Oppps, sorry. I forgot that you reject history writings so how on earth could you ever know that the words your write below on Sola Scriptura were developed in history by the reformers. I know it must be great to use those types of words thinking they came to you by your visions or unknown tongues, but I need to remind you of those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Thanks for proving history is repeated by the ignorant, even though they don't know why or understand what they say.

By the way, since you are such a "bible believing" scholar, and you reject all the teachings of the reformers, maybe you could tell me in your own words who actually is the Antichrist of Scripture?

For those who understand history as a vital important element of God's revealed will to man, please see this book for some good exegesis. The others who reject that Islam even exists in history (Michael, it is not named in Scripture, sorry!) will have to stay ignorant.

"ELLIOTT, E.B. (Alexander M'Leod, David Steele, George Faber, Thomas Newton) Islam in Revelation: An Historic Look at Protestant Eschatological Thought on the Rise and Fall of Islam

"If you really want to talk of Church History I have to respectively believe one is far better off studying the Book of Acts and the Epistles, than the Councils of Dort if they would desire to know Historic Biblical Christianity and desire to be faithful to and please the Lord Jesus Christ."

Michael, it is a shame that your position lacks any solid learning from Scripture. For you to believe that historic Christianity ended with the New Testament (even though you restrict it to the book of Acts and Epistles), is a sad but common view.

I recognize how many of you out there in our modern church believe that Christians cannot learn any true doctrine, discipline, worship or government outside of the your own individual view of Scripture. The problem with this view Michael is that your view promotes denominationalism as history has shown us, and a strong ignorance in that God was the creator of History, both bible history and all revealed testimony outside the Scripture.

Has anyone seen the magic shows by Chris Angel (or whatever his name is) can make anything look "Real World"?

Thanks for the additional information on the topic. I must have only saw the AP footage, but would disagree with you that the civil magistrate does not have the God ordained authority to handle those sins against Christ's kingdom on earth that are not "close to home".

Although I understand that Ron Paul may have some good ideas on the anti-conspiracy topics, I am not sure if his mostly libertarian views would be good for the nation. One would see that Christ's as King will rule from a central government with authority outside of what many may consider to be their local jurisdiction, but we know that if we found a Civil Magistrate in the form of a President who was able to pursuade both House and Senate to repent from their ways, and turn to the Lord and uphold His laws we could avoid the extreme pending judgment that is likewise to follow our current crisis.

SA writes:

"SermonAudio.com embraces the historic Protestant faith...Although the site is not affiliated with any particular denomination, we will only carry churches that are fundamental in doctrine and Bible-believing."

However, you write:

"Two I am a full member on this site and as such have no problem with SA statement of beliefs which I believe allow me to be gracious for someone I disagree with BTW SA's statement of faith did not require me nor anyone else to be a Calvinist of any sort..."

The unfortunate truth is that those who cannot stand (like yourself, Abigail, JD, Yamil, etc.) church history will not be able to discern what SA means about the "historic Protestant faith" which is "fundamental in doctrine and Bible believing".

You testify you are a full member, but spend most of your time on here with the others rejecting historical protestant Church history, and ignore fundamental doctrine. Do you really believe your version of Arminianism is fundamental doctrine in historic Protestantism?

"Being one who claims to be Pentecostal it would do you well, myself and anyone else who might by the grace of God desire to obedient to God to consider that as some, not all but some..."

Maybe the both of you could follow the Member terms placed on this site:

"FULL Members Only: SermonAudio.com embraces the historic Protestant faith and is not open to the dissemination of such distinctive Charismatic and Pentecostalist views as extra-Scriptural revelations, tongues, healing, women pastors/preachers/elders, etc.

Although the site is not affiliated with any particular denomination, we will only carry churches that are fundamental in doctrine and Bible-believing. Every church wishing to broadcast with us must adhere to the following Articles of Faith:"

Do some research before you make comments on who Erastians and Independents were before, during and after the reformation.

You obviously have a lot of things to say on here, but little facts or accuracy in your commentaries. I know you are a totally committed Arminian and Independent Baptist, but that does not change history to your version of facts.

Until you learn how the Calvinists explained their views on church government and civil magistracy in the Westminster Confession of Faith, and Form of Church Government publications, it is better to keep your positions silent so you don't look like a fool in reporting false teachings of history.

Again, don't you think it would be better to go find a website that promotes and teaches Arminianism and Semi-Pelagianism?

You see, here is why I say this, because there are some of us that have been where you are currently in your understanding of Scripture. In fact, most of us in this generation have been taught Roman Catholic and Arminian views of salvation. It was not so long ago that we all taught that God loves the whole world and the whole world was saved by Jesus Christ, but it is just the elect who choose Jesus. Of course, this error made us all Arminian pride mongers like you guys have become on here claiming that Christ died for everyone's sin in the earth, but only those who choose Jesus can be saved. The arrogance of this view blows many of us away as we were where you are currently and we repented of this view.

Take a look at the link below she references and it will give you a much better understanding of who Abigail really is behind all the bible quotes she makes on this site.

Texe Marrs has been at the forefront of so many conspiracy theories that most of the white supremists and sovereign groups follow him like some sort of human, modern day prophet.

I used to read his stuff regularly back when I was an independent baptist as the conspiracy movement was full steam ahead for many. Everyone was scrammbling to deregister their independent Baptist churches, and the allegation was the FBI was breaking down church doors taking the independent Baptist Pastors to jail for not paying their taxes. As Abigail references, it all went back to the Illuminati and Bilderbergers.

"Dr. Clark, the truth of the matter is that the Pope is not a follower of the bankrupt and false interpretations of the various counterfeit mini-messiahs that are collectively known as "The Reformers"."

Do you know our fellow Arminian friends on this site? They hate the reformers about as much as the Catholics. They hate everything they stand for in terms of doctrine, discipline, form of worship and form of church government. In fact, they are diametrically opposed to the teachings the Reformers laid down in history. Why is that do you think?

Where does this hatred originate? Why did the Erastians and Independents hunt them down in the killing fields of Scotland and murder them week after week? What is it that makes the Roman Catholics and Arminians hate the Reformers so much they would take more than 18,000 lives of men, women and children?

"Why does God say to preach the good news, glad tidings, unto the whole world if he has created them for the day of destruction? How is that good news?"

The answer is simple. Actually, as a point of clarification, the Apostles, Ministers and Elders who were called by Christ to ministry were commanded to go out into the world and preach the good news. They were to start in Judea and take it to the world.

Unfortunately, our generation has been the first to lay hands on people who have never been trained or called into the ministry, and sent them on mission trips to create global denominations and disunity within the body of Christ. These men have ignored a vital command that those men should "study to show thyself approved" before going out on mission trips because it could lead people astray through schism.

I see people in foreign countries saying, "Christ died for everyone and everyone is saved. I am a Baptist and only adults are allowed to be Baptised."

The reality is that we are not predestined to sin and to destroy the holiness of Christ. Our ***fallen nature*** is incapable to be perfect and holy, as was Christ alone.

However, the Father does pour out His Spirit (as the three are one in perfect unity) and restrain our wickedness. By his sovereign will, and predestination, He does govern all things by His might and power, His omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence. He can withold His grace from you Michael, or He can pour it out upon you and give you knowledge, wisdom and understanding.

If you think you control your own destiny, or think everything happens by chance or luck, you are not given the knowledge by God to know any difference. Am I going to say to God that He has sinned by not giving you this knowledge, absolutely not, God forbid.

"Many people and generations have died since then having never heard the gospel because of this. This is why the gospel came through Europe and the US and is now just entering Asia. How do Arminians explain this?"

There are some Arminians today that are teaching Christ died for all men's sins everywhere, and they don't believe the gospel even started in Judea and spread out from there first to the world. They think once Christ died, all men's sins were saved because God Loved The World, and Love would never condemn any man to hell for eternal punishment.

I saw a Pastor on MSNBC who was a follower/son of Oral Roberts, and he has the gifts of unknown tongues as well, and God spoke to him telling him that Christ died for everyone, and there is no physical hell after judgment. He says that all men are saved, and the hell in the Bible is the actually a hell on earth as interpreted by God speaking to him.

You are a time waster for people on here. Really, I've seen many people respond directly to your questions, and you simply spend most of your time on here ignoring what people wrote to go on with another hateful comment. I'm getting tired of it.

I just read all of Evans comments where he was going through each of your comments using Scripture and his own explanations. He also was giving you questions to consider on the texts.

You call this with your standard condesending comments, "I did not ask you to prove your theology like evans is trying to do. I just asked a simple question, how and why is that good news or glad tidings to the world? His rant has not touched that question."

The more I see of him, the more concerned that everything will be only based upon the constitution as defined by Ron Paul himself and law & order will be forgotten. Everyone will be free to do anything they want to do!

I'm glad the news is covering some of his comments as I have only heard much of his support coming from various Christians and self-appointed sovereign groups.

If anyone has not watched the video below by Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith, on Sign of the Prophet Jonah, please do!!!

"The problem with the Calvinist's is that they do not believe in justification by faith alone. They add unconditional election."

If anyone really things about what this person just wrote above, it is obvious that he/she does not know about the doctrines of election, nor the doctrine of grace.

To make such a statement clearly demonstrates that those who reject Christ's alone righteousness as being the only means by which men are saved, and rather place faith as the means of salvation, do not understand grace offered freely by the Father, through Christ alone.

It is clear they do not see, and even aggressively reject, the idea that God has chosen by unconditional election, before the foundation of the world, by His free gift, His people. Rather, they want to say that Christ died for everyone, and shed his blood for everyone and that His righteousness requires your work to be added, called faith, and if you don't choose Christ, by adding this work of faith to His work of righteousness, you cannot be saved.

They call it conditional election, and the focus now shifts from Christ alone, to Christ + Man's work = salvation.

Can you give me an idea what denomination you are and whether you attend a church?

Also, there are two primary doctrinal positions on salvation produced by Church history. One is Roman Catholic/Arminian and the other is Presbyterian/Westminster/Reformed.

If you have a new idea and care to explain how it is different from these two doctrinal positions, I am more than open to hear your arguments.

The Synod of Dort did an extensive job discussing all the Scripture proofs and arguments for both views, and rendered their own authoritative decision.

If you believe that there is nowhere in Scripture that God does permit church courts to exist (eg., you don't believe church government exists) or is provided with the authority to bind/loose through decisions, then obviously you would find the decisions rendered by the Synod of Dort or Church of Scotland worthless. You will then have to go with your own independent decision to bind your conscience, or go with Rome's position.

Actually, that was my first time to visit bible.org site, but the article I found on the distinction between Justification and Regeneration was accurate in my view. I quoted it and provided the link as it gave a clear answer to the distinction I was trying to make for DB. DB was right that my wording was not really accurate in my definition, but I wrote it at about 3am last night with one eye open and one closed.

There are plenty of ways for me to improve my message and improve my skills at trying to make these distinctions. I know how important it is for people to understand the differences between justification and redemption, as well as the ordo salutis in this generation.

My commentary was a bit too leaning toward justification and DB helped me catch my mistake and thus the quote I used from the bible.org site helped me to clarify what I was wanting to say. If the site is a Roman Catholic site as you say (e.g., Antichrist) I'm sorry to say I did not study it closely.

I have often quoted the sermons of Pastor Greg Price on here many times and actually we just got another family who joined the church in Grand Rapids and two other families are considering. Yes, we don't have an open communion table like Rome and I'm sure your church so everyone that comes into membership does ask a lot of questions. Initial general membership terms are simple, but when it comes to taking the Lord's Supper we believe in close communion, rather than open communion. Thus, it took me (and others) time to study the ten commandments and doctrine before I was approved. There is absolutely no way I could have been approved to take the Lord's Supper with your knowledge, as it is not only inadequate in doctrine, but heretical in many areas.

Therefore, from my point of view, I am very happy with where I am at presently with our church and expect you are very happy with where you are at currently.