Featured The Freewill Invitation system is a False Gospel

You keep asking me that question, and I keep giving you the scriptures, yet you ignore them.

That is not true. I have given you much evidence. I even gave you the English dictionary meaning for repent and it says to be sorry.

For you to keep saying we can repent before we are saved but only a repentance without sorrow, that is a dead repentance. Why would God accept repentance from someone who is not sorry?
As for Judas, you keep on using him as an example to try to support your beliefs, but I have explained to you that a person must have faith that God forgives them.
If you keep telling people that they do not have to be sorry for their sins, then that type of preaching is from hell.

 

Scriptures taken out of context are meaningless.

Paul and Jesus didn't speak English. The NT was written in Greek. Thus your definitions fall short of what the Biblical definition of repentance is.

You also agree that one must repent before he is saved. So your repentance is dead also? Repentance is not being sorry for your sins. Until you learn what repentance is you will be eternally confused.

I keep using that example to illustrate to you that repentance is not sorry for one's sins, otherwise Judas would have been saved.

The one condition of the Philippian jailer being saved was to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. Why do you think repentance was not mentioned?

 

HP: I only post this to again illustrate the illogical contradiction of terms DHK presents and the apparent inability to have a grasp of the Scriptural meaning of faith.

Scripture says of faith: Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things NOT seen.

Why would DHK illustrate faith as the manner in which a gift received on a birthday if he has even the slightest correct idea as to what it entails according to Scripture. I am sorry, but this is sad. It is sad to think that a self proclaimed minister of the gospel is so devoid of Scripture and what constitutes faith.

Let me ask the reader. What does a gift received on ones birthday have to do with "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things NOT seen?" If you can see it, can you receive it by faith? Lord help us.

 

Much! A small child looks forward to her birthday. She anticipates her birthday gift from her parents. She knows it is coming. She doesn't know what it is, but knows that she will receive one. Because her parents love her she knows it will be something good. They love her and would not give her something evil. Thus her faith is in her parents (the object of her faith); and the corollary is also true--the girl is the object of the parents love.

She receives the gift by faith--faith that it is a good gift suitable for her, because she knows she is the object of her parents love. All she has to do is receive it. There are no conditions. It is unconditional. There is no work involved. It is unseen. She knew it was coming. She had evidence that it was coming. She had the evidence of something not seen. It was something she hoped for. It was the substance of something hoped for.
It was her faith that she exercised.

 

HP: I will be happy to answer your question when you answer mine. Why did John the Baptist tell only certain individuals to bring forth fruits meet for repentance?

 

All had to meet that requirement.
Those that wanted to be baptized and were not meeting that requirement were turned away until they met that requirement. But that is speaking of baptism.

 

Scripture is never meaningless.

“Thus” my definition falls short, you say. Lol Show me one scripture that says that repentance is acceptable when one is not really sorry. Show me now that scripture, or admit your teachings are false and unbiblical.

You teach a dead repentance, because you teach a person does not have to be sorry for their sins.

A person has to believe God forgives them. Do you not even know that?

The Philippian jailer trembled with fear, and then he and all the others in his house heard the word of the Lord. The jailor at that hour of the night took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized. Being baptized has to do with repenting of sins. In addition, hearing the word of the Lord is about repenting of sins. For you to say the jailor and his household did not repent is going against the scriptures.

 

Here again DHK changes the goalposts in the midst of debate. He said nor implied nothing originally of how she 'anticipated' a gift coming, but spoke directly as to how she 'received it' when it came, which he said she received it 'by faith.'

Again, to debate with DHK is all but impossible. He changes the debate at the drop of the hat. When you show forth a contradiction of one point, he simply changes his direction of the debate to refocus on a new issue, and so on and so forth it goes.

 

Since I told DHK I would answer him if he responded to me, I will say, dittos to the last post by Moriah for my answer. He clears up the issue in fine order. :thumbs:

 

Are you claiming they were saved then?

 

HP: So repentance is required for baptism but not for salvation? I have to wonder if sinning everyday qualified in John's eyes as the fruits he was looking for?

Furthemore, was John teaching baptism by Hinduism or some other ism, teaching baptism by works? If baptism was not showing forth an entrance into the kingdom, pray tell us what it was for or what on earth did it accomplish?

 

Thank you HP! Now, I do not want DHK to get away without answering your question to him in #265 and mine in #267.

 

I do not want him to get away from answering this. This is something he must explain, or admit to teaching falseness, a falseness that keeps people from the Truth.

 

No,
Apples and oranges. It is an unfair comparison.
John the Baptist was a Jew ministering to the Jews--the voice of one crying in the wilderness, a forerunner of Jesus, one who would point others to the Christ. His ministry was entirely different.

Salvation is not even spoken of in the ministry of John.

It was John that said:

Behold the Lamb of God which takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29)
--He pointed others to where salvation could be found.

 

I have answered you.
Why do you think the only requirement for the Philippian jailor to be saved was "to believe" and not to repent?

 

Still waiting.

 

No one knows when any are saved DHK but God. Baptism does not save us, but are you saying the Baptism of John was not ordained by God as a precurser to the baptism into Christ?

Baptism is for none other than believers DHK. Are you saying that God would ordain a baptism of non-believers? I certainly do not believe He did or that He would.

 

John the Baptist was not teaching a different gospel!

John the Baptist asked those coming to be baptized who had warned them to flee from the coming wrath!

John the baptizer prepared the way for Jesus. He came preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins (Luke 1:76-80).

We are still to confess that we are sinners, and to repent, to prepare the way for Jesus Christ into our lives.

 

You are changing the topic. I said nothing of baptism.

 

If you do not believe that hearing the message that saves and being baptized has to do with repenting than you deny the gospel of Jesus Christ.

NOW SHOW ME NOW THE SCRIPTURE THAT SAYS WE DO NOT HAVE TO BE SORRY FOR OUR SINS.
I will wait for that, and I will not let you get away from it.