VCU @ Richmond, VA
| Re: |
What is Truth?
| 2009/11/20 16:04||Profile|
| Re: |
This is truly what I believe and why I believe it:
[url=http://jessemorrellvsjosefurban.blogspot.com/2009/11/jesse-morrell-refutes-josef-urban.html]Jesse Morrell Refutes Josef Urban Part 1[/url]
[url=http://jessemorrellvsjosefurban.blogspot.com/2009/11/jesse-morrell-refutes-josef-urban-part.html]Jesse Morrell Refutes Josef Urban Part 2[/url]
[url=http://jessemorrellvsjosefurban.blogspot.com/2009/11/jesse-morrell-refutes-josef-urban-part_20.html]Jesse Morrell Refutes Josef Urban Part 3[/url]
Much of what Josef said about me was not true at all. Love rejoices in the truth. Love does not rejoice in iniquity (lying).
| 2009/11/20 16:13|
| Re: |
SermonIndex is not the place for this.
| 2009/11/20 16:30||Profile|
| Re: WAR AND PEACE|
"There is enough friction in your ministry already; please do not bring it here. Post edifyingly or do not post at all. "
MODERATOR Paul West.
This is some kind of primitive WAR, not a meaningful debate or discussion. It is simply a continuance of the first debate about Pelagianism, which in it's purist form IS a heresy....and saying that, I don't really know your heart J. Morrell, except to observe your obvious bitter attack against a brother.
Your on a Crusade like Napoleon; your cannon and troops are ideological, you've surrounded your prey; BROTHER J.URBAN, and now you pound him and slur him to convince who? that it is he who is in error; the heretic?....
Jesus said; "Blessed are those who are unoffended in me." If your gospel is the true one, you will have opponents on every turn, but you will not want to slay them, but see them saved.
This is what makes me wonder about you. I simply wanted to ask you this. Do you refute Pelagianism? and do you believe that all have sinned through Adam, BEFORE they were born?...IE, by NATURE?
This is important to me, and am certainly willing to hear your remarks...[shorter than the WAR and PEACE novel; please...]
If you do not see this basic tenet of the WORD, you are in error, and destroying everyone who opposes you is certainly not the way out.
| 2009/11/20 16:56|
this is an unbelievable display of immaturity, smacking of fleshly pride, the LORD rebuke you.
Jesse, you keep this kind of stuff up, keep the company with the men you do, and you're going to wind up exactly like this:
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtAmXPmnjbU&feature=PlayList&p=7A93E5C8B571E6F7&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=1]"Fall from Grace-Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church"[/url]
As the Holy Spirit guides me, I'm giving you warning, thats going to be you someday, if you're not careful to stay salted with the humble and meek Love of Jesus, as there are 65(!) guests on this forum, and I pray my brother Paul West shuts down this thread. enough.
| 2009/11/20 17:02|
| Re: .....so that those who are approved among you will be manifested.|
No need to post. I just found this below on your links. There are all kinds of implications in this statement that prove severe error, and of course you attack and destroy the one who points it out. Please add me to your list of detractors, but please, as Paul West stated; DO IT ELSEWHERE. It is venom.
F." A sinful nature is moral not physical, it is a persons self chosen character and not his God given constitution. A mans heart (will) can be sinful, but a mans body can only be an occasion of temptation. Though continual choices of self-gratification, man has developed a habit of sin."
| 2009/11/20 17:07|
| Re: |
" A sinful nature is moral not physical, it is a persons self chosen character and not his God given constitution. A mans heart (will) can be sinful, but a mans body can only be an occasion of temptation. Though continual choices of self-gratification, man has developed a habit of sin."
You disagree with this quote? Do you believe that our body is a sin? Only Gnostics believe that the flesh or body is sinful.
Some people believe that sin is a substance, not a choice. They believe that it is a quality of matter, not a state of the will. I once asked a Calvinist Is this body a sin? They said, Yes, our bodies are made of sin. I asked, So you can put sin under a microscope and look at it? He said, sure. Here are some points to consider as to why our flesh, or body, is not sinful.
1. God is the author of our flesh (Exodus 4:11, Isaiah 44:2, Jer. 1:5).
2. Sinfulness is violation of Gods law (1 Jn. 3:4). Gods law tells us what type of choices we should and shouldnt make (Exo. 20:3-17), not what type of body or nature we should or shouldnt have.
3. Our flesh is just dirt (Gen. 2:7, Gen. 3:19).
4. Our flesh is the occasion of our sin, or the source of temptation (James 1:14), but sin itself is a choice (John 5:14, John 8:11, Rom. 6:12; Rom. 6:19 Eph. 4:26).
5. The body needs to be kept under subjection (1 Corinthians 9:27).
6. It is sinful to live after the flesh (Rom. 8:13), or to be living to gratify our flesh (Rom. 8:7).
7. But it is not sinful to have a flesh, because Jesus Christ had a flesh (Luke 24:39, John 1:14, 1 Tim. 3:16, 1 Jn. 4:3, 2 Jn. 1:7).
8. Jesus had the same type of flesh that we have (Heb. 2:14; Heb. 2:17).
9. Jesus made in the likeness of sinful flesh (Rom. 8:3) which means Jesus was made in the likeness of men (Philippians 2:7). The word flesh is sometimes used synonymous with men (Gen. 6:12, Matt. 16:17).
10. Jesus was morally perfect (2 Cor. 5:21) before He had a glorified or resurrected body.
11. The Gnostics taught that the flesh was sinful in and of itself (1 Jn. 4:3, 2 Jn. 1:7).
12. Our flesh is an instrument or tool which we could use for sin or for righteousness (Rom. 6:13, Rom. 6:19).
13. Our flesh can be sanctified (Rom. 12:1, 1 Thes. 4:4, 1 Thes. 5:23, 1 Tim. 2:8).
"If a man were created evil, he would not deserve punishment, since he was not evil of himself, being unable to do anything else than what he was made for. Justin Martyr (First Apology Chap. 43)
Those who do not do it [good] will receive the just judgment of God, because they had not work good when they had it in their power to do so. But if some had been made by nature bad, and others good, these latter would not be deserving of praise for being good, for they were created that way. Nor would the former be reprehensible, for that is how they were made. However, all men are of the same nature. They are all able to hold fast and to go what is good. On the other hand, they have the power to cast good from them and not to do it. Irenaeus (A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs by David Bercot, p. 287, published by Hendrickson Publishers)
If man is in fault for his [supposed] sinful nature, why not condemn man for having blue or black eyes? The fact is, sin never can consist in having a nature, nor in what nature is, but only and alone in the bad use which we make of our nature. This is all. Our Maker will never find fault with us for what He has Himself done or made; certainly not. He will not condemn us, if we will only make a right use of our powers of our intellect, our sensibilities, and our will. He never holds us responsible for our original nature
since there is no law against nature, nature cannot be a transgression
mans nature is not a proper subject for legislation, precept, and penalty, inasmuch as it lies entirely without the pale of voluntary action, or of any action of man at all. Charles Finney (Sermons on Gospel Themes, p. 78-79, published by Truth in Heart)
The next dogma deserving attention is the position, that mankind derived from our first progenitor a corrupt nature, which renders obedience to the commands of God impossible, and disobedience necessary, and that for the mere existence of this nature, men deserve Gods wrath and curse, not only in this world, but in that which is to come. If the above dogma is true, it is demonstrably evident, that this corrupt nature comes into existence without knowledge, choice, or agency of the creature, who for its existence is pronounced deserving of, and bound over to the wrath of God. Equally evident is it, that this corrupt nature exists as the result of the direct agency of God. He proclaims himself the maker of every soul of man. As its Maker, He must have imparted to that soul the constitution or nature which it actually possesses. It does not help the matter at all, to say, that this nature is derived from our progenitor: for the laws of generation, by which this corrupt nature is derived from that progenitor, are sustained and continued by God himself
If, then, the above dogma is true, man in the first place, is held as deserving of eternal punishment for that which exists wholly independent of his knowledge, choice or agency, in any sense, direct or indirect, He is also held responsible for the result, not of his own agency, but for that which results from the agency of God. Asa Mahan (Doctrine of the Will, published by Truth in Heart, p. 115).
| 2009/11/20 17:12|
| Re: Jesse|
"Fall from Grace-Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church"
As the Holy Spirit guides me, I'm giving you warning, thats going to be you someday,
I will never be like Fred Phelps because I will never be a Calvinist. I would sooner become an atheist than to become a Calvinist. Therefore I would sooner become an atheist then to become like Fred Phelps. So don't worry about that! :) I appreciate your concern though.
"is an unbelievable display of immaturity, smacking of fleshly pride, the LORD rebuke you."
why is it immaturity to refute the lies and false theology of Josef Urban? How is that pride?
You guys really need to stop with the false accusations.
| 2009/11/20 17:15|
| oh muy|
I would sooner become an atheist ...............
You can even [b]entertain [/b] such a thought?
In John, where Jesus is giving the "hard teaching" about His Flesh being real food, and His Blood being real drink, and people start deserting because they dont know what He is REALLY speaking of, Jesus turns to His disciples and basically asks, "you want to leave too?" and Peter expressed what I feel ......."where would we go Lord? You are the Only". I'm paraphrasing, but you would even consider [b]denying Yahweh[/b]coz of some guy named John Calvin?
and you didnt even pick up on my warning about Phelps? His witness is terrible. its stench, drives poor souls who dont know the Riches of Christ AWAY from The Living God.
no offense, but I dont even watch your youtubes.
and finally Jesse,
why is it immaturity to refute the lies and false theology of Josef Urban? How is that pride?
.....ummm, if you cant figure that out on your own, ask it of God the Holy Ghost.
| 2009/11/20 17:57|
| Re: |
I am grieved. This debate, is it holy? Does it promote holiness? Does it convict people of their sin?
Brother, after I signed onto SI several years ago, the Holy Spirit convicted me of the sin of debate. Romans 1:29. I clearly saw how it created strife, raised people's ire unnecessarily, and it just was not becoming as a Christian.
Jesse, I have read your testimony of how you came to the LORD (I hope I am not getting you confused with someone else - that [i]can[/i] happen, you know) or how the LORD found you, not sure which way it was. As I recall, the LORD changed you from a druggie, a criminal to one who desires do the right thing ALWAYS. Now it appears that the drive you had in living for the devil is being channeled in promoting God's kingdom.
But brother, it appears you have a bit too much of the "Peter" in you. Remember how he was always jumping the gun before Pentecost? How Jesus had to call him down? Yes, Jesse, you remind me of Peter, the one who followed Jesus around before he was crucified. I would hope you would not deny him like he did when he got caught in a tight situation. So, Jesse, could you just back off, allow the Holy Spirit to teach you how you should present the Gospel? and deal with those who disagree? Or, who knows, they may actually agree, but your forcefulness closes people's minds. And if they disagree, maybe you have something to learn from your distractors? Obviously, you did a lot of reading and others did as well. So, who is right? Debates do not promote the gospel, does it?
Has history taught us that debate is edifying in winning your enemy to your cause? It used to embarrass me when Bob Harrington would publicly debate Madelyn Murray O'Hare about the existence of God. Nobody won in those debates...I seriously doubt this will be the exception.
| 2009/11/20 18:50||Profile|