1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Who does until?......
“I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.”
What is the Gospel?
- Thread starter Sonnet
- Start date
Who does until?......
“I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.”
Lon
Well-known member
If it doesn't/hasn't convert[ed] you, nothing I say will. It is the power of God. All this TOL stuff is but seeds and water. 1 Corinthians 3:7
If at all, any of my scriptures have been something you haven't read, forgot about, or reconsidered, then you hadn't read enough. One of my professors could quote the entire bible. That always humbled
Lon
Well-known member
"IF" you are seeking salvation from Christians. :think: You may not realize this, but you are confused about Who and What AND going to the wrong place and wrong person for this. There IS only one Mediator and your 'search' is avoiding Him. Luke 23:30 Revelation 6:12-17 Read either of these on one of your many times? Sonnet, there is ONLY you and God. There is no 'us' but for love and doing the work of workmen to point. That is ALL we are good for - to point you to where YOU need to go. We CAN'T push or shove you that direction. You HAVE to walk that way yourself. About ten verses come to mind: John 10:27 Matthew 16:24 Luke 9:23 Hebrews 3:15 John 3:19 ... Are you reading these verses when they are posted?
WHAT, isn't defined? Romans 10:13 Again, we can BUT point the way. Acts 4:12 Salvation IS coming to Christ and asking Him to make you His, and save you from sin. It is in the asking and believing. Did you NOT meet the Lord Jesus Christ when you suggest you are saved? 1 John 2:9 John says it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to walk away. I believe him. I CANNOT walk away from my wife, because it is a commitment bigger than I. I CANNOT walk away from the Lord Jesus Christ because I have an UNDYING love for Him! He cannot disown Himself. He cannot be less than love. I have NO idea what you thought you knew as a supposed believer but no matter how many times you read the New Testament, you DID NOT find out how high, wide, and deep was the love of Christ. If you did, you could NEVER have walked away. Ephesians 3:18 2 Corinthians 5:20
Sonnet, how in the wide-world, can/could you, chuck the Lord Jesus Christ? HOW is that possible? I say it is not! 1 John 4:10
WHY aren't any of these scriptures, that you've reportedly read many times, readily coming to mind? Did you EVER love the Savior????
Look: I'm wrestling for your soul. You CANNOT come to me for salvation, but even the most blunt person in this thread, loves your soul, is disgusted with your opposition to love and grace, etc. Try and see love, even when it looks tough. Nobody came into this thread but to wrestle with YOU, for YOUR good. Think about all of this and the scriptures deeply. -Lon
glorydaz
Well-known member
Do all believe? I rest my case.
glorydaz
Well-known member
He "spent" plenty of ink, but you refuse to look for it. You refuse to accept it when it's handed to you on a silver spoon. You turn away when it's practically shoved down your throat.
You even post verses that prove what you're saying is nonsense. Whosoever believeth....those who look will live. Clearly, there are exceptions in the very examples you give. The exceptions are those who refuse to access the shed blood through faith.
You are getting a lot of attention, though, aren't you. :chuckle:
musterion
Well-known member
That's what it's all about right there.
musterion
Well-known member
Notice how he won't touch this. It's not why he's here.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Yeah, he thinks he is proving some point.....not sure what, but he's clearly not the poor boy Evil Eye was having such a fit over. Scam city.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
As long as you are seeking Nirvana, you will remain in your present state.
You presume that all believers are one hundred percent aligned in matters of doctrine, despite Scripture's own testimony that differences will continue until the eschaton. We all see through a glass darkly according to the gifts given to us and what we make of them. Even the most mature believer, some of those great saints that have preceded us, remains in error on the finer points of what Scripture teaches. Outside of Jesus Christ and the inspired writers of Scripture, not a single person exists as an infallible interpreter of Scripture. Your continues quest for perfection is a fool's errand.
Suppose you will be saved tonight. Is it your assumption you will then possess infallible knowledge of all matters of the faith? No. Your walk of faith will take you down many paths, some fruitful, some not. You will spend a lifetime extracting the wonderful truths of Scripture, yet will have only plumbed the mere surface of what is contained therein.
Scripture is perspicuous, however, concerning your duty. Call upon the name of the Lord and be saved. There is no debate around this wonderful promise. You refuse to accept it, clear as it is, but prefer to be divisive about other matters that will likely sort themselves out after you have done your duty. Do your duty. Stop denying what you are required to do. We all see through your tactics.
AMR
Museum Of The Bible Opens 11/17/17 - I hope to visit someday; very technologically advanced.
https://www.museumofthebible.org/
https://www.museumofthebible.org/
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
Cool!
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
Absolutely not!
Paul is a believer.
He assumes the members of the Corinthian church are believers and it is his duty to correct some of their doctrine.
Paul is not including any unbelievers. This is obvious from the first verse. 1 Cor 15:1KJV
glorydaz
Well-known member
Exactly. :thumb:
glorydaz
Well-known member
Awesome post. :thumb:
glorydaz
Well-known member
Yep, and that's after believing Paul's Gospel....all of it. Certainly not while picking it apart, and still remaining blind to what has been preached. One is baptized by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ when we believe Paul's Gospel of Grace.
The name of the thread is What is the Gospel? I've answered it as the way that Intojoy's been thinking about Gospel. It's Good News, and the Gospel saves when you believe it.
What is so good about the news that Jesus died? He died for our sins. What if I don’t think I sin?
What’s good about the news that Jesus was buried after He died? It seems like either an inconsequential factoid, or like it must have been part of fulfilling prophecy, which isn’t something I care about, if I’m listening to your Gospel presentation. What do I care about some ancient Hawaiian religion’s prophecy? Nothing, I don’t care about that at all.
Now Easter? The empty tomb? Doubting Thomas? The quote-unquote five hundred? I can see how that’s good news, because, there’s Christianity. Easter explains Christianity to me, why is it here? Easter is why. Easter is the Gospel, the way Intojoy thinks about the Gospel ITT. It's the Good News that saves when you believe it.
The Gospel is what we're fishing with.
People weighed down in their sins are hungry for the Gospel, I agree. But Easter can catch even those fish who aren't currently nibbling.
That's what Calvinists call Limited atonement, which is the L in TULIP.
I stand for Easter, which is everything, AMR. 1st Corinthians 15:14 KJV
Why aren't you Orthodox? Your case against Catholicism doesn't apply to the Orthodox churches, and they clearly trace themselves all the way back to the Apostles, just like the Catholic Church does, but you're not Orthodox, so why not? I'm not, because I believe in the primacy of Peter and of his successors. You don't believe that, so why aren't you Orthodox?
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I also believe is succession, as do all Reformed believers.
Of course, by that I do not mean the Romish notion that its bishops and the Pope received their offices and charism in a direct line from the Apostles via some mystical ritual. :AMR1: For that matter, if we believe the popular Romish myth, we might think that there has been an unbroken succession of popes in Rome since Peter. But, there have been no fewer than forty-six “antipopes” in the history of the papacy, and in the early fifteenth century there were no fewer than three popes ruling simultaneously.
The historical truth is that the Roman communion is not an ancient church. She is a medieval church who consolidated her theology, piety, and practice during a twenty-year-long council in the sixteenth century (Trent). Her rituals, sacraments, canon law, and papacy are medieval. The unity and stability offered by Roman apologists are illusions. It is mythology.
Roman apologists sometimes seek to vindicate the Roman popes, as distinct from the Avignon popes and the Pisan popes, by describing the Avignon popes as if they were less fit for office than the former. That is, to put it mildly, a strange argument. If popes are as popes do, then we may shorten the list of popes quite radically. On that principle, Rome had no pope from 1471 to 1503, and arguably beyond. In that period, Sixtus IV (reigned 1471–84), in an attempt to raise funds, extended plenary indulgences to the dead. Innocent VIII (reigned 1484–92) fathered sixteen illegitimate sons, of whom he acknowledged eight. Alexander VI (reigned 1492–1503) fathered twelve children, openly kept mistresses in the Vatican, made his son Cesare a cardinal, and tried to ensure Cesare’s ascension to the papacy. Alexander’s daughter Lucretia has been alleged to be a notorious poisoner. We have not even considered Julius II (reigned 1503–13), who took up the sword and was so busy conducting military campaigns to improve papal control over the peninsula that he conducted Mass while wearing armor.
The existence of simultaneous popes in Rome, Avignon, and Pisa, each elected by papal electors and some later arbitrarily designated as antipopes, illustrates the problem of the notion of an unbroken Petrine succession claimed by Romanists. The post-Avignon papacy is an orphan who has no idea who his father was in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.
More: https://heidelblog.net/2013/03/the-myth-of-the-papacy-2/
Nihilo, your fascination with Rome needs to be tempered with an actual grounding in its history. You have swallowed Rome's own mythological history without taking the time to study and learn more about it from those that are not apologists for Romanism.
Rather than this Popish succession myth, we Reformed reject any need of episcopal succession of Rome or the mere doctrinal succession of the Anabaptists.
Doctrinal succession is vital, but we also hold that Reformed elders must be lawfully called, thus properly ordained from the established church. Such ordination is traceable all the way back to the apostles, and recognizes exceptions under situations of unavoidable necessity, which legitimized the calls of some of the Reformers, such as when the institutional church is apostate. Case in point: the tyranny of Rome. That said, it should be known that the Reformers held that Rome's ordination was valid, applied in Reformed churches, therefore not requiring re-ordination. To dig deeper into this see:
http://www.apuritansmind.com/puritan-favorites/francis-turretin/the-call-of-the-first-reformers/
Thus, Reformed churches can trace their formal ordinations back to the apostles. For example, in the PCA and OPC churches, the Scottish Reformers were all ordained by the Roman Church of Scotland or the Anglican church: presbytery succession back to the medieval church and to the apostles. Finally, the Reformed warn folks about attending churches wherein the ministers therein are not lawfully called.
AMR