On The Nature of Spiritual Warfare & An Appeal to the Church

[Humblesmith]

A couple of weeks ago I heard one of the more powerful messages I have heard in a very long time. The message is at the link below.

I am going to ask you to set aside a quiet hour and listen to this message. It is rather strong, and no doubt will be controversial with some. But I think the message is very important, and needs to be heard by leaders in the church today. Do not miss the last half.

This message has been running through my mind now for two weeks. I'd be interested to know what you think.


http://archive.org/details/OnTheNatureOfSpiritualWarfareAndAPleaToTheChurch

The link will take you to a page where you can either listen or download the MP3 file. After you listen, consider sending the link to the church leaders that you know.

Regardless of the endless arguments on this board, I think the main thrust of this message rings true, and we need to take heed.

 

[USN2Pulpit]

I will listen to it after lunch...

 

[Mexdeaf]

I wish it was available in manuscript format. Audio messages are lost to me.

 

[Humblesmith]

If you listen to the message at this link, you will hear him go through the list of well-known bible teachers and name what he thinks they have missed. He then lists the Baptist seminary presidents by name and asks a few very direct questions.

To all of you who live on this board and have endless chatter about these issues, I urge you to listen. Please forward the link to pastors and academics that you know. They'll recognize the importance of it.

 

[Luke2427]

I wish it was available in manuscript format. Audio messages are lost to me.

But I like what George Whitefield told a reporter who asked his permission to print his sermons.

He said, "Yes, but you cannot print the thunder."

Preaching requires voice. To print it is no different than printing a song.

You cannot get half of the effect on paper.

 

[Luke2427]

A couple of weeks ago I heard one of the more powerful messages I have heard in a very long time. The message is at the link below.

I am going to ask you to set aside a quiet hour and listen to this message. It is rather strong, and no doubt will be controversial with some. But I think the message is very important, and needs to be heard by leaders in the church today. Do not miss the last half.

This message has been running through my mind now for two weeks. I'd be interested to know what you think.


http://archive.org/details/OnTheNatureOfSpiritualWarfareAndAPleaToTheChurch

The link will take you to a page where you can either listen or download the MP3 file. After you listen, consider sending the link to the church leaders that you know.

Regardless of the endless arguments on this board, I think the main thrust of this message rings true, and we need to take heed.

I listened to it.

I agree with it.

It was rather tedious to me until about 20 minutes in.

I appreciate him nailing angry fundamentalists who wish their pet standards were written in the creeds.

I like what he said at 30 minutes about the overemphasis of "personal relationship with Jesus" in our religious culture.

I appreciate nailing the unspeakable shallowness that is many campus ministries with their guitar strumming and pizza at 32 minutes.

But the thrust of his sermon was at 41 minutes when he said our task is not JUST to preach the Gospel but to MAKE ARGUMENTS- to defend the faith.

He nailed something that I nail on here all of the time at 54 minutes. He said the greatest danger facing evangelicalism is anti-intellectualism. I could not agree more.

At 45 minutes he named names and called for the leaders of churches and seminaries and mega-ministries to make apologetics MANDATORY. I think that's very needful.

He said most seminary grads hardly know what a syllogism is. That's a TERRIBLE TERRIBLE threat to Christianity in our culture.

Christians, as he noted, did give us the worlds greatest universities and now we get excited about homeschooling. That speaks to how far we have fallen as an influence in the world.


And here is what I took away from this message:

Christians ought to be the smartest people in the world. With few exceptions no one ought to be more erudite than Christians.

But we embrace simplicity. We LOVE our stupidity. We HATE complexity. We LOVE to think of ourselves as brilliant without having studied- as if the Holy Spirit just makes us smart. We HATE the notion that our preachers ought to be educated.

And we are becoming a LAUGHING STOCK in the thinking world because we are so invincibly STUPID.

And, yes, this is what is costing us our country.

 

[Mexdeaf]

But I like what George Whitefield told a reporter who asked his permission to print his sermons.

He said, "Yes, but you cannot print the thunder."

Preaching requires voice. To print it is no different than printing a song.

You cannot get half of the effect on paper.

And you get none of the effect if you are deaf and cannot hear the voice. Deaf hear the thunder in their hearts, not in their ears.

 

[Mexdeaf]

I listened to it.

I agree with it.

It was rather tedious to me until about 20 minutes in.

I appreciate him nailing angry fundamentalists who wish their pet standards were written in the creeds.

I like what he said at 30 minutes about the overemphasis of "personal relationship with Jesus" in our religious culture.

I appreciate nailing the unspeakable shallowness that is many campus ministries with their guitar strumming and pizza at 32 minutes.

But the thrust of his sermon was at 41 minutes when he said our task is not JUST to preach the Gospel but to MAKE ARGUMENTS- to defend the faith.

He nailed something that I nail on here all of the time at 54 minutes. He said the greatest danger facing evangelicalism is anti-intellectualism. I could not agree more.

At 45 minutes he named names and called for the leaders of churches and seminaries and mega-ministries to make apologetics MANDATORY. I think that's very needful.

He said most seminary grads hardly know what a syllogism is. That's a TERRIBLE TERRIBLE threat to Christianity in our culture.

Christians, as he noted, did give us the worlds greatest universities and now we get excited about homeschooling. That speaks to how far we have fallen as an influence in the world.


And here is what I took away from this message:

Christians ought to be the smartest people in the world. With few exceptions no one ought to be more erudite than Christians.

But we embrace simplicity. We LOVE our stupidity. We HATE complexity. We LOVE to think of ourselves as brilliant without having studied- as if the Holy Spirit just makes us smart. We HATE the notion that our preachers ought to be educated.

And we are becoming a LAUGHING STOCK in the thinking world because we are so invincibly STUPID.

And, yes, this is what is costing us our country.

Thank you for that synopsis.

 

[Revmitchell]

But I like what George Whitefield told a reporter who asked his permission to print his sermons.

He said, "Yes, but you cannot print the thunder."

Preaching requires voice. To print it is no different than printing a song.

You cannot get half of the effect on paper.

Well I suppose if someone is deaf then it matters not does it. Don't be rude.

 

[Luke2427]

And you get none of the effect if you are deaf and cannot hear the voice. Deaf hear the thunder in their hearts, not in their ears.

And the deaf don't get out of it what the hearing do.

Let's not pretend that hearing is not an advantage.

The deaf are not impacted by Mozart to the same degree that the hearing are.

That's why it is called a handicap.

One might as well expect a blind man to get as much out of a sunrise as expect a deaf man to get as much out of preaching.

 

[convicted1]

A friend of mine used to go to church with a deaf man. During the service. he would smote himself on the chest, and say "up, up, up", not "up" as in "upwards", but I guess that was all he could utter, being a deaf/mute. One needs to hear with the "inner ears", and no so much, with the ones we use to hold our glasses on our face.

 

[Mexdeaf]

And the deaf don't get out of it what the hearing do.

Let's not pretend that hearing is not an advantage.

The deaf are not impacted by Mozart to the same degree that the hearing are.

That's why it is called a handicap.

One might as well expect a blind man to get as much out of a sunrise as expect a deaf man to get as much out of preaching.

I am NOT handicapped except by people with your attitude, sir! May God have mercy upon you.

 

[convicted1]

Please except my apologies for what is being thrown at you. Apparently we need to have the owner of the message board add a forum titled "Tact", and when you can pass it, then are you allowed to post on here.


:tear::tear:

 

[Van]

I think preaching without providing a transcript is lame. I think Rush Limbaugh uses a device that instantaneously provides an on screen printed translation of the caller's words. Perhaps, someone knows of a computer program that will provide an audio to written service.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Please except my apologies for what is being thrown at you. Apparently we need to have the owner of the message board add a forum titled "Tact", and when you can pass it, then are you allowed to post on here.


:tear::tear:

There is "tact" and then there is clueless crassness. Some people do not know the difference. Hopefully you will learn it someday.

 

[Luke2427]

I am NOT handicapped except by people with your attitude, sir! May God have mercy upon you.

For goodness sakes. What a bunch of drama.

Look, I didn't pay attention to your name.

I did not realize that you were actually deaf.

You are obviously extremely sensitive about it so I apologize for offending you.

I think it is pretty obvious to anyone who is not simply being emotional that I was stating that there is something special about the voice involved in preaching.

I thought you were saying that a transcript of a sermon is just as good as the preaching of it. That's what I was responding to. I did not realize you were saying sincerely that you wish you could take the sermon in but you can't because it is audio and you are deaf.


It is a handicap. A quadripalegic may say he is not handicapped but he is.

I am sorry that you are deaf. I know that must be terrible.

 

[Revmitchell]

I am NOT handicapped except by people with your attitude, sir! May God have mercy upon you.

Exactly! I am sorry someone on this board spoke to you this way. It is a shame an unChristian. May God give him the grace to repent and apologize which is what he owes you.

 

[Luke2427]

Exactly! I am sorry someone on this board spoke to you this way. It is a shame an unChristian. May God give him the grace to repent and apologize which is what he owes you.

I did apologize before you made this nasty little post.

All I said however was that being deaf is a handicap.

You have just said that I am not Christian (un means not) and shameful and ought to REPENT.

That makes you a far worse villain than you are trying to make me out to be.

And I think this kind of "righteous outrage" is often very cheap.

People often do this kind of thing to make themselves look very compassionate and noble.

It's often fake and pompous. It is what politicians do when they get dramatic about some gaff the other party made.

For example, its what Biden did when he faked outrage at Romney's statements about the 47%.

It made Biden look like a "man of the people" a "champion of the little guys"- but it only fooled stupid people.

Thinking people said, "What a bunch of melodrama fake bull!"

Now maybe you are not doing that. I do not know.

But frankly your response to my simply saying that deafness is a handicap is WAY over the top and it looks designed to make you look like "the defender of the weak" or whatever you want to call it.

 

[Mexdeaf]

For goodness sakes. What a bunch of drama.

Look, I didn't pay attention to your name.

I did not realize that you were actually deaf.

You are obviously extremely sensitive about it so I apologize for offending you.

I think it is pretty obvious to anyone who is not simply being emotional that I was stating that there is something special about the voice involved in preaching.

I thought you were saying that a transcript of a sermon is just as good as the preaching of it. That's what I was responding to. I did not realize you were saying sincerely that you wish you could take the sermon in but you can't because it is audio and you are deaf.


It is a handicap. A quadripalegic may say he is not handicapped but he is.

I am sorry that you are deaf. I know that must be terrible.

I am not sorry to be deaf at all - it isn't the worst thing in the world. I do not consider myself handicapped, never have. Most of the people with disabilities that I know do not consider themselves to be handicapped, either. We may be challenged by our environment and by the attitudes of people around us, but we are only considered 'handicapped' by capable people such as yourself. That's what I am sensitive about.

It is not "drama" to me- it is the real life attitude of people towards me and others like me that ticks me off. Like we are really missing something by not hearing some guy hollering a sermon instead of reading it?? God cannot speak to the deaf as well as He can to the "hearing"??

I accept your apology.

(And I apologize to the OP for the hijack. I do wish I could read the sermon.)

 

[Luke2427]

I am not sorry to be deaf at all - it isn't the worst thing in the world. I do not consider myself handicapped, never have. Most of the people with disabilities that I know do not consider themselves to be handicapped, either.

Is there another definition for "handicap" that I am not aware of.

If what you mean by that is that you choose not to be a victim because of your disability- I applaud you.

But if not it just seems like denial to me.

Hearing is an advantage.
Sight is an advantage.
Mobility is an advantage.

People who can hear, see and move can experience things that those who cannot do those things cannot experience.

Can you please tell me how stating that plain fact makes me out to be a villain or someone with a bad attitude?

It is not "drama" to me- it is the real life attitude of people towards me and others like me that ticks me off.

Alright, alright. Let's get real now- okay?

I did not have an"attitude" toward you. I did not even know you were deaf.

If you want to try to spin this to make me a villain- fine.

But it is less than noble to do so.

Like we are really missing something by not hearing some guy hollering a sermon instead of reading it?? God cannot speak to the deaf as well as He can to the "hearing"??

God can do whatever he wants to do.

Enjoying music is not going to be as easy when you are deaf. The same is true about preaching.

I accept your apology.

Thank you.