Law of Christ

Frank,

I appreciate your views on the fact that the life of a born-again, transformed Christian will show "The law of God written on the heart" as Christ claims in Matt 7 and as we see Paul asserting in Romans 2 (and as James states in James 2).

I have a question for you about the total depravity of man as we see in Romans 8:3-9 and as we see in 1Corinthians 2:12-15. What is your view of this pre-saved condition of man?

Do you agree that man can not and will not do anything to be in harmony with God in that pre-saved state? That He must be transformed in order to start producing the "fruits" that Matt 7 speaks of - or do you consider the Fruits mentioned in Matt 7 as something that the un-regenerate lost person can do apart from the New Birth?

In Christ,

Bob

 

2Cor.5:18 "And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ,"
--God has reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ (except for Frank--then it would read: "by Jesus Christ and by baptism")

2Cor.5:21 "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."
--God made Christ to be sin for us...that we might be made the righteousness of God in Christ (and baptism--according to Frank). I guess Christ wasn't good enough.

Heb.9:28 "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many;"
--...to bear the sins of many--except those of Frank, because he needed to be baptized first.

Eph.2:13 "But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ." (Except Frank: it must be the blood of Christ and by baptism)

Salvation is by faith and by faith alone. It is not a "plus" situation. You cannot "add" to God's gift of eternal life. You either receive it or reject it. If you have added baptism, then by default you have already rejected his gift.
DHK

 

BOB:
The Bible does not teach total depravity. Sin is defined as the transgression of Law. I John 3:4. Paul affirms that sin requires knowledge and reasoning to know right and wrong and therefore choose sin or righteousness. Romans 7:7-9. Adam and Eve made a choice in the garden. Gen. 2,3. It was to willfully violate God's Law, which was do not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. They had knowledge of the law and the consequences and chose sin. Sin requires one to literaly miss the mark and fail to do as God has directed. It requires reasoning and volition. Sin and righteousness are behaviors. These behaviors are not inherited. They are learned. Ezekiel 18:4,20, teaches us that the son shall not inherit the sins of the father neither the father the sins of the son.
Jesus used a young child as an example for those who would enter the kingdom of heaven in Luke 18:16, Jesus said, " suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not for of such is the kingdom of God."
In conclusion, men who have the mental ability to discern good and evil will be held accountable for what they have done in their body whether it be good or whether it be bad. Romans 14:12, II Cor. 5:10. If God had not given us a choice, he would have violated his own image as God chose to make man of his own free will. GEN. 1:26,27, Rev. 4:10,11.
Oppression breeds hatred. Love gives freedom. God is a deity of Love. He will not force me or oppress me into a mold that I reject. I choose to be molded by his will. The children of Israel rejected the preaching of repentance by Jeremaiah. They refused the master potter who only desired to make them after his will. They rejected Jeremiah and thus rejected the Almighty Potter. The result was the punishment of captivity at the hands of Assyria and Babylon. We have two choices in life. We must accept or reject the will of God for our lives. John 12:48.
I will respond to the rest of your post later.
Have a good day.

 

DHK:
I believe all the scritures you posted. the difference is that I accept ALL OR the WHOLE counsel of God on this matter. Acts 20:27. Your theology will not let you do so. And, you had rather have your pride and false doctrine over the simpliciity of the truth. I could just as easy post scriptures that teach repentance saves, belif saves, confession saves, the blood saves, the gospel saves, and ignore or overlook other elements of salvation. However, if I did that, I would be guilty of the same error as you in teaching faith only saves.
I have affirmed that Chrisitanity is a system of faith. Faith, according to the Bible, requires action. Hebrews 11:6. Christ requires one to submitt to ALL of his will, NOT JUST THE PART YOU LIKE! Mat. 7:21, Luke 6:46. I accept all of his word and will. You accept that which your personal testimony and theology will allow. Jeremiah had something to say about that in Jer. 10:23.

 

Then why do you try and add baptism to your salvation?
Salvation is a gift. During this time of year many people give gifts one to another. If I go and buy a gift for my child, then it becomes hers to keep. I will not take it back. The only thing that she has to do is receive it. She does not have to be baptized to receive my gift. In fact she won't even have to make my breakfast for me. She doesn't have to do anything except receive it. That is the way it is with salvation. It is a gift. You receive it, and that is all. You cannot keep on receiving a gift by adding to it baptism and good works. My daughter receives her gift but once. There will be other times she will receive other gifts. But this gift she will receive this one time, and she will not continue to receive it by washing the dishes every day, and taking the garbage out every evening. She receives it unconditionally once. No conditions attached. That is the way God is. His gift of salvation is a gift, received by faith. Just receive it. No conditions attached.
DHK

 

DHK:
1. I did not add Baptism to the elements essential for salvation, God requires it. ACTS 2:38, Col. 2:12, MK.. 16:16 and a host of other passages.
2. Gifts must be received. John 1:11-13. Men may accept or reject the gift of salvation. It is a choice. Acts 2:38-41,John 6:63-66.
3. Salvation is NOT UNCONDITIONAL. You contradict yourself by stating it is unconditional and then teach faith is essential. If faith is not a condition, then all men will be saved. I Tim. 2:3-5. Are you now affirming faith is non essential to salvation? Are you affriming that all men will be saved? Are you also now affriming that no one will live forever in hell? Rev 20:10, Mk. 9:47. Are those who do not obey the gospel going to be saved? II Thes. 1:6-9. Are those who refuse to repent going to be saved? Luke 13:3. This is the IMPLICATION of your false teaching that salvation is unconditional. The teaching of salvation being without conditions is False.
6. Received implies action . Salvation requires one to receive the gift. HOW is salvation recieved? How is it possible when you teach there are NO CONDITIONS. This is foolishness of the highest order. The very word receive and faith imply action.

 

In that case I look forward to your comments on the texts I posted regarding Romans 8 and 1Cor 2 -

You might also add Romans 3:9-18.

---------------------------

However - if we assume for a moment that man does have the inner ability to do right as you propose above - then your position is well reasoned.

I believe the problem lies in the starting premise above.

-------------------------

Frank -
Sin is defined as the transgression of Law. I John 3:4.

Agreed.

Agreed - to be "accountable" you must know what sin is - however - if sin is also accepted as "transgression of God's Law" then you are also sinning - whenever you transgress - even if you are not aware of it.

Certainly it is agreed that Adam and Eve fit your model perfectly.

The problem I see with your model is not with Adam and Eve and their choice. It is also not a problem to see that God enables/sponsors free will even for fall sinful man. But given the depravity identified above in Romans 3 and Romans 8 and 1Cor 2 - that "Free Will" comes to us who are "enslaved" to sin Eph 2:1-5.

God frees us from that slavery by first "Drawing all mankind" John 12:32 - and thus "enabling" choice for all mankind - that we might choose freedom. And for those who accept the Gospel the next level of freedom - is freedom from slavery to sin according to the entire chapter of Romans 6.

As in Adam - All die - so in Christ All are made alive (as we see in Romans 5 last half of the chapter).

The bottom line is, I agree with your emphasis on our being enabled to choose life - to choose to follow Christ, but I think it is "given to us" as a divine act of God in "Drawing all mankind unto Him" John 12:32 because that divine act is needed to overcome the principle seen in Romans 3:8-18.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Salvation is a gift of God, entirely by God's grace, completely unconditional. There is nothing I can do to merit God's gift of salvation, nothing, including being baptized. It is an unconditional gift.
Let's go back to the illustration of my daughter. Faith is not a condition. Faith is trust, belief. When my daughter receives a gift from me she receives it by faith that I, by virtue of being her Father, will be giving her a good gift, and will not put her in danger in any way. She is taught not to receive anything from total strangers. We live in a city fast approaching a million. There could be many that would vie for a little girl's "trust" or faith, enticing her with a "gift" in order to lure her away for some wicked purpose. She cannot trust just anyone, and does not trust or put her faith in just anyone. Faith or trust is not a condition. Yet she must have faith in the Giver to receive the gift. She must choose by faith to accept the gift and take it. There are still no conditions attached. It is unconditional. The gift is given; it will never be taken back again. So it is with salvation. You can't add to it. It is to be received, unconditionally, at one time in history, with no attachments (like baptism), and then God gives you that gift of eternal life.
DHK

 

DHK:
Salvation is conditioned upon many factors. Without faith, one cannot be saved, Hebrews 11:6, Gal. 3:26, Eph. 2:8,9. Therfore, without faith one will not be saved. Therefore, salvation is conditioned upon faith. Without repentance one cannot be saved. Luke 13:3. Therefore, salvation is conditioned upon repentance. Salvation requires being washed in his blood. Rev. 1:5. Therefore, salvation is conditional based upon being washed in his blood.
Your illustration is not supported by scripture and is not valid.
I asked you questions about these items in the last post. You have not answered them. WHY? Perhaps, it is because you cannot not do so from the word of God.
Instead of adresssing the argument, you resort to some personal illustration that is NOT EVIDENCED by scripture. Illustrations illuminate truth, not establish it. It is God's word that is truth. Jn. 17:17. Before an illustration is used it must first be valid based upon scriptural truth. Your illustration does not illuminate evidenced fact.
The Bible teaches us that God's grace must be accessed by faith. Romans 5:1,2. Faith then is essential to salvation. It is a condition by which God saves us through his grace. This is what the Biblre teaches.

 

Bob:
I will address Romans 3:8-11 in this post. Paul by inspiration writes, For it is written, there is none righteous no not one. There is none that understandeth there is none that seeketh after God. For they have all gone out of the way and altogether become unprofitable.
Romans 3:8-11 is addressed to the church at Rome. It is used as example of HOW ( those of Israel became unfatihful to God.)This reference is used as a warning to those Christians at Rome of their same plight.Q: WHAT is their plight? Just as God's covenant people of old BECAME unprofitable so can we. Notice, They have GONE OUT OF THE WAY. In order of one to go out of the way, one must first be in the way. Israel and all Christians must not go out of the righteous of God to become unprofitable. Gone out of the way implies one leaving a certain way. It makes not sense to say they have gone out of the unrighteous way into the unrighteous way. Grammarians call this redundancy. In this same context. For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Romans 3:23. This is in harmony with Ezekiel 18:4,20, Luke 18:16, Romans 7:7-9. In regrds to Romans 7:7-9, Paul states he was alive once without law. WHEN PAUL? When he was a child and did not know waht thou shalt covet meant. If one accepts total depravity, he is forced to array the scriptures against themselves and force God into a contradiction. This is not possible.
I have been asked many times, at what age does one become a sinner? I can only answer as God has revealed. It is when he knoweth to do good and doeth it not. James 4:17. Again, James said he must know. I agree the Bible does teach all men are amenable to God's Law. I agree that all men who are amenable do sin through ommission, comission or ignorance. However, the Bible does not teach little children are subject to sin unitl they know and transgress. I do not set an age for this as some religionists. The ultimate decision is between the individual and God who knows the hearts of men.

I will address the scriptures from I Cor. 2 in the next post.

I appreciate your kind disposition in this study. It is refreshing to engage in a rational exchange in this area of the board.

 

The illustration is valid. Your problem is with words. They have meanings, meanings which you are not willing to accept.

Faith is trust. When I put my faith or trust in Jesus Christ as Lord of my life, then by virtue of Christ becoming the Lord and master of my life, I have not only trusted Him, I have also repented. Faith includes repentance. In order to call Christ Lord, there must be repentance.
Secondly, is not conditioned on me being washed in His blood. That is not something I do. That is not a condition that God put forth for me to do in order that I might be saved. It is not a condition for salvation; if it were no man could be saved. Upon putting my trust in the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, He takes away my sin, and puts them under the blood. It is not a condition of salvation, it is a result. That is what happens when you believe by faith on Christ.
DHK

 

DHK:
Words do have meaning. Repentance is Metanoeo. Faith is Pistis. They have differnet meanings. Repentance is a change of heart and conduct toward what is right. Faith primarily means firm persuasion, a conviction based upon hearing. The word is used of trust Rom. 3:25. A pledge of fidelity. I Tim. 5:12. Assurance. Acts 17:31.
The main elements in faith in its relation to the imvisible God, as distinct from faith in man are especially brought out in the use of this NOUN and and the CORRESPONDING VERB Pisteou: they are a firm conviction, producing a FULL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of God's revelation or truth. IIThes. 2:11,12. 2)a personal SURRENDER to him. John 1:12. 3) a CONDUCT inspired by such surrender, II Cor. 5:7. PROMINENCE IS GIVEN TNE OR MORE OF THE ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO THE CONTEXT!
Therefore,faith is conjoined with the active verb belief.
This is manifested in EVERY EXAMPLE OF CONVERSION IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. Acts 2:38-41;8:12-16;8:30-40;16:14,15,30-33,18:8,19:1-5.
Your last post is not REFERENCED OR SUPPORTED BY SCRIPTURE. Therefore, both your illustration and your teaching are in valid, your personal testimony not withstanding!!!
It is unscriptutral to teach faith is absent of action is salvation. You misunderstand faith by meaning, by context, and by example. SEE PREVIOUS REFERENCES.

 

I can play your game very effectively Frank, even more so. You see I don't need to string a whole line of verses together proving to others how you must meet half a dozen or more conditions in order to obtain salvation. You may teach that, but the Bible does not. Here is what the Bible teaches in one succinct verse:

Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Everything that is needed for the remission of sins is right there in that verse, Frank. No need to add baptism or any other work. It is all right there. There are no conditions. Just believe. Will you believe the Bible Frank?
DHK

[ December 19, 2002, 02:02 AM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

Hi DHK,

You wrote, "Everything that is needed for the remission of sins is right there in that verse, Frank. No need to add baptism or any other work. It is all right there. There are no conditions. Just believe. Will you believe the Bible Frank?"

Let's back up a couple of chapters in Acts and listen to what Peter says when he explicitly answers the question, "What must we do to be saved?"

Acts 2:38-39

"And Peter said to them, 'Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.'"

We must (1) Repent and (2) Be baptized for the forgiveness of our sins by receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit.

And, not only that, but this promise is applicable to our children as well, thus including our infants.

Will you believe the Bible DHK?

Or will you skip from this simple proclamation of the kerygma by Peter who explicitly answers the precise question that you attempt to answer.

God bless you,

Carson

[ December 19, 2002, 02:14 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Would you care to exegete that passage properly Carson? Demonstrate from that passage (or any other passage if you wish) that infants are to be baptized. Give one example in the Bible anywhere in the Bible of any infant being baptized. Give any command in the Bible anywhere for one to baptize an infant. Prove your case, biblically, without the church fathers.
DHK

 

Hi DHK,

I just did.

Peter says that this promise of baptism for the forgiveness of sin and the reception of the Holy Spirit is applicable both to you and to your children. Nowhere does he make mention of an exception for infants.

So, the burden of proof is on you, DHK. You, DHK, need to show where Peter makes an exception for infants. Apparently, he makes a distinction between his listeners and their children, and he explicitly incorporates the children in his message.

Of course, you will ignore this evidence because you have an anti-sacramental prejudice. You deny that God can convey his grace by the use of matter, which is anti-Incarnational at its root. This is the same stumbling block that the Jews faced: Christ crucified. How could God become man? It's impossible isn't it. How could baptism forgive sin and convey the Holy Spirit? It's impossible isn't it.

God bless you,

Carson

 

No you did not. Peter was not talking about children or infants. He was referring to future generations. Notice I gave you the challenge to properly exegete thee passage. You did not. Here is what Albert Barnes says:

"To your children. In Joel, to their sons and daughters, who should, nevertheless, be old enough to prophesy. Similar promises occur in Isa 44:3, "I will pour my Spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring," and Isa 59:21. In these and similar places, their descendants or posterity are denoted. It does not refer to children as children, and should not be adduced to establish the propriety of infant baptism, or as applicable particularly to infants."

Who was Peter talking to? Verse 37 says: "Men and brethren, what shall we do?"

He certainly wasn't addressing infants was he? He was addressing those who could understand his message, believe and accept his message, repent of their wayward life, and afterward be baptized. All of this an infant cannot do.
DHK

 

Hi DHK,

Is Albert Barnes your Magisterium? Is he guided by the Holy Spirit in such a way as to where we must dogmatize his commentary? It sounds as if you're committing the same fallacy that you constantly criticize the Catholics of ... the individual believer can't properly exegete the Scriptures.

Of course Peter wasn't addressing infants. He was addressing Men and brethren, and to the men and brethren, he tells us that this promise is applicable to everyone: them, their children, and to all that are far off. No exemption is made for the infants, and you can't provide this exemption because it isn't in the Biblical text. You superimpose your novel tradition of men upon the Word of God and nullify that very same word with your anti-sacramental tradition.

John tells us that one enters the kingdom of God by being born again by "water and spirit" in Chapter 3 of his Gospel.

Luke tells us, "Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’" (Luke 18:15–16).

In the Greek, we have "Proseferon de auto kai ta brephe." The Greek word brephe means "infants" — children who are quite unable to approach Christ on their own and who could not possibly make a conscious decision to "accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior." The Lord did not require the infants to make a conscious decision. He says that they are precisely the kind of people who can come to him and receive the kingdom.

Thus, these children must be "born again" by "water and Spirit" in order to "enter the Kingdom of God" to which our God Himself tells us we cannot prevent infants - unable as they are to make a conscious decision - from doing.

So on what basis, DHK, can infants and young children be excluded from the sacrament of baptism? If Jesus said "let them come unto me," who are you to say "no," and withhold baptism from them?

The Biblical evidence is conclusive; there is no way around the implications of God's Word irregardless of the hoops that you attempt to jump through, and I pray that you learn the virtue of obedience to the divine Word.

God bless you,

Carson

 

Is Albert Barnes your Magisterium? Is he guided by the Holy Spirit in such a way as to where we must dogmatize his commentary? It sounds as if you're committing the same fallacy that you constantly criticize the Catholics of ... the individual believer can't properly exegete the Scriptures.
Why entertain such foolishness? Is either Keating or Kahn your Magesterium?? Is Kahn guided by the Holy Spirit in such a way as to where he must dogmatize his writings? It sounds as if you are committing the same fallacy that you say you don't commit: only allowing the Magesterium to properly interpret the Scriptures.

Of course Peter wasn't addressing infants. He was addressing Men and brethren, and to the men and brethren, he tells us that this promise is applicable to everyone: them, their children, and to all that are far off. No exemption is made for the infants, and you can't provide this exemption because it isn't in the Biblical text. You superimpose your novel tradition of men upon the Word of God and nullify that very same word with your anti-sacramental tradition.
RIGHTLY DIVIDE THE WORD OF TRUTH!!! This is something you fail to do. Acts 2:37-39 in no way refers to infants. You don't have any Biblical basis for this incredulous assumption. The promise is to those that believe and repent, something that infants cannot do. You have strung together a list of Scriptures so inaptly that it is just as easy to take another string of Scripture and prove the non-existence of God. If it is not in the text; it is not in the text. Peter was not talking of AK-47's and machine guns either. Don't read into the text that which is not there. Infants are not in the text. The word "children" speaks of generations to come, and nothing more.

John tells us that one enters the kingdom of God by being born again by "water and spirit" in Chapter 3 of his Gospel.
Your point being?? The word for water is much different than the word for baptism. There is no mention of baptism in this entire chapter. Jesus was not speaking of baptism to Nicodemus, he was speaking of the New Birth, which has nothing to do with baptism.

Luke tells us, "Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God'" (Luke 18:15–16).

In the Greek, we have "Proseferon de auto kai ta brephe." The Greek word brephe means "infants" — children who are quite unable to approach Christ on their own and who could not possibly make a conscious decision to "accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior." The Lord did not require the infants to make a conscious decision. He says that they are precisely the kind of people who can come to him and receive the kingdom.
Your are right. The Lord did not require any infant to make a conscious decision. There is nothing in this text to say that some of these same children grew up, despising Christianity and were judged of God when Titus razed Jerusalem in 70 A.D. There is nothing in this Scripture to say that these infants were saved. There is nothing in these Scriptures to indicate at all that their lives were changed or would be changed in the future, because Jesus touched them when they were infants. That is pure superstition. Did all adults believe on Jesus just because they were "touched" by Him? Hardly! 10 Lepers were healed. Only one returned with thanksgiving. What happened to the other nine? Did they really believe. Though Jesus did many miracles before the eyes of many, yet they still did not believe. And now you say that because an infant, who cannot believe in the first place, will be a Christian, just because he or she was touched by Jesus?! That's an incredible belief or shall I say superstition.
They brought them to Jesus. Jesus said forbid them not for as such is the Kingdom of God. He was using small children as an illustration, that one must have simple faith like a child to be saved. I have small children. Just as they put faith in their father, I put faith in my Heavenly Father. That was the lesson Jesus was teaching.

Thus, these children must be "born again" by "water and Spirit" in order to "enter the Kingdom of God" to which our God Himself tells us we cannot prevent infants - unable as they are to make a conscious decision - from doing.
Non Sequitor. Your conclusion has nothing to do with the passage above. Jesus was not talking of salvation when he said let the children come unto me, he was giving an illustration of faith. John 3 speaks of the New Birth, and again this passage has nothing to do with infants or baptism. To tie in this passage with the other is like saying that India is geographically next to America. There is no relationship.

So on what basis, DHK, can infants and young children be excluded from the sacrament of baptism? If Jesus said "let them come unto me," who are you to say "no," and withhold baptism from them?
I say so on the authority of God's Word, and on the Word of Christ. Don't you listen to Him? He said "Let them come unto me." He did not say, "Go and baptize them," or "Let them come and I will baptize them." What foolishness are you trying to read into the Scriptures here? You might as well say that Jesus was saying, "Let the children come unto me and I will give them wings so they can fly." Why not? What else do you want to read into the Scriptures? Stick with the text.

Do they teach Biblical hermeneutics at your seminary, Carson? Or is it just hermeneutics of the Church Fathers?

The Biblical evidence is conclusive; there is no way around the implications of God's Word irregardless of the hoops that you attempt to jump through, and I pray that you learn the virtue of obedience to the divine Word.
You are so right. The Biblical evidence is conclusive that Baptismal regeneration is a heresy. It is not found in the Bible. There is no way around the straight teachings of the Word of God. It isn't even implied in the Word of God, regardless of the hoops that you attempt to jump through. I pray that you learn to rightly divide the Word of Truth and obey God's Holy Word.
DHK

 

DHK:
Your last post of using one verse for salvation is FALSE. I can use the same false reasoning to prove Confession saves. Romans 10:10. I can do the same for repentance. Acts 11:17. I can do the same for belief. John 8:24. I can do the same for baptism. I Peter 3:21. I can do the same for the blood of Christ. Rev. 1:5. How do you reconcile these verses?

Each locates salvation by ONE and ONLY ONE element.

I know how you do it. You just ignore them! From your post,it obvious you know very litle about interpreting literature of any kind much less the word of God.

1. You reject the plain declarative statements of scripture. Your response to declarative statements are " Let me explain it to you," as if english is difficult to understand. Eis means for or unto 1773 times. Acts 2:38. EPI means because of.

2. You reject the examples of salvation in scripture.You refuse to accept the total context of each. Acts 16:30-33. You like verse 30, but not the rest of the context.

3. You reject the totality of the harmonious evidence. Acts 2:38-41;8:12-14;30-40;10,11;16:12-14;30-33;18:8;19;1-5;22:16,Gal. 3:26-29

In short,you reject the law of rationaltiy which says one makes only those conclusions as are warranted by the totality of the evidence.

When challanged to support your teaching with harmony of scripture, you resort to arraying scripture against scripture, or using personal testimony and illustrations that are unsupported by scripture as why your position is correct. Surely, you do not expect a rational person to accept these false ways as truth.

You are much like your baptist brother A. T. Robertson, you would rather have your theology over the text of scripture.