Featured Paradise Purgatory - the "other" option

You are in error in a number of areas.
1. A man can be saved and still be a Jew, for he remained a Jew by his ethnicity, but immediately he gave up the false religion of Judaism. He cannot keep the religion of Judaism and be a Christian at the same time. At the time Paul became a Christian he called Christ, "Lord," the very thing the Jews reject. One cannot reject the Messiah and accept him at the same time.

2. The word "Gentile" simply refers to "other nations." It is all who are not Jews or part of Israel. Of course Timothy was a Gentile. What else would he be? An alien from Mars perhaps?

3. When a person is part of a religion that is opposed to Christianity he cannot be a Christian and be part of that religion at the same time. How many "Islamic Christians" do you know? There are not Christians in Islam. As there are no Christians in Islam there are no Christians in any religion, cult, denomination that denies the message of salvation. One cannot believe two diametrically opposed messages at the same time.

Your post is very confused and has many contradictions in it. So I simply addressed it this way.

 

Contrary to popular belief there is no such thing as a "Messianic Jew."
Either the person is a Christian or he is a Jew. Which one? He cannot be both, just as a Muslim cannot be part Muslim and part Christian. You must decide which one you will be. Both religions oppose each other. One cannot believe Judaism and Christianity at the same time. Judaism is a false religion.

He was led to Christ by the Apostle Paul himself. Don't delude yourself. Study the scriptures. It is Christ that saves.

 

He was a devout Jew. There is nothing in Timothy's life to indicate that he was saved before he met Paul. Demonstrate otherwise.

 

You do not apply the scriptures properly.
Remember that a false religion always remains a false religion. There are no exceptions.
From your perspective, my acquaintance, a Muslim, who has the entire NT memorized is saved though a devout Muslim. In your opinion he has faith simply because he has memorized or has great knowledge of the Word. You disregard that his "faith" is in Allah, not in Christ.
Just as you disregard that Timothy's faith was in his OT view of Jehovah, not in the NT view of Jesus Christ the Messiah.

Faith in who? Allah?

Is the Rock also Allah?

Mohammed also claims to have the truth and many believe in Him. "Belief" is faith.

The Muslim is required by his own faith to believe in the gospels.

And your point?

The Muslim believes Mohammed is greater than all the prophets.

So, now what have you demonstrated? nothing.

 

Faith always has an object. The Holy Spirit works through the living Word and points us to Christ.
The object of our faith is Christ. It is Christ that saves. Faith in Christ and faith alone in Christ saves.

There are some that would read "The Great Controversy," and put their faith in the author of the book, EGW. But faith in the author, will fail them. She is but a woman, dead, and can do nothing for them. The book is not inspired, has many errors in it, and is not of God. Faith in that book or its author does not save. It may produce faith. The more one reads the more faith the person will have in the book. But it won't bring them salvation.
Salvation is only through Christ, and the price he paid on the cross--His shed blood. It was paid once for all. The atonement is finished. He said: "It is finished." There is no atonement still continuing. All our sin is paid for, covered by the blood. Salvation is a free gift offered to all but accepted only by some, and rejected by many (unfortunately).

 

I would argue SDA have a clear distinct advantage over you in that they can claim to be directed by the Holy Spirit through the prophet in the INFALLIBLE identification of scripture and its interpretation.


Meanwhile anyone can be a independent for every flavor and combination of doctrine known to man. I don't have to do what you say cuz the bible is the boss. With one holy spirit claiming "yes", the other says "no", Dogs and Cats living together, mass hysteria.

DHK your position is ONE where even a majority of your own disagree with you to the point you guys can't even acknowledge each other. Just one disorganized mess. Those guys are too liberal.....THOSE ARE YOUR LIBERALS! That is your peoples, your mess working in action.

I'm a 2nd independent, evangelical, charismatic, Calvinist, Cyborg, North West, womens only, Baptist church of America...

Yes that's the church Jesus Christ started.....



If I need to find out what SDA believe I can go to their website and get their interpretation.

If I need to find out what you believe, I can take a dice or flip a coin, WHO KNOWS?........You can't even identify ONE LIVING PERSON who has scripture correct.

ANOTHER last independent Saint on earth.....

Even the GNOSTICS have website that explain their view, DHK you have NOTHING. One day your a Calvinist the other day your not.

 

Anyone can make that claim.
An example:

http://www1.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/ar...y-i-have-felt-the-presence-of-the-holy-spirit
Do you believe her, given her track record?

Independent means independent. Learn that.
The Corinthian Church was an independent church, and from chapter five and other places we know that it had a problem with immorality and other vices. It was a carnal church.
The Philippian Church was independent of the Corinthian church and all other churches. It was completely different--a different character, a different make-up, etc. The epistles were completely different and written for a different purpose for the churches were completely different and independent of each other, as was the church at Jerusalem.

Again, I suggest you learn the meaning of the word, "independent."
I am not responsible for other churches and what they believe or do. That is up to them. The church at Philippi was not responsible for the errors of the church at Corinth. The members of Corinth will stand before God and give account, each one of them, for their own deeds, whether good or bad. Concerning salvation however, their sins are already paid for.

You can be whatever you want to. Be a Hindu. Be a Catholic. Both are related.
Both believe the mystical mysterious superstitious metaphysical water of their respective religion will somehow wash away their sins. Pure garbage! Jeremiah condemned that teaching long ago:

Jeremiah 2:22 For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord GOD.
--So wash yourself with water, or have it poured or sprinkled over; as for me my sins are washed by the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ (1John 1:7)

To be accurate Jesus didn't start a church but left his disciples with a Great Commission and sent them out to start churches, of which he would be the head of each and every one. There is no such thing as "The Church," (universal). The underlying Greek word, ekklesia, means assembly or congregation.

True.

If you want a good idea what we believe then do a search. "Independent Fundamental Churches." Yes, you will find some differences. We are independent after all. Look at the statements of faith and see what we have in common.

Who?

The Gnostics? Is that the other branch of the Catholics. Do you know that in Islam that there are at least 87 different sects? I look at the RCC as being the same way? Each time you look there is another sect, another division. Soon you will outnumber the Protestants.

 

You quote scripture and don't understand what you quoted as evidenced in this post.

First, I never attacked Paul. Don't accuse falsely.
Second, it is obvious you either are not reading this correctly or don't understand it.

The part put in read says "...wisdom that leads to salvation through faith..."
It does not say "...wisdom that gives salvation..." Understand what it is saying.
When Paul met Timothy, Timothy was the son of a Greek man, that is a Gentile, who was hard-headed and would not permit him to be circumcised. For this reason he was not considered a Jew. He was not circumcised and his father was a Greek. To enter into the Temple as such, he would defile it. Thus it was necessary for Paul to take him and circumcise him.
He was brought up in the Jewish faith, the faith that his mother and grandmother had. But it is evident that the father was not the spiritual head of the family. He was fortunate to have a godly mother to teach him the OT scriptures. But that does not mean that he was introduced to Christ, and why would you assume that?
It was Paul, the missionary, that was bringing the message of the gospel, the saving power of Christ, into this area just at this time for the first time. When Paul met them, it is no doubt the first time that they heard the gospel. Judaism does not save! It is a false religion. Only Christs can save.

First, Paul meets Timothy in the area of Lystra and Derbe:
Acts 16:1 Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek:
2 Which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium.
--In verse one, the mother of Timothy was a believer. It is more clear in the ESV
(ESV) Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. A disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek.

2Tim.1:5 says:
(ESV) I am reminded of your sincere faith, a faith that dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice and now, I am sure, dwells in you as well.
--Paul had been in Lystra before. He had met Timothy before. Here he is reminded of the time before, the first time that he met Timothy when he noticed that "sincere faith," the same kind of faith that was evidenced in his mother and grandmother. It has nothing to do with salvation.

Act 14:5 And when there was an assault made both of the Gentiles, and also of the Jews with their rulers, to use them despitefully, and to stone them,
Act 14:6 They were ware of it, and fled unto Lystra and Derbe, cities of Lycaonia, and unto the region that lieth round about:
Act 14:7 And there they preached the gospel.
--This is the home of Timothy. It is likely that Paul first met him here, and that 2Tim.1:5 is looking back to this time.

Look at the language that Paul uses here:
1 Timothy 1:2 Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
--The wording here is indicative that Paul led Timothy to the Lord. Timothy was his son in the faith.

 

What is your point here?
I am a missionary/teacher. I feel like we should have a quiz. Please underline the correct answer according to the premise you have given.

a. That all who have heard the word are saved.
b. That all who have heard much of the Word are saved.
c. That the gentleman that I know, husband of saved lady, who has not trusted Christ, but has come to church for the last 20 years faithfully with his family is saved because he has heard the Word.
d. That the Muslim who has the Word, in fact the entire NT memorized must be saved, because "faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God."

Which answer is correct? Why do you keep posting the above? I got saved at the age of 20. I also heard the Word previous to that. The mere hearing of God's Word does not cause him to be saved.

And your point? So what! What are you trying to demonstrate. Congratulations! You know how to post scripture. We all do. So do my grandchildren. What is the point here?

What is instructive? I said: "A false religion remains a false religion. How can you disagree?
Do you think that your posting of scripture, or even quoting it is going to change any of that?
A man who is a Jew or a Muslim is not going to change just because some scripture is thrown at him. Remember the Muslim had the entire NT memorized. Why didn't he have the faith to believe. Your premise and reasoning is all wrong.
Jesus said "Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.
The problem was and is, these men were not born again.

Romans 10:17. The mere acquaintance with the Word of God does not save a person. It didn't save the Muslim, and didn't save Timothy. The evidence that I gave you shows that Paul led Timothy to the Lord. Timothy was brought up in a Gentile household, a household where his Father was a Greek.

Because I quote the Word of God, you say I am attacking Paul.
You need to repent.

What point remains? As I said, the point you made is your fantastic ability to copy and paste scripture, something my young grandchildren can do. No other point was made.

It is not an empty accusation when you look at what you just posted.
I had said: "You quote scripture and don't understand what you quoted as evidenced in this post."
--Isn't that right? Your mere quoting of scripture without explanation demonstrates your failure to understand what you are posting.

1. I don't have a false gospel.
2. I never said anything about the above individuals therefore you inferred accusation is wrong.
3. The subject is Timothy not Enoch, etc.
4. There is no evidence to believe that Timothy was already saved either in Acts 16:1 or in his own household when growing up. The scripture you quote doesn't say that.

What do you mean "Nope." Don't "Nope" me unless you have the evidence to prove me wrong.
Paul was in Lystra on his first missionary tour, quite some time previous to Acts 16. I quoted the passage for you in Acts 14. Most commentators agree with this.

That is what I said. Acts 16 is not his first missionary journey.
Here is the end of the first missionary journey:

Acts 14:25 And when they had preached the word in Perga, they went down into Attalia:
26 And thence sailed to Antioch, from whence they had been recommended to the grace of God for the work which they fulfilled.
27 And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles.
28 And there they abode long time with the disciples.

The Jerusalem Council was in chapter 15.
In the latter part of chapter 15 they begin their second missionary as they are sent forth from the church with the message that the church had given concerning the Gentiles in relation to the Judaizers.
Acts 15:36 And some days after Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do.
--This is the beginning of the Second missionary journey and in chapter 16, Paul meets Timothy for the second time.

 

So what do we have here? A number of contradictory statements.

1. Timothy was lately or recently converted.
2. Timothy was converted in his childhood.
3. Timothy was converted when Paul first went to Lystra in Acts 14.
4. Timothy was converted because Moses and Elijah stood with Christ and because Enoch is in heaven!
--Are these your personal views or do they come from the SDA??

 

You don't seem to understand or comprehend that everyone of your statements contradict each other. Let me list them again:

So what do we have here? A number of contradictory statements.

1. Timothy was lately or recently converted.
2. Timothy was converted in his childhood.
3. Timothy was converted when Paul first went to Lystra in Acts 14.
4. Timothy was converted because Moses and Elijah stood with Christ and because Enoch is in heaven!

And yet you repeat them as if there is no contradiction. Unbelievable!
One by one:

Acts 14 is Paul' first missionary journey and chapter 16 his second. If he was saved in chapter 14, which is likely, then he was not recently converted.

This is a contradiction of the above. If he was saved in ch.14 or 16, that is as a young man, then he was not saved in his childhood. Why the obvious contradiction? And what has this to do with pre-cross? I never brought this subject up. You did. What red herring or tangent are you going down with this. It is just another rabbit trail or hobby horse of yours.

You are back to your first statement but again contradicting statement # 2. Timothy can only have one salvation. He was not born again and again and again.
I can agree with this statement. But it contradicts the others you have made.

You are wrong here. Just because he had a Jewish mother doesn't make him Jewish.
He had a Greek father, who was the head of the household. His father would not permit him to be circumcised. Without circumcision he was not a Jew, but rather a Gentile, descent coming from his father, as genealogies always do. You have no legitimate argument against this. Timothy was not allowed in the Temple or the synagogue. He was not circumcised. He was not considered a Jew by the community.
He was not saved "pre-cross." Where is your evidence. You have none.
Moses, Elijah, etc. have nothing to do with this conversation. They are all red herrings. Why do you bring them into this conversation? What does Moses, having lived 4,000 years before Timothy, have any thing to do with Timothy's salvation? It doesn't! It has absolutely no bearing on it.
Thus all your previous statements have contradicted each other.
Four statements, and they all contradict each other. You can't see that?

There are lots of things in the Bible that are not relevant to the subject that we are speaking about. The condemnation of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5 or the immorality of the immoral church member in 1Cor.5 are in the Bible but have nothing to do with Timothy's salvation. They are Bible facts.
You are the one opposed to the facts of the context of Timothy's salvation, continuing to go on different rabbit trails, allowing the Bible to contradict itself. Yes, "we all knew that," right?

Just as I said above--Your rabbit trails--we all knew that.

Remember we are speaking about the salvation of Timothy.
So, give me chapter and verse where Peter asks for the baptism of Timothy, or is this just another rabbit trail. I think the latter is true.

When did I say he did. You are on another rabbit trail, and can't stay on topic.
What has this to do with the salvation of Timothy? Nothing!