WHY IDENTIFY YOURSELF AS A CALVANISTS????CALVANISM?? ENOUGH WITH THE "ISMS"

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by David on December 19, 2009 at 6:13pm

LT: Let's get back to basics 'eh?

Jesus is the Christ of God, the Son of God

Your second question seems to be headed down the road of the "inerrancy of the Bible" doctrine. You forget that the Bible has been in the hands of men for 2000 years who haven't always had the finest motivations. I believe the Word of God is True, and every man a liar.

Yes, I believe in a bodily resurrection, and that Jesus died, and rose again, just as the witnesses recorded the event.

Salvation is from God for those who seek after Him with all their heart, mind, soul, and strength; and, who love their neighbor (at least) as much as they love themselves. Salvation is to be free from the ties that bind to the powers that be in this present life and the life which is to come.

You laugh at the concept of hell, but, haven't provided any information or further evidence to support your contention. Show me your definition of "hell". What reference book are you using to define the term "hell"?

I talk down to no one, but, sometimes it may seem to be that way for those who have an inferiority complex. Did Jesus talk down to anyone? Read again His method of talking to the woman who was a Samaritan. Furthermore, you've evidently not been paying attention to the persona of the actor I've been communicating with.

Lastly, what does LT stand for? I give my full name, and have nothing to hide. I'd like to know who I am communicating with. It's simply a common courtesy.

Thank you,

Blessings in Christ,
David

Permalink Reply by Leonard T on December 19, 2009 at 7:27pm

David G.,

Thanks for responding. We have some more to cover as I respond to some of your questions and comments and pose more of my own.

Jesus is the Christ of God, the Son of God
This is an insufficient definition as many cults proclaim what you have said but when pressed to define the meaning you find they deviate from what Scripture teaches. Please define this further.

Your second question seems to be headed down the road of the "inerrancy of the Bible" doctrine. You forget that the Bible has been in the hands of men for 2000 years who haven't always had the finest motivations. I believe the Word of God is True, and every man a liar.
The earliest manuscripts, history and the writings of the early church leaders support the validity of God’s Word and the doctrines that are presented in them for us today. When translators have stayed true to the principles of translation we have been given a trust worthy book in our natural language. You assume they have been tampered with, yet this is verifiable by cross referencing the translation with the earliest manuscripts and by examining what the early church believed. To deny the word of God or believe that it has been altered to any extent leaves man in judgment over the word rather than submissive to it is dangerous. It is either God’s word or it is not. You sound very much as if you take a liberal view of the Word of God. BTW, you assume I forgot something. I have not forgotten that about the 2000 years, nor have I forgotten the authority, power and presence of God’s Spirit on earth now, Whom is the one that inspired the original writers. Does one believe that God would give us a book that is designed to lead people to a saving knowledge through Jesus Christ and then simply let man hijack it and distort it? Or is there a preserving of the word that is accomplished by the Holy Spirit? I’ll trust in the Holy Spirit.

Yes, I believe in a bodily resurrection, and that Jesus died, and rose again, just as the witnesses recorded the event.
Do you believe in the doctrine of the Second Coming of Christ? When do you believe that the resurrection of the body of man will take place? Do you believe that the unsaved will be resurrected? (John 5:28-29)

Salvation is from God for those who seek after Him with all their heart, mind, soul, and strength; and, who love their neighbor (at least) as much as they love themselves. Salvation is to be free from the ties that bind to the powers that be in this present life and the life which is to come. Incomplete definition again. By what means is salvation secured for man? It is not salvation from human government, but salvation unto God. Where do you put the blood of Jesus? Repentance? Being born-again? To seek after God requires an act of God in the first place. (Rom. 5:8; 2 Cor. 4:4; 1 John 4 to name a few)

You laugh at the concept of hell, but, haven't provided any information or further evidence to support your contention. Show me your definition of "hell". What reference book are you using to define the term "hell"?
Scripture is best interpreted and understood by Scripture. The doctrine of heaven and hell are very clear in Scripture. For the sake of clarity I will give you the names of several early church leaders who taught on hell and the everlasting punishment incurred there. You can take the time and look up their writings if you like.

The Epistle of Barnabas (70-130AD)
Second Clement (150AD)
Justin Martyr (151AD)
Polycarp (155AD)
Tatian (160AD)
Athenagoras of Athens (175AD)
Theophilus of Antioch (181AD)
Irenaeus (189AD)
Clement of Alexandria (195AD)
Tertullian (197AD)
The list goes on down through the ages.

So to answer your question I refer to the Bible, early church leaders and history. Your view attempts to overturn what was believed, not return us to an original belief.

Just an added thought. What name would you give the place that is the most vile in the spiritual realm when no name had previously been given? In keeping with the method of the language usage of the day you would give it the name of the most vile place known to the reader and that place is Geenna. One name representing two places in a similar fashion that Babylon. It is a historical place and a place referred to in end times prophecy. Two separate places using the same title.

I talk down to no one, but, sometimes it may seem to be that way for those who have an inferiority complex.
And your implication here is? Whether you embrace it or not, you attempt to elevate yourself and talk down to others. This is a simple control technique, whether willfully employed or not I cannot say as I do not know you, but the technique is there none-the-less.

Did Jesus talk down to anyone? Read again His method of talking to the woman who was a Samaritan. Furthermore, you've evidently not been paying attention to the persona of the actor I've been communicating with.
Do you imply your method is that of Jesus when speaking to the woman at the well? I have read all your postings and would encourage you to reread what and how you have communicated.

Lastly, what does LT stand for? I give my full name, and have nothing to hide. I'd like to know who I am communicating with. It's simply a common courtesy.
You imply I have something to hide. You are funny. I give my name when asked, but go by LT in everyday life and use it without a second thought. But to not offend you my name is Leonard Traina.

LT

Permalink Reply by David on December 20, 2009 at 5:14pm

PART 1

Plato Comes to Church
It is the last half of the second century in North Africa--Alexandria, Egypt, to be exact--the "Mecca" of intellectualism and contemporary thinking in the Christian world of the early church era.

The writings of church father Athenagoras (A.D. 127-190) of Alexandria is the first clue that a departure from the Scripture's holistic view of man is on the theological horizon.

Born in Athens, Athenagoras was trained in pagan Greek learning and the philosophy of Plato before he became a Christian. And becoming a Christian did not invalidate his former views. He was the first ecclesiastical writer to publicly embrace the immortality of the soul. Without referencing the Scriptures, Athenagoras advanced his views directly from Plato's philosophical construct. His theology "is strongly tinged with Platonism" ("Athenagoras," Encyclopedia Brittannica, 11th ed., p. 831).

Leonard, it's a real bummer when your heroes don't reference the Scriptures. Instead their "wisdom" comes from the Platonic realm of philosophy, and are easily confirmed in Encyclopedic references as being PAGAN.



Combine Plato With Christian Doctrine
Athenagoras skillfully argued in his writings that Platonic philosophy was essentially embraced by Christianity. Therefore, it was congruent for Athenagoras to interweave both. "Athenagoras frequently combined the beliefs of the Greek poets and philosophers, particularly Plato, with the doctrines of Christianity" (Encyclopedia Americana [2001], vol. 2, p. 605).

[where I come from we call this mixing of doctrines adultery;>)]

According to professor of historical theology Dr. LeRoy Froom, Athenagoras' "main premise was that God's purpose in creating man was that he should live--that the divine purpose of man's existence is existence itself. And God's purpose, he contended, cannot be defeated. It must be accomplished. It is therefore impossible for man to cease to exist" (Dr. LeRoy E. Froom, The Conditionalist Faith of our Fathers [Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Assoc., 1965], vol.1, p. 931).

[*There's some logic*]

The fruitage of this argument was a "compulsory immortality" for all. With regard to the wicked, Athenagoras reasoned, they must live forever in eternal misery; and they must exist eternally because the primary reason God made man is for the purpose of living.

[*imagine that?!?! I guess this is a great "thinker", eh?*]

Tertullian Advances the Theory
While Athenagoras launched publicly the immortal soul, a younger contemporary, Tertullian of Carthage (A.D. 160-240), pursued and amplified it. He was the first of the "church fathers" to write in Latin, soon to be the official language of the medieval church. Prior to his conversion at age of 40, Tertullian received a Greco-Roman education in Rome.

According to Froom, "it was Tertullian who first affirmed that torments of the lost will be co-equal and co-exist with the happiness of the saved." (Ibid., vol. 1, p. 950.)

Tertullian's propositions needed other modifications: "He [Tertullian] confessedly altered the sense of Scripture and the meaning of words, so as to interpret 'death' as eternal misery and 'destruction' and 'consume' as pain and anguish. 'Hell' became perpetually dying, but never dead" (Ibid., vol. 1, p. 951).

[*I guess one could say this sounds like....Ye shall not surely die, 'eh?*]

Without hesitation, Tertullian referred directly to Plato in his writings. Plato's primary theme, "every soul is immortal," became Tertullian's unwavering platform (Tertullian, On the Resurrection, chap.3, quoted in ANF, vol.3, p. 547).

These "church fathers" followed suit by including Tertullian's propositions in their public preaching and writing: Minucius Felix, Cyprian of Carthage, Ambrose of Milan, John Chryosostom and Jerome (translator of the Bible into the Latin Vulgate).

No Attempt to Support With Scripture
Did they follow blindly? Were these leaders naive? Dr. Froom observes: "It is to be particularly noted that all "Christian Fathers" who use this 'immortal soul' phrase or thought were not only familiar with but likewise in accord with this position in the writing of Plato. And it is also to be observed that none of such early Christian writers ever sought for support for this doctrine by primary appeal to Scripture, but had recourse instead to arguments similar to those used by Plato" (Dr. LeRoy E. Froom, Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers [1965], vol. 1, p. 954).


[Sooooo, did you catch that? Apparently, your favorite "church fathers" weren't referring to the Scriptures for their doctrines, but they openly espoused the doctrines of the heathen, namely PLATO. Now, THAT IS FUNNY LEONARD! And you thought you were following Scripture???? Nope! Guess what... it's beginning to sound like you might be a neo-platonic philosopher, are you?

Perhaps you feel more at home with the demented thoughts of such noted "theologians" as the following:

In the second volume of 'Sermons' by Jonathan Edwards, he says: 'Those wicked men who died many years ago, their souls went to hell, and there they are still; those who went to hell in former ages of the world have been in hell ever since, all the while suffering torment. They have nothing else to spend their time in there, but to suffer torment; they are kept in being for no other purpose.' ...


In his seventh volume of 'Sermons,' page 166 [he says]: 'The world will probably be converted into a greate lake or liquid globe of fire, -- a vast ocean of fire, in which the wicked shall be overwhelmed, which will always be in tempest in which they shall be tossed to and fro, having no rest or night, vast waves or billows of fire continually rolling over their heads, of which they shall forever be full of quick sense within and without, their heads, their eyes, their tongues, their hands, their feet, their loins, and their vitals shall forever be full of a glowing, melting fire, fierce enough to melt the very rocks and elements; and they shall also eternally be full of the most quick and lively sense to feel the torments; not for one minute, nor for one day, nor for one age, nor for two ages, nor for a hundred years, nor for ten thousands of millions of ages, one after another, but forever and ever, without any end at all, and never, never to be delivered.'


The Rev. Isaac Ambrose says, 'The damned shall be packed like brick in a kiln, and be so bound that they cannot move a limb, nor even an eyelid; and while thus fixed, the Almighty shall blow the fires of hell through them forever.'


The Rev. Ebenezer Erskin said: '... The drunkard shall have plenty of his cups when scalding lead shall be poured down his throat, and his breath draw flames of fire instead of air ... Oh! what a bed is this! No feathers, but fire; no friends, but furies; no ease, but fetters; no daylight, but darkness; no clocks to pass the time away, but endless eternity; fire eternal always burning, and never dying. Oh! who can endure everlasting flame? It shall not be quenched night or day; the smoke thereof shall go up forever and ever. The wicked shall be crowded together like bricks in a fiery furnace. What woes and lamentations shall be uttered when devils and reprobates and all the damned crew shall be driven into hell never to return! Down they go, howling, shrieking, and gnashing their teeth ... What wailing, weeping, roaring, yelling, filling both heaven, earth, and hell!'

[Sounds pretty morbid to me, but I guess there's a sick little man in my eyes, Leonard]


This doctrine of men has followed as a necessary sequel to the doctrine of the natural immortality of a conscious soul. This doctrine has greatly hindered the progress of the gospel by fostering infidelity and skepticism; for such a doctrine as eternal misery and torment drives men away from the gospel instead of winning them to it. In contrast, listen to the irresistible logic of the following:


If this is sound Bible truth, ... instead of preventing the salvation of sinners, it will be the means of winning them to Christ. If the love of God will not induce the rebel to yield, the terrors of an eternal hell will not drive him to repentence. Besides it does not seem a proper way to win souls to Jesus by appealing to one of the lowest attributes of the mind, -- abject fear. The love of Jesus attracts; it will subdue the hardest heart.

[but, that is the way of the Babylonians, PAGANS, and HEATHENS, now isn't it]


Many people revolt at the whole idea of punishment for sin, because they have been led to think that God intends to punish sinners by torturing them throughout the endless cycles of eternity. We can blame no one for rebelling at that teaching; for if God would do such a thing, He surely could not be called a God of love or justice. The doctrine of eternal torment has been invented by the devil to turn men away from God.


It is a heinous doctrine, and has caused untold havoc, having provided ammunition for the guns of infidels and skeptics, and turned away many who were sincerely seeking God.


Sinners will be put to death, but not to torture. 'The wages of sin is death.' Upon the face of it, the idea of eternal torment is impossible in the light of this text; for the penalty for sin is death, and eternal torment is not death. Some of the proponents of the eternal torture theory say it will be 'a living death;' but that is a contradiction of terms. There can be no such thing. It is either death or life, and God has decreed death. 'The soul that sinneth, it shall die.'
Fundamentals of Bible Doctrine, Alonzo J. Wearner, pp. 248-250


Here's the kicker, Leonard, "had man after his fall been allowed free access to the tree of life, he would have lived forever, and thus sin would have been immortalized. But cherubim and a flaming sword kept "the way of the tree of life" (Genesis 3:24), and not one of the family of Adam has been permitted to pass that barrier and partake of the life-giving fruit. Therefore there is not an immortal sinner".


But, the wicked man who thinks that God would torture people throughout all eternity, is at once capable of justifying his own torment of others when he comes into a position to execute that awful deed. This is why such delusions must be nipped in the bud at the earliest shoot of growth. And, this is why top-down authoritative governments are antithetical to the teachings of Christ. I recall an old saying, "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Consider the murderer John Calvin, or more recently, Bill Clinton who attacked and wiped out David Koresh and dozens of people living peacefully in Waco, while everyone watched it on TV!; and, George Bush, and his minions, who invaded a sovereign nation to settle an old score with his father, killings millions, to the praise and cheers of 300 million deluded Americans, beleiving their war was justifed because they'd been told that Hussein had WMD; and, torturing hundreds at Guantanamo and other secret military installations, and refusing to bring all but a very few to any trial, while almost no one in the "churches" raised any questions or concerns. How terribly sad. It is a fact that, if you've been participating in this government, regardless of who you might've voted for, their sinful actions are on your hands, because you put them into a position of authority over you, to do as they please. Read 1 Samuel 8.


It would be great if you would pony up some real substance, rather than regurgitate the same centuries old myths of pagano-christian beliefs. You talk about the Bible, but, you evidently don't read it, or should I say, understand it, very much. Again, I've been disappointed by the lack of scholarly discussion.

The above information took me all of 5 minutes to locate on the internet. Here is their address.

http://www.truthaboutdeath.com/truth_about_death.asp

Leonard, as far as the rest of your "church fathers" are concerned I am not interested in getting into a "pissing match" with you, arguing over their misinformed "theologies". Their doctrines are not in line with the Bible. I've studied the words, and their meanings in the times and contexts in which they were written. I'm a long-time student of Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew, studying daily for roughly 15 years. I'm not a proponent of Greek philosophers, and I shun all things Roman.

I've studied the origins of the Church, and know that by the latter part of the first century the faithful were being persecuted and chased into seclusion. What was left were people who embraced a blended form of pseudochristianity and philosophy, and these are the roots of what became Constantine's authorized State sponsored "church". By the third century, the politically popular "church" resembled very little of what Jesus came to establish, yet the Kingdom of God perservered from the time of Pentecost, and the Saints lived and Reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Sadly Leonard, it seems you've been deeply deluded by both the mind of Satan, and the minds of modern-day deluded "christians". Your aggression towards me was spawned by your sense that I had been talking down to someone, which was not the case, at all. You've come to try to take me down a notch, and you've failed. The fact is, while I don't have all the answers of the Bible, I do know more than most, and certainly more than you on this subject.
Your concepts of life and death have been proven to originate from the minds of fallen men, who knew not God, who lived their lives according to the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil, and not from the Tree of Life.

It is not my arrogance that needs to be curtailed, but yours. Your projection of arrogance led you to accuse me of something that dwells in you, that's the way things work in the minds of fallen men.

One of the most difficult things anyone will ever do in life is to divest their preconceived ideas when they begin to sit down and study the Bible, but it is needful to become as little children when we sit and learn from the Bible. Toss out your old thoughts, and old ways, and begin anew.

I realize that "new" doctrine is difficult to digest for most people, and I prefaced that understanding early on. And, I am reminded that I'm not to put new wine into old wineskins, lest they burst. I would hope the new information I've shared with you is new wine, but that you are not an old wineskin. Please put away your angst, indignation, and aggression and learn the ways of Christ, and the clear teachings of the Bible. The time is very short.

I will post Parts 2 and 3, and maybe even a 4, to follow.

Permalink Reply by Leonard T on December 20, 2009 at 7:12pm

David,

You know that you never answered my questions. To you, who is Jesus? Is He God in the flesh or not? Do you deny the trinity? What does "in the beginning" of John 1:1-3 mean to you? Did the Son of God (Jesus) pre-exist before He was born in the human flesh? How do you believe one is saved and saved for what or to whom? When will the resurrection of the just and unjust take place?

I want to know what you believe, not what someone else, so please do not clip and paste your answers.

LT

Permalink Reply by Leonard T on December 20, 2009 at 6:35pm

David,

Plato Comes to Church
(Removed content to save space. See David’s posting above)

Combine Plato With Christian Doctrine
(Removed content to save space. See David’s posting above)

Tertullian Advances the Theory
(Removed content to save space. See David’s posting above)

No Attempt to Support With Scripture
(Removed content to save space. See David’s posting above)

The above information took me all of 5 minutes to locate on the internet. Here is their address.

http://www.truthaboutdeath.com/truth_about_death.asp

Two problems with all of the above.

1) You choose to go to a site that promotes Seventh-Day Adventist teachings and beliefs. Thus, the same old argument presented from their point of view.
2) I can go online and find equally compelling information that refutes what you have posted, including that little to none is know about Athenagoras and a lot of assumptions are made regarding him.

.Leonard, as far as the rest of your "church fathers" are concerned I am not interested in getting into a "pissing match" with you, arguing over their misinformed "theologies". Their doctrines are not in line with the Bible. I've studied the words, and their meanings in the times and contexts in which they were written. I'm a long-time student of Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew, studying daily for roughly 15 years. I'm not a proponent of Greek philosophers, and I shun all things Roman.
David, congrats on your years of study. May they help you on your journey. You either miss or ignore the whole point of my listing of the names. These are the “respected early church leaders.” They taught on the subject of eternal punishment. This cannot be denied, but you choose to reject them by applying conspiracy theory and of acusing them of being in error. That is your right, but that does not make you right. One cannot change their words so they attack the author to attempt to discredit him. The term “pissing-match” is an interesting term to be used by one who claims to be a minister of the Word of God.

I've studied the origins of the Church, and know that by the latter part of the first century the faithful were being persecuted and chased into seclusion. What was left were people who embraced a blended form of pseudochristianity and philosophy, and these are the roots of what became Constantine's authorized State sponsored "church". By the third century, the politically popular "church" resembled very little of what Jesus came to establish, yet the Kingdom of God perservered from the time of Pentecost, and the Saints lived and Reigned with Christ a thousand years.
There can be no denial that the church was persecuted, but many of the ones named above were executed for their faith. You dismiss them by applying your conspiracy theory. You must prove that this theory is not only theory, but reality. You must prove that they lost connection with the head and did not only teach things you prefer to not believe.

Sadly Leonard, it seems you've been deeply deluded by both the mind of Satan, and the minds of modern-day deluded "christians". Your aggression towards me was spawned by your sense that I had been talking down to someone, which was not the case, at all. You've come to try to take me down a notch, and you've failed. The fact is, while I don't have all the answers of the Bible, I do know more than most, and certainly more than you on this subject.

Your concepts of life and death have been proven to originate from the minds of fallen men, who knew not God, who lived their lives according to the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil, and not from the Tree of Life.

It is not my arrogance that needs to be curtailed, but yours. Your projection of arrogance led you to accuse me of something that dwells in you, that's the way things work in the minds of fallen men.
Interesting view you have of me and my motives and your self-proclaimed victory and superiority. I am not here to argue who knows more, but that may be put to the test.

I do not expect to convert you, but will not allow you to delute the minds of others here on this site.

As time permits I will address part 2, 3 and 4 as you present the "SAME OLD ARGUMENT...AGAIN."

LT

Permalink Reply by Leonard T on December 25, 2009 at 9:08pm

David,

I do not debate via email. You made some interesting comments about me to me through email and I will address a couple of them here.

1) Your Google search of me was a waste of time. It is common knowledge here on AAG and can be viewed on my home page that I am a pastor and that I live in Gainesville. I am a pastor with The Christian and Missionary Alliance, and this too has been openly made known in numerous postings over the last couple of years. I take a premillennial view of the end times. This too is common knowledge. I take a literal approach to interpreting the bible. The fact that I have owned a business is common knowledge and the fact that I am bi-vocational is as well.
2) Your view of when the premillennial view came into existence is in error. The apostles taught it and the writings of at least two early church leaders affirms this from the 2nd century, though you dismiss these early church leaders per your previous comments.
3) I did not delete your postings. I was disappointed that they were gone. The author of those articles denies the Deity of Jesus and thus I find the articles untrustworthy at best and easy enough to refute.
4) You accused me of falling into the trap of freewill and at the same time you refute Calvinism. I actually belief that freewill and predestination coexist and are operative at the same time, but we will leave that for another day.
5) You accuse my church of being state run because we have a 501 C3 status. You have no knowledge of our church and its operation, but believe to abide by the law means we have sold out. Interesting conspiracy theory.
6) You believe I am a pagan and that God does not hear my prayers. Good thing for me you are not my judge, nor the determiner of my relationship with Jesus .. which is very solid and healthy, thank you.
7) You believe that all denominations are evil and sons of the evil Catholic church, including the C&MA. God gives you the privilege to believe whatever you want. That does not mean you are correct.
8) I have no idea what you meant when you wrote, "When confronted on your disabilities you crouch low to the ground."
9) You asked if I celebrated Christmas. I celebrated the birth of my Savior Jesus Christ. It was a wonderful time too.

Now, if you are done trying to attack me and want to return to the topic at hand we will proceed.

BTW, You know that you never answered my questions. To you, who is Jesus? Is He God in the flesh or not? Do you deny the trinity? What does "in the beginning" of John 1:1-3 mean to you? Did the Son of God (Jesus) pre-exist before He was born in the human flesh? How do you believe one is saved and saved for what or to whom? When will the resurrection of the just and unjust take place?

I want to know what you believe, not what someone else, so please do not clip and paste your answers.

LT

Permalink Reply by David Velasquez on January 2, 2010 at 2:16pm

hahaahaha

ohhhh Lord - It is good to be in the truth, you know LT and Scribe I do not get rattle by all the manmade philosophies or doctrines,but only asked my God to give me the compassion needed when confronting the lies men come up with.

You too are a great examples; I thank God for men like you. I am blessed to be among you and learn from your examples.

Hahaha but i can't help cracking up how we, by God's grace and for His glory can easily debunk the silly lies the enemy comes up with. Is good to be in THE TRUTH?

Permalink Reply by ScribeD on January 1, 2010 at 6:21pm

Bravo LT: well said... "Does one believe that God would give us a book that is designed to lead people to a saving knowledge through Jesus Christ and then simply let man hijack it and distort it? Or is there a preserving of the word that is accomplished by the Holy Spirit? I’ll trust in the Holy Spirit."

If God is sovereign, then He has preserved His Word for us. If God has not preserved His word, then He is not God.

Permalink Reply by Leonard T on January 1, 2010 at 7:31pm

Scribe,

You said, If God is sovereign, then He has preserved His Word for us. If God has not preserved His word, then He is not God.

Amen!!!

Lord Bless,
LT

Permalink Reply by Leonard T on December 19, 2009 at 4:52pm

Jayne,

The whole purpose of being identified is to let others know where you stand regarding certain Bible doctrine. Do not misunderstand. God is one God and there is only one church and Jesus is the head. Though there is one church there are numerous views on certain doctrines. God is not confused, but neither is man fully enlightened (though some think that they are). We will always have some differences in understanding until the return of Christ.

Here are some examples. If I were looking for a church I would want to know what the church taught and the pastor believed regarding certain important doctrines.
* I want to know who Jesus is to them? Is He the Son of God, a son of God or ???
* I want to know if they are legalist or teach saved by grace alone.
* Where do they stand on the end times? Are they premillennialist, post-millennialist or amillennialist?
* Are they fundelmentailst or liberals?
* Do they approach Scripture from a literal point of view or from an allegoric point of view as their primary method of interpretation?

There are many other identifying marks that help us to understand what another believes and we will tend to congregate and serve the Lord with those whom we are most like and in agreement with.

Thus one may be a five point Calvanist, a Calvanist or adhere to the Armenian belief regarding predestination and several other issues. There are also other views that do not fully adhere to either, but join certain aspects of both.

Thus, in my opinion, the identifying labels help us in our journey rather than hinder us. I wonder how many of David Kiresh's followers asked the important questions about what he believed on certain topics?

Lord Bless,
LT

Permalink Reply by Gayla on December 20, 2009 at 10:57pm

Alienated, I agree totally with you, and David, your last reply was very condesending.

Permalink Reply by Leonard T on December 21, 2009 at 5:23am

David,

What happened to parts II, III, and IV? What happened to the lengthy stuff you had posted by Richard Anthony? You had posted them and now they have been removed? What's up with that?

LT

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page