The Gospel Verses All Man Conceived Religions

[Nanja]

Paul said, "The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation" Romans 1:16.

It is not just the hearing of the Gospel, it is believing the Gospel. When one hears and believes the Gospel they receive the Holy Spirit and are born again by the word of God, which is the Gospel, 1 Peter 1:23.

You're still preaching a false gospel of works a person does to get himself saved!

Hearing and Believing the Gospel, which is God's Words, is only possible by one who has been Born of God!

John 8:43, 47
43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.


The Gospel is only the Power of God unto Salvation to God's Elect in the time of their conversion.

1 Thes. 1:4-5
4 Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God.
5 For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake.


But to the non-elect the Gospel comes in word only, and leaves them in unbelief.

~~~

 

[Robert Pate]

Robert,

When you are double-minded, it is obvious:

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...on-or-Perish&p=4845747&viewfull=1#post4845747

When you are in error, it is both obvious and sad:

Robert's many interpretative errors:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...nd-the-Devil&p=4829299&viewfull=1#post4829299

Robert's evidence of being beyond the bounds:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...edestination&p=4402162&viewfull=1#post4402162

Of course you retract nothing, as that would imply a man actually engaging in discussion of topics. Rather, when someone engages you, the answer inevitably is (1) ignore the response and move onward, (2) declare the respondent lost, hell-bound, and sin-bent, (3) post more scripture and declare victory, or (4) complain that too much effort it required to offer a substantive rejoinder.

Truthfully, as long as you are just blogging redundant topics time and again—over 270 started threads!—no one expects you to retract a blog.



Actually, your intentions do not match up with the evidence to date, Robert and you should be grievously sorrowful. Your 270+ threads are all basically the same:

- Calvinism is wrong;
- I, Robert Pate, am correct;
- anyone that disagrees with Robert is not a Christian; and
- don't expect me to defend myself, I am blogging here, so just deal with it.

:AMR:

AMR

Your indifference towards Christ and his Gospel will result in your judgment.

Jesus claims to be the savior of the world, John 12:47. You blasphemy him when you say that he is not.

You say that God condemns people to hell before they are born. Again you blasphemy God with your unbelieving statements.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Robert Pate Claims Blasphemy Unaware of His Error

Robert Pate Claims Blasphemy Unaware of His Error

Jesus claims to be the savior of the world, John 12:47. You blasphemy him when you say that he is not.

Best that you first figure out what "world" actually means, Robert.

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...e-God-Unjust&p=4826175&viewfull=1#post4826175

:AMR:

Our Lord's atonement was definite, not indefinite; that is, the atonement was for a known, specific amount of persons (John 6:37; John 6:39; John 10:29; John 17:11-12; John 17:9; John 17:22; John 18:9) that no man can number from among the peoples of the world (Rev. 7:9).

The atonement of Our Lord was not something conditioned upon your heretical claim and often lifted up abominable prayer:

And you and you alone are responsible for your salvation.

If blasphemy is to be claimed, then you, like the confused scribes and the Pharisees who did not understand the things of Our Lord (John 8:59), have demonstrated it aptly by the above.

AMR

 

[Robert Pate]

Best that you first figure out what "world" actually means, Robert.

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...e-God-Unjust&p=4826175&viewfull=1#post4826175

:AMR:

Our Lord's atonement was definite, not indefinite; that is, the atonement was for a known, specific amount of persons (John 6:37; John 6:39; John 10:29; John 17:11-12; John 17:9; John 17:22; John 18:9) that no man can number from among the peoples of the world (Rev. 7:9).

The atonement of Our Lord was not something conditioned upon your heretical claim and often lifted up abominable prayer:



If blasphemy is to be claimed, then you, like the confused scribes and the Pharisees who did not understand the things of Our Lord (John 8:59), have demonstrated it aptly by the above.

AMR

You serve an unjust, unmerciful, unrighteous God that is not the God of the Bible.

You want to believe that God damns people to hell before they are born. You have a very serious problem, It is not possible to have saving faith in your Calvinist God.

You blasphemy God by your words. You will be judged by your words.

You need to call on Christ to save you or you will be doomed.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Robert Pate Beats a Quick Retreat

Robert Pate Beats a Quick Retreat

You serve an unjust, unmerciful, unrighteous God that is not the God of the Bible.

You want to believe that God damns people to hell before they are born. You have a very serious problem, It is not possible to have saving faith in your Calvinist God.

You blasphemy God by your words. You will be judged by your words.

You need to call on Christ to save you or you will be doomed.

More of your usual opinionated assertions, Robert. All clearly will note that you offered no direct interaction with what I have posted. As I have said often, you are just blogging here and have no intention to actually engage with anyone.

Just as you claimed to engage me here:

We are engaging now.

Show me one scripture that says God has predestinated someone to heaven or to hell.

To which I actually engaged in substance:

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...es-Us-to-God&p=4832357&viewfull=1#post4832357

Rather than respond directly—after all you claimed we were engaging now—you then beat a quick retreat behind your usual opinions, whinings, and assertions:

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...es-Us-to-God&p=4833097&viewfull=1#post4833097

The 270+ threads you have started are plain evidence that you are merely posting opinions about your anti-Calvinist hobby horse, Robert. That is basically what bloggers do. Unfortunately you think TOL is a blogging platform, despite its actual reason for existence: discussion.

AMR

 

[Robert Pate]

So why do you keep saying they are sinners?

Spiritually, they are perfect and complete "In Christ".

Physically, they are still in their Adamic bodies here on the earth and are sinners.

SINNER: One who transgresses God's Holy Law.

 

[jamie]

SINNER: One who transgresses God's Holy Law.

And repentance is for those who turn from sin and have their sins forgiven by Christ.

 

[Brother Ducky]

I doubt that Brinsmead believes that.

You Gospel haters all like to discredit those that believe in Christ and his Gospel.

This is what he said:

The more we recognize that Joshua ben Adam was truly human and only human, the more we will appreciate that the story of his resurrection is God's word of love and hope to the whole human race without distinction.

He says is here:
http://www.bobbrinsmead.com/t_the_scandal_of_joshua_ben_adam_pt9.html

 

[Robert Pate]

This is what he said:

The more we recognize that Joshua ben Adam was truly human and only human, the more we will appreciate that the story of his resurrection is God's word of love and hope to the whole human race without distinction.

He says is here:
http://www.bobbrinsmead.com/t_the_scandal_of_joshua_ben_adam_pt9.html

You misunderstood the article. Brinsmead is way over your head. Jesus was 100% human and 100% God or he could not have been resurrected from the dead.

 

[Brother Ducky]

You misunderstood the article. Brinsmead is way over your head. Jesus was 100% human and 100% God or he could not have been resurrected from the dead.

OK, I admit that I am not the brightest light in the candelabra. And let's suppose that the article is way over my head.

So you are saying that when Brimsmead says that Jesus is only human he means that he was God?

So are you saying that for Brimsmead, to be human is to be God?

 

[Robert Pate]

OK, I admit that I am not the brightest light in the candelabra. And let's suppose that the article is way over my head.

So you are saying that when Brimsmead says that Jesus is only human he means that he was God?

So are you saying that for Brimsmead, to be human is to be God?

Nope, But Jesus was all that man can be and all that God can be in one person.

 

[Brother Ducky]

Nope, But Jesus was all that man can be and all that God can be in one person.

Not sure what that means.

But anyhoo, are you arguing that your mentor believes that Jesus is indeed God, even though in the work cited he says that Jesus is only human?

 

[theophilus]

The reason that faith without works is dead is because without faith there is no Holy Spirit.

It is the Holy Spirit working in the life of the believer that produces the good works. It is all of God and not of religion.

If you don't like what the Bible says, then you have a problem and it is not with me.

John 13:34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35 By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”

Hey Robert,

How can you love Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics, Seventh-Day Adventists and every other heretic on this board and hate Calvinists?

How does that work?

Especially when the Calvinists on the board are, truly, the only ones who love you in Christ? Don't you realize that when you spit in their eyes you are spitting in God's eye?

What's up with that?

 

[Robert Pate]

John 13:34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35 By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”

Hey Robert,

How can you love Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics, Seventh-Day Adventists and every other heretic on this board and hate Calvinists?

How does that work?

Especially when the Calvinists on the board are, truly, the only ones who love you in Christ? Don't you realize that when you spit in their eyes you are spitting in God's eye?

What's up with that?

Sorry, but I don't believe that Calvinist are Christians.

You cannot blasphemy God and his Son Jesus Christ and be a Christian.

See my post, "Calvinist Blasphemies Against God and His Son Jesus Christ".

 

[Robert Pate]

Not sure what that means.

But anyhoo, are you arguing that your mentor believes that Jesus is indeed God, even though in the work cited he says that Jesus is only human?

Read the article again.

 

[theophilus]

Sorry, but I don't believe that Calvinist are Christians.

You're in for a BIG SURPRISE someday.

 

[Robert Pate]

You're in for a BIG SURPRISE someday.

Do you really believe that heaven is going to be full of blasphemers?

 

[Brother Ducky]

Read the article again.

Neither need nor desire.

But this is what he said:

"The more we recognize that Joshua ben Adam was truly human and only human, the more we will appreciate that the story of his resurrection is God's word of love and hope to the whole human race without distinction."

He says is here:
http://www.bobbrinsmead.com/t_the_sc..._adam_pt9.html

If you think I have misinterpreted his words, show me how I so did.

But unless you can give a reason for not holding that Brimsmead is non-Trinitarian; e.g. he is quoting a non-trinitarian here, or he has changed his views etc. just admit he is non-trinitarian and thus non-Christian [by your very own statements] and we can go from there.

 

[Robert Pate]

Neither need nor desire.

But this is what he said:

"The more we recognize that Joshua ben Adam was truly human and only human, the more we will appreciate that the story of his resurrection is God's word of love and hope to the whole human race without distinction."

He says is here:
http://www.bobbrinsmead.com/t_the_sc..._adam_pt9.html

If you think I have misinterpreted his words, show me how I so did.

But unless you can give a reason for not holding that Brimsmead is non-Trinitarian; e.g. he is quoting a non-trinitarian here, or he has changed his views etc. just admit he is non-trinitarian and thus non-Christian [by your very own statements] and we can go from there.

I don't really care what you think that Brinsmead taught. I know that he did not teach that Jesus was just a man.

 

[theophilus]

Do you really believe that heaven is going to be full of blasphemers?

Heaven is NOT going to be full of people who hate Calvinists. Heaven is going to be FULL of Calvinists.