A Clear Presentation of the Gospel

a reply to: arpgme

Why does it have to say that? It would be a normal thing for a people to do....They took specifically the YOUNG girls, because they had not yet been ingrained with the wickedness of their families that had just been destroyed....

You're being obtuse.

originally posted by: graphuto
a reply to: Akragon

Why are people so quick to assume that "Once Saved, Always Saved" people don't help others in need, just because they rebuke false prophets and sinners, and believe the Bible?

One has NOTHING to do with the other.

Comes from experience with Christians...

its called precedence...

a reply to: WakeUpBeer
My friend, you're a good man. You have the patience of Job, but I must warn you. Arguing doctrine with a fundamentalist, is like...well...this...

Trust me. I have lots of experience.

a reply to: Akragon

You attack the teaching of Paul all the time. Yet the Bible tells us how to recognize false prophets. Why don't you show us that Paul is a false prophet based on our teachings?

You also are making an argument that stems from an older argument that has absolutely nothing to do with whether Paul's teachings were to be considered Scripture. "Pauline Christianity" was a word used by religious scholars who posed different ideologies in early Christianity, and Paul was a powerful influence on the teachings of Christianity. It wasn't until after Christians coined the term that atheist(as far as I know only non believing scholars use the term to mean this and it appears to be a rather cheap shot at Christianity because there is no historical basis for throwing Paul's works out as Scripture) began to run with the "claim that the form of the faith found in the writings of Paul is different from that found elsewhere in the New Testament, but also that his influence came to predominate."

The fact of the matter is you have never even read the Bible and tried to understand it for what it says. Its obvious whenever you an I talk about the trinity, or any other theological ideas we disagree on. You throw Scripture out of context, or if you don't know Scripture you make outrageous claims that have no merit and then pretend as though said something of significance. The truth is that type of argument only works on the ignorant.

a reply to: graphuto

Why does it have to say that?

Because otherwise you're adding your own "verses".

It would be a normal thing for a people to do...

Another assumption. How do you know? You don't live in the ancient world in that ancient society.

a reply to: Akragon

I don't think that's honest. You just assume that because one believes the Bible, and judges people for their false beliefs, and tries to get them to see the truth, that they MUST just be a crappy person to those around them on a daily basis.

It's ridiculous.

a reply to: arpgme

Uhhh... Because it's weird for a man to sleep with a little girl?
Duh?

By the same token, you're automatically assuming that they DID immediately start sleeping with them. Thereby adding to the verses.

a reply to: Klassified

Yea and how often do you give their opinions fair consideration rather than dismissing it as something you "know" to be untrue or believe is untrue?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Klassified

Yea and how often do you give their opinions fair consideration rather than dismissing it as something you "know" to be untrue or believe is untrue?

Considering I spent almost 30 years of my life as a fundamentalist, preaching, teaching, and also witnessing on the streets. Quite a lot actually.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Furthermore, God promised to preserve His Word.

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, 0 LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

It's preserved. It's here 2000 years later, mass produced, and readily available to most anyone on the planet. Paul included. It's the Word of God. It wouldn't be preserved if it wasn't.

originally posted by: graphuto

So obviously he died. His soul was sent to Hell, to pay for the sins of ALL of mankind. A perfect man, went to HELL for 3 days and 3 nights, bearing the punishment of our sins, because he loved us so much, and wanted us to have eternal life.
3 days later, he miraculously rose from the dead (Not hard for the God of the universe)
He endured all of this, so that we may have eternal life by believing in Him, and what He did for us.

Christ spirit went to the non burning side of hell and preached to those saints who had died prior to the cross. His going to hell was not a punishment it was an opportunity. The price was paid on the cross not in hell. You sound like the heretic Kenneth Copeland.

a reply to: Klassified

Can you provide any sort of proof of this claim? What gospel were you preaching? Salvation by faith, or salvation by works?

I don't believe that a faith alone, Bible believing Christian can ever lose their salvation, or "stop believing."

a reply to: arpgme

According to Numbers, Moses told his men to take little virgin girls for themselves and to kill off everyone else. Even if Moses wasn't one himself, he was still promoting it.

The fact is your leaving out all of the context of the story to make it sound a lot worse than it is. Shows how bias you are and that you have no interest in actual truth.

a reply to: guitarplayer

Woa, what are you even talking about?

a reply to: guitarplayer

If the wages of sin is death, and God is a true and just God, then the price MUST be paid. God cannot deny Himself.

a reply to: graphuto

Uhhh... Because it's weird for a man to sleep with a little girl?
Duh?

Animal sacrifices and slavery are also weird, but that's in the old testament as well.

By the same token, you're automatically assuming that they DID immediately start sleeping with them. Thereby adding to the verses.

I'm just reading the verses as they are, you are the one adding to it by saying they only kept them to raise them and marry them into the families, even though it doesn't say that.

originally posted by: graphuto
a reply to: Klassified

Can you provide any sort of proof of this claim? What gospel were you preaching? Salvation by faith, or salvation by works?

I don't believe that a faith alone, Bible believing Christian can ever lose their salvation, or "stop believing."

1. Read my past threads and posts. There's one sure way to know if a man has studied his bible in faith. I think you'll find out I'm telling you the truth.
2. Ephesians 2:8
3. Of course you don't. Neither did I at the time.

a reply to: Klassified

You studied yourself into atheism.... How does that happen?
How does a faith alone, Bible believing Christian study themself into atheism?
Literally, how is that even possible?
We're told to reject the world, and the wisdom thereof.

Although your first Religion thread on the forum concerns me and makes me doubt you, "Preachers who are not Believers"
What if you're really one of those? Who only SAYS they were a believer, unknowingly being used as a tool by Satan to make Bible believing Christians possibly doubt what the Bible says?

I don't know. That's a hard thing to swallow. If what you're saying is REALLY true, and you really and truly were a faith alone, bible believing Christian, I might lean towards the idea that you still may have salvation. Eternal life. That's not... "Ok, you've got eternal life now, but you stopped believing, so I'm going to take it away"

What say you to that general idea?

Sorry, this post isn't very coherent. What you've said kinda threw me off guard...

originally posted by: graphuto
a reply to: guitarplayer

Woa, what are you even talking about?

You stated that Christ went to hell to pay for our salvation. I stated that He went there to preach to the spirits on the Gehna side the non burning side of hell. Our salvation was paid for on the cross not in hell. Copeland teaches that Christ was punished in hell and that is false.

a reply to: guitarplayer

The "non-burning" side of Hell....
Riiiight...

Every OT sacrifice was burned.
We know that the sacrifices were a picture of Jesus Christ.
He didn't need to go preach to the spirits in the "non-burning" side of hell. That doesn't even make any sense.
People have ALWAYS been saved by Jesus Christ. They didn't know his name, or the meaning behind what they were doing, in regards to the sacrifice, at the time, but people have always been saved the same way : Calling upon the name of the Lord. From Genesis to Revelation.

And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the Lord.

I will take the cup of salvation, and call upon the name of the Lord.

I will offer to thee the sacrifice of thanksgiving, and will call upon the name of the Lord.

For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the Lord, to serve him with one consent.

For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

And he removed from thence unto a mountain on the east of Bethel, and pitched his tent, having Bethel on the west, and Hai on the east: and there he builded an altar unto the Lord, and called upon the name of the Lord.

And he builded an altar there, and called upon the name of the Lord, and pitched his tent there: and there Isaac's servants digged a well.

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name

I don't even know who Kenneth Copeland is.
This is the only interpretation that makes sense, biblically.

Yours sounds like nonsense...