SDA Doctrine RE Satan

[BobRyan]

DHK said
What was the point of those Scriptures Bob. I really don't get your point and I am sure that others don't either. Not one of them have to do with OT saints believing in "the gospel" of the OT, for there was none for them to believe.

so when it SAYS the Gospel was preached to them --- you are teaching that in fact it was "another gospel" that was being preached to them???

And when they SEE the sufferings of Christ AND the glories to follow it is ANOTHER Gospel??

And when we SEE that the Gospel was preached to US JUST AS IT WAS to them -- you claim it was still "ANOTHER GOSPEL"?

You preach TWO Gospels???

hmmm - how "surprising".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

There is only one gospel. Paul describes it for us in 1Cor.15:3,4. That clear message is not found for the OT saints in the OT. It takes place after the resurrection

The Gospel "Good news" is the ONE and ONLY means of salvation for ALL makind for there is NTHER one!

in Heb 11 ALL the saints listed there were born again under the ONE Gospel -- the ONLY gospel in all of time.

Enoch was taken to heaven pre-cross under the ONE Gospel the ONLY Gospel in all of time.

Elijah was taken to heaven - pre- cross under the ONE gospel - the ONLY Gospel in all of time.

Christ stated PRe-Cross "your sins ARE FORGIVEN" under the ONE Gospel the ONLY Gospel in ALL of time.

Those who preach "another Gospel" are simply not reading the text of scripture.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Joh_19:30
It is finished - The sufferings and agonies in redeeming man are over. The work long contemplated, long promised, long expected by prophets and saints, is done. The toils in the ministry, the persecutions and mockeries, and the pangs of the garden and the cross, are ended, and man is redeemed. What a wonderful declaration was this! How full of consolation to man! And how should this dying declaration of the Saviour reach every heart and affect every soul! (Barnes)

1John 2:2 THE ATONING sacrifice given for OUR SINS and not for OUR sins only but for sins of the WHOLE WORLD -- completed at the cross.

And the Lev 16 MINISTRY of the High Priest SHOWN to us By God Himself as being INCLUDED in the PROCESS of Atonement -- is SEEN in scripture POST-Cross in the life of Christ as our High Priest Heb 8-10.

Impossible to miss.

Jesus paid it all.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

HP: An interesting verse to me is the one concerning Abraham. Joh 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: 1John 2:2 THE ATONING sacrifice given for OUR SINS and not for OUR sins only but for sins of the WHOLE WORLD -- completed at the cross.

HP: There is a world of difference between making an 'atonement for' and 'paying for' sins. He ‘atoned’ for all sin, not ‘paid’ for all sins.

 

[BobRyan]

Very true. The Atoning Sacrifice is sufficient to cover all sins - but it not applied to all sins because the Gospel condition is "whosoever will" -- whoever BELIEVES not "whoever does NOT believe".

 

[BobRyan]

HP: An interesting verse to me is the one concerning Abraham. Joh 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

Very true. And it is easy to see in the light of that text that "The Gospel WAS preached to Abraham" Gal 3:7 as a true and very real statement.

Also the 1Peter 1 statement about the prophets of the OT SEEING the sufferings of Christ AND the glories to follow comes into sharp focus.

 

[DHK]

so when it SAYS the Gospel was preached to them --- you are teaching that in fact it was "another gospel" that was being preached to them???

And when they SEE the sufferings of Christ AND the glories to follow it is ANOTHER Gospel??

And when we SEE that the Gospel was preached to US JUST AS IT WAS to them -- you claim it was still "ANOTHER GOSPEL"?

You preach TWO Gospels???

hmmm - how "surprising".

In Christ,

Bob

Every Scripture you quoted Bob, was out of context and had nothing to do with any so-called gospel of the OT, at least viewed from the OT saints point of view. The OT saints could not see the gospel from their side of the cross. Hindsight is better than foresight. Are you honestly going to sit in front of your computer and tell me that every truth you discover about the OT, the OT saints understood already? Did Isaiah understand all the implications of each and every prophecy of the prophecies that he wrote. Did Daniel understand all about the prophetic implications that he wrote in Dan.9:24-27. I don't think so. It is presumptuous for you to say so. And this is precisely what Peter is writing about.

Tale a look at just the frist reference that you proof-text, and look at it in the entire context to see how you utterly destoy the meaning of this verse by yanking it out of its context and making it mean something other than it was intended. First the passage:

1 Peter 1:9-12 Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.
10 Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:
11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

Now that we have the context, let's see what the verse means?
Verse 10--Our salvation, it says, the porphets have diligently enquired into. They prophesied of it. It doesn't say they fully understood it. They studied the OT Scripture. But they never had the light, the revelation that we had.

Verse 11--They enquired, according to the Spirit of Christ, about the suffering of Christ. It does not say that everything was revealed to them about the sufferings of Christ, and his death, and his resurrection. It does nto say how much was revealed to the. It simply says that they enquirred. How much was revealed, we do not know. Assumptions cannot be made based on silence.

verse 12 is the verse where you hang your theology on. This is your proof text. But it is not saying what you want it to say. It says that there was revelation revealed to him, but it doesn't say how much. Then secondly, and most importantly, it says not for themselves. The revelation that they received was not for their own understanding. Gospel or not, it was not for their own understanding.
But unto us they did minister these things. They wrote these things in the OT for our benefit, not theirs. If the gospel was revealed in the OT, it was not revealed to the OT saints, but rather to the NT saints. Peter says that qute plainly. It was not for them, but for us it was revealed.
that by them the gospel might be preached unto you This is so plain I don't know how you can miss it, unless of course you are deliberately taking it out of context to further your own means (which is probably the case.)
Peter also says in this verse "which things the angels desire to look into," indicating that not even the angels understand everything about the gospel, salvation, and redemption--in the same way that the OT saints did not understand the gospel. Why? There is no such thing as an OT gospel. It is a NT message, a message of the NT that was accompanied by signs and wonders so that the Jews would accept it as God's message.
That is just the first reference that you gave.

The rest are all taken out of context as well, just like the above. If you were honest you would just admit that the gospel is a NT message.

 

[BobRyan]

Every Scripture you quoted Bob, was out of context and had nothing to do with any so-called gospel of the OT, at least viewed from the OT saints point of view.

#1. I quoted significant portions of the texts and then added NO comments but YOURS denying the very wording IN the text.

You have not proven in even ONE case that the mere QUOTE of the text was out of context since a QUOTE of the text without comments IS THE TEXT!!

Instead of merely asserting what you do not prove -- why not SHOW that your accusation has substance -- PICK even ONE and SHOW that when the text speaks all by itself (since I add NO comments to it) that it is out of context with itself!! Show that your comment (which is the only one there) is in fact not the contradiction that it is seen to be each time scripture says "GOSPEL" and you say "NOT the Gospel"!!

Your post above simply says "oh no it does not" to each section of the text you quote. When the Bible says "THEY WERE SHOWN" something you ADD "but not in a way they could really know and understand" AS IF that is a kind of eisegesis WELCOMEd in scripture!!

having said that your "Any so-called gospel of the OT" appears to deny the gospel that the texts explicitly NAME for the OT!!

How "suprising".

I have stated repeatedly that the GOSPEL NAMED and IDENTIFIED in these texts for the OT is the SAME as the one in the NT for THE BIBLE SAYS "The Gospel was preached to US JUST as it was to them" and you simply add "oh no it was not" as your "Bible study" of that text.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

1 Peter 1
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
4 to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable[/b] and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you[/b],
[/quote]

Gospel salvation for a person is not viewed as “completed in the past” but rather an ongoing promise for those who have been “born again” have been giving a living hope regarding a future promise. And that hope is derived because of the resurrection of Christ. It is a living hope regarding our own resurrection. The inheritance (the imperishable one) of the saints – of the “born again” is not a past reality – but a future one, “reserved in heaven for your”. Reserved in heaven for us JUST as it is for the saints of Heb 11 – the OT giants of the faith.

So although in the past – we have been “born again” yet our Gospel salvation is one of “hope” in a future event – the reception of an inheritance that is promised that is “reserved in heaven for us”. One that we do not have “yet”.

1 Peter 1
5 who are protected by the power of God [b]through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
[/quote]

Here salvation itself is spoken of as not yet revealed but instead “ready to be revealed” for it is still “reserved in heaven for you” and by faith we eagerly wait for it according to Gal 3 “in the last time”[/b]. Peter has made the point explicitly that all the Gospel hope is pointing the saints forward – to a future event “in the last time” centered on the Gospel doctrine of resurrection. This is the source of the joy for NT saints according to Peter for in this life they (we) are “distressed” by various trials.

1 Peter 1
6 In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials,
7 so that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be [b]found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ;[/b]
8 and though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory,
9 obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls.[/b][/quote

Peter continues to point the saints to the future “the outcome of your faith – the salvation of your souls” which “he says” will come about “at the revelation of Jesus Christ”


1 Peter 1
10 As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful searches and inquiries,
11 seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow.
[/quote]

Peter points to the fact that the OT saints just like the NT saints were looking forward to a significant future salvation event. “The sufferings of Christ”. But more than that – they also were looking forward to that “Salvation ready be revealed in the last time” – at the “revelation of Jesus Christ” for they were ALSO looking by faith at the “Glories to follow” the sufferings of Christ a future even for both the OT saints AND the NT saints!

Peter has both NT and OT saints looking to the future.

1 Peter 1
12 It was [b]revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but you[/b], in these things which now have been announced to you through those who preached the gospel to you[/b] by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven things into which angels long to look.
[/quote]

Here it is shown that the same Gospel received by the NT saints – was in fact predicted for the OT saints ,,, /;”REVEALED TO THEM” just when some Christians today would insert “was not really revealed to them”. They were shown that Gospel as the key role that Christ has in it. Not just the “su9fferings of Christ” as predicted in the Gospel but the future “glories to follow”. And we know in John 8:56 that it was “revealed to them” to the point that “Abraham SAW My day and was glad” it was “REVEALED to them” to the extent that “The Gospel was preached to Abraham” Gal 3:7 and the GOSPEL context for Gal 3 is the ONE AND ONLY Gospel said to exist in chapter 1 of that SAME book (Gal 1:6-9)

So Peter now tells the NT saints to join the OT saints in looking to the FUTURE “fixing their hope COMPLETELY” on the future gospel completion event. Related to the promise that has been held in “reserved in heaven for you”

1Pet 1
13 Therefore, prepare your minds for action, keep sober in spirit,

fix your hope completely on the grace to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.

2 Peter 1

16 For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.

We too are told not only to “look forward” to that salvation that is “ready to be revealed” at the last time at the revelation of Jesus Christ – but in fact Peter says we are to “fix your hope completely ” on the grace to be brought to you “At the revelation of Jesus Christ”. Time and time again Peter points us forward to the “Coming of our Lord” (As Paul calls it in 1Thess 4) telling the NT saints to fix our hope completely on that singular event.

 

[BobRyan]

1 Peter 1
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
4 to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable[/b] and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you[/b],
[/quote]

Gospel salvation for a person is not viewed as “completed in the past” but rather an ongoing promise for those who have been “born again” have been giving a living hope regarding a future promise. And that hope is derived because of the resurrection of Christ. It is a living hope regarding our own resurrection. The inheritance (the imperishable one) of the saints – of the “born again” is not a past reality – but a future one, “reserved in heaven for your”. Reserved in heaven for us JUST as it is for the saints of Heb 11 – the OT giants of the faith.

So although in the past – we have been “born again” yet our Gospel salvation is one of “hope” in a future event – the reception of an inheritance that is promised that is “reserved in heaven for us”. One that we do not have “yet”.

1 Peter 1
5 who are protected by the power of God [b]through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
[/quote]

Here salvation itself is spoken of as not yet revealed but instead “ready to be revealed” for it is still “reserved in heaven for you” and by faith we eagerly wait for it according to Gal 3 “in the last time”[/b]. Peter has made the point explicitly that all the Gospel hope is pointing the saints forward – to a future event “in the last time” centered on the Gospel doctrine of resurrection. This is the source of the joy for NT saints according to Peter for in this life they (we) are “distressed” by various trials.

1 Peter 1
6 In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials,
7 so that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be [b]found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ;[/b]
8 and though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory,
9 obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls.[/b][/quote

Peter continues to point the saints to the future “the outcome of your faith – the salvation of your souls” which “he says” will come about “at the revelation of Jesus Christ”


1 Peter 1
10 As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful searches and inquiries,
11 seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow.
[/quote]

Peter points to the fact that the OT saints just like the NT saints were looking forward to a significant future salvation event. “The sufferings of Christ”. But more than that – they also were looking forward to that “Salvation ready be revealed in the last time” – at the “revelation of Jesus Christ” for they were ALSO looking by faith at the “Glories to follow” the sufferings of Christ a future even for both the OT saints AND the NT saints!

Peter has both NT and OT saints looking to the future.

1 Peter 1
12 It was [b]revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but you[/b], in these things which now have been announced to you through those who preached the gospel to you[/b] by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven things into which angels long to look.


Here it is shown that the same Gospel received by the NT saints – was in fact predicted for the OT saints ,,, /;”REVEALED TO THEM” just when some Christians today would insert “was not really revealed to them”. They were shown that Gospel as the key role that Christ has in it. Not just the “su9fferings of Christ” as predicted in the Gospel but the future “glories to follow”. And we know in John 8:56 that it was “revealed to them” to the point that “Abraham SAW My day and was glad” it was “REVEALED to them” to the extent that “The Gospel was preached to Abraham” Gal 3:7 and the GOSPEL context for Gal 3 is the ONE AND ONLY Gospel said to exist in chapter 1 of that SAME book (Gal 1:6-9)

So Peter now tells the NT saints to join the OT saints in looking to the FUTURE “fixing their hope COMPLETELY” on the future gospel completion event. Related to the promise that has been held in “reserved in heaven for you”

1Pet 1
13 Therefore, prepare your minds for action, keep sober in spirit, [/quote]

fix your hope completely on the grace to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.

2 Peter 1
16 For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.


We too are told not only to “look forward” to that salvation that is “ready to be revealed” at the last time at the revelation of Jesus Christ – but in fact Peter says we are to “fix your hope completely ” on the grace to be brought to you “At the revelation of Jesus Christ”. Time and time again Peter points us forward to the “Coming of our Lord” (As Paul calls it in 1Thess 4) telling the NT saints to fix our hope completely on that singular event.

 

[Claudia_T]

"So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation." Hebrews 9:28.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

No doubt many things had to be accomplished for God to forgive and restore fallen man. In the illustration of the scapegoat of the OT, we find two goats involved. One offered as a sin offering and the other having the sins of the people transferred to it by the laying on of hands. The interesting part to me is that is not two distinctive atonements being illustrated by the two distinct goats, but rather Scripture tells us that this process of the two goats is for ONE sin offering. Le 16:5 ¶ And he shall take of the congregation of the children of Israel two kids of the goats for ‘A’ sin offering, and one ram for a burnt offering.” This debunks any theory of two separate atonements in any way. This signifies that the two goats are NOT two but one atonement, and they both are signifying work completed by one entity, that entity being revealed to us in the NT as Christ Himself.

It would again appear to me that the two goats signified two distinct aspects of this singular atonement, or two distinct offices or accomplishments by one entity, one being the need to satisfy the law as illustrated by the first goat being sacrificed and it’s blood sprinkled upon and before the mercy seat. Le 16:15 ¶ Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the vail, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat:

Before any forgiveness or removal of sin from the people, the demands of the law had to be satisfied. Only subsequent to the laws demands being atoned for could the sins of the people be taken away.

Just the same, although the demands of the law were satisfied, their still had to be the element of the actual placing of the sins of the people upon the proper substitute. There is only ONE person that could and can take away the sins of the people, i.e., The Lamb of God. “Joh 1:29 ¶ The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” The scapegoat, as I now see it, signifies the office of sin bearer being fulfilled by the Lamb of the God, as He carries away the sins of the people never to be remembered of them again.

It is imperative to remember, that the fact of the sins of the people being laid upon the scapegoat was no blanket indication that in fact ones individual sins were automatically forgiven. This was a symbolic illustration as a schoolmaster would set forth to teach this nation of the process by which their sins COULD be forgiven. The blood of bulls and goats NEVER had any power to satisfy the laws demands or take away even one stain of sin. These illustrations in the OT were tools of the schoolmaster to illustrate to them spiritual reality, some of which were yet to be accomplished. Only by FAITH looking to Christ, although only seen through these schoolmaster illustrations, could the forgiveness of sins be possible. There was NEVER two ways or two gospels given to fallen man. There is but ONE gospel, and ONE Mediator, i.e., the man Christ Jesus, that is able to satisfy the law any take away the sins of fallen man.

According to Alfred Edersheim in his book “The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah,” the Jews clearly understood that before ANY sacrifice could be effective in their personal life, true repentance MUST be accompanying any and all such sacrifices. God showed them the way through this demonstration of the two goats not only what had to be done in order to make the way of salvation possible, but also the way sin in actuality can be cariied away by their sin bearer IF they would fulfill the needed conditions personally to see it accomplished.

I cannot believe for a minute that Satan is illustrated in the scapegoat in the least. I do not believe that Satan in any way bears our sins for us or is held accountable for our personal sins. Every man is held accountable for his own sins according to Scripture. Apart from Christ and His atonement being made effective in our lives via repentance and faith, will have the full weight of the laws penalty, which is nothing more than eternal separation from God in a place Scripture denotes as the lake of fire or hell, placed upon them.

 

[DHK]

1 Peter 1
12 It was [b]revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but you[/b], in these things which now have been announced to you through those who preached the gospel to you[/b] by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven things into which angels long to look.


Here it is shown that the same Gospel received by the NT saints – was in fact predicted for the OT saints ,,, /;”REVEALED TO THEM” just when some Christians today would insert “was not really revealed to them”. They were shown that Gospel as the key role that Christ has in it. Not just the “su9fferings of Christ” as predicted in the Gospel but the future “glories to follow”..

How long will you twist the scriptures to make it suit your own purposes? I hope that others can see through your twisted interpretations. The sufferings of Christ was revealed to the prophets, not the gospel. They were revealed to the OT saints in order that YOU (NT saints) could have the gospel preached to you, which things the angels also desire to look into you. This does not say that the OT saints had the gospel. It only says that it prophesied of the sufferings of Christ. That is all. The sufferings of Christ alone do not make up the gospel, or do you have a different gospel than that ot the gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ? I think you do.
BTW, the word "announced" (These things which have now been annouced to you) refers directly to the NT message of the gospel which was now being annouced by the Apostes to the believers that Peter was writing to, a message of the gospel that the OT saints did not have. Read the verse and see what it says, not what you want it to say.

They were not serving themselves, but YOU, it says. They did not understand the gospel themselves but it was written for the NT believers. It is clear. The gospel was a NT message.

The gospel was announced through the Apostles who had a greater light then the OT prophets, and were also able to use the totality of Scripture, as well as having the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It was announced to them using the OT Scriptures as a platform from which to preach. This the OT prophets could not do. They did not have the NT message of the gospel. They lived before the fact. How obvious is that fact that you continue to ignore. I can show you that with every one of the verses that you posted. But this one verse is good enough. You take Scripture out of context to prove your point.

Will you also say that the Bible teaches that "There is no God," as it declares in Psalm 14:1?

 

[Dustin]

I would argue that your two-gospel model is false -- and you seem to argue that my one-gospel model in harmony with Gal 1:6-9 and in harmony with Heb 4 "The gospel has been preached to US JUST as it was to them as well" is false.

Having that debate is not "out of bounds".

Your argument that the very existence of a view that does not fit with yours should get that view censored is totally unreasonable.

BTW -- not only were some statements on this thread cleaned up by the monitors -- so also was the very title of the thread itself.

In Christ,

Bob

I did not give any two gospel model! Why must you keep putting words in my mouth? I said NOTHING about a two-model gospel! I never typed anything about it! How in the world did you ever come to that conclusion? Yet again, I'm baffled by your tendency to talk for me Bob.

I was arguing that if Joseph Botwinick was banned for calling Arminianism false, and/or his behavior in doing so then one or more of you who were posting on this thread should be banned for your behavior. That was the gist of my argument. That was all I said. I was openly pondering whether it was worse to be a Calvinist or to be a minister of a false gospel and whether it was worse to argue sanely and biblically or to blast ones opponent in a blatently unChristian manner.

That was IT. YOU said I support a two gospel model, I proposed nothing of the sort. If you want to know what gospel I believe, ask me and I will tell you. Stop putting words in my mouth. Those are AGAIN some very serious charges to be throwing around, they SHOULDN'T be tossed around so lightly. I will not tolerate such slander. You're talking about something YOU made up, making up some lie, (I don't even know why really) to refute a position I never argued, or to refute me in advance? I do not know. I did not express a view either way on this thread, but pointed out that both sides were not posting with grace, nothing about it was edifying, nothing about it was profitable.

Never in my time here have I seen or heard of such presumptous (sp) and un Christian behavior, from a so-called Christian, and a supporter of sola scriptura.

That is all I have to say.

I'm STILL in protest.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

[Claudia_T]

People need some serious AGF Here....

Anti-Growling Fluid.

Its like they just get angry at the slightest little things.

 

[Dustin]

Its like they just get angry at the slightest little things.

It's not a little thing at all, a different gospel is a false gospel. There is but ONE Gospel, and there is ONE Christ. If there is anyhting more or less then it's NOT THE GOSPEL.

It is not slight or little, it's the most important thing we as humans can know.

It's very, very serious. A matter of life or death in eternity.

So very serious.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

[BobRyan]

I did not give any two gospel model!

I find that hard to believe.

I was arguing that if Joseph Botwinick was banned for calling Arminianism false, and/or his behavior in doing so then one or more of you who were posting on this thread should be banned for your behavior. That was the gist of my argument. That was all I said. I was openly pondering whether it was worse to be a Calvinist or to be a minister of a false gospel

And I pointed out that your views are in error - your doctirnal position is wrong. But I can not argue that your differences with me should exclude you from posting.

I find no reason in that kind of thinking.

Those are AGAIN some very serious charges to be throwing around, they SHOULDN'T be tossed around so lightly. I will not tolerate such slander. You're talking about something YOU made up, making up some lie, (I don't even know why really) to refute a position I never argued, or to refute me in advance? I do not know. I did not express a view either way on this thread, but pointed out that both sides were not posting with grace, nothing about it was edifying, nothing about it was profitable.

Perhaps as you admit to the definition of what you meant when you accuse others of being "a minister of a false gospel" we will find that you are not the "non-participant" that you would have us believe in that area.

Just a thought.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Dustin: It's not a little thing at all, a different gospel is a false gospel. There is but ONE Gospel, and there is ONE Christ. If there is anyhting more or less then it's NOT THE GOSPEL.

HP: If anyone has any hope of enlightening those on the list, it would be better facilitated without such remarks. Just as Dustin feels about others, they also might in fact feel about him. To tell one that he preaches another gospel in no way will facilitate this wonderful opportunity of discussion and debate. What Dustin has in effect done is to restate what DHK said concerning BB, Claudia, and others, that they be accursed. That is completely unnecessary and counter productive attacks that should not be tolerated on a discussion list that is open for debate. I believe there are at least two that need to apologize for their comments and seek to find new ways of expressing their ideas without such rank attacks. This is not a denominational Sundayschool class, this is an open debate among Christians. Certainly we could find it within ourselves to show more kindness and simply allow our presentations to be focused upon the debate issues themselves and refrain from such personal attacks and accusations.

There may in fact be a time and a place for many things said that should not be spoken or undertaken on a debate forum such as this. IMHO

 

[BobRyan]

You make good points. The fact is that both the Arminian and the Calvinist views of the Gospel and of God "say things" about God and say things about the Gospel that are either true - or they are not true.

It is also apparent that both views can not always be right (at least in very glaring cases). It has to be one or the other.

The Calvinist future scenario compared to the Arminian future scenario shows the stark difference between the way the two models view God and view the gospel.

But if we use that to get into name-calling and labeling and going off on a rant ad-hominem after ad-hominem then we not only end useful discussion but we also reflect badly on Christ - for we all claim the name of Christ and all uphold the Bible as God's Word.

In Christ,

Bob