Radio Streams
SA Radio
24/7 Radio Stream
VCY America
24/7 Radio Stream
1066

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 -3 sec
Top Sermons
Online Bible
Hymnal
Daily Reading
Our Services
Broadcaster Dashboard
Members Only - Legacy

 
USER COMMENTS BY “ WALT ”
Page 1 | Page 19 ·  Found: 500 user comments posted recently.
Survey11/2/07 9:27 PM
Walt | Michigan  Find all comments by Walt
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
574
comments
Cont.,

..."2. The obvious objection that one might have in understanding the “nakedness” in Deuteronomy 24:1 to mean adultery is that adultery was a capital crime (Deuteronomy 22:22). But I would suggest that it is possible that Deuteronomy 24:1 does in fact refer to divorce for adultery in certain cases (even if adultery when witnessed by at least two or three others was punishable by death).

Consider the following particular cases: Numbers 5:11-13 (no death required since there were no witnesses); Matthew 1:18-19 (no death required since there were no witnesses); John 8:1-11 (no death required since the witnesses were guilty themselves in having entrapped her).

Although death may have been the full punishment of the law in the case of adultery (where there were witnesses), nevertheless, it would appear that the death sentence might be commuted due to a lack of witnesses and a lawful divorce permitted instead.

If this is the case, God speaking through Moses (in Deuteronomy 24:1) teaches nothing different than what Christ Himself teaches (that is that fornication is a lawful ground for divorce)..."


Survey11/2/07 7:42 PM
Walt | Michigan  Find all comments by Walt
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
574
comments
Cont.,

..."B. The Pharisees in their response simply say: read their response in Mark 10:4. Yes, Moses did say in Deuteronomy 24:1 that the woman in view there was to be given a bill of divorcement, and then divorced.

But as you can see, the Pharisees have not attempted to answer the real question Christ put to them, “What did Moses command you about the lawfulness of divorcing your wives for every cause?”

For the real question in Deuteronomy 24:1 has to do with the cause of the divorce not the fact of the divorce. They did not mind asking Christ about the lawfulness of divorce for every cause (because they desired to divide His followers). But when Christ puts the same question back to them, they avoid it like the plague—such hypocrisy.

1. In reality, Deuteronomy 24:1 does not support divorce for every cause at all. For it states one cause for the divorce that occurs: Read Deuteronomy 24:1 (“because he hath found some uncleanness in her”, literally from the Hebrew text, “because he hath found in her nakedness of a thing”).

The Hebrew word for “nakedness” refers to various shameful sexual acts in Leviticus chapters 18 and 20 (including adultery)..."


Survey11/2/07 7:27 PM
Walt | Michigan  Find all comments by Walt
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
574
comments
Cont.,

..."Therefore, a lawful divorce (i.e. a divorce upon biblical grounds) is not a mere separation, but rather a dissolution of the marriage.

II. The Argument Against Divorce For Every Cause (Mark 10:3-9).

A. The Lord’s argument against divorce for every cause consists in taking the Pharisees back to the Scriptures. He answers their question with a question: “What did Moses command you” (Mark 10:3)?

What Rabbi Shammai and Rabbi Hillel have to say may be interesting as it relates to the matter of divorce. But what is all important is what the Scripture itself says about divorce.

For all teachings and writings of man (including our Subordinate Standards) must be tested by the Scriptures before they are believed to be true. The preaching that comes from this pulpit must undergo the same scrutiny before it is believed to be true. Otherwise, we make man the Lord of our conscience and deny true Christian liberty which Christ purchased for us by His death..."


Survey11/2/07 6:59 PM
Walt | Michigan  Find all comments by Walt
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
574
comments
Cont.,

..."For this was a controverted and disputed question among the teachers in Israel. Some following Rabbi Shammai restricted a lawful divorce to one cause: fornication.

Whereas others following Rabbi Hillel allowed a lawful divorce for any and every cause that a man might offer. Thus, the trap is set for Christ.

D. Before moving on to Christ’s response, it should be noted that the Scripture views a lawful divorce as the dissolution of a marriage, and not a mere separation from room and board. For if a lawful divorce only meant that a husband and wife were separated from one another, they would continue to be husband and wife, and thus the Scripture could never approve of a lawful remarriage subsequent to a lawful divorce under any circumstances (only the physical death of a spouse could provide a lawful reason for one to remarry).

However, since God does approve of a lawful remarriage following a lawful divorce (according to Deuteronomy 24:1-4; 1 Corinthians 7:26-28; Matthew 5:31-32; Matthew 19:9), we must conclude that a lawful divorce dissolves the marital bond between a husband and a wife as if the husband or wife were dead to one another..."


Survey11/2/07 6:55 PM
Walt | Michigan  Find all comments by Walt
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
574
comments
Cont.,

..."In the same context, Christ also taught the disciples concerning the danger of causing offence to others or even to themselves (Mark 9:42-50). Now the Lord Jesus begins his final journey toward Judea (the southern most province in Palestine) where in Jerusalem He will be crucified.

C. While Christ ministers to the people, the Pharisees bring to Him a question intending to entrap Him. They ask (according to Mark 10:2), “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife?” Matthew’s account of this question (in Matthew 19:3) adds an important phrase, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?”

Thus, the question put by the Pharisees to Christ was not one which asked if there was any one cause for which a man may divorce his wife, but rather if every cause was sufficient grounds for a lawful divorce. The Pharisees no doubt knew that the Lord had earlier in His ministry (in His Sermon on the Mount as found in Matthew 5:31-32) stated only one ground for a lawful divorce: fornication.

The Pharisees now believe they have a point upon which they may bring division among the people who are following Christ..."


Survey11/2/07 6:23 PM
Walt | Michigan  Find all comments by Walt
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
574
comments
Wayne,

Some helpful suggestions on Matt.19 & Mark 10 from a minister:

"There is a foundational truth which must be stated as we begin our study of this passage in Mark 10. All Scripture is inspired of God. Therefore, there can be no real contradictions in what God reveals in any place of Scripture with what He reveals in any other place of Scripture.

Thus, as we study what Christ says in Mark 10 concerning divorce, we may be certain that what He says there will not contradict what He says in Matthew 19 (since they are parallel passages depicting the exact same incident in the ministry of Christ). One account may have more information and the other account may have less information, but the two accounts cannot contradict one another. They must teach precisely the same truth about divorce.

Therefore, I make no apologies as I refer to Matthew’s account to make more clear the meaning of certain verses in Mark’s account.

B. In Mark 9:33, you will recall that the Lord had come to Capernaum in Galilee where there ensued a discussion as to who would be greatest in the Kingdom of God...."


Survey11/2/07 3:05 PM
Walt | Michigan  Find all comments by Walt
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
574
comments
John,

Can you share with me some biblical examples where God actually sins, as you imply He does when He causes the divorce of Israel, and then Christ Himself explains how divorce is lawful for the sin of fornication. If Christ is explaining under what circumstances divorce is legal, and reveals an example in the old testament, where do you get have the power to call God's examples as sin?

I don't care what some OPC minister says as there is a tremendous amount of excellent commentary outside our modern day backsliding OPC ministers. In fact, some of the OPC churches have adopted up to 50% of Roman teachings so taking the side of Rome and the OPC on divorce does not impress me.

I want you to give examples where God performs an act in Scripture, and later calls it sin in the NT as you believe. I'm not the least worried about my position on rejecting what you teach.

Just prove your position with Scripture.


Survey11/2/07 2:23 AM
Walt | Michigan  Find all comments by Walt
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
574
comments
John,

I did not have a chance to read much below, but wondered if you could past for me the Scriptural arguments Yamil is making to demonstrate that divorse is unlawful in all cases.

It is really something to have a minister and others declare that divorce is absolutely unlawful in Scripture, and yet God Himself is judged by these preachers on this thread.

"And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also." (Jer.3:6)

It is one thing to have such pride that one testifying against man, but wholly another to testify against God Himself and call oneself a Minister of God.

Can you cut & paste the Scripture proofs that Yamil is using to win your heart, as I went down about 5 or so comments and did not see them posted?

I really want to see what he says about God's divorce of Israel being unlawful.


Survey10/31/07 8:58 PM
Walt | Michigan  Find all comments by Walt
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
5819
comments
Wayne,

Excellent response! You said:

"...I will say I think the vast majority of the commentary appears to me to be very good and useful....I would not throw out the whole commentary because of that particular interpretation of 1 Peter 3:21"

I agree 100%. Matthew Henry's commentary was the first one I ever read and studied. IT WAS and IS an excellent source commentary as he was a very gifted and wonderful minister.

Nevertheless, I do find the subject of infant baptism always interesting for me to read various views and see if I can pursue diligently how the Scripture compares with Scripture. Beyond form of worship and government, I definitely find infant baptism and covenant theology my most interesting topics.

His comments just struck me early this morning as I had not seen his position (or at least remembered it) in a long time and my more mature faith gave me a new perspective on his commentary. It was interesting as I mentioned in light of my extensive study of Arminian and Pelagian heresies through the generations.


Survey10/31/07 4:42 AM
Walt | Michigan  Find all comments by Walt
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
5819
comments
Wayne,

It is an interesting quote from Matthew Henry when he writes:

"The sacrament of baptism, rightly received, is a means and a pledge of salvation. Baptism now saveth us. The external participation of baptism will save no man without an answerable good conscience and conversation. There must be the answer of a good conscience towards God."

It is interesting that what I read is a form of baptismal regeneration. Don't get me wrong, I spent a lot of time in Henry's commentaries when I first became a Baptist, but that was years ago. I am reading his comments now with a different Scriptural presupposition.

I can see the very slight distinction between one who looks at baptism as a sign and seal of the covenant of Grace (which can apply to infants), and one who looks at believer only (adult) baptism as a means of salvation. Henry says "means and a pledge of salvation" so it is interesting when he firmly clarifies next, "Baptism now saveth us."

It has been a while since I thought about adult only baptism as a means of salvation, but I can see now it is a form of baptismal regeneration...just not to the extent of Rome where even infants are saved by baptism. This is the half way mark where only adults are saved by baptism and a good conscience.


News Item10/30/07 4:11 PM
Walt | Michigan  Find all comments by Walt
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
364
comments
Jim,

When did the church annoint Gil Rugh an Apostle, and overturn the Synod of Dort?

Shall we assume the Synod of Dort was an unlawful, unfaithful and filled with an ignorant Synod of Elders and, therefore, errored on defining the doctrine of limited atonement?

Ok, so let's assume they errored and did not use or understand the Scriptures when they ruled in unity on the matter, fair enough. Can you show me another court that overturned the decision?

Ok, so you don't believe in courts or judicial decisions. Fair enough.

Can you give me another minister who supports Gil Rugh's position on unlimited atonement rather than limited atonement?

Ok, so you don't believe any other ministers need to support Gil Rugh's position in history because he is a modern Apostle and given the authority to overturn the Synod of Dort because he does not believe in church courts.

Ok, fair enough. I guess we can thus conclude that Gil Rugh is a court unto himself and his ruling is firmly established in Scripture, and there is no such thing as limited atonement as declared by Scripture and subordinately declared by the Synod of Dort. Got it!

Thanks for the clarification.


Survey10/30/07 2:35 PM
Walt | Michigan  Find all comments by Walt
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
5819
comments
Abigail wrote:

"Please don't post Scripture but give a definite answer in yor own words."

Gosh, my heart just about stopped after reading this comment.

Amazing! If someone could only define hypocrite in the next post.


News Item10/30/07 8:09 AM
Walt | Michigan  Find all comments by Walt
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
364
comments
Hi Terry,

Yes, I saw your comments and thank you for taking the time. I'm not able to spend a lot of time on here as I have several jobs and responsibilities in my calling. I'm not of the biblical opinion that everyone needs to quit working like Abigail and Spiritual, take a vow of poverty and serve the poor like Mother Theresa. I understand the Scriptures if one only takes the ones that fit their agenda of works righteousness, and ignore those where Christ alone is righteous...thus, I cannot sit here an post all day as I have other duties I owe to the Lord.

Further, this idea that the Holy Spirit has filled these two people giving them great humility, piety, speaking in unknown tongues, the gift of healing by rebuking Satan with those who have disease or sin, is a bit much for me to listen to on this site. These teachings fly in the face of Scripture when you compare the biblical definition of true humility, piety and other gifts given by God's grace to their own words, actions and doctrines they teach.

I'm thankful the Lord has shown me my sinful nature, and helped me overcome sin. The besetting sins in our thoughts, words and deeds continue to be sanctified and mortified by His Grace. I know I can do nothing without Christ who strengthens me.


News Item10/29/07 2:39 PM
Walt | Michigan  Find all comments by Walt
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
364
comments
Jim,

I don't really care what Calvin or Gil Rugh said about unlimited election. In fact, those of you that think Calvin or Gil Rugh are to be classified as Apostles don't understand that the office of Apostle has ceased since the closing of the Canon.

To even make the statement or imply that Calvin or Gil Rugh, or whoever you choose outside of the Canon, as considered to be an Apostle is foolish.


News Item10/29/07 11:27 AM
Walt | Michigan  Find all comments by Walt
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
364
comments
Yamil,

Your next if I can convince SermonAudio to uphold orthodox Christian teaching on the doctrine of Salvation, and restrict those who teach a false doctrine on the site.

I really don't think it is possible to convince them of this as only Members have to accept the rules. Fortunately, you are not a member that has to accept the teaching of orthodox Christianity.

Arminian teachings in doctrine and worship are very dangerous to many, so before you guys send the State after us to round us up, we need to at least make our position know.


News Item10/29/07 10:48 AM
Walt | Michigan  Find all comments by Walt
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
364
comments
SermonAudio,

"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:"

It would be great to apply these articles to those posting as well, or fully censor their views that destroy the true gospel of Christ.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with upholding the truth of Christ's sole righteousness to save sinners. Those who promote otherwise might be popular on television, and within their local community sects, but there have been more faithful Christians murdered by these Arminians than anyone outside of Athesists themselves.

When they stir up the ignorant of Scripture, and the Arminians desire to silence Calvinists, let us only be careful we don't forget our history how they did this through controlling the State like Rome.


News Item10/29/07 8:30 AM
Walt | Michigan  Find all comments by Walt
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
364
comments
Lurker wrote:

"Why don't you both just take your heresies and communicate with each other via email and quit fouling up the rooms of SA?"

I could not agree more. These two people are causing more damage to the true gospel of Christ and all the other posters on this site combined.

Abigail writes, for example:

"Jesus died on the cross to save ALL siners—whosoever believeth in Him shall have everlasting life. 1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

This is universal salvation, and is a serious error. What she is telling the people that Christ died for all people, the entire world, and now you just need to prove your salvation through works righteousness. This is Roman Catholic.

This is a core Pelagian heresy, and is a false gospel. Why would a privately owned, Presbyterian website promoting the doctrines of Christ, allow two people to openly promote heresy so that others can see the teaching and be led by the Devil into eternal damnation.

People, pray that SermonAudio management will restrict these types of people, and openly let unity toward reformation doctrines be promoted and preached to the world! Christ is our righteousness, no other!


News Item10/28/07 11:41 PM
Walt | Michigan  Find all comments by Walt
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
364
comments
Cont.,

"Beloved, to alter the Gospel by introducing something within man or something done by man alongside of what has been performed perfectly by Christ in fulfilling all of the law of God for unworthy sinners and in offering His life as a substitutionary sacrifice for ungodly sinners who look entirely outside of themselves alone and embrace Christ alone as their only righteousness before a holy God is to replace Christ.

To add to faith in Christ some grace within us or some work performed by us is not really adding to Christ—it is really replacing Christ with man and substituting the work of Christ with the work of man. It is a denial of the Gospel of free grace. It is not simply another Gospel—it is a false gospel. And those who embrace it are not simply other brethren, but according to Paul are “false brethren”.

C. Paul says in effect that “the truth of the gospel” can only live in our midst when we like him do not move an inch in either word or deed from standing for and practicing a Gospel that looks in faith alone to Christ alone for justification.

Dear ones, a justifying faith will indeed be evidenced by loving obedience to God’s commands and a growth in love for Christ, His truth, His holiness, and His people."


News Item10/28/07 11:26 PM
Walt | Michigan  Find all comments by Walt
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
364
comments
Cont.,

"B. Interestingly, Paul calls those who promoted the view that one must be circumcised in order to be justified “false brethren” rather than “true brethren” who were simply misled by some error. Although these “false brethren” maintained some connection with the Church, nevertheless Paul says they were “false brethren”. Why?

I would presume because they proclaimed a “false gospel” that required something more than faith in Jesus Christ for one’s justification. If they were “false brethren” because they required circumcision, what shall we say about those in these days who require baptism in order to be justified or who falsely proclaim that it is by one’s baptism that one is regenerated, justified, adopted, and sanctified because it is by means of water baptism that the one baptized is efficaciously and truly
united to Christ?

Dear ones, these are heresies being promoted today within Presbyterian and Reformed Churches by some who align themselves with movements identified by such names as “The New Perspective On
Paul” or “The Federal Vision”....


News Item10/28/07 10:02 PM
Walt | Michigan  Find all comments by Walt
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
364
comments
Cont., (Good Questions Arthur!)

"Now in chapter two we can hear the false teachers in the background saying, ...Paul preaches one Gospel and the Twelve Apostles of Christ in Jerusalem teach another Gospel than Paul. Since Paul is in the minority and since we know that Christ revealed the Gospel to the Twelve, we stand with the Twelve against Paul.”

The strategy of these false teachers was “divide and conquer”. They sought to bring division between the Twelve Apostles on the one hand and Paul on the other hand and to pit them against one another, so that the Churches of Galatia would be cast into confusion (saying “we don’t know who to believe”) and would follow the lead of the false teachers since they were in the very midst of the Churches of Galatia.

Now against the false accusation that Paul taught a different Gospel than the Twelve, Paul mounts a further defense to protect and promote the Gospel of free grace that he preached. He sets out to demonstrate at this point that he did not preach a different Gospel than the Twelve in Jerusalem.

In fact, the Apostle Paul and the Twelve Apostles of Christ taught precisely the same Gospel as evidenced by Paul’s second journey to Jerusalem."

Paul’s Gospel Confirmed By The Apostles Of Christ
Galatians 2:1-5

Jump to Page : back 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 more



Mike Berzins
Rahab & Elisha's Heroic Deceit

Should Christians Tell Lies?
Sunday Service
Resurrection Baptist Church
Play! | MP3 | RSS


Technology, Not Techniques

Hourly: The Love of God (6 Truths)
Jerry White
Grace Community Church
Staff Picks..

Sponsor:
John Bunyan Conference

Annual John Bunyon Conf­er­ence disc­uss­ing Progr­ess­ive Cov­ent­al­ism and New Cov­en­ant The
https://ptinct.com/register..

Sponsor:
Start to Finish: Tony Evans Podcast

Feat­ured guests incl­ude Kirk Frankl­in, Tony Dungy, Prisc­illa Shir­er, & more.
https://www.namb.net/podcas..

Sermon: Daniel 7A: Four More Beasts
Dr. Fred DeRuvo

SPONSOR

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
Business Cards
QR Codes
Online Donations
24x7 Radio Stream
INTEGRATION
Embed Codes
Twitter
Facebook
Logos | e-Sword | BLB
API v2.0 New!

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

THE VAULT VLOG
Technology, Not Techniques
Copyright © 2024 SermonAudio.