A carryover thread from 'The Children whom God hath given me .'

[Iconoclast]

I would look them up if I knew who they were!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jg1ab4vvFI0


DR. W. R. DOWNING, PASTOR

Pastor William R. Downing is the founding pastor of Sovereign Grace Baptist Church. Prior to his call to the gospel ministry in 1963, he worked as a commercial deep sea diver, construction worker and truck driver. By the grace of God he has faithfully served the Lord as a pastor in six different congregations since entering the ministry . He has also served as a credentialed school teacher and as a professor in several educational institutions, teaching at the college, seminary and graduate school level. His academic degrees include an M.A. in Ed., a Th.M., a Ph.D. in New Testament Studies, and an honorary D.D. He has authored fourteen books and several pamphlets and papers. Pastor Downing married Adeline Mary "Cookie" Mica in 1967, and they have three children and eleven grandchildren.


https://banneroftruth.org/us/about/banner-authors/a-n-martin/

http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?SpeakerOnly=true&currSection=sermonsspeaker&Keyword=Albert^N.^Martin

http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.a...sermonsspeaker&keyword=Dr._William_R._Downing

 

[revmwc]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jg1ab4vvFI0


DR. W. R. DOWNING, PASTOR

Pastor William R. Downing is the founding pastor of Sovereign Grace Baptist Church. Prior to his call to the gospel ministry in 1963, he worked as a commercial deep sea diver, construction worker and truck driver. By the grace of God he has faithfully served the Lord as a pastor in six different congregations since entering the ministry . He has also served as a credentialed school teacher and as a professor in several educational institutions, teaching at the college, seminary and graduate school level. His academic degrees include an M.A. in Ed., a Th.M., a Ph.D. in New Testament Studies, and an honorary D.D. He has authored fourteen books and several pamphlets and papers. Pastor Downing married Adeline Mary "Cookie" Mica in 1967, and they have three children and eleven grandchildren.


https://banneroftruth.org/us/about/banner-authors/a-n-martin/

http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?SpeakerOnly=true&currSection=sermonsspeaker&Keyword=Albert^N.^Martin

http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.a...sermonsspeaker&keyword=Dr._William_R._Downing

First he goes against your doctrine of:

I can not find his doctrinal statement, however I looked at what little his church gives and find several things jump out.

While you say he has these great Greek language skills there are none listed about him. He's authored books so too have I. He has degrees so have I. I have been saved over 50 years so too has he. We disagree doctrinally that doesn't mean either of us are correct. It comes down to what he believes to the truth and what I believe to be the truth.

The Holy Spirit knows what the truth is and the original language bears out Paul saying the believers at Corinth were Sarkikos and could not take in spiritual truth's until they purged corruption out of their lives and their church.

 

[Iconoclast]

First he goes against your doctrine of:

I can not find his doctrinal statement, however I looked at what little his church gives and find several things jump out.

While you say he has these great Greek language skills there are none listed about him. He's authored books so too have I. He has degrees so have I. I have been saved over 50 years so too has he. We disagree doctrinally that doesn't mean either of us are correct. It comes down to what he believes to the truth and what I believe to be the truth.

The Holy Spirit knows what the truth is and the original language bears out Paul saying the believers at Corinth were Sarkikos and could not take in spiritual truth's until they purged corruption out of their lives and their church.

So did you listen to the sermon yet ?
what did you find wrong with it?
what would you correct about the sermon if feel it was in error?

 

[Iconoclast]

revmwc;

I can not find his doctrinal statement, however I looked at what little his church gives and find several things jump out.

You asked for info on both men. I said they were internationally known.

Banner of Truth had an article on one of the men.

You have not offered your qualifications at all.....:wavey:
You claim to be a pastor.....who knows? I did not give you a fifty question test to see who you are!

While you say he has these great Greek language skills there are none listed about him.

Did you want him to boast about himself? He has preached right out in the open. This message is over 2o years old......no one has refuted it.....no one.

He's authored books so too have I.

I have read 5-6 of his books......have not seen any of yours:thumbs:

I have posted links from these men before. I see no one has answered to anyone of them.

He has degrees so have I.

I have visited both these churches and seen the pastors degrees.. I have spoken to both these men face to face and been instructed by them......Have not met you. Yet.....I take you at your word.....

I have been saved over 50 years so too has he.

We can be thankful to God for that.

We disagree doctrinally that doesn't mean either of us are correct.

How do you know? If you have not listened to the whole sermon how are you sure? I want you to listen and offer a response.

Look at it this way......I have seen what you have offered and assure you there is correction available. Why would you not accept the challenge?

If these men are wrong.....show it openly. I know you cannot do so, but offer if you think you can......

I know because you and your links do not address the issue of the two different words used in the passage.......the two words are different although the same in the English bible.

It comes down to what he believes to the truth and what I believe to be the truth.

No....it does not. It comes down to one man knows and teaches the greek words, and tenses, and one does not.

It does not come down to what you think or feel....it comes down to what the text says......he shows it......you do not.

The Holy Spirit knows what the truth is and the original language bears out

what Pastor D teaches...in contrast to your wrong ideas.


:thumbs:


It looks like you like DHK are more interested in making excuses than coming to face the truth of the passage......If not ....listen and offer correction.:thumbs:

 

[revmwc]

First he goes against your doctrine of:



So did you listen to the sermon yet ?
what did you find wrong with it?
what would you correct about the sermon if feel it was in error?

I listened until he said the doctrine had been taught for 3 generations, that when I realized he was off.
John Gill taught the dostrine this man calls a heresy that has only been taught 3 generations which would go back to maybe 1860's.

Here is John Gill,

John Gill 1 John 3:9:
and he cannot sin; not that it is impossible for such a man to do acts of sin, or that it is possible for him to live without sin;for the words are not to be understood in the sense of those who plead for perfection in this life; for though the saints have perfection in Christ, yet not in themselves; they are not impeccable, they are not free from sin, neither from the being nor actings of it; sin is in them, lives in them, dwells in them, hinders all the good, and does all the mischief it can: or in such sense, as if the sins of believers were not sins; for though they are pardoned and expiated, and they are justified from them, yet they do not cease to be sins; they are equally contrary to the nature, will, and law of God, as well as the sins of others; and are oftentimes attended with more aggravated circumstances, and which God in a fatherly way takes notice of, and chastises for, and on the account of which he hides his face from them: nor does the phrase intend any particular single sin, which cannot be committed; though there are such, as sinning wilfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, or denying Christ to be the Saviour of sinners, and a sacrifice for sin, and hatred of a Christian brother as such, and sinning the sin unto death, or the unpardonable sin; neither of which can be committed by a regenerate man: nor is the meaning only, though it is a sense that will very well bear, and agrees with the context, that such persons cannot sin as unregenerate men do; that is, live in a continued course of sinning, and with pleasure, and without reluctance, and so as to lie in it, as the whole world does: but rather the meaning is, he that is born of God, as he is born of God, or that which is born of God in him, the new man, or new creature, cannot sin; for that is pure and holy; there is nothing sinful in it, nor can anything that is sinful come out of it, or be done by it; it is the workmanship of the Holy Spirit of God; it is a good work, and well pleasing: in the sight of God, who is of purer eyes than to behold sin with delight; and an incorruptible seed, which neither corrupts nor is corrupted; and though it is as yet an imperfect work, it is not impure: the reason of the impeccability of the regenerate man, as such, is

And several others from the Gills time in the 16 and 17 hundreds 5 or six generations back. Proof that this man's claim of only 3 generations back is unfounded.

 

[DHK]

It looks like you like DHK are more interested in making excuses than coming to face the truth of the passage......If not ....listen and offer correction.:thumbs:

That is not true. There are some very educated men but way out in left field.
Let me give you a couple of examples.
Calvin himself. Calvin believed in infant baptism, a carryover from the RCC which he never gave up. If you are a die-hard Calvinist why don't you go all the way and become a Presbyterian, which both Calvin and Knox started. Start believing in infant baptism and the many other errors of Calvin.

Have you heard of Peter Ruckman, a graduate of BJU. He is well educated, knows how to read the Greek very well. Look him up on the internet and you will see all the strange doctrines that he has started to believe in since the time he has graduated. He is best known for his KJVO stance, so much so that the KJV will correct the Greek and Hebrew.
Education doesn't make you right.

The "Godly" Puritans that went to America to escape the persecution they faced in England and in other European nations, were some of the first to set up a "church-state" like Calvin did in Geneva, and like Calvin, became harsh tormentors of Baptists. They beat them, whipped them, persecuted them even to death. Educated, yes. But also very wrong--criminally wrong. This took place in Massachusetts.

What we believe to be the truth we believe because of years of study. Listening to a sermon audio won't change our minds. It would probably do the opposite--cement our beliefs even more.

 

[Iconoclast]

I listened until he said the doctrine had been taught for 3 generations, that when I realized he was off.
John Gill taught the dostrine this man calls a heresy that has only been taught 3 generations which would go back to maybe 1860's.

Here is John Gill,


And several others from the Gills time in the 16 and 17 hundreds 5 or six generations back. Proof that this man's claim of only 3 generations back is unfounded.

He actually points out that there have been many factors.....the most recent form of the teaching has been since Finneys new measures.....listen carefully, then go to the third portion for the greek words.....he is right on the money.


John Gill did not teach this doctrine.


lets look at your quote from Gill;
John Gill 1 John 3:9:

and he cannot sin; not that it is impossible for such a man to do acts of sin, or that it is possible for him to live without sin;for the words are not to be understood in the sense of those who plead for perfection in this life

;

correct...no sinless perfection before heaven, this is not the issue.

for though the saints have perfection in Christ, yet not in themselves; they are not impeccable, they are not free from sin,

correct...this is not the issue

neither from the being nor actings of it; sin is in them, lives in them, dwells in them, hinders all the good, and does all the mischief it can: or in such sense, as if the sins of believers were not sins; for though they are pardoned and expiated, and they are justified from them, yet they do not cease to be sins;

correct...this is not the issue

they are equally contrary to the nature, will, and law of God, as well as the sins of others; and are oftentimes attended with more aggravated circumstances, and which God in a fatherly way takes notice of, and chastises for, and on the account of which he hides his face from them: nor does the phrase intend any particular single sin, which cannot be committed;

correct...not the issue

though there are such, as sinning wilfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, or denying Christ to be the Saviour of sinners, and a sacrifice for sin, and hatred of a Christian brother as such, and sinning the sin unto death, or the unpardonable sin; neither of which can be committed by a regenerate man:

nor is the meaning only, though it is a sense that will very well bear, and agrees with the context, that such persons cannot sin as unregenerate men do; that is, live in a continued course of sinning, and with pleasure, and without reluctance, and so as to lie in it, as the whole world does:

This shows that gill did not teach what you say at all.....This is 100% against what you and DHK suggest

but rather the meaning is, he that is born of God, as he is born of God, or that which is born of God in him, the new man, or new creature, cannot sin; for that is pure and holy; there is nothing sinful in it, nor can anything that is sinful come out of it, or be done by it; it is the workmanship of the Holy Spirit of God; it is a good work, and well pleasing: in the sight of God, who is of purer eyes than to behold sin with delight; and an incorruptible seed, which neither corrupts nor is corrupted; and though it is as yet an imperfect work, it is not impure:

you get no help from Gill...he is witness against you.

 

[revmwc]

That is not true. There are some very educated men but way out in left field.
Let me give you a couple of examples.
Calvin himself. Calvin believed in infant baptism, a carryover from the RCC which he never gave up. If you are a die-hard Calvinist why don't you go all the way and become a Presbyterian, which both Calvin and Knox started. Start believing in infant baptism and the many other errors of Calvin.

Have you heard of Peter Ruckman, a graduate of BJU. He is well educated, knows how to read the Greek very well. Look him up on the internet and you will see all the strange doctrines that he has started to believe in since the time he has graduated. He is best known for his KJVO stance, so much so that the KJV will correct the Greek and Hebrew.
Education doesn't make you right.

The "Godly" Puritans that went to America to escape the persecution they faced in England and in other European nations, were some of the first to set up a "church-state" like Calvin did in Geneva, and like Calvin, became harsh tormentors of Baptists. They beat them, whipped them, persecuted them even to death. Educated, yes. But also very wrong--criminally wrong. This took place in Massachusetts.

What we believe to be the truth we believe because of years of study. Listening to a sermon audio won't change our minds. It would probably do the opposite--cement our beliefs even more.

I only listened to a little and found him say this doctrine goes back three generations when we can find it in commentaries from men as far back as 16-17 hundreds, just solidfies the doctrine of the three types for me.

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

That is not true. There are some very educated men but way out in left field.
Let me give you a couple of examples.

Education does not guarantee accuracy:thumbs:

Calvin himself. Calvin believed in infant baptism, a carryover from the RCC which he never gave up. If you are a die-hard Calvinist why don't you go all the way and become a Presbyterian, which both Calvin and Knox started. Start believing in infant baptism and the many other errors of Calvin.

Nothing says I have to follow him or anyone else. Luther was right about faith , but we are not Lutherans....We are to follow Jesus word in scripture.

God has given teachers as gifts to his church. They are not infallible.

Have you heard of Peter Ruckman, a graduate of BJU. He is well educated, knows how to read the Greek very well. Look him up on the internet and you will see all the strange doctrines that he has started to believe in since the time he has graduated. He is best known for his KJVO stance, so much so that the KJV will correct the Greek and Hebrew.
Education doesn't make you right.

All the men I quote in these links rip him to shreds.....

The "Godly" Puritans that went to America to escape the persecution they faced in England and in other European nations, were some of the first to set up a "church-state" like Calvin did in Geneva, and like Calvin, became harsh tormentors of Baptists.

Each person answers to God for their actions. having knowledge does not always lead to correct living. I was not there to make a judgement....but God has already judged them.

They beat them, whipped them, persecuted them even to death. Educated, yes. But also very wrong--criminally wrong. This took place in Massachusetts.

These general ideas are not really proving anything. When Baptists sinned it does not mean all Baptists did it.

What we believe to be the truth we believe because of years of study. Listening to a sermon audio won't change our minds. It would probably do the opposite--cement our beliefs even more.

I could not disagree more.....Any Christian can still learn if they want truth.

I know of several pastors make a 180 degree switch in doctrinal views....as the light literally dawned on them. When God allows a person to see the truth of a verse...he can no longer deny it.

If someone listens and does not agree.....they can say....at the twenty minute mark this was said....I do not agree because of this reason....

If you or rmac change your view here....there is no shame in that.....it is not my view, or your view....it is God's truth. I have no grounds to boast, or gloat.....I would be happy for you. That does not mean we would agree on everything....but it can indeed happen.

I honestly believe you would gain a different understanding when you hear the biblical explanation put forth clearly.....try it.

 

[Iconoclast]

I only listened to a little and found him say this doctrine goes back three generations when we can find it in commentaries from men as far back as 16-17 hundreds, just solidfies the doctrine of the three types for me.

He clearly identifies Finney and the notes from the scofield bible as the point where the modern teaching comes from...do not misrepresent it before you listen to the teaching portion.

he quotes from your fellow Texan..rb theime and others

 

[revmwc]

DHK



Education does not guarantee accuracy:thumbs:



Nothing says I have to follow him or anyone else. Luther was right about faith , but we are not Lutherans....We are to follow Jesus word in scripture.

God has given teachers as gifts to his church. They are not infallible.



All the men I quote in these links rip him to shreds.....



Each person answers to God for their actions. having knowledge does not always lead to correct living. I was not there to make a judgement....but God has already judged them.



These general ideas are not really proving anything. When Baptists sinned it does not mean all Baptists did it.




I could not disagree more.....Any Christian can still learn if they want truth.

I know of several pastors make a 180 degree switch in doctrinal views....as the light literally dawned on them. When God allows a person to see the truth of a verse...he can no longer deny it.

If someone listens and does not agree.....they can say....at the twenty minute mark this was said....I do not agree because of this reason....

If you or rmac change your view here....there is no shame in that.....it is not my view, or your view....it is God's truth. I have no grounds to boast, or gloat.....I would be happy for you. That does not mean we would agree on everything....but it can indeed happen.

I honestly believe you would gain a different understanding when you hear the biblical explanation put forth clearly.....try it.

For over 45 years I have been taught by men who knew Scripture, Pastor after pastor who taught this doctrine,
very few in fact you and the ones here plus the two men you referenced are the few who say it is an incorrect doctrine. I am sure there are others. But throughout my life as a believer seeking the Truth the Lord never lead me to such teachers, that tells me something right there, that He has shown me the truth from the beginning.

Secondly other than the writers of the bible the Godliest man I ever knew taught this and believed, was he a pastor no, was he a long time believer yes, he came out of the RCC as a man witnessed to him, and he desired the truth once saved, God lead him to this teaching and he taught it to me. That man was my father. The pastor I grew up under was also out of the RCC and he too committed to the study of the word and he too found this doctrine to be truth. Followed by other men who studied at different schools with varying degrees all teach the doctrine of carnal Christians. Yet you find two men and believe them. I have studied the word to ensure I teach-preach the truth because as a Pastor I am responsible to teach the truth guess what I have a calm assurance that what I teach is right, the Spirit has not shown me that any other doctrine is the truth, so I am firm in my belief and conviction in what I have seen in the three types of mankind. God will show us the truth when go to be with Him.

 

[DHK]

He clearly identifies Finney and the notes from the scofield bible as the point where the modern teaching comes from...do not misrepresent it before you listen to the teaching portion.

he quotes from your fellow Texan..rb theime and others

Finney is a heretic. I doubt if either one of us believe all that Scofield believes.
Why do you say things like this. I believe you make unwarranted assumptions.
It is better if you simply debate with us. You don't really know what we believe.

 

[Iconoclast]

For over 45 years I have been taught by men who knew Scripture, Pastor after pastor who taught this doctrine,
very few in fact you and the ones here plus the two men you referenced are the few who say it is an incorrect doctrine. I am sure there are others. But throughout my life as a believer seeking the Truth the Lord never lead me to such teachers, that tells me something right there, that He has shown me the truth from the beginning.

Secondly other than the writers of the bible the Godliest man I ever knew taught this and believed, was he a pastor no, was he a long time believer yes, he came out of the RCC as a man witnessed to him, and he desired the truth once saved, God lead him to this teaching and he taught it to me. That man was my father. The pastor I grew up under was also out of the RCC and he too committed to the study of the word and he too found this doctrine to be truth. Followed by other men who studied at different schools with varying degrees all teach the doctrine of carnal Christians. Yet you find two men and believe them. I have studied the word to ensure I teach-preach the truth because as a Pastor I am responsible to teach the truth guess what I have a calm assurance that what I teach is right, the Spirit has not shown me that any other doctrine is the truth, so I am firm in my belief and conviction in what I have seen in the three types of mankind. God will show us the truth when go to be with Him.

Look at what you have just posted...it is anecdotal...not doctrinal. These men are sincere but mistaken.....they listen to each other...you offered tony evans...he gave opinion, not doctrinal teaching...same with swindoll and mc ghee

it should not be hard to listen to the whole message and then see what you think...or show where it is wrong and what you object to .....

I have to drive now...going long out to Nevada...only in iowa now...will answer more later.....listen to the whole message then offer your ideas,

by the way...there are many who teach this...I just happen to know these two men and am confident in them.

 

[revmwc]

He clearly identifies Finney and the notes from the scofield bible as the point where the modern teaching comes from...do not misrepresent it before you listen to the teaching portion.

he quotes from your fellow Texan..rb theime and others

I am sure he didn't have good things say about Colonel Theme and his teaching. Many who agreed with most of what Theme taught still didn't like the man's teaching. I actually was young about 10-12 when we attended Col. Theme's church, it was a long drive in those days, but my Dad found his teaching spot on. I have several of His books in my library and know several men taught by Him. Several well known pastors of today went through his teaching. However we didn't continue there we found a totally independent Baptist pastor who taught the scriptures verse by verse book by book, he grew as a RCC and knew what that teaching was and sought out the truth and found the teaching of the three types to be true.

 

[revmwc]

Look at what you have just posted...it is anecdotal...not doctrinal. These men are sincere but mistaken.....they listen to each other...you offered tony evans...he gave opinion, not doctrinal teaching...same with swindoll and mc ghee

it should not be hard to listen to the whole message and then see what you think...or show where it is wrong and what you object to .....

I have to drive now...going long out to Nevada...only in iowa now...will answer more later.....listen to the whole message then offer your ideas,

by the way...there are many who teach this...I just happen to know these two men and am confident in them.

It is hard to listen to something when you feel the Holy Spirit saying that is wrong stop listening, do I listen to you or listen the Holy Spirit?

 

[revmwc]

He clearly identifies Finney and the notes from the scofield bible as the point where the modern teaching comes from...do not misrepresent it before you listen to the teaching portion.

he quotes from your fellow Texan..rb theime and others

BTW who is Finney?

 

[DHK]

BTW who is Finney?

Here is some information about Finney provided by David Beale in his book, "In Pursuit of Purity," chapter six:

Charles Finney was most famous as an innovative revivalist who introduced “new measures” or pragmatic methods, such as the “anxious bench” and the protracted meeting, to induce individuals to respond to the gospel.
He became the president of Oberlin College in 1851 out of whic two distinct theological trends found significant support: Pragmatism and Perfectionism. The pragmatic tendency was revealed in Finney’s attitude toward revivals: “Revival is not a miracle, or dependent on a miracle in any sense. It is a purely philosophical result of the right use of the constituted means.” He justified the means that he used on the basis of the results he achieved. If his “new measures” persuaded men to make professions of faith, then they must be legitimate.
Oberlin Perfectionism taught that man is capable of attaining entire sanctification in this life.
Mahan and Finney trained scores of professional evangelists who were noted for their zeal for social reform.

 

[Iconoclast]

Finney is a heretic. I doubt if either one of us believe all that Scofield believes.
Why do you say things like this. I believe you make unwarranted assumptions.
It is better if you simply debate with us. You don't really know what we believe.

DHK

Finney was a heretic. He was very sincere and he was trying to do something good but it was really wrong and the same with CI Scofield .
some of his notes were good but he had a lot of error
don't forget I had three Scofield Bibles before I learned the difference and saw the error of the notes .
so I was told by the teachers at Chapel of the library in Dallas Theological Seminary oh you got to get a Scofield Bible get a Scofield Bible we were all taught the .
same things
I was taught the carnal Christian teaching but I had to learn that it was not accurate it's not difficult you can make applications but it is based on the flawed premise

 

[DHK]

DHK

Benny was a heretical was very sincere and he was trying to do something good but it was really wrong and the same with CI Scofield some of his notes a good but he had a lot of contained in this note don't forget I had free Scofield Bible before I learn the difference and saw the error of the notes so I was told by the teachers at Chapel of the library in Dallas Theological Seminary oh you got to get a Scofield Bible get a Scofield Bible we were all tore up the same things I was taught the carnal Christian teaching but I had to learn that it was not accurate it's not difficult you can make applications but it is based on the flawed premise

I trust you are referring to Charles Finney and not Benny Hinn, who IMO is an apostate.
Your basic disagreement with Scofield is that he was a dispensationalist, and that because you are not. That is not a reason to peg him as one in deep error as most on this board may be dispensationalists (likewise your fellow Calvinist MacArthur).

 

[revmwc]

DHK

Finney was a heretic. He was very sincere and he was trying to do something good but it was really wrong and the same with CI Scofield .
some of his notes were good but he had a lot of error
don't forget I had three Scofield Bibles before I learn the difference and saw the error of the notes .
so I was told by the teachers at Chapel of the library in Dallas Theological Seminary oh you got to get a Scofield Bible get a Scofield Bible we were all taught the .
same things
I was taught the carnal Christian teaching but I had to learn that it was not accurate it's not difficult you can make applications but it is based on the flawed premise

My Dad liked the Dickenson Study Bible I still have both of his Dicknson's on is in great shape it is newer than the original. I have a Scoffield but very seldom even refer to the notes except to go to a verse that is noted or words noted.

I depend more on Vines, Young's and Strong's and then commentaries from Several. I have over 100 books in my library so a varying supply of helps.