IFB-KJVO pastor tells us what's wrong with the world.

sorry. handled via PM.

 

Best post in the thread! :thumbs:

Ed

 

Your post is offensive, tim.

How dare you slander the good name of my favorite cereal!

 

Amazing! The one place our beloved 'spamderson' is even close to being on track, is the one you bring up. That particular list is one of the very few where he is even half-way not a fruit cake, that I have seen! BTW, that list has been shown on the BB before, and is what tinytim is referring to.

I will grant that generally speaking, he may well be among the crème de la crème of nutcases.

But he is absolutely correct that the phrase "repent from/of (our/your) sin(s)" does not occur in Scripture. Further, he believes in (or at least claims to) and preaches "repentance", as do I - with repent (v.) and repentance (n.) being, so to speak, the "flip-side" of believe (v.) and faith (n.), and from the Greek words "metanoeO" (v.) / "metanoia" (n.) and properly translated as "To think again or afterwards" (v.) or "a change of mind (or thinking)" (n.).

The Bible describes this as - "repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ" and "repentance from dead works and faith toward God". (Act. 20:21; Heb. 6:1), and BTW, the only thing in Scripture that is said to lead one to repentance is "the goodness of God", or in other words, the grace of God. (Rom. 2:4)

BTW, don't just take my word for this, or anything else I post, look it up and read it for yourself, "to find out whether these things were so. (Ac.17:11)

Ed

 

If one is repenting toward God, it stands to reason that one is repenting from something else.

Repentance from sins is turning from sins and to God.

 

Yes, I did because he's wrong. 2 Corinthians 7:9-10 is clear on this subject.

 

Beans, beans the musical fruit
The more you eat the more you toot
The more you toot the better you feel
Eat those beans for every meal....

Oooops wrong sermon....

Hey heres an idea...
Since he obviously needs help coming up with sermons, lets help him out...

What are some sermon titles or subjects he can preach?

 

For starters...

"TP ---the manly way to fold, Text: Thou shalt foldest 7 times a day, and when thou are finished, blow with a loud horn: Then thy walls shall fallest to the ground"

 

LOL - I almost choked on my Cherios reading this one...

 

His nick was "sanderson". He actually took a baseball bat to a TV.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

This is the problem???

I really shouldn't listen to this goofy stuff at work.

 

Ed, I don't understand why you nitpick at this so often.

There is sin and there is God.

To repent towards God is to repent from sin. There is nothing else to repent of. There is no one else to repent towards.

Repent of sin/repent towards God = same thing.

 

"The Pesident of the United States pees sitting down!"

Does SS know about this stalking? :type:

 

This was the most insane YouTube video I have seen yet. Really.

 

Spiritual discernment is really needed these days...

Anyone that finds his theology "sound" really needs to get in touch with God.

 

Now you can tell your hubby that you have interacted with him....

 

This boy puts the oo's in stoopid.:BangHead:

 

Biblically, one is "repenting from something else" - namely "dead works", and this is expressly stated in Heb. 6:1. I have stated this very thing multiple times in my two years on the BB. I have refused to let others 'define' what repentance is, I admit. But this express declaration seems to get ignored by a majority of the posters on the Baptist Board, and also by believers in general. :BangHead:

(FTR, 'spamderson' also believes in repentence, and said so on his page cited. I'm not exactly sure where smashing TVs fits this, but that debate is for another time.)

However, just as many of these seem to have absolutely no problem redefining and/or rewording this "repent" either as 'repent from sin', or into some amalgamation of "penance", and attempt to make "repent" (metanoeo) equal to "turn" or "convert" (rendered from the Greek words strepho and epistrepho), when Scripture also specifically differentiates between the two of these, as well, with repent to precede turning.

One would not seriously think of suggesting that "repent" is the same as "be baptized" in Acts 2, for an example, but both these are connected with the same word "and", just as the words "repent" and "turn" in the verse I just cited. If is in not legitimate to make two different words 'mean' the same thing in one instance (Ac.2:38), why should it be permissible in the other (Ac.26:20)?

Or is it just possible that most have unwittingly allowed their thinking on the subject of "repentance" to be corrupted by tradition, as I believe the case to be? Several, including me, have been more than once accused of "not believing in repentance", or that repentance is not necessary for salvation. That is not the case, at least for me, as I have consistently said that one must repent, that is change one's mind, toward God, in order to be saved, and that Scripture expressly declares this. What is not said in Scripture, and I have likewise consistently proclaimed this for my two years here, is that one must first (at least be willing to) "turn" or "repent" from one's sins (whatever that theological conglomeration is supposed to really mean), and then, and only then is one 'able to 'really and truly' believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved'.

This teaching makes salvation a "two-stage" process, and effectively makes the well over 100 instances of the words "believe", "trust" and "faith" in/on the Lord Jesus Christ for one's salvation, meaningless, unless one has first "done" something else, hence making it a 'works based' salvation, despite the multiple protests, by those 'demanding' this, that this is not the case, at all.

Jesus never told Niocodemus that he first needed to repent of his sins (Jn. 3:1-21)

Jesus never said in the parable of the sower that one first must repent of thesir sins and then believe, in order ot be saved. (Lk.8:12)
Jesus never told those he healed and were saved, that they were first saved because of "repenting of sins", but rather they were 'saved by faith'. (Lk.7:9, 49; 8:48; 17:19; 18:42)

Paul gave the jailer at Phillipi a direct answer to a direct question (and this is the only time this is found in the Bible) of

Why do so many try and "add to" or 'qualify' such a simple word as "believe"? Especially by adding "repent of your sins" to this!

John the Baptist, who did come preaching "repentance", and preaching to the nation of Israel to "Repent, for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand", did not say in Jn. 3:36 that "once you, as an individual, have 'repented of you sins' then " The one who believes in the Son has eternal life, but the one who refuses repent of their sins will not see life; but the wrath of God abodes on him." This is an example, I believe, of what Peter was taking about when he spoke of "wresting Scripture". (II Pet. 2:16) This is, I believe, an accursed gospel. (Gal. 1:6-10) Yet this monstrosity and twisting of Scriptures is what is effectively being proclaimed by many here on the BB, although most will not say this directly.

I am certainly not attempting to get any one banned or 'tossed' over this teaching, by any stretch. (Least of all, me.) I am attempting to get them to see clearly what Scripture actually says, here, and preach a 'clear' salvation message!

And this is something I happen to reject, and have consistently for two years on the BB, instead preaching that faith is faith; believe means believe; and grace is grace! That is 'free grace', folks, the only kind there is, for a 'grace' that encompasses works in any way, in its essence, is not grace at all, but a gospel that is an accursed monstrosity! (Gal. 1:8-9)

One "in grace" should definitely do "good works" thereafter, as Eph. 2:10 clearly says, and we are commanded elsewhere "to do", and also are 'expected' to do. (Ephesians 2:10 ; Titus 3:8; Hebrews 6:9) But any "back door" approach of 'sneaking' works into grace, by front-loading, as by first 'demanding' a "repentance from sins", or 'back-loading' as in the theology that is known as "Lordship salvation", where it is often stated that one must "make Jesus Lord", in order to be saved. One is really no different than the other, and as one might expect, seem to be often found together.

BTW, I consider the very idea that anyone can "make Jesus Lord" of anything, to be near the pinnacle of arrogance, and second only to Satan's declaration of "I will be like the Most High!" (Isa. 14:14) God "made Him both Lord and Christ", and that without asking for your or my help! (Acts 2:36; Acts 10:36; Romans 5:21; Philippians 2:11; Revelation 17:14)

I apologize for the long post, for the several that don't like long posts, preferring instead, short quips, but it was necessary, IMO, to even start to explain this even remotely adequately. I will also defend myself, in advance, by stating that I am not the one who attempted to derail this thread, by bringing "repentance" into the thread. I merely have responded to this.

Ed

 

Sister Amy.G, I do not believe it is ever 'nitpicking' to 'demand' one to describe Biblical happenings in Biblical terms, or refuse to use non-Biblical wording, when there is Biblical wording.

I suspect, but admit I do not know, that you would see a 'need' for one to 'turn from sin' (whatever that undefined phrase may mean) before one could be saved. As we are conceived "in sin", and born that way, meaning we have an inborn 'sin-nature', how can we turn from something that is 'within', in the first place? Think about it.

Nor do I believe it is 'nitpicking' to see this for what it really is, which I fully admit, does not happen to everyone at the same speed. I see this as a "back-door" attempt to put something else in place before one can believe in Jesus, which I reject, as does the Bible, according to how I read it.

If it is 'nitpicking' to debate exacty what is 'grace' and 'works', which one cannot admix (Rom. 11:6), then I plead guilty to 'nitpicking'. Otherewise, no!
As another said, "Peace."

Ed

 

I need to repent from watching this innane video...

Oh, and sitting while going wee wee!!!

I wonder which Pres. candidate in 2008 stands?