ECT They can't be the same

[achduke]

" I do not believe there are more than one revision of the gospel."

Who said anything about a "revision," whatever the h that is?

=your changing the argument-"revision?" That is deceptive.

You assert "one true gospel"

=only one piece of good news in the book

If you are saying only one piece of good news that saves, today, 1 Cor. 15:1-4 KJV good news, I/most(?) agree!

"Only one track or path. "

False dichotomy. I/most(?) dispensationalists, are not arguing more than "one track or path," so knock it off. If anyone asserts that, I will rebuke them, and have(for years).

The issue-there is more than one piece of "good news" in the book, and the good news of 1 Cor. 15:1-4 KJV, is not the same as the good news/gospel of the kingdom. If it is, then you have to conclude that Judas preached the good news of 1 Cor. 15:1-4 KJV, per Luke 9:6 KJV.


Now, how much slower do we need to go with you?

You do not need to go slow at all. I believe in the DBR. Always have. Not everyone needs to know the process in how the DBR works to be saved. Once they are saved they will learn about the grace and the reason why they were saved which is the DBR. We are saved by faith.

What does Peter say we need to be saved?

Act 2:38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

What does Paul say?

Act 17:30 "Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent,

Act 19:4 Then Paul said, "John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus."

Act 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Act 19:6 And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.

Act 26:20 "but declared first to those in Damascus and in Jerusalem, and throughout all the region of Judea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance.

 

[jamie]

Jamie, I gave you your answer re what is sin? You haven't replied.

I thought you knew, sin is a violation of God's covenant.

 

[Right Divider]

Again, no scripture

Oh my, Franky trying to look smart by parroting RD. Good work

NO, the portion concerning the Day of the Lord is yet to be fulfilled. Most of the rest was applicable to what those he was addressing were then seeing and hearing.

Yes, I know. Peter was PREPARING them for their tribulation. You know, the TIME OF JACOB's TROUBLE, aka the DAY OF THE LORD.

Again, no scripture.

Does Polly want a cracker?

There are two judgments in the Bible. The judgment of the earth at Christ's return and the judgment of men at the end of His thousand year reign.

Well, you missed one.

I have many times.

Well, you'd better go back again.

Good idea.

You must not understand sarcasm yet.

I am reading the Bible.

Then why so you read things that are not there as though they are?

He doesn't use the word rapture either. So, your point is?

Very nice NON-SEQUITUR (a common technique used to ATTEMPT to distract from the point at hand). Paul says that he wanted to preach NOTHING but Christ and HIM CRUCIFIED and YET Peter does NOT mention the CROSS. And Franky just ignores important details. And you think that you are a Bible reader?

There are none ... at least in the King James.

Oh another "smartism" by you? At least you finally admit that it's not there.

See above

So what "Word of God" to you think is the Word of God. Oh please don't say NIV or I'll now that haven't a clue.

No, you are not. You are making assertions and not backing them up with scripture. Now, you may well have and probably did hear, such things from the lips of men but you should read the Bible for yourself and only then will you be properly prepared to judge what others say about the Bible.

Even Bullinger, who was preeminent amongst the Dispies in his day knew that Peter spoke to all that would hear as well as Paul

You don't scare me. I've probably read fewer commentaries than most folks here, but I have spent PLENTY of time in the Word of God.

If your Bible gets any smaller there won't be enough paper left of it to blow your nose with.

I quote a specific scripture to accurately make a point and Franky says something completely STUPID like that. Good work!

I guess that I should only quote the entire Bible for you at any one time.

The fact that you DIDN'T get the point makes it glaringly obvious that instead understanding what the Bible says, you'd rather talk trash. Figures.

There are certain ramifications to what you assert that naturally leads to several questions and the four I offered you are just the tip of a much larger Iceberg.

You cut out the verse that explains the verse you offered.

16For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

Do you think that the ONE TRUE GOSPEL is STILL to the Jew first?

That was EXACTLY why I quoted THAT scripture.

Context is everything don't you think?

Indeed it is. Please explain how the ONE TRUE GOSPEL is to the Jew first TODAY!

Now you're talking

Again we look to PAUL and YOU ignore the multiple baptisms in MML&J.

Don't you ever get tired of being confused and duplicitous?

We were referring to water baptism ... but if you want to go there here is a pop quiz: When and what is this baptism of fire (hint, Daniel can tell you)

It's called the TIME OF JACOB'S TROUBLE.

Again, no scripture

Bwaaaack, Bwaaaack, Polly want a cracker.

...and your point is?

Doooofussss, I was ANSWERING a question that YOU asked.

Man O man you are dense!

Good luck with your confused "doctrines".

 

[Right Divider]

We already know John was not authorized to baptize with the Holy Spirit. John simply prepared the way for Jesus.

And it happened while Apollos was at Corinth that Paul, having passed through the upper regions, came to Ephesus. And finding some disciples he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”

So they said to him, “We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.”

And he said to them, “Into what then were you baptized?”

So they said, “Into John’s baptism.”

Then Paul said, “John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.”

When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid hands on them the Holy Spirit came upon them and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. (Acts 19:1-6 NKJV)​

Which comes first, baptism or the Holy Spirit?

You don't understand that scripture because you mis-punctuate it.

This is what Paul said:

Act 19:4-6 KJV Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. (5) When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (6) And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
​

The THEY in verse 5 is those that heard JOHN, not Paul.

There is NO re-baptism in the Bible. That idea is just silly, superstitious nonsense.

 

[Interplanner]

You don't understand that scripture because you mis-punctuate it.

This is what Paul said:

Act 19:4-6 KJV Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. (5) When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (6) And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
​

The THEY in verse 5 is those that heard JOHN, not Paul.

There is NO re-baptism in the Bible. That idea is just silly, superstitious nonsense.

I have never heard anyone defend the idea that John the Baptist baptized in the name of Christ. What about all the ones who he baptized before the Lamb of God came along...and was baptized with John's?

 

[Right Divider]

<cut>
Which comes first, baptism or the Holy Spirit?

Ask these guys:

Act 10:44-48 KJV While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. (45) And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. (46) For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, (47) Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? (48) And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
​

Holy Ghost and THEN water!

 

[fzappa13]

Oh my, Franky trying to look smart by parroting RD. Good work


Yes, I know. Peter was PREPARING them for their tribulation. You know, the TIME OF JACOB's TROUBLE, aka the DAY OF THE LORD.


Does Polly want a cracker?


Well, you missed one.


Well, you'd better go back again.


You must not understand sarcasm yet.


Then why so you read things that are not there as though they are?


Very nice NON-SEQUITUR (a common technique used to ATTEMPT to distract from the point at hand). Paul says that he wanted to preach NOTHING but Christ and HIM CRUCIFIED and YET Peter does NOT mention the CROSS. And Franky just ignores important details. And you think that you are a Bible reader?


Oh another "smartism" by you? At least you finally admit that it's not there.


So what "Word of God" to you think is the Word of God. Oh please don't say NIV or I'll now that haven't a clue.


You don't scare me. I've probably read fewer commentaries than most folks here, but I have spent PLENTY of time in the Word of God.


I quote a specific scripture to accurately make a point and Franky says something completely STUPID like that. Good work!

I guess that I should only quote the entire Bible for you at any one time.

The fact that you DIDN'T get the point makes it glaringly obvious that instead understanding what the Bible says, you'd rather talk trash. Figures.


Do you think that the ONE TRUE GOSPEL is STILL to the Jew first?

That was EXACTLY why I quoted THAT scripture.


Indeed it is. Please explain how the ONE TRUE GOSPEL is to the Jew first TODAY!


Again we look to PAUL and YOU ignore the multiple baptisms in MML&J.

Don't you ever get tired of being confused and duplicitous?


It's called the TIME OF JACOB'S TROUBLE.


Bwaaaack, Bwaaaack, Polly want a cracker.


Doooofussss, I was ANSWERING a question that YOU asked.

Man O man you are dense!

Good luck with your confused "doctrines".

If you don't have scripture to back up your doctrine then you have embraced the traditions of men. I will leave you to your traditions.

 

[Right Divider]

I have never heard anyone defend the idea that John the Baptist baptized in the name of Christ. What about all the ones who he baptized before the Lamb of God came along...and was baptized with John's?

Who do you think that John was talking about when he baptized:

Mat 3:11-13 KJV I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: (12) Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire. (13) Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
​

 

[tetelestai]

If you don't have scripture to back up your doctrine then you have embraced the traditions of men. I will leave you to your traditions.

He's a "traditions of men" follower all right.

I would love to see him attempt to back up his claim that there are more than two resurrections in the Bible.

 

[Right Divider]

If you don't have scripture to back up your doctrine then you have embraced the traditions of men. I will leave you to your traditions.

When you're proven wrong, give them a one-liner and claim VICTORY.

You should become a politician.

 

[Interplanner]

Who do you think that John was talking about when he baptized:

Mat 3:11-13 KJV I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: (12) Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire. (13) Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
​

But your point about the retelling in Acts 9 was that John was already baptising in Christ. Instead, John knew it was a different baptism.

It's good to sort things as fine as you do about the retelling and who 'they' refers to, but I'm not sure it is correct. I think it (Acts 9) is 50/50 and should not be used to conclude with.

 

[Cross Reference]

You don't understand that scripture because you mis-punctuate it.

This is what Paul said:

Act 19:4-6 KJV Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. (5) When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (6) And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
​

The THEY in verse 5 is those that heard JOHN, not Paul.

There is NO re-baptism in the Bible. That idea is just silly, superstitious nonsense.

Well then, this passage is all wet, right; somebody's idea of a bad joke??? Why not let it say what it says? It won't affect your salvation if indeed you are saved to begin with. However, it will affect your life in the afterwards of it by your unbelief that hinders your insight into what was actually taking place. I think you are there already.

 

[revpete]

Oh. Thanks! Try getting saved.

So there.



Made up. I gave you chapter, verse, in which to soak your "Well, that is what I was taught" head, that a 6 year old can understand, and you reject it, and deceive.

Sit.

I have given you chapter and verse also but you seem impervious to biblical truth. The Bible Is a progressive revelation of God and that includes His gospel.

You accuse me of not understanding what a six yr old can and then you use phrases like "so there" you gonna stamp your feet as well?

I think we better agree to differ.

Pete

 

[Cross Reference]

I have given you chapter and verse also but you seem impervious to biblical truth. The Bible Is a progressive revelation of God and that includes His gospel.

You accuse me of not understanding what a six yr old can and then you use phrases like "so there" you gonna stamp your feet as well? ��

I think we better agree to differ.

Pete ��

Reprobation comes to mind for the severity of his mindset, the severity of it which was mine at a past point in time and for which I have now realized the protection of God was in it all, that I not accuse.

". . . . . For the LORD will go before you;
And the God of Israel will be your rereward"(rear Guard).Isaiah 52:12 (KJV 1900)

 

[revpete]

Reprobation comes to mind for the severity of his mindset, the severity of it which was mine at a past point in time and for which I have now realized the protection of God was in it all, that I not accuse.

". . . . . For the LORD will go before you;
And the God of Israel will be your rereward"(rear Guard).Isaiah 52:12 (KJV 1900)

CR you seem to be a balanced type of fellow if indeed you be a fellow. I asked a question a few posts back and I wonder if you could answer it for me as I received no answer from John W. Why do MADs believe that repentance is not necessary in order to be saved? This MAD doctrine is new to me but having looked at it and seen the language of its adherents it seems very like gnosticism to me.

Pete

 

[Cross Reference]

CR you seem to be a balanced type of fellow if indeed you be a fellow. I asked a question a few posts back and I wonder if you could answer it for me as I received no answer from John W. Why do MADs believe that repentance is not necessary in order to be saved? This MAD doctrine is new to me but having looked at it and seen the language of its adherents it seems very like gnosticism to me.

Pete ��

Thank you, Pete. As you, it is also new to me. We have both lived by the teachings of Paul all our Christian lives which makes the point of the argument a "scratching of the head" experience. Being a new 'doctrine' to the exclusion of the gospel of Jesus Christ, I find hard to believe any sound Christian would believe without bells and whistles going off in their head. Seeing as how they haven't sounded, I can only assume they have had nothing going for them by Christ Jesus from the beginning. They cannot be born again. The proof has already been see in the pudding.

We can see from this by Peter, "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost" (Act 2:38) that repentance was needed, however, not for salvation or else Peter would not have been so narrow about what it was for. He knew he was preaching to an already, righteous Jewish crowd who were there for their sacred holiday. Now am I saying that the one who says the sinners prayer must first repent of his sins? Hey! He just heard preacher say, "come to Jesus and have your sins forgiven, et al." But that was preached on Sunday nite and now it is Monday morn! What repentance? I can see maybe plenty of happiness for redemption, even a celebration. However, has there been a surrendering of the life? Can there be a surrendering of anyone's life without true [proven] repentance that must proceed the indwelling of the Life Christ; the choosing of that one? I do think so.

So, in the sense that they hope for, they presume upon Paul's teaching that has never intended to be understood by anyone less a surrendered soul to Jesus Christ.

Because of the seemingly absence in Paul's teaching re necessary repentance for salvation, two things: 1. John 17:3 is salvation unto something that Jesus speaks of. 2. From something is what is MAD limits itself to the teaching of.

If they have been persuaded that no repentance is necessary for salvation what they don't understand by such error is that a person is not of Jesus Christ as in "None of His", per Rom 8:9. There can be no abiding in them according Rom 8:1-2. Ergo, no forgiveness of sins.


I am open for correction in this from anyone who is apt "full gospel" teacher of the scriptures.

Thanks for the invitation to reply as you have invited me to do, Pete.

BTW. I am a man of 77+ yrs.

 

[john w]

You do not need to go slow at all. I believe in the DBR. Always have. Not everyone needs to know the process in how the DBR works to be saved. Once they are saved they will learn about the grace and the reason why they were saved which is the DBR. We are saved by faith.

What does Peter say we need to be saved?

Act 2:38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

What does Paul say?

Act 17:30 "Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent,

Act 19:4 Then Paul said, "John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus."

Act 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Act 19:6 And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.

Act 26:20 "but declared first to those in Damascus and in Jerusalem, and throughout all the region of Judea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance.

" Not everyone needs to know the process in how the DBR works to be saved."-you

Deception. They need to trust in the dbr, to be saved, in this dispensation.The content of faith has changed, in the past, but it stops at Roman-Philemon.

Your Acts "argument" above, is satanic.

 

[john w]

I have given you chapter and verse also but you seem impervious to biblical truth. The Bible Is a progressive revelation of God and that includes His gospel.

You accuse me of not understanding what a six yr old can and then you use phrases like "so there" you gonna stamp your feet as well? &#55357;&#56438;

I think we better agree to differ.

Pete &#55357;&#56421;

It was hid from them. There is more than just one piece of good news, in the book. I think you'd better learn how to survey the bible, read.

And get saved.

So there.

 

[achduke]

" Not everyone needs to know the process in how the DBR works to be saved."-you

Deception. They need to trust in the dbr, to be saved, in this dispensation.The content of faith has changed, in the past, but it stops at Roman-Philemon.

Your Acts "argument" above, is satanic.

Where does it say that you must know completely about the DBR to be saved?

1 Corinthians 15:2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you--unless you believed in vain.

Does by which you are saved mean you need to know about it before you are saved as in a work? Or can you ask for repentance like both Peter and Paul have preached and be baptized in the name of Christ and receive the Holy Spirit who will teach you all things including the DBR by which you are saved?

 

[fzappa13]

He's a "traditions of men" follower all right.

I would love to see him attempt to back up his claim that there are more than two resurrections in the Bible.

There are two resurrections that mortal man may take part in. The first finds those that died for the Word of God accompanying Jesus to take part in the Millennial reign of Christ. (Rev 4: 9-10, 6: 9-11 and 20: 4-5). Everyone else to be resurrected will be resurrected after and as a result of the White Throne Judgment. (Rev 20: 5-15, Dan 7:10 etc.)