Is M.A.D. a dangerous heresy? It demands much scripture to be ignored

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Crucible is a "Calvinist Catholic."

 

[Right Divider]

You're absolutely correct, but totally wrong in your application.

When you could do nothing to please God, Christ died for you and the righteousness of Jesus was applied to you.

However, while you could do no works as a sinner to please God, you CAN do works as a Christian THAT DISPLEASE him and make you a castaway.

So "by grace through faith" doesn't really work?

We don't earn salvation by what we do, but we can lost it by what we do?

That's a really messed up version of grace you have.

 

[Crucible]

In other words, just more hot air, you wont be producing any scripture, i see.

You labor under the delusion that the Catholic Church 'invented' infant baptism when it was really practiced by the early Christians. It was never made doctrine by a patriarch anymore than baptism itself.

A proper history lesson can remedy a lot of falsehoods you all produce. The early Christians baptized each other with buckets and spoons, having fearing persecution and rarely being able to ordain in the local water. A lot of them were called to martyrdom, and infanticide was still a thing- what makes you think, in that twisted brain of yours, that they were commanded not to baptize their children into their Covenant?

That's the problem- yall have no concept of deducing history, and end up producing legal fictions of scripture. In order for MADism to work at all, one has to deny that Peter ever had influence in Rome despite that he's venerated in Rome as the straight up founder of their church :AMR:

A Christian's child is not supposed to be a pagan larva to be evangelized. So you can sit there and stand falsely by the Bible all you want, it's what people do when they can't simply admit they are wrong.

 

[Angel4Truth]

You labor under the delusion that the Catholic Church 'invented' infant baptism when it was really practiced by the early Christians. It was never made doctrine by a patriarch anymore than baptism itself.

You labor under the delusion that i believe something i never said. I didnt say anything about the catholic church, or where infant baptism originated.

Try again.

 

[Right Divider]

There's a verse for that.

Acts 10:43-47

Well apparently it's not for Israel but everyone Also this shows that people are saved prior to their water baptism through faith. Dang!

Peter was NOT preaching the gospel of the grace of God to these gentiles.

Acts 10:1-2 (AKJV/PCE)​

(10:1) There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian [band], (10:2) [A] devout [man], and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway. ​

This was NOT some "far away" gentile. This was a righteous gentile that believed in the God of Israel.

Gentiles were ALWAYS allowed to join with Israel and their promises from God.

Do you ever read CAREFULLY what Peter preached to this gentile? He didn't glory in the cross per Paul!

Acts 10:34-43 (AKJV/PCE)​

(10:34) ¶ Then Peter opened [his] mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: (10:35) But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. (10:36) The word which [God] sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all (10:37) That word, [I say], ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; (10:38) How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. (10:39) And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree: (10:40) Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly; (10:41) Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, [even] to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead. (10:42) And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God [to be] the Judge of quick and dead. (10:43) To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. ​

It's ALL about God's program with Israel. Where is the good news of the CROSS? Is "whom they slew and hanged on a tree" considered good news?

In the dispensation of the grace of God it is NOT someone that "worketh righteousness" that is accepted with Him!

It is him who WORKETH NOT, but BELIEVES.

Rom 4:5 (AKJV/PCE)​

(4:5) But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. ​

You CAN'T have it BOTH ways.

P.S. Bonus prize: Who are "the people" in Acts 10:2?

 

[Crucible]

*BUMP*

You labor under the delusion that the Catholic Church 'invented' infant baptism when it was really practiced by the early Christians. It was never made doctrine by a patriarch anymore than baptism itself.

A proper history lesson can remedy a lot of falsehoods you all produce. The early Christians baptized each other with buckets and spoons, having fearing persecution and rarely being able to ordain in the local water. A lot of them were called to martyrdom, and infanticide was still a thing- what makes you think, in that twisted brain of yours, that they were commanded not to baptize their children into their Covenant?

That's the problem- yall have no concept of deducing history, and end up producing legal fictions of scripture. In order for MADism to work at all, one has to deny that Peter ever had influence in Rome despite that he's venerated in Rome as the straight up founder of their church :AMR:

A Christian's child is not supposed to be a pagan larva to be evangelized. So you can sit there and stand falsely by the Bible all you want, it's what people do when they can't simply admit they are wrong.

[MENTION=13987]Angel4Truth[/MENTION] cannot contend this, and neither can anyone else. Martin Luther and John Calvin both supported infant baptism because it is not some pagan concept, it is fully in keeping with what the early Christians on practiced and was only ever contested by dissidents thereafter the Reformation. The denial of it is fueled purely on prejudice, catholic paranoia, and poorly layman conclusions.

Peace out ✌

 

[SimpleMan77]

Cornelius was saved before being water baptized.(Acts 10:44-48)

Only a believer is indwelt with the Spirit of God.

Ephesians 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

John even said it:

Matthew 3:11 "As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Which is what happened to Cornelius.

Galatians 3:27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. Not water.

1 Corinthians 1:16 Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that I do not remember baptizing anyone else. 17For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with eloquent words of wisdom, lest the cross of the Christ be emptied of its power. 18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.…

For something sooo important as you say, why didn't Paul need to not hinder them from being water baptized the moment they received Christ?

Very simple. In v.13 he asks all of them the question "were you baptized in the name of Paul?", right after asking them "was Paul crucified for you?"
The answer was "Jesus died for us, and we were baptized in HIS name".
Paul goes on to say "I'm glad that didn't personally baptize many of you". Essentially he is saying that he is glad HE HAD HIS ASSISTANTS do the baptizing so nobody would think they were a part of some club of people personally baptized by him.
He was pointing to the fact that it didn't matter if Peter, Apollos or himself had preached to them or baptized them. It was all about Jesus.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Right Divider]

what kinda point were you trying to make? Because MY point was that these gentiles whom believed readily in the message that was spoken to them immediately got the holy spirit (eph 1:13-14). This was prior to their water baptism as you can note in verse 47-48. So how do you receive the holy spirit, who is a guarantee of ones inheritance in god? Don't give some excuse like they received a different spirit, as they say they received the same spirit.

For the record, i know gentiles can join in with God. But peter was with Jewish believers. ANd peter spoke to those jewish believers saying "who can stop these from being water baptized?" and if you didn't catch the flow of language it implies that they normally would stop them from being baptized. Hence verse 45 showing those believers being astonished.

I suppose I could make the argument they were believing in WATER ONLY at the time and had to have the cross preached to them. 1 john 5:6

My point is that Peter knew NOTHING of the gospel of the grace of God. Peter only knows water baptism as part of God's plans. What else do you think that he can do but proceed with what he knows?

Peter knew NOTHING of the NEW CREATURE wherein their is NEITHER Jew NOR Greek, NEITHER male NOR female, etc.

This passage is extremely misunderstood, like much of the scripture.

In other words, Acts 10 is NOT a model for today.

 

[SimpleMan77]

Question, if i walk the isle at church, and confess Christ and then i am told i will be water baptized the next week - what happens to me if i die before having water applied to wash my sin away?

First, the principle, then I'll answer your application question.
The principal of justification. It always comes before glorification (glorification is being changed into the likeness of Jesus).
Justification is God applying the perfection of Calvary to us in our imperfect and incomplete condition. He views us as perfect and complete before we really are. We won't be fully glorified until eternity, but until then we are involved in the process. Paul said we are "changed into His likeness, from glory to glory". It's step by step.
In another place he said "whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified". Note the process 1)calling, 2)justification, 3)glorification
We are justified before perfection, but if we purposely keep ourselves out of the glorification process, the justification is removed as well.
Now the application scenario. Say it happens to you exactly like it did in Acts 10. While the preacher is still preaching, you receive the Holy Ghost, the same way they did. You know you need to be baptized, and accept the truth of it, but the preacher postpones it a bit. You are walking in all you know and doing your part, and God is looking at you as complete. In fact, there may be son in your life that you don't even realize is sin yet. Until light comes, and God shows you that, it does not bring a separation between you and God.

However, once God shows you things you need to do, and you REJECT it, God can and will take away his justification. He doesn't usually do it immediately-and only he can decide where his mercy has been extended enough. He does however have the right to withdraw his justification when we continue to refuse the glorification process.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Right Divider]

However, once God shows you things you need to do, and you REJECT it, God can and will take away his justification. He doesn't usually do it immediately-and only he can decide where his mercy has been extended enough. He does however have the right to withdraw his justification when we continue to refuse the glorification process.

So His justification is not really justification, it's just parole?

 

[SimpleMan77]

My point is that Peter knew NOTHING of the gospel of the grace of God. Peter only knows water baptism as part of God's plans. What else do you think that he can do but proceed with what he knows?

Peter knew NOTHING of the NEW CREATURE wherein their is NEITHER Jew NOR Greek, NEITHER male NOR female, etc.

This passage is extremely misunderstood, like much of the scripture.

In other words, Acts 10 is NOT a model for today.

You're simply wrong. I have seen many people experience the exact same thing, exactly as it happened there. Many of them have never heard of speaking with tongues before.
I have a friend that I met in a prison while I was doing prison ministry. He repented in solitary confinement. Shortly after repenting he was in prayer, and the Holy Ghost came on him, causing him to speak with tongues. He had never heard of anything like it, and didn't tell anyone for a long time because he thought he had gone crazy, although he knew he really wasn't crazy because of the amazing peace that had taken the place of his violence. He had no idea what was causing him to speak with tongues.

I could tell you if many stories like that. The unfortunate thing is that there are fakes that bring a bad name in the genuine, but don't throw away all your inheritance because someone somewhere is making counterfeit money. Your inheritance isn't counterfeit - use it to its fullest.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[SimpleMan77]

So His justification is not really justification, it's just parole?

I could tell you how that Jesus said IF we forgive we'll be forgiven. I can tell of the parable of the two men - one who was forgiven much, but afterward didn't forgive, and his Lord rescinded his forgiveness. Jesus said YOUR FATHER will treat you the same if you choose to not forgive. Yes, God's forgiveness can be rescinded.

I suppose you will say that Jesus wasn't talking to us. The ONLY way He wasn't talking to us is if we aren't His children. Taking back forgiveness is something He reserved the right to do as a Father - one of His Father traits.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Right Divider]

You're simply wrong. I have seen many people experience the exact same thing, exactly as it happened there. Many of them have never heard of speaking with tongues before.
I have a friend that I met in a prison while I was doing prison ministry. He repented in solitary confinement. Shortly after repenting he was in prayer, and the Holy Ghost came on him, causing him to speak with tongues. He had never heard of anything like it, and didn't tell anyone for a long time because he thought he had gone crazy, although he knew he really wasn't crazy because of the amazing peace that had taken the place of his violence. He had no idea what was causing him to speak with tongues.

So you're a Pentecostal.... things are becoming much clearer now.

I could tell you if many stories like that. The unfortunate thing is that there are fakes that bring a bad name in the genuine, but don't throw away all your inheritance because someone somewhere is making counterfeit money. Your inheritance isn't counterfeit - use it to its fullest.

It's all fake You're simply wrong.

 

[Right Divider]

I could tell you how that Jesus said IF we forgive we'll be forgiven.

YES, that was Jesus preaching UNDER THE LAW to ISRAEL.

You continue in your confusion of God's NATION and His BODY.

I can tell of the parable of the two men - one who was forgiven much, but afterward didn't forgive, and his Lord rescinded his forgiveness. Jesus said YOUR FATHER will treat you the same if you choose to not forgive. Yes, God's forgiveness can be rescinded.

If you want to live under the law, go ahead and try. I'll take God's free gift; it's far better.

I suppose you will say that Jesus wasn't talking to us. The ONLY way He wasn't talking to us is if we aren't His children. Taking back forgiveness is something He reserved the right to do as a Father - one of His Father traits.

The RISEN and ASCENDED LORD Jesus Christ speaks to me through HIS CHOSEN VESSEL. You should listen too.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

My point is that Peter knew NOTHING of the gospel of the grace of God.

That is true and many of the leaders of the Acts 2 community understand this truth. And since the preaching of the gospel of grace marks the beginning of the dispensation of grace then we can know that this dispensation did not began with Peter but instead Paul.

Here are three quotes from the pen of Paul where he speaks of a "dispensation" that has been committed or given to him:

"If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me toward you" (Eph. 3:2).

"Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God" (Col.1:25).

"...a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me" (1 Cor.9:17).

The "dispensation" which was committed to Paul is in regard to "God's grace", a "ministry", and a "gospel." Here Paul sums up his dispensational responsibility:

"But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God" (Acts 20: 24).

In Bibliotheca Sacra, a journal published by Dallas Theological Seminary, Roy L. Aldrich quotes these three verses (Eph.3:2; Col.1:25; 1 Cor.9:17) and then says, "These passages use the word 'dispensation' (or 'stewardship') to describe the sacred commission or trust to preach the gospel" [emphasis added] (Aldrich, "A New Look at Dispensationalism," Bibliotheca Sacra, January-March, 1963, Vol.120, Number 477, p.43).

There can be no doubt whatsoever that the event which marks the beginning of the "dispensation of grace" is the preaching of the "gospel of grace." And that gospel was not preached until the Mid Acts period by Paul.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

So you're a Pentecostal.... things are becoming much clearer now.

Yes, SimpleMan77 seems to think that the present dispensation began when these things were in effect:

"And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover" (Mk.16:17-18).

I wonder if SimpleMan77 has had his daily dose of a deadly thing today.

 

[Right Divider]

Yes, SimpleMan77 seems to think that the present dispensation began when these things were in effect:

"And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover" (Mk.16:17-18).

I wonder if SimpleMan77 has had his daily dose of a deadly thing today.

dodge also likes to fixate on verse 16 while ignoring the rest.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

I could tell you how that Jesus said IF we forgive we'll be forgiven. I can tell of the parable of the two men - one who was forgiven much, but afterward didn't forgive, and his Lord rescinded his forgiveness. Jesus said YOUR FATHER will treat you the same if you choose to not forgive. Yes, God's forgiveness can be rescinded.

I suppose you will say that Jesus wasn't talking to us. The ONLY way He wasn't talking to us is if we aren't His children. Taking back forgiveness is something He reserved the right to do as a Father - one of His Father traits.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

You're wrong because Jesus said Himself in, Matthew 15:24[I] "But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel."[/I]
What did Jesus mean by that?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Jesus didn't go and preach His "Kingdom Message" to the Gentiles/Samaritans. He also told His followers in Matthew 10:5 "These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:"

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Later Paul was to be sent to the Gentiles, by the Ascended Christ. Paul's Message, given to him by Christ Himself was The Grace Gospel. Hence, Paul became The Apostle to the Gentiles. Peter and the rest delivered The Kingdom Message to the lost sheep of the House of Israel, just like Christ had been doing before His death and resurrection.