Radio Streams
SA Radio
24/7 Radio Stream
VCY America
24/7 Radio Stream
76

My Favorite Things
Home
NewsroomALL
Events | Notices | Blogs
Newest Audio | Video | Clips
Broadcasters
Church Finder
Live Webcasts
Sermons by Bible
Sermons by Category
Sermons by Topic
Sermons by Speaker
Sermons by Language
Sermons by Date
Staff Picks
CommentsALL -37 sec
Top Sermons
Online Bible
Hymnal
Daily Reading
Our Services
Broadcaster Dashboard
Members Only

 
USER COMMENTS BY “ DARREN THOMAS ”
Page 1 | Page 4 ·  Found: 112 user comments posted recently.
News Item6/22/19 6:14 PM
Darren Thomas  Contact via emailFind all comments by Darren Thomas
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
500
comments
John 10

11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
12 But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.
13 The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.
14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.
15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.
16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold (viz..of the Gentiles): them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

Unequivocal statements by the Lord Jesus himself that his death was for the sheep, who hear their shepherd and known him.

But on this forum we witness the rank unbelief of those who are hirelings (abandoning the sheep) and wolves (sowing confusion to destroy the faith of the sheep) preaching as they do that the Lord Jesus loves the goats and died for them too. These are the ones who bring the unregenerate into the churches to destroy them and who admire Graham who even sent his converts to Roman Catholic churches. Would a true under shepherd do that?

Another gospel.


News Item6/22/19 10:18 AM
Darren Thomas  Contact via emailFind all comments by Darren Thomas
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
500
comments
Those who insist on the infinite value of the atonement present to us a conflicted god. A god who condemns because of the broken law, a sinful nature etc then provides an infinite atonement so that opportunity is provided to every single individual who stands condemned to come for forgiveness and new life, yet knowing that none will come without his drawing them and giving them the necessary faith.

So having provided an opportunity for all he secures it only for the elect.

What happened? Which member of the Trinity was out of sync?

The father we know gave Christ a people. The Holy Spirit secures the salvation of just those people, and even though Christ affirmed that he came to save those that the Father gave him he went rogue and decided that he would provide for everyone just in case?

But we must preach this conflicted god because, well because, he sounds nice and caring, doesn't he? All loving, well sort of, if we can convince people that salvation really rests in their hands, and that this conflicted god waits on them to do the right thing. Please people don't let his death be a waste, make it count in your life, he'll be ever so pleased that you deemed him worthy of your trust. A new gospel indeed.


News Item6/22/19 9:25 AM
Darren Thomas  Contact via emailFind all comments by Darren Thomas
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
500
comments
Mike wrote:
He upbraided the Jews for their unbelief, not their election status. Ever wonder why he lamented over Jerusalem? (Mt23:37; Luke 13:34)
.....Unbelief is the real perversion, the reason man is held accountable, the reason hell awaits.
I see that you didn't respond to my first post but chose instead to concentrate on a section of my second to throw down more rabbit holes.

Strategy noted.

I hope that readers will note the unbelief being displayed in the plainest statements of the Bible viz.

Romans 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

Romans 8:7 .... the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Romans 9. 18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Maybe, the Lord didn't know about free will in the last verse? Should he not have said "no man will come?" But no he said "no man can come" which seems to me to speak of an impossibility.


News Item6/21/19 5:52 PM
Darren Thomas  Contact via emailFind all comments by Darren Thomas
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
500
comments
Mike wrote:
John 5:40
........ What did he say was missing in them?
In case my previous comment that the verse relates to total depravity and was being used illegitimately to justify free will seemed obscure to anyone reading this thread, let me show you how in the context referring it to free will is turning logic on its head.

Consider this comment by the great expositor John Gill:

“These words are so far from being expressive of the power and liberty of the will of man to come to Christ, that they rather declare the perverseness and stubbornness of it; that man has no desire, inclination, or will, to go Christ for life; but had rather go any where else, or trust to any thing else, than to him. Man is stout-hearted, and far from the righteousness of Christ, and submission to it; is not subject to the law of God, nor the Gospel of Christ; nor can he be, till God works in him both to will and to do of his good pleasure; or until he is made willing in the day of his power. No one can come to Christ, except the Father draw him"

Do you see how perverse the reasoning is, when the verse is set in the context of a will enslaved to seek anything but Christ?

Romans 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.


News Item6/21/19 3:22 PM
Darren Thomas  Contact via emailFind all comments by Darren Thomas
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
500
comments
Mike wrote:
John 5:40
"And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life."
One thing should be plainly obvious here. The Lord did not say ye cannot come to me. Now go back to 5:31, and finish the chapter, and ask yourself why was Jesus upbraiding the Jews? What did he say was missing in them?
A verse which teaches total depravity is taken to suggest free will. Amazing.

You can interpret it any way you like, but as long as your take contradicts other clear scriptures your specious philosophising to empty the verse of meaning should be evident to those who understand the verse.

John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

What does this last verse suggest to your mind if not impossibility of their coming of their own accord? Of course they will not come, because their unregenerate carnal minds are at enmity with God:

Romans 8:7 .... the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

The "will not" is therefore a "cannot" too.


News Item6/21/19 8:30 AM
Darren Thomas  Contact via emailFind all comments by Darren Thomas
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
500
comments
Mike wrote:
Of course, Paul understood the meaning of the potter and the clay metaphor from Jeremiah 18.
This is so sad.

By your interpretation you have just vacated any meaning in Romans 9.

The whole point of the chapter is to show that God is faithful to the promises he made to the Jews in the OT despite appearances. The reason was that the promises were not made to all the lineal descendants (Jews outwardly) but to those who were Jews inwardly.

He illustrates that even in the OT it never applied to all the descendants of Abraham - so Isaac was chosen over Ishmael, likewise Jacob over Esau. This is ELECTION. But more importantly, verse 11 says

For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth

IOW - what they did doesn't matter. God chose Isaac and Jacob before they were even born. This is further explained in v18 that God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy and hardens others.

Hence the complaint of the verses that follow, which English Lad quotes viz. In that case why does he still find fault with those he hardens?

The logic of the passage totally blows out of the water your take on it.


News Item6/21/19 7:21 AM
Darren Thomas  Contact via emailFind all comments by Darren Thomas
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
500
comments
Christopher00 wrote:
We should be wiping the nervous sweat from our brow, and in great humility, and thankfulness, counting our blessings that, for whatever reason, He chose to set us apart.
Excellent. Someone who truly understands Grace in election. The Lord bless you brother!

Had to say that, interrupting my posts, because it was so well said.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Let's read about our High Priest. Was he High Priest for every single individual in the world? He would need to have been if his oblation was meant for them.

Hebrews 10:21
And having an high priest over the house of God;

Oh, dear. this shoots down the notion that he represented anyone other than those who are in the household of God.

But surely, the typological conclusion that John UK draws is that he died for everyone's sins. Hmmm.. again his ignorance of the scriptures shows through.

Hebrews 2:17
Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

He was made like unto his brethren (household of God) so that he could make reconciliation for their sins - that's the people being referred to here.


News Item6/21/19 7:17 AM
Darren Thomas  Contact via emailFind all comments by Darren Thomas
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
500
comments
What was the specific blessing that was promised to Abraham?

Galatians 3:8
And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

Here we see that in the promise to bless the nations was the specific promise of justifying the heathen (non-Jews) through faith, not some airy fairy Christ died for everyone rubbish.

So when Christ came to fulfil the new covenant promised in Jeremiah 31, we read in Matthew 1.21 "…..thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins." That was the intent (not merely the application that BMc ignorantly likes to go on about).

As if to confirm his mission the Lord repeatedly makes statements like the following:

John 10:11
I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.

John 10:15
As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

What? Not the goats? Surely he died for everyone? NO NOT SO!

Well, let's come briefly to the atonement (or reconciliation - same word). Was the imagery of the atonement meant to cover every single individual?

Out of characters


News Item6/21/19 5:10 AM
Darren Thomas  Contact via emailFind all comments by Darren Thomas
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
500
comments
People who wish to read in their own theology into Scripture really don't read the Bible properly. This whole nonsense that Christ died for everyone is based by John UK on his misunderstanding of the typical teaching of the OT.

So in the next few posts I shall endeavour to lay out the actual teaching of the Bible.

We have to start with how the Jews thought both in the OT and NT and especially concerning their own status as a nation. The sense of Jewish superiority because God had chosen them was palpable even among the disciples of Christ, such that Christ spends a great deal of his time trying to dispel the notion. Even so, with Peter it wasn't until the incident with Cornelius that it finally sank in that the gospel was intended for the whole world and not just for the Jews.

So with this in mind, let's examine what the Scriptures say.

Genesis 18:18
.......Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him?


Here it is clear that through Abraham all the nations of the earth would be blessed. IOW the whole world (not Jews only), but, as I shall show, not every single individual.

What was the specific blessing that was expected in that promise?

More in my next post as I have reached the character li


News Item6/19/19 11:45 AM
Darren Thomas  Contact via emailFind all comments by Darren Thomas
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
500
comments
Unprofitable Servant wrote:
You would probably say in your studies of Scripture that the Bible teaches the Covenant of Works, Redemption and Grace. I would say these are nowhere in Scripture but man made doctrine. We are both using the same Bible and depending upon the same Holy Spirit. Our understanding is colored by the teaching we received and accepted as truth. The problem isn’t in the Bible, it is in our understanding of what the Bible teaches and how we interpret it.
Thanks brother for your response. Then it seems to me that truth cannot be known with any degree of certainty by anyone, and we can all stop reading the bible as well as teaching it until God gives us the correct interpretation. The bible as a means of communicating truth is a miserable failure and the Roman Catholics are better off with the notion of an a magisterium whose leader is inspired and able to speak ex-Cathedra. At least that gives a measure of assurance on truth which no Protestant or Dissenter can claim. In fact the notion of a living apostle who alone can make sense of Scripture and communicate it's essential teachings so that the laity don't have to bother because they are not equipped would be the only solution to this impasse.

News Item6/19/19 7:49 AM
Darren Thomas  Contact via emailFind all comments by Darren Thomas
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
500
comments
Unprofitable Servant wrote:
Sure, not all interpretations of Scripture are equal...Ultimately Calvinist or Arminian are interpretations of Bible doctrine. ..I need to concentrate on by God’s grace is being a doer of the Word and not a hearer only....
Hello brother,

I agree that we should all be doers of the word. However, since our actions flow from what we believe (hence the epistles first start with doctrine before exhorting on certain behavior flowing from the doctrine) getting doctrine right is important.

You say that not all interpretation is equal. I am not sure what you mean. That sentence would only make sense if there are shades of right meaning, not if there was truth and falsehood. But, whatever you meant by it, what concerns me is that having said that not all interpretation is equal, you provide no means to know which is superior. Are we all left to our own devices? Do we need an inspired prophet to tell us?

I have to correct you on a previous statement too. You state that the doctrine of grace only flow from Dortrecht. That is incorrect. The same dispute was around in AD300s between Augustine and Pelagius and Pelagius was declared a heretic by the Churches. It was known as Augustinianism before Dortrecht.


News Item6/18/19 3:08 PM
Darren Thomas  Contact via emailFind all comments by Darren Thomas
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
500
comments
John UK wrote:
Yom Kippur - The Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16). The whole day was devoted to providing the whole group of people with a blood atonement. This was for everybody, but not everybody had faith in it, so the atonement did not avail for them. But it was there FOR them. There was no lack in what God told them to do.
Israel in the OT represents at best the visible church, separated from the world, with God in the midst guarding and observing God's appointed ordinances.

How does that help your case for an atonement for every person who has ever lived when the majority of the then existing world was outside of this visible community? Hmmm....

Ladybug


News Item6/18/19 1:04 PM
Darren Thomas  Contact via emailFind all comments by Darren Thomas
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
500
comments
Unprofitable Servant wrote:
Never said any of what you said and you seem to be. unwilling to admit that the Canons of Dordt are not the same as the Bible. Have a good day.
UPS, I wasn't trying to upset you. I tried to make sense of what you posted and frankly didn't understand your point. The gist of it still appears to me to be this problem that you have created for yourself divorcing God's word from it's meaning. The meaning is interpretation otherwise God's word, or his communication to us, is meaningless. That only leaves right and wrong interpretation, not who does it. If we cannot get to the correct meaning or interpretation, then we have a huge problem that God is trying to communicate something to us but we don't possess the wherewithal to get to its meaning.

The above said, I do believe that the Synod of Dortrecht were consistent with the Scriptures and the Remonstrants deviated from its teachings. More plainly the Synod interpreted the meaning of God's word correctly and the Remonstrants got it wrong. Did the Synod get everything right? No I don't believe so.

Hope that this clarifies the issue, but if not, I am sure you'll get back to me.

Anyway, I wish you a good day too.


News Item6/18/19 12:24 PM
Darren Thomas  Contact via emailFind all comments by Darren Thomas
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
500
comments
Unprofitable Servant wrote:
But if the Canons of Dordt says it then it must be true? They are no more inspired than Spurgeon. Both are man’s interpretation of what is found in the Bible. (not addressing their accuracy) The term “limited atonement” (not talking about the concept of it) is just like the terms depravity, irresistible, and unconditional, not found in Scripture. (Since you indicated that to be crucial)
If you do a search right here on SermonAudio for particular redemption it brings up 393 different sermons and three different series.
You appear to be are swallowing a gnat and straining a camel as both terms refer to the fact that Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it just to tenuously cling to the wording of mere men.
I'm sorry UPS, you've lost me entirely here.

Appears to me that you wish to vacate all meaning attached to the bible as man's interpretation. If that is so, who has the truth? And how shall we know? Perhaps we just give up on it and make up our own? Let each man's truth be his own interpretation, right?


News Item6/18/19 12:18 PM
Darren Thomas  Contact via emailFind all comments by Darren Thomas
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
500
comments
John UK

Do you like BM believe that Christ only made salvation possible? Have you abandoned substitutionary atonement? Maybe also irresistible grace? Does your creed shift with time or maybe the company you're in?


News Item6/18/19 11:55 AM
Darren Thomas  Contact via emailFind all comments by Darren Thomas
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
500
comments
John UK wrote:
Yes indeed, sister. It is a wonderful thing when you can go anywhere in scripture and not have to wrest individual verses to make it fit a particular doctrine. When the Bible is accepted, it is its own doctrine-maker.
What does what BM posted mean to you?

That Christ died for every single soul?

If he died for every single soul, why is every single soul not saved?

Can we now all give up the pretence that anyone is actually in danger of hellfire?

John UK wrote:
It all promotes the love of God by action, not words.It all promotes the love of God by action, not words.
Yes, God does love those that he saves. He chose and loved them from before the foundation of the world and that is why he saves them. The rest of mankind he chose to pass over in judgement.

News Item6/18/19 9:00 AM
Darren Thomas  Contact via emailFind all comments by Darren Thomas
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
500
comments
John UK wrote:
"When we are giving the invitations of the gospel that we find in the Scriptures, we never think of limiting them. Though we believe the special purpose of Christ’s atonement was the redemption of his Church, yet we know that his sacrifice was infinite in value, and therefore we set the wicket gate as wide open as we can, and we repeat Christ’s own invitation, 'Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.' " CHS
Forgive me for saying so, but that's just plain silly reasoning. It simply makes no sense. Just because Spurgeon said it, does not make it true. Where is the scripture to justify this nonsense?

The universality of the offer has nothing whatsoever to do with the value of the atonement. It has everything to do with the command to preach repentance and faith to every creature.


News Item6/18/19 7:42 AM
Darren Thomas  Contact via emailFind all comments by Darren Thomas
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
500
comments
John UK wrote:
Personally, I think the expression 'limited atonement' is misleading and inadequate. Whereas the phrase 'particular redemption' says it all.
Let me put this as kindly as I can. You would have a point if anyone in the history of the reformed church ever understood limited atonement to mean that Christ's atonement was of limited value. Sadly for you the term 'limited' always refers to the application, not the worth, and the concept is therefore exactly that of particular redemption.

But, as I asked before, of what practical value is it to know that Christ's atonement is of infinite value, if the trinity has determined that it will only be efficacious for the elect?

You make it sound like your theology turns on this fact, but I cannot see you ever explaining exactly why. It still doesn't enable you to say to any particular sinner "Christ died for you" or even your cherished "God loves you". So what's the point of knowing of the infinite value of the atonement?


News Item6/17/19 3:57 PM
Darren Thomas  Contact via emailFind all comments by Darren Thomas
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
500
comments
John UK wrote:
Yes indeed brother!
Whichever way you look at it:-
If you trust Him, you’re elect, and if you don’t, you’re not.
or
If you're elect, you will trust Him, and if you don't, you're not.
You claim to be a 1689 BCF believer and yet can write the above as though the 2 are exactly alike? Simply amazing. Quite the art to be able to speak from both sides of the mouth.

News Item6/17/19 2:49 PM
Darren Thomas  Contact via emailFind all comments by Darren Thomas
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
500
comments
NeedHim wrote:
Randy Smith; First, I must share the Gospel with passion. Yet when it comes to conversion I need to leave the matter in God’s hands because that is a work that only He can accomplish.
Second, my responsibility is not to save people, but rather my responsibility is to faithfully share the “good news.” Therefore, I don’t need to resort to gimmicks or manipulation, but rather prayer and trust in God’s sovereignty. It is not the skill of the proclaimer, the packaging of the message or the techniques used to proclaim it, but the unadulterated Word and trust in the Holy Spirit. We need clarity, not cleverness. Third, I can be at peace regarding the eternal outcome of souls and am I thankful for that!
Brother Needhim, your posts are truly heart lifting; a wonderful admixture of true doctrine and devotion.

The above is perfectly stated! We don't need to change the message, add anything to it or detract from it. We need to proclaim it and trust God for the rest. This leads to Holy Ghost conversions not the wood, hay and stubble produced by men who dare not trust God to do his work. Shame that some never learn this even though they profess to believe in the D.O.G.

Jump to Page : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6


Jim Byrd
Christ the Tree of Life

Revelation 22:1-2
Midweek Service
13th Street Baptist Church
Play! | MP4 | RSS


Tech Talk Zoom // Episode 06

Dr. James M. Phillips
#62 Departing in Honor or..

Acts From The Greek Text
Discover The Word With Dr...
Video!Play! | MP4

Ken Wimer
Dividing Because of Christ

Radio Broadcast
Shreveport Grace Church
Play! | MP3

Sponsor:
Become a Certified Church Consultant

Start Cons­ult­ing in Just 6 Months! Enroll in Church Cons­ult­at­ion Univ­ers­ity Today - S
https://churchanswers.com/s..

Sponsor:
Leading a Post-COVID Church

Free eBook by Thom Rainer - A Past­or's Guide to Min­istry Chall­enges & Opp­ort­un­it­ies
https://churchanswers.com/l..

Sermon: #58 Why Would He Do That?
Dr. James M. Phillips

SPONSOR




SA UPDATES NEWSLETTER Sign up for a weekly dose of personal thoughts along with interesting content updates. Sign Up
FOLLOW US


Gospel of John
Cities | Local | Personal

MOBILE
iPhone + iPad
ChurchOne App
Watch
Android
ChurchOne App
Fire Tablet
Wear
Chromecast TV
Apple TV
Android TV
ROKU TV
Amazon Fire TV
Amazon Echo
Kindle Reader


HELP
Knowledgebase
Broadcasters
Listeners
Q&A
Uploading Sermons
Uploading Videos
Webcasting
2-MINUTE TIPS

NEWS
Weekly Newsletter
Unsubscribe
Staff Picks | RSS
SA Newsroom
SERVICES
Dashboard | Info
Cross Publish
Audio | Video | Podcast
Sermon Player | Video
Church Finder | Info
Mobile & Apps
Live Webcasting
Solo Sites
Internationalization
Listen Line
Events | Notices
Transcription | PowerClips
Billboards | Biz Cards
Favorites | QR Codes
Online Donations
24x7 Radio Stream
INTEGRATION
Embed Codes
Twitter
Facebook
Logos | e-Sword | BLB
JSON API

BATCH
Upload via RSS
Upload via FTP
Upload via Dropbox

SUPPORT
Advertising | Local Ads
Support Us
Stories
ABOUT US
The largest and most trusted library of audio sermons from conservative churches and ministries worldwide.

Our Services | Articles of Faith
Broadcast With Us
Earn SA COINS!
Privacy Policy

TECH TALK
Tech Talk Zoom // Episode 06
Copyright © 2021 SermonAudio.