The Casual gospel

For the record my posts are referencing the false notion that Paul is calling himself 'a light unto the Gentiles' as dhk wrests it to say; Acts 13:47. Paul is referencing this passage and it is about Christ not Paul. If it were about Paul then he would also himself 'be for salvation unto the ends of the earth'. 'Aged'man rushes in not knowing what he's even defending and this cowtowing to a mod whose behaviors have been called publicly. It's cowardly and old.

 

IT cannot seem to post of Scriptures without making some personal demeaning remark.

If he had not included the last two sentences, the post would be just fine. The last sentences are both demeaning and without authority.

It is that kind of sentence in which I find should not occur on the BB.

Certainly, I am old, however, there is no suggestion that "cowardly, cow towing, or rushing" is part of my nature. Folks who know me would not bear such false witness.

As far as "defending," is it wrong to show how two views presented in oposition may be in agreement in certain aspects?

"For the record" the last posts IT make are not "referencing the false notion that Paul is calling himself 'a light unto the Gentiles'" but making personal demeaning statements against the integrity and personality of another poster.

Such statements are not to be a part of the BB, just as the last two sentences of the above quoted post should not.

 

Let's see here. Did you address the passage? Nope. Did you name call above? Yep.

What's the context of my posts you quote out of context? You conveniently leave that part off.

But I see that it's OK for you to name call, right? Such things should not be of the bb right? Including from you and dhk, or is it that only you two reserve that right? Which Scriptures have you addressed?

Now address the passage and show how dhk is correct or incorrect. My posts were after doing this and in reference to him not owning his error. You rush in and only notate part of it. Then you slander. Get the log out your eye first. Thanks! :)

 

Okay boys you have had your fun. You have taken this thread off course; derailed it. You have demanded that I address this scripture; that this so-called "error" must be addressed before moving on. It has been addressed. We are Baptists who believe in the principle of soul liberty. As the Bible Knowledge Commentary acknowledges there are three separate views to the passage and mine is different than yours. Leave it there.

The OP is:
If today’s gospel seems casual, and certainly it does, one need only to take a look at the message stemming from Free Grace Theology and other easy-believe-ism systems to ascertain as to why this is the case. Within these systems of thought it is found that there need be no real tangible transformation in the life of the so-called believer. This teaching is not merely limited to the initial conception of the new birth, the beginnings, but extends by way of application of the teachings to the entirety of the so-called believers life. By necessity there is no transforming message to be sought in this system, as it is believed and taught by implication that none is necessary.

If one does not believe in a transforming Gospel, a Gospel that affects the person’s life with tangible evidences of new birth, that is, in all those who are truly converted, then there will be no transforming Gospel message preached.

IMO, The entire OP is based on hearsay. It is without documentation and provides no evidence whatsoever. The author may as well be talking about the J.W.'s.

However, did he ever consider this: There are many on this board who have given a clear-cut testimony of salvation, that they were saved at the age of four, and some at the ages of 5 to 7.. How much theology do you think they grasped at that time? Did they understand all the Doctrines of Grace?
How much of this transforming gospel of the new birth do you think they understood? Or was it just easy-believism?

 

DHK,
It isn't a question of theology, much less the DoGs. Did these 4 year-olds realise that they were sinners and repent of it, and trust in Christ for the forgiveness of it? Or were they just repeating something they'd been taught, in order to please Mommy and Daddy? That is the question.

 

What are you saying here, friend?

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

 

It seems like he is thinking little ones also believe in Spiderman, or the easter bunny .
was it saving faith, or;
Or were they just repeating something they'd been taught, in order to please Mommy and Daddy? That is the question.

 

I thought his post seemed reasonable and straightforward.

 

Couldn't that be said for a 40 year old?

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

 

They are saying that they don't think God saves little children.

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo using Tapatalk.

 

Man....

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

 

Ask them. They are on this board posting. Some of them are pastors. They have posted their testimonies before. Or you could do a search. I am not feeding you a lie. To even question "these 4 year-olds" publicly like this, is to question the salvation of those posting and insult them publicly. I hope they are reading this thread.

 

Yes it could.Thumbsup

 

Where did anyone say that?

 

"DHK

What are you even talking about? question what 4 yr olds? Question whose salvation?

 

Well Jon C you know ....you can claim more decisions and grow your "church" if you do not question anything.

 

Do you pastor?

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

 

I am not a pastor.