Radio Streams
SA Radio
24/7 Radio Stream
VCY America
24/7 Radio Stream
340

My Favorite Things
Home
NewsroomALL
Events | Notices | Blogs
Newest Audio | Video | Clips
Broadcasters
Church Finder
Webcast LIVE NOW!
Sermons by Bible
Sermons by Category
Sermons by Topic
Sermons by Speaker
Sermons by Language
Sermons by Date
Staff Picks
CommentsALL -15 sec
Top Sermons
Online Bible
Hymnal
Daily Reading
Our Services
Broadcaster Dashboard
Members Only

 
USER COMMENTS BY “ DISCERNING BELIEVER ”
Page 1 | Page 10 ·  Found: 500 user comments posted recently.
Survey1/10/08 11:00 AM
Discerning Believer  Find all comments by Discerning Believer
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
2733
comments
Mike wrote:
If one is able to pick apples off an apple tree, does that imply that one cannot help but pick apples? I can see that ability allows. I fail to see how it necessitates.
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.

It doesn't say "might come to me" or "maybe will come to me", it says "SHALL come to me".

All that the Father draws will come. Is man's power so strong that he can overpower God?


Survey1/10/08 9:10 AM
Discerning Believer  Find all comments by Discerning Believer
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
94
comments
Michael Hranek wrote:
derek
Did you mean to say salvation precedes baptism?
Acts 10:44-48
44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
btw Somehow I just do not believe that the Holy Ghost fell upon any infants present to where they spoke in tongues and I do not believe Peter commanded any infants there to be baptized, just believers.
Michael, Derek had it right.
wrote:
and Scripture is clear that Baptism procedes salvation.
Baptism PROCEEDS (comes after) salvation. You are right too, salvation PRECEEDS (comes before) baptism. At least that is what the instances given from scripture would have us to believe.

Survey1/9/08 9:47 PM
Discerning Believer  Find all comments by Discerning Believer
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
2733
comments
Weapon of Mass Instruction wrote:
So what do you subscribe? A hard-to-get believism?
Repentance Yamil, repentance. Christ didn't preach repentance to his disciples, he preached it to the lost.

He didn't preach a God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life to the scribes and pharisees, he preached repentance. He preached the love of the Father to his disciples, those that were his.

But repentance flies in the face as "works salvation" to the 1-2-3 repeat after me crowd. If so, then why did Jesus preach it to the lost, why did John the Baptist preach it to the lost, why did Peter preach it to the lost on the day of Pentecost. Maybe there is something to this.


Survey1/9/08 9:32 PM
Discerning Believer  Find all comments by Discerning Believer
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
94
comments
jago wrote:
Does anyone know the history or reason why most protestant and baptist churches do not use wine and unleavened bread for communion. Surely this was what Jesus was using when He instigated the sacrament.
We use unleavened bread, small crackers during our service.

We use the fruit of the vine, pure grape juice because it pictures the sinless blood of Christ which was shed for the sins of His people.

Fermentation is a type of sin in the bible and by using fermented wine during the ordinance of the Lord's Supper it is a blasphemy against the sinless nature of God the Son.

jago wrote:
A second query: Why do many Baptist churches allow children (often quite young and with no profession of faith or baptism) to partake at the communion service. I have been told it is because they are members of the visible church.
First of all who told you this. You are in error and so are they. When they come to know Christ savingly and are actual believers, then are they allowed to partake of the ordinance of the Lord's Supper. If parents to practice what you said above then they are directing their children to partake unworthily and bringing condemnation upon themselves.

Survey1/9/08 2:30 PM
Discerning Believer  Find all comments by Discerning Believer
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
2733
comments
Randy,

Care to deal with the passage from Calvin I posted?

Don't worry, I have serious problems with false professions of faith in the Baptist church. That is due to the Finneyistic altar calls and the 1-2-3 repeat after me easy-believism salvation.


Survey1/9/08 2:15 PM
Discerning Believer  Find all comments by Discerning Believer
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
2733
comments
R. K. Borill wrote:
Bring it on.
2 Cor. 10:4-5
Here's one that I posted earlier for starters.

John Calvin wrote:
"But whether the person being baptized should be wholly immersed, and whether thrice or once, whether he should only be sprinkled with poured water — these details are of no importance, but ought to be optional to churches according to the diversity of countries. *** Yet the word “baptize” means to immerse, and it is clear that the rite of immersion was observed in the ancient church.***"
Calvin's Institutes (Book 4, Chapter 15, Sect. 19)

Survey1/9/08 11:14 AM
Discerning Believer  Find all comments by Discerning Believer
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
2733
comments
Paedo Baptist wrote:
Your doctrine on baptism has developed since 1521, and coincidentally along with this, has travelled your covenant doctrines.
John Calvin wrote:
"But whether the person being baptized should be wholly immersed, and whether thrice or once, whether he should only be sprinkled with poured water — these details are of no importance, but ought to be optional to churches according to the diversity of countries. *** Yet the word “baptize” means to immerse, and it is clear that the rite of immersion was observed in the ancient church.***"
Calvin's Institutes (Book 4, Chapter 15, Sect. 19)

Paedo Baptist,
Was Calvin wrong. Yes or No.


Survey1/9/08 8:44 AM
Discerning Believer  Find all comments by Discerning Believer
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
2733
comments
derek wrote:
jago
The amount of water is important because of the symbolism attached.
In the Old Testament, in the simplest form, all of the sacrifices were symbolic of the coming sacrifice; but they were to be strictly followed.
Baptism is symbolic of the death, BURIAL, and ressurection of that new believer. When we are buried, they don't sprinkle dirt on a dead body to bury it; they drop it in a hole and push all of the dirt back in. They are immersed (meaning there is dirt above them, under them, and all around them) in the grave. Really, the same symbolism is in the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. He is above us, under us, all around us - immersed.
Derek, The only problem is that we tend to think of the method of burial, dropping in a hole and covered with dirt in terms of modern Western culture. This wasn't the practice in bible times.

Survey1/8/08 11:35 AM
Discerning Believer  Find all comments by Discerning Believer
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
2733
comments
JD wrote:
There is NO covenant of grace in the Holy Scriptures.
So then you reject the dispensation of grace.

What do you call an unconditional covenant?

God made an unconditional covenant with Adam and Eve in Gen. 3:15. The covenant God made Abraham was an unconditional covenant pertaining to the seed by which the coming Messiah would proceed.

JD wrote:
No one hads said Abraham was a Jew. Where did you get that out of the blue?
You plainly said the God made no covenants with the Gentiles. Was not Abraham a Gentile?

JD wrote:
Satan is a master of misinformation and I believe your words are his!
Very Confused:
You are rejecting my argument feom the passages I am dealing with. At least deal with those passages and tell me how I am misrepresnting them. Then we will deal with your argument.
Are you too confused to know how to debate?
I am out for the day!
Just merely pointing out the false teaching of dispensationalism and their two ways of salvation. Scofield himself wrote on page 1115 of the Scofield Reference Bible that "The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation"

Talk about misinformation.


Survey1/8/08 9:56 AM
Discerning Believer  Find all comments by Discerning Believer
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
2733
comments
Interesting, I have always heard that Abraham WAS a gentile and not a Jew.

I also find it interesting that Noah found grace and he was not a Jew.

The covenant of grace did not originate after the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.


Survey1/7/08 5:05 PM
Discerning Believer  Find all comments by Discerning Believer
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
2733
comments
Walt,

Thanks for the link. I saved it to read the entire discourse.

I did take particular note of the text, Acts 10:47. In context, it gives us a clear picture of who the subjects for baptism were.

(Act 10:44-48) "While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell ***on all them which heard the word. ***45. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 46. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 47. Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, *** which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? *** 48. And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days."

Who were "these" referring to in verse 47? They were the ones who heard the word, believed the word and received the Holy Ghost. Wouldn't that constitute believer's baptism.


Survey1/7/08 4:35 PM
Discerning Believer  Find all comments by Discerning Believer
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
2733
comments
R. K. Borill wrote:
Terry,
I will use you as a means to respond to others opposed to sprinkling as the proper mode of baptism. "Immersion" is found no where in scripture although they will argue that the word "baptizo" means to immerse from the Greek. If that were the case why do the translators use a transliterated word rather than "immerse". On the other hand the word "sprinkle" or "pour" are used through out the OT and NT. For example:
Then in the same vain, why didn't the translators use "pour" or "sprinkle", when they ran into "baptizo". They do have Greek equivilents. The Holy Spirit inspired the writers to use "baptizo" for a reason instead of the Greek words for "poured - κατεχεεν" or "sprinkled - ερραντισεν".

Survey1/7/08 2:43 PM
Discerning Believer  Find all comments by Discerning Believer
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
2733
comments
jago wrote:
DB using Rom 6: 1-6 raises the question of why we don't use dirt to symbolize being buried. Jesus was however not put into a grave as we know it. He was placed in a cave wrapped in cloth. How does this show full immersion under water?
Don't ask me, you are the one who teaches that pouring or sprinkling symbolizes being buried.

Because whenever Jesus was baptized water was used. Whenever we see John the Baptist baptizing, water was in a river. When we saw the Ethiopian eunuch baptized, water was used. Perhaps because the bible says so.

As far as a grave vs. cave is concerned, I thought I made that distinction clear, I used the terms tomb and selpulchur as referenced in bible times. I made the point of saying that the sepulchur was covered with a large rock or stone.

"Immersion is never proved in Scripture. Because the quantity of water is never stipulated anywhere."

Hmm. let's see, John was baptizing in a river. Ethiopian eunuch, both went down into the water. There must have been plenty of room for two people. John 3:23 "..much water"


Survey1/7/08 1:18 PM
Discerning Believer  Find all comments by Discerning Believer
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
2733
comments
Considering the following text, how can anyone possibly infer from other and more obsure passages that the proper mode of baptism is sprinkling or pouring when clearer passages are available for interpretation.

(Rom 6:1-6) "1. What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2. God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? 3. Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4. Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: 6. Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin."

Considering that we who have been baptized into Christ are dead TO sin, buried with him and raised to walk a new life. When one is buried, they are laid to rest, not standing up. They were completely wrapped up and the tomb was covered, in ancient times with a stone in the side or opening of the selpuchur. How can pouring or sprinkling picture this?

out of room.


Survey1/4/08 9:05 AM
Discerning Believer  Find all comments by Discerning Believer
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
2527
comments
Kendall wrote:
Discerning Believer

My apologies for not coming back to you yesterday DB, I had computer problems.
However here is my attempt.
“IT” can refer to an unspecified or implied antecedent or to a previous or understood CLAUSE, phrase etc.
“Antecedent” in grammar can be a word or phrase to which the pronoun refers.
The writers of the KJV in using “it” clearly applied this rule because they identified the CLAUSE as the description of “gift” not just the grace as some may argue.
What do you think?

So basically it boils down to 3 things.

It [grace] is the gift of God.
It [faith] is the gift of God.
It [salvation] is the gift of God.

The gift is salvation (implied) by grace (in contrast to works) through faith (the channel by which it is received). Salvation is the gift of God (Rom. 6:23) not of works.

The main focus of the passage deals with salvation, not faith. Faith is clearly a fruit of the Spirit and generated through the operation of the Holy Spirit not by the natural man.

Some people go to seed in implying something that isn't the main focus of the passage. Both Barnes and the Pulpit Commentaries agree that the gift is salvation, Calvin and Gill see otherwise.


Survey1/3/08 5:46 PM
Discerning Believer  Find all comments by Discerning Believer
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
2527
comments
R. K. Borill wrote:
It can if the concept is understood from the context. Otherwise, it makes no sense.
Then the question would be, is the concept salvation itself being THE gift of God (re: Rom. 6:23) or is it talking about faith being THE gift of God.

Survey1/3/08 4:48 PM
Discerning Believer  Find all comments by Discerning Believer
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
2527
comments
Kendall, I am very well aware of that, however the point still stands, how can a neuter pronoun refer back to a feminine antecedent. Even in the English language, rules of grammar need to be consistent.

Do you have any ideas?


Survey1/3/08 4:27 PM
Discerning Believer  Find all comments by Discerning Believer
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
2527
comments
R. K. Borill wrote:
Now, I can say with confidence that here you are wrong. Eph. 2:8-9 declares that faith is a gift as follows:
"For by grace are you saved THROUGH FAITH, and that not of yourselves, it {faith} is the gift of God, not of works lest any man should boast."
RK, just out of curiosity, how can a neuter pronoun [it] refer back to a feminine antecedent [faith]?

Survey1/3/08 2:34 PM
Discerning Believer  Find all comments by Discerning Believer
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
2527
comments
JD,

2Co 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made ***the righteousness of God *** in him.

It doesn't say because of God's righteousness, it says that we are made "the righteousness of God" in him. That is the imputation. God requires perfect righteousness and it was fulfilled in Christ.

You admitted that it is the righteousness of God that is imputed onto us. Are you saying that Christ is not God? That is what it sounds like to the rest of us.


Survey1/3/08 1:08 PM
Discerning Believer  Find all comments by Discerning Believer
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
2527
comments
Bible verse wrote:
Tell, me am I the only one who can see the exchange in 2 Cor 5.21? Christ made (accounted) sin for us, and we made (accounted) the righteousness of God in him .. it was our sin that was imputed to him, and therefore it must be his righteousness that is imputed to us!! He is our righteousness, not any exercise of faith on our part. Faith merely rests on that righteousness which belongs to another.
You are not the only one, I see the exchange of imputation as well. But we are the ones being called cults.
Jump to Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] more



Tony Flanders
God, The Climate And The..

Psalm 147
Sunday - AM
Trinity Grace Church
Play! | MP3 | RSS

He Died For Me
Dr. Curt D. Daniel

Tech Talk Zoom // Episode 06

Hourly: True vs Self Righteousness
Chris Anderson
Bob Jones University
Staff Picks..

Larry Wessels
2hr - Lying Covid Prophets

Christian Answers of Austin
Sunday Service
Transcript!Play! | MP4

Sermon: #85 The Numerics of Scripture
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
TECH TALKS

NEWS
Weekly Newsletter
Unsubscribe
Staff Picks | RSS
SA Newsroom
SERVICES
Dashboard | Info
Cross Publish
Audio | Video | Stats
Sermon Player | Video
Church Finder | Info
Mobile & Apps
Webcast | Multicast
Solo Sites
Internationalization
Podcasting
Listen Line
Events | Notices
Transcription
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.