I was saved on May 11, 1986 at the Berean Baptist Church. I am a sign artist/graphics designer by trade. http://www.webbsignworks.com. My family and I play acoustic gospel music and raise sheep on our farm in NW Florida.
Group*Independent Fundamental Baptist
Member TitleHe shall feed his flock like a shepherd....
At the 43.03 mark he says "if you will pray a prayer like that and mean it......."
First of all he said "prayer" and he gave the stipulation that you must "mean it". He's not telling anyone to say certain words because he says a prayer "Like that" . He is just showing you how to come to God and he's showing you the issues to be dealt with in coming to God and I noticed he mentioned these three things... "I'm a sinner" "I'm lost" "Jesus you died to save me" Those three issues are the three that the Holy Spirit deals with the heart: sin, righteousness, and judgement.
Sin.......I'm a low down wicked sinner
Righteousness......God is Love and Holy and righteous and he displayed all of that in Jesus and on Calvary.
Judgement.....I'm on my way to Hell for all eternity and I deserve it.
In the post above, you acuse Covenanter of falsely claiming that Adrian Rogers included, in Covenanter's words, a "salvation prayer" in his 'Disgrace to Grace' sermon. You say that "all (you) found" when you listened to a sermon of the same name was some other contents, the obvious implication being that there was no reference to a salvation/sinner's prayer in Rogers' sermon at all.
Now that Covenanter has indeed posted it up and even SFIC (who earlier 'liked' your post) has acknowledged that there is indeed reference to something like a salvation/sinner's prayer at the end of the sermon (though SFIC says he thinks it isn't actually one), do you still want to claim that the sermon contains no such thing?
I've now listened to that section (and I'm going to listen to the rest because it sounds like a good sermon--haven't heard of Adrian Rogers before) and I can certainly see which bit Covenanter was talking about.
I don't recall disputing that there was "no salvation prayer". Perhaps you could point that out? The issue I had with Covenanter was this part...
A dangerous argument for eternal security was put forward by the late Adrian Rogers e.g. in his sermon "Lot - A disgrace to grace" in which he [Adrain Rogers] argued that if you have gone through the "salvation prayer" on the lines of: "Lord Jesus, I admit I am a sinner, & I believe you died for my sins, so I can be forgiven" then you are truly saved. You can live a filthy rotten life (like Lot), but you can't lose your salvation.
I tried to show Covenanter that the whole message was about living right and not being a "disgrace to grace". In the message, Adrian Rogers merely used Lot as an illustration of a "just man", a real saint of God who chose the world and thereby as a consequence lost his family. His life, testimony, and posterity were indeed wrecked because of his own decision to live for the World. But God will not allow one of His own to live a "filthy rotten life" and get away with it.
May I elaborate more? The Bible speaks of others, besides Lot, who did not "persevere" in their Godly living including the man in 1 Corinthians who Paul said had "his father's wife" and was about to be turned over the Devil for the "destruction of the flesh" that the "spirit might be saved". In other words, this dude was committing a "sin unto death". God has not made us automatic "perseverers" evidenced by the man in 1 Corinthians 5: Just as surely as you have a choice to choose Eternal Life AKA Jesus Christ, you also have a choice to live for him in this life. God will not make us live for him, but He will make us wish we had....like old Brother Lot learned too late..
Covenanter, If you believe on Jesus in your heart, no matter what "words" you may "repeat" or come up with on your own or utter none at all, you are saved. As sure as I'm breathing that's the kind of salvation that Adrian Rogers preached. Even a person with ALS, like Steven Hawking, whose "trapped" body can do no more than twitch it's cheek, if he truly repented in his heart, turned to Jesus from sin and self, the Holy Ghost would come into that man and he could be gloriously saved...saved for eternity. Could he later sin? Yes. Because we are all still sinners, we all have "the sin that so easily besets us" and we all have the propensity to "love this present world".
Covenantor, Would you mind posting a link to that "Lot, a disgrace to grace" sermon? All I found was "Don't be a Disgrace to Grace" in which the WHOLE MESSAGE is exhorting born again Christians to live right and separate from the world and worldly lusts. The message also speaks of different Jesus's which the world loves, and the righteous Jesus which the world hates. Adrian Rogers preached the Jesus who loved all mankind, gave himself for everyone. He was a Godly, sound Bible preacher and YOU don't like him because he plowed down the row of the Calvinist/reformed. Truly born again saved persons, indwelled with the Holy Ghost, CAN fall into sin so bad that God will KILL them...he chastens his own. Furthermore, YOU are presently in sin yourself not only because you teach false doctrine, but because you are falsely accusing a man of God.
I thank everyone for the replies, shared stories and advice. To go a little deeper, the topic of concern for me is the security of the believer. I don't know if anyone that replied read an earlier post I made about how to find a church. Well, I found one. I really wasn't looking at this moment but had read an article online while I was doing my Bible study and at the end of the article it said to click here if you are looking for a church in your area. I clicked on it and the name and location of the church came up. I went on their page to read their statement of faith but there was little, or not enough info there for me to decide what they believed as a whole. I wanted to learn more, so I made a list of questions, made the call and spoke with the pastor. He was very gracious, patient and willing to take the time to discuss matters of importance to me and then basically thanked me for asking hard questions and doing my research of scripture. I was satisfied with the answers and scriptures he gave me and pretty much agreed with him. I started going to the church but then remembered something I forgot to ask and that was the security of the believer. I went to him alone and addressed him after the service and he told me he believes a Christian can fall from grace but it was something we would have to discuss in depth and too hard to give me a definitive answer in that moment.He said he would be happy to have himself and his wife go over it with me in greater detail if I wanted to get together with them. The reason this is so important to me is I have been in churches that teach you can lose salvation if you don't do this or that. I can't do that again. That is a miserable condition for a Christian to be in when you feel you have to constantly question your salvation.
I think I will prepare, pray and make the appointment, which leads me to my next question. As a woman, is this proper action to take if women are not to teach men or does that only refer to women who disrupt the church? I recall Acts 18:26 so I believe I am within my right, although my husband will not be with me at this appointment.
I see red flags going up. From my experience, people who do not believe in ''once saved-always saved'' do not change their beliefs on that unless God does a mighty work in their hearts. I know many folks like this and though they are sweet people, the doctrine they hold to is deadly. I wouldn't discuss it but would respectfully leave. When a person gets truly born again, they are a possessor of everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, ever.....it's a done deal, end of story. and when Jesus says ''depart from me'' He will not say to the lost; '' I knew you once but don't anymore',
John 5:24 says....
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
Benny Hinn uses a King James Bible, has the plan of salvation outlned on his website, and claims Jesus Christ is Savior, and preaches on ''the blood''.
My Jesus created all things, tasted death for every man, is willing that all should come to repentence, is not willing that any should perish, and he did not create a single person to burn in Hell for the ''glory'' of it..
For God so loved the Reformed, that he gave his only begotten son, that the limited few he had unconditionally chosen to overpower their resistance and thereby believe against their will, should not perish but have everlasting life. Calvin 3:16
We do not know if it was God's will that Felix should come to repentance, believe the Gospel, and be saved. His convenient season frequently came to listen again to Paul. Acts 24:24-27 What we do know it was God's will that Paul should be kept in prison, to witness also to Agrippa & Festus, and to appeal to Caesar & so to travel to Rome to preach to the Emperor & his court. Whether these came to faith in Christ, we do not know. Scripture is silent, but we must learn from Scripture - dare ANY wait for a convenient season, & delay repentance.
Do YOU believe Jesus died for Hitler's sins on the cross? Not just a general "Jesus died for everybody" but specifically for Hitler's sins?
The Bible says that Felix, "reasoned of temperance, righteousness, and judgment to come". Those three things are the "convincing" of the Holy Ghost who, the Bible also says, is God. So I would say, yes, it was God's will that Felix repent and believe the Gospel. But it was Felix who made the choice to say "go and come again at a more convenient time". To answer your question: Yes sir I believe Jesus died on the cross for every sin committed by and every atrocity ordered by Adolf Hitler. If Hitler is in Hell right this minute, it is because Hitler refused his last opportunity to repent of those sins and rejected Jesus. It was Hitler's choice.
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. 1 John 2:2
He is also the propitiation for your sin of teaching ''Calvinism''. But you, yourself make that choice not to repent of it. Repent means to "turn against" or "turn away".
"It would not be possible for me too earnestly to press upon
you the importance of reading the expositions of that prince among men,
JOHN CALVIN!"-- Charles Haddon Spurgeon
"The old truth that Calvin preached, that Augustine
preached, that Paul preached, is the truth that I must preach to-day, or else
be false to my conscience and my God. I cannot shape the truth; I know of
no such thing as paring off the rough edges of a doctrine. John Knox's
gospel is my gospel. That which thundered through Scotland must thunder
through England again."-- Charles Haddon Spurgeon
"... I have my own private opinion that there is no such a thing as
preaching Christ and him crucified, unless you preach what now-a-days is
called Calvinism. I have my own ideas, and those I always state boldly. It is
a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else."-- Charles Haddon Spurgeon
(speaking of "TULIP"), "We look upon them as being five
great lamps which help to irradiate the cross, or rather five bright
emanations springing from the glorious covenant of our Triune God, and
illustrating the great doctrine of Jesus crucified. Against all comers,
especially against all lovers of Arminianism, we defend and maintain pure
gospel truth." -- Charles Haddon Spurgeon
" I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. -- Charles Haddon Spurgeon
"Once again, if it was Christ's intention to save all men, how deplorably has He been disappointed, for we have His own testimony that there is a lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, and into that pit of woe have been cast some of the very persons who, according to the theory of universal redemption, were bought with His blood. That seems to me a conception a thousand times more repulsive than any of those consequences which are said to be associated with the Calvinistic and Christian doctrine of special and particular redemption. To think that my Saviour died for men who were or are in hell, seems a supposition too horrible for me to entertain." -- Charles Haddon Spurgeon
But he also said...
"Our conformity to Christ is the sacred object of predestination." -- Charles Haddon Spurgeon
I don't care if Spurgeon was called "the prince of preachers", or how many thousand 'converts' he had; Billy Graham has a multitude of 'converts' and followers too, but he's still a heretic. When I got saved, Spurgeon was nowhere near but Jesus was in the house. I distinctly heard the "voice" of Psalm 29, via the scripture of Psalm 23. and WILLINGLY I opened up my everlasting door and the King of Glory came in. The Bible tells us not to follow, or put our trust in men. I "need not that any man teach" me, even Spurgeon.
20Then David returned to bless his household. And Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David, and said, How glorious was the king of Israel to day, who uncovered himself to day in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovereth himself! 21And David said unto Michal, It was before the LORD, which chose me before thy father, and before all his house, to appoint me ruler over the people of the LORD, over Israel: therefore will I play before the LORD. 22And I will yet be more vile than thus, and will be base in mine own sight: and of the maidservants which thou hast spoken of, of them shall I be had in honour.23Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.
2 Samuel 21:8
But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite:
I notice that, as we have removed those from the forum who clearly stand for false doctrines, LIKE the reformed position, here we are, all of us ultimately in agreement on the subject at hand, and still we are fighting over such things as, 'should we even care what a reformed person believes about his words' and 'does it matter how they define terminology?'. Are are all of us against the doctrine, all agree it is wrong, but now, we aregue over how we deal with it. That's pretty sad, folks.
I guess it boils down to, do we want to successfully discuss the subject with a Calvinist or not? If not, that's fine, it doesn't matter how they define terms, let them continue. If you want to discuss it with them, you'd best understand what they mean when they talk, or there's going to be a lot of confusion.
Like many false groups, Mormons, JW's Catholics, etc, Calvinists change the meanings of biblical terminology to fit their doctrine. Ask a Mormon about gospel, and they will say they believe it. If we don't know that for them, the gospel is all about one's way of life, and not the death for our sins, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, we might well go on our merry way thinking they are saved. A good example there is Glenn Beck. So with the Calvinist, if we want to discuss it, we'd best understand what they mean when they speak.
I guess my point it, after reading so much here, we all seem to agree-but we are arguning minute, non-issues about the subject at hand. Are we so desirous to argue that even in agreement we must argue?
Unless they have ''reformed'', you still have a couple.
I can usually deal with cats. However, there was this one tomcat which kept coming at night to fight with my Wife's tom. We lived in a tin-roofed mobile home at the time and most nights they would race across the roof and the tom would jump off onto a nearby pine tree to escape. But one night that big tom had my wife's cat pinned to the ground by the steps, holding him in a death-grip by his neck. I went back into the house, selected a .22 rifle, and sent him to his ''long home''.
But you have to be careful of killing people's ''fur children'' because they, for the most part, can't or won't comprehend that it's not OK for their ''loving'' ''sweet'' dog to roam the neighbors' property and do as it pleases with it's predatory nature. I've had our dogs attacked, chickens killed, rabbits killed and my son threatened on our own front porch. It gets old pretty quick.