A warning for us all Hearing of Rev. Hoke's resignation caused me to listen to this sermon. Even if it didn't affect his congregation, it warned me to put aside my fear of man and do a better job warning people of their impending judgment and the righteousness found only in Christ "who saves us from the wrath to come."
Great to see your posts again Brother Elmer. Hope all is well with thee and your ministry. Thanks for the links. Good stuff as always.
Brother Elmer I wrote: No. Church membership as we know it is not biblical. Most so-called churches are not really churches anyway. They are corporations created by the heathen in the State religion. Could also call these 40,000+ denominations clubs, businesses, social gatherings etc. Contrivances of man. [URL=http://ecclesia.org/truth/attend.html]]]Believers should not attend church[/URL] [URL=http://the-heart-of-dan.weebly.com/church-membership.html]]]Church membership[/URL] [URL=http://www.therealchurch.com/articles/why_i_dont_go_to_church.html]]]Why I don't go to church[/URL] [URL=http://churchanarchist.com/]]]Church anarchist[/URL]
Decision wrote: Yeah, don't bother with the Bible. You might come to a different conclusion. We mustn't allow that, must we? I've got to go. Will check in tomorrow.
I asked you to comment on the bible verse below, but you ignored it and jumped to the issue of persecution.
You can quote verse after verse of bible text, but I am trying to deal with your underlying presupposition and epistemology to the text you quote.
Most modern day Arminians use a "literal" or "figurative" method of interpretation. This error blinds them contextually in quoting bible passages, or arguing that they only use the bible for their belief system.
The proper method of interpretation is taking the "literal sense" method, or the "intended meaning" of the author Himself. Not to bring your Arminian presupposition to a "literal" interpretation, but rather to bring the Scripture alone to interpret the Scripture using the "literal sense".
The literal sense is that which the words are intended to mean as opposed to simply what they "appear" to mean.
Quote verses all you want, but if you don't know how to interpret them using Scripture with Scripture, you will remain in your sin of following the Arminians...who follow the Jesuits.
I do remember now why I left this site. They put in a policy that you cannot post two comments in a row. What is silly policy for those who attempt to make a more productive thought in 2 posts back-to-back.
Nevertheless, my other thread is now in limbo I posted on since I suspect the guy who was responding to may have raced off to go watch the Super Bowl at 6:30pm like the rest of the "Christian" community on the Lord's Day.
I'm only guessing, perhaps he is not watching the Super Bowl like most on the Lord's Day, but I would be surprised.
The Super Bowl has become sadly a period where entire churches close down to accommodate the lack of attendance, or alternatively set up large Super Bowl parties to promote this defilement of the Lord's Day.
I might (wrongfully I hope) assume this site will be silent now during the Super Bowl, and open back up again after the Super Bowl party is finished tonight.
Decision wrote: Like the other Presby, you appear to have comprehension problems. I didn't say Wesley converted them, I said they were converted under his ministry!
I answered it clearly.
"Yes, certainly I deny that his ministry converted anyone. Ministers do not convert anyone in the first place, and Wesley did not preach the true gospel, but he preached Arminianism...a false gospel and type of destructive heresy at best and a damnable heresy at worst."
If you think that they were converted under a false gospel preached by Wesley, than my answer stands the same. I don't believe anyone being taught a false gospel by false ministers can be saved under their ministry. In fact, I would contend that those who buy into the false gospel of Wesley, Finney, the modern Evangelical Protestants, the Roman Catholics, etc. do really struggle to untangle this doctrine to see the truth.
The false gospel of Arminianism is highly destructive to the unity of the church, and the amazing grace of Christ alone and his sole sacrificial atonement. In the worship of God, the Roman Catholics bring into the mass all the elements of sacred tradition, and the Arminians (thanks to the Jesuits) have bought it hook, line and sinker.
For those interested in the controversy, I recommend the following:
Historical Theology: A Review of the Principal Doctrinal Discussions in the Christian Church Since the Apostolic Age (2 Volume Set), William Cunningham
"Two large volumes totalling just under 1300 pages. The definitive work on doctrinal history. Compares the truth to the three major heretical systems: Romanism, Socinianism (an old form of liberalism) and Arminianism.
Covers the most important disputes, focusing in on significant points of controversy in each. The value of this set should not be underestimated, for it is an antidote against much of the innovative folly so prevalent in our day."
CHAPTER XXV. - The Arminian Controversy
1. Arminius and the Anninians 2. Synod of Dort 3. The Five Points 4. Original Sin 5. Universal and Effectual Calling 6. Efficacious and Irresistible Grace 7. The Decrees of God 8. Predestination - State of the Question 9. Predestination, and the Doctrine of the Fall 10. Predestination, and the Omniscience of God 11. Predestination, and the Sovereignty of God 12. Scripture Evidence for Predestination 13. Objections against Predestination 14. Perseverance of Saints 15. Socinianism - Arminianism -
Decision wrote: Lame! Have you read any of his sermons, or are you like B.Rith who can only tell us what others think? And are you denying that thousands were converted under his ministry?
As a former Wesley adherent, yes, I have not only read his sermons but I used to have many of his works until I threw them away. Once I was blind, but now I see.
Yes, certainly I deny that his ministry converted anyone. Ministers do not convert anyone in the first place, and Wesley did not preach the true gospel, but he preached Arminianism...a false gospel and type of destructive heresy at best and a damnable heresy at worst.
Since you don't know how you know what you know, and are blind to the origin of these heresies, you cannot see them. Your emotion has overcome your ability to not only reason through the distinction between a true and false doctrine, but you appear to me to be partially convinced in the power of Wesley (or any minister or even yourself) to convert souls.
You would do well to remove the emotion from your reason, and approach the Scriptures with a neutral presupposition and use Scripture to interpret Scripture.
What does this verse mean to you?
"And when the Gentiles he...and as many as were ordained to eternal life believe
"The book established his fame, and brought him back from Antwoth, (whither he had ventured after the overthrow of Prelacy), to the chair of divinity in St. Andrews" (Johnston, Treasury of the Scottish Covenant, p. 308. Maclean, in
"Arminianism: Another Gospel," writes,
"As a direct result of his book against Arminianism, Rutherford was put through the form of a 'Trial' by a group of Arminian bishops who were led by Sydserff of Galloway, deprived of his pastoral charge at Anwoth and banished to the town of Aberdeen.
In a letter Rutherford wrote to a minister in Ireland, Robert Cunningham, he says: 'The cause that ripened their hatred was my book against the Arminians, whereof they accused me, on those three days I appeared before them,' and in a letter from Aberdeen in 1637 to Mr. John Ferguson of Ochiltree, Rutherford refers to his trial, saying, "I was judicially accused for my book against the Arminians, and commanded by the Chancellor to acknowledge I had done a fault in writing against Dr. Jackson, a wicked Arminian."
Exercitationes Apologeticae Pro Divina Gratia... Adversus Jacobum Arminium ejusque asseclas, & Jesuitasâ€¦ Apologetical exercises on behalf of divine grace, against James Arminius and his followers, and the Jesuits (1636, 1651 edition)
Decision wrote: God also mightily used John and Charles Wesley, who were no lovers of John Calvin. So, that's a pretty dumb argument. But then we've come to expect that from you.
One would need to study whether Wesley was used of God, or if God allowed Wesley to be used of the Roman Catholic papacy to promote the Jesuit doctrine promoted by Jacobus Arminius.
"For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you." (1Cor.11:18-19)
"But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall ***be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies,*** even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
***And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.***
***And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you:*** whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not." (2Pet.2:1-3)
John for JESUS wrote: 1) Yes, I'm sure because that is how the Bible states it. For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. (Romans 4:13 NKJV) 2) No, by Abram believing God prior to circumcision or Isaac. He did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God, and being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to perform. And therefore â€śit was accounted to him for righteousness.â€ť (Romans 4:20-22 NKJV)
"For this is the word of PROMISE, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.
And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
(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" (Rom.9:9-11)
We see that the promise to Sarah is with Isaac.
"And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him...But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year." (Gen.17:19,21)
"And Abraham called the name of his son that was born unto him, whom Sarah bare to him, Isaac....And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called." (Gen.21:3,12)
"Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved." (
John for JESUS wrote: Yes, Abraham is the heir of the world through faith.
I've never heard that position before. Are you sure you wrote it right that Abraham is the heir of the world through faith? Do you mean that his faith, by placing Isaac on the alter, was sufficient for him to inherit the world? Please clarify if you don't mind.
My opinion is that not all Israel are the elect in Abraham, but rather from the seed of Isaac the elect (both Jews and Gentiles) are chosen only. I highlighted in capital letters.
"Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are NOT all Israel, which are OF Israel:
Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they ALL children: but, In Isaac shall THY SEED be CALLED.
That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are NOT the children of God: but the children of the PROMISE ARE counted for the SEED." (Rom.9:6-8)
If you give the whole world to Abraham through his faith alone, or you say that Christ died for the whole world, to give to Abraham the world through his faith only, it does make what the verses say above confusing.
The elect and chosen of God come from the seed of Isaac.
"Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise." (Gal.4:28)
Askin wrote: Still hate the Baptists as much as you did back in 2009? Perhaps even more? Still buying into SWRB lies?
I don't hate Baptists...never did. I was once a Baptist, and recall my ignorance as a Baptist. What I disagree with is the independent form of Church government, refusal to allow infant, covenant baptism, their views on normative worship vs. regulative principle of worship and lastly, their modern eschatology.
I find a lot in common with Baptists beyond those points above, but using the word hate is something you should repent for to allege those are my views.
I don't even hate you for calling me a hater in public, or implying I hate baptists in public. I feel you are misinformed, or perhaps misunderstanding me, but once I clarify it as a Christian you should ask for forgiveness.
I'll leave it up to you. I'm gone now for a while. I wish you all the very best, and may the Lord pour out his love upon you forever.
[QUOTE]Sorry, I forget sometimes that not everyone professing to believe in the Grace of God has an interest in seeking Him...[/QUOTE]Mike, I'm on my way out the door to go see my mom, but pray about this verse.
"And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." Acts.13:48
Don't forget Ordo salutis, or the order of salvation, in which we believe. You probably know all this stuff anyhow, but it is that order which causes the rift between us.
I think the order is vitally important, as I personally think it demonstrates the fruit of those who have a saving knowledge of Christ, and those who only profess Christ as their "personal savior" but are not born again, justified and sanctified by free grace.
Those fruits are hard to distinguish in our generation, as many who really believe they are saved attempt to prove it through miracles, signs and wonders in their lives...in the name of Christ, but this too can be deceiving.
We must be cautious who we believe is the author of our salvation, or the grounds of our salvation. Is it Christ who died for the world, and only those who "accept him" are saved, or is it those He chose, effectually called and named His elect from His
postaboy wrote: Welcome back as your posts were a great contribution! Nothing changes-still the same debates from 10 years ago! Some good folk (temporarily) recently departed like John Uk and some back like DJC49. I like to learn so much from the various good brethren (and sisters) on this site when I get the actual time to read the comments. God bless all who contribute!
Interesting...I just stopped in for a moment when I saw that article on the debate. Thanks for the feedback.
I did click on my comment log, and see it was Aug. 2010 and Jun. 2009 with my last posts. I read through some of them, and find it interesting what I believed in 2008/2009 on certain subjects. Some of that comes back to me now, and is interesting to reflect on our lives and sanctification.
The Lord is incredibly amazing in helping us with perseverance and showing us how to overcome besetting sin, as well as, ignorance of His revealed will.
The issues of amazing grace still cause men to stumble due to the "waterflood" of false doctrine pervasive in our generation, and in history. The 1260, 1290 and 1335 year periods are coming to a town near you in the not too distant future. What a ride it will be!
Goodness, it has been likely 3+ years or more since I've dropped into the news and comment box of SermonAudio to respond. It might even be longer than that...I forget.
It is sad to see the same people here defending Arminian extreme views of universal salvation, unless they loose their salvation through bad works.
I had some limited respect for Dr. Brown until I read the article. Wow, I did not know he was clinging to those views of universal redemption.
I always chuckle when people argue to read the clear meaning of Scripture to justify that God's elect are not called and chosen. The presupposition of these Arminians and semi-Pelagians are really incredible...to claim everyone is saved, but you just need to "accept it" and then work hard to keep it.
"Poor, poor Jim Linkon needs to do some research. Can he explain why Wallace translates "young woman" and why the DTS has slackened its doctrinal stand over the years? Why should we trust Mr Wallace???"
I've had fairly extensive discussions by email with Mr. Wallace on Scripture texts and manuscripts. I can say with a fair degree of confidence that he is not in favor of the received text, nor what most KJV or Geneva bible followers would support. He is, I think, beyond even textual critics using his own views which appeared very liberal.
It was some time ago, I don't know if he has changed.