on experiential grounds. Guyon is held out to us as a model RC Christian whom even Protestants could not object to as mysticism was on the rise
In the 20th century we have seen an explosion in the publication of the writings of these mystics, and also in Protestants answering these writings objecting to their use of seemingly orthodox language to hide their real Romanist teaching and their wholly unorthodox mysticism.
It is very telling how you keep parroting the same sentiments but refuse to answer the dilemma you've created for yourself.
June A. Nadolny wrote: take heed and read . . You trip over yourself to excuse and absolve C. H. Spurgeon for commending RC Mystic âMadame Guyonâ . . and I quote: âAlso, Spurgeon was much too generous in his assessment of many, whether RC or otherwise. It is understandable therefore that Spurgeon mischaracterised her.â Yet you deliver a harsh censor against John-UK for doing likewise? And I quote: 1) 2/3/19 9:35 PM Take heed âThis sycophantic swooning over the departure of JUK is quite sickening. The man said he believed in a gracious salvation and justification by faith alone but then went on to recommend Billy Graham despite his ecumenism and also Guyon a RC mysticâ
Precisely because we enjoy greater light; we have resources that Spurgeon did not possess.
Back to you. How do you justify Spurgeon and yet still condemn Guyon? And if you condemn Guyon, why are you trying to justify John UK?
June A. Nadolny wrote: That's just rubbish! Spurgeon lived from 1834 to 1892. Spurgeon was well-read and well-acquainted with the writings of the Reformers as well as the writings of Roman Catholics. He was well-informed on Romanism/Popery.
I have provided quotes from Spurgeon's sermons in which he commends Roman Catholic mystic âMadame Guyonâ, so it is quite apparent that C. H. Spurgeon had access to the writings of âMadame Guyonâ . . he quoted her . . he read what she wrote . . he commended her.
You clearly have a real issue here. If you insist that he had read her own writings and understood what a mystic like Guyon meant beyond the plain words she wrote (because mystics used common language to mean much more) then you must approve of Guyon as well. But you don't! So which is it? Spurgeon was right? In which case why do you disapprove? If Spurgeon was wrong, then why are you trying so hard to get him to be right?
I am beginning to wonder whether even you know exactly what you're arguing for here.
And all this subtle and futile web weaving is an attempt by you to extricate yourself from commending John UK when he approved of both her and Graham. Staggering.
June A. Nadolny wrote: Why then does C. H. Spurge on commend her?
Much of what we know about Romanism was secret in Spurgeon's day, and certainly there was very little accessible information in the public domain of the writings and beliefs of the mystics. Also, Spurgeon was much too generous in his assessment of many, whether RC or otherwise. It is understandable therefore that Spurgeon mischaracterised her.
Why Graham did is clear viz. because he is an ecumenist and accepts RCs as Christians.
The question remains why, if you are against Guyon and Graham, did you defend John UK, when he is a defender of both Guyon and Graham?
June A. Nadolny wrote: Wow . . the "Johns and the Marys, the favorites of heaven" ? ? Citation: 1) Source: God's Pupil, God's Preacher: An Autobiography / July 28, 1889 by C. H. SPURGEON (1834-1892) Link: http://www.biblebb.com/files/spurgeon/2318.htm
So you are saying that a practicing Roman Catholic who never renounced one RC doctrine, never separated, continued to observe all RC rituals, believed in trans-substantiation, believed that the Pope is the vicar of Christ, and who was a mystic, was nevertheless a true Christian.
Dr. Tim wrote: âAnother Democrat scandal in Virginia?â Yes. Read the Democratsâ platform, and you will quickly see that the entire party is a continuous, ongoing, epic and catastrophic national scandal. It is the morality of Gomorrah exacerbated by the politics of Herod; the wickedness of Jezebel compounded by the foolishness of Rehoboam. THIS is the party wicked Jim Lincoln and wicked George Will endorse. THIS is the cartel of reprobates who want to destroy everything good and decent and replace it with something vile and disgusting. THIS is not only scandalous, but downright evil, passel of perverts who will not rest until America takes her place on the dungheap of nations consumed by the wrath of God. May the party and its platform perish forever from the face of the earth.
June A. Nadolny wrote: â . .We give our hand to every man who loves the Lord Jesus Christ, be he what he may or who he may! ... I hold that there are many savingly called who do not believe in effectual calling and that there are a great many who persevere to the end, who do not believe the doctrine of final perseverance. We do hope that the hearts of many are a great deal better than their heads. We set not their fallacies down to any willful opposition to the truth as it is in Jesus, but simply to an error in their judgments, which we pray God to correct." - C.H.Spurgeon - Sermon Entitled: Effects of Sound Doctrine
John Wesley loved Christ and Spurgeon would have extended the hand to him as a brother in Christ.
You quote Spurgeon approvingly and yet these are the very things you donât allow for as demonstrated in the loaded questions which you used to try and bait me. Shame that youâre so blind to it.
June A. Nadolny wrote: ****** Note: the above-ref. comment was posted by John's brother in Christ on 2/4/19 10:14 AM on this thread imo sir . . you have spoken as a true brother in Christ
I donât think anyone is going to trust the word of a woman who cannot tell when her questions have been answered or one who doesnât question the allegations made to see if they be true or to see if the spirit of the post is even consistent with its own demands. Sad blindness.
June A. Nadolny wrote: John's brother in Christ wrote: "Only Vultures would be circling for bones as one would think he was 'suddenly' an apostate by all the clamour. He makes simple challenges to some posters who maintain that they are biblicists...show me the men who preach the same and the churches that do likewise and he could show you thousands on SermonAudio that hold to the same doctrine as himself, including the founder of SermonAudio. He doesn't hide the fact where he stands ... J C Ryle's evangelistic preaching and where he believes the 1689 confession is scriptural. So he will be sadly missed. 'And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.' Eph 4:32 ***** imo . . You have spoken as a true brother in Christ
Who has called JUK an apostate?
When anyone speaks against JUK they are vultures? How exactly does this sit with Eph 4.32? On the one hand insist that we be kind, tender hearted etc but on the other dish out abuse and false allegations because thatâs the Christian thing to do? Unbelievable!!
June A. Nadolny wrote: No sir, you haven't answered my questions. 1) So then . . what is the "great deal more that you believe?" 2) Does your definition of a brother in Christ include any and all who profess to be Christians, including Arminians and Pentecostals / Charismatics? 3) What about those who profess to be Christians and belong to so-called "mega churches?" Are they your brothers in Christ? And inasmuch as you are unwilling to answer my questions, neither will I answer yours.
Youâre getting nothing more from me. Try baiting someone else whoâs prepared to play your silly games.
June A. Nadolny wrote: No sir, you haven't answered my questions. So then . . what is the "great deal more that you believe?" Does your definition of a brother in Christ include any and all who profess to be Christians, including Arminians and Pentecostals / Charismatics? What about those who profess to be Christians and belong to so-called "mega churches?" Are they your brothers in Christ?
Actually I have answered your questions. So quit wasting my time.
Now how about you answer my questions?
John MacArthur has a mega church. Do you believe that no one who attends there is a genuine believer? Are they not brothers in Christ?