Grace Evangelical Society: Controversial Teaching

Now THIS is the testimony and theology that you ought to have, pinoy!! As with Sardis (your other love) "Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast,..." Rev 3:6

Pinoy, that's eloquent testimony to Mt 13:22 -- "He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word,..." I'm with you, bro. I witnessed to my best friend and about had my head handed to me on a plater (nothing like you case, though). But you were SAVED! And what came along? Apparently help from God so that you could pursue Him yet again!

skypair

 

I see. No actual response just this mess.

 

I am in agreement with this, SeekingHisTruth.
BUT only in as far as to "receive everlasting life" is concerned.

HOWEVER (not yelling, just for emphasis, ok ?), it is required or at least expected of one who already has everlasting life, don't you agree ?

Let me see.

Comes now a sodomite who says he "received" everlasting life, and has turned in faith to Christ already, and he becomes your friend in church.

What will you tell him if he tells you that he would like to join the church, to be baptized, and you learn that he is still a practicing sodomite ?

Okay, brother, all we need is faith anyway.

I don't think you will do that, would you, now, brother ?

 

I like your new name, here.

I'm not Lou Martuneac, but will jump in here, for a second, anyhow.

The "crossless gospel" 'controversy' does not really have specifically to do with 'Calvinism', per se, any more than do some other related issues, including "Lordship Salvation" and the subject of 'repentence'.

The last paragraph in the first post in this thread should (and I believe does) show that the entire 'basis' for salvation is the finished work on the cross by the Lord Jesus Christ.

The controversy has arisen over the 'message' and/or definition of the gospel, and the presentation of that message, IMO.

Lou Martuneac can feel free to disagree with me on this, should he choose. He and I may not (and probably don't) specifically agree on everything, but I do think that both he and I pretty well seem to understand each other.

Ed

 

There was a response. Maybe you missed it. I will re-word it a little. The point is that just because you post a couple of Scriptures that have a "buzz" word in it does "not" automatically prove your point.

There are a number of Scripture that contain the word "reprent", but that truth does not prove that one has to "repent" (turn from their life of sin or feel sorry for their sin, etc.).

For some reason there are a number of folks on this board that think just because they can post some Scripture with their buzz words in them it some how supports what they are saying. That simply is not the case.

If I have to turn from my life of sin in order to receive everlasting life then Paul is a liar. It's really that plain and simple. Either he was telling the truth or he wasn't. I believe he was telling the truth.

 

AMEN!

I don't believe anyone that is practicing sin of any kind in an unrepentant manner is eligible for church membership or baptism! The church of today would do well to understand what discipleship and baptism is all about instead of pushing people into baptism without a complete understanding of the significance.

 

And yet you did nothing to address the verse other than to make a vague statment. The context of those verses are eternal salvation. Of course millenium exclusionists believe the context is the millenium. So which do you hold to? It is hard to address repsones other than in a vague way when you are trying to hide your true position and identity.

 

"I" don't need to address the verse as the Spirit through Paul speaks much more clear than "I" do. And the Spirit through Paul said "believe" and you WILL BE SAVED.

Now either he was telling the truth or he wasn't. I happen to believe he was, and as such that means "your" understanding of what those verses mean is errant. If "your" view is correct then Paul is lying and even worse the Spirit was lying and we know that is an impossibility.

So what "I" have to say about anything is meaningless. We only need concern ourself with what does "Scripture" say. And it says BELIEVE. And it says by God's grace THROUGH FAITH.

That should be enough said.

As I have said to you before and I will say to you again you are so wrapped up in hatred for ME that it affects you in other areas.

Finally there is no way to reconcile your view with Acts 16:30-31 and Eph. 2:8-9 just to name two verses.

 

JJump I dont hate you. But I do oppose your false doctrine. And I will ask again, do you see the verses I posted below as being in the context of eternal salvation or the Millenium?

Lu 15:7 - Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.
Lu 15:10 - Just so, I tell you, there is joy before the angels of God over one sinner who repents.

 

Revmitchell again instead of getting all wrapped up in ME why don't you try and reconcile your view of those verses with the two verses that I gave you, because your views are in direct conflict with those two verses and then you tell me what they are talking about.

I will say it again, either Paul was lying or he was telling the truth. You can not hold your view of repentance and continue to say that Paul was telling the truth. The two topics at hand are impossible to mesh together into the same subject, because it has to do with works. Human works can NEVER enter the picture of everlasting life. EVER.

 

In light of all that has been discussed on this thread, will someone explain the meaning of this scripture? I would be interested to hear from both sides.

Acts 2:36-38 (NIV)

36 "Therefore let all Israel be assured of this; God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."
37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"
38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

 

Well most consider this a passage that has to do with everlasting life (even though that is never addressed). One group says see you have to be baptised in order to have everlasting life and then the other group says no you don't have to be baptised to have everlasting life, because of some other verses, but they really have no answer for this other than trying to change the word "for".

If we would just let the text speak for itself instead of trying to cram it into a man-made theology we can clear see that Peter is NOT preaching the message of everlasting life (that is believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved - believing that He died and shed His blood on our behalf a sinner).

In fact what Peter is preaching is that the Jews "murdered" their Messiah. He was trying to get them to see that what they had been searching for was in fact right in their midst and when He was there they wanted nothing to do with Him and ultimately had Him killed.

It is a message of the murder of the King. And so what they were asking for was how do they right their wrong.

If you would like to study these matters out in greater Scriptural detail feel free to send me a PM, but that is the basic nuts and bolts if we allow the text to say what it says .

 

Why did you call him JJump

 

Because it is easier to create a diversion and shift the focus of the conversation than it is to deal with inconsistencies in one's theology. We see this debate tactic used constantly in threads or should I say :tear: .

 

So are you JJump, and if you joined in Sept. 07...how would you know who he is?

 

Because ME is the very foundation of all your arguments jason.

Here is an indisputable example:

Post #53

And if by chance I am wrong ( but I am not) just what message is Paul preaching here?

 

Lou,

In reading those articles, I am noticing that Rosa and Hodge use a valid pre-cross gospel IOW, If one just believed on Jesus before the cross, they would have eternal life knowing Him. It would be just as if God had come to set up His kingdom in His own presence! But clearly after the cross, the cross must be annunciated and personally appropriated.

I noticed in one of the articles citations from Acts 2, Jesus referred to Himself as "Lord and Christ" -- God and Messiah. It WAS the OT expectation and gospel that God would come and save His people from their sins (hence the name Jesus as well). Peter was saying that this was the very fulfillment of the OT gospel and that they have slain God and Messiah Who through death amazingly would now save them!

Now after the cross, it is quite likely that these people would also recognize that the means of God saving His people was the cross and that the cross would be an integral part of the message of believing in "Lord and Christ!"

Again what I think we have is teachers who fail to comprehend dispensationalism.

skypair