Added: 4 years ago
From: SKYSPLASH
Views: 30,570
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (4,688)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • 2 False Religions debating each other. . . Tsk! Tsk!

  • NLT

    Hbr 6:1 So let us stop going over the basic teachings about Christ again and again. Let us go on instead and become mature in our understanding. Surely we don't need to start again with the fundamental importance of repenting from evil deeds [fn] and placing our faith in God.

    Hbr 6:2 You don't need further instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.

  • KJV

    Hbr 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, 

    Hbr 6:2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

  • @USAFreedomReform - You said - "All we have to do is believe on the name of Jesus Christ to be SAVED !! "

    Wrong

    Luke 8

    11 Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God..

    13 They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, WHICH FOR A WHILE BELIEVE , and in time of temptation FALL AWAY.

    15 But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience.

  • @Bobsblues "Wrong Luke 8"

    So why did you leave off the 14th verse.

  • @USAFreedomReform "We don't have all the writings because all of the writings are not in the KJV bible." Really? Which writings DO we have that were not included? Can you set yourself up as a textual critic and tell us which works should be in the Bible?

  • @lllannallll "Really? Which writings DO we have that were not included?"

    What about the Dead Sea Scrolls? What about other writings concerning Jesus Christ or people mentioned in the BOOKS of the bible that have been found on parchment paper?

  • @USAFreedomReform - you said - "they were put there for us to rightly divide the word of TRUTH from what is capable of being in error ".- '"Rightly Dividing " which is just another catch phrase for OSAS followers to cut out and toss away whatever parts of the Bible prove their heresy wrong.

  • WHO DIED AND LEFT THE church of CHRIST in CHARGE?

  • @USAFreedomReform "WHO DIED AND LEFT THE church of CHRIST in CHARGE?" LOL Well, part 1 is "Jesus died." He left the apostles, guided by the Spirit, "in charge." And they left us the written word. There was no "church of Christ" at the point at which Jesus died. He said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." Man comes along as says, "Nothing you can do ... all you have to do is ..."

  • @lllannallll "Well, part 1 is "Jesus died."

    BUT , Jesus is not DEAD, HE IS RISEN. So AGAIN, who is in charge of the church that JESUS will return for when GOD tells Jesus it is time?

  • @USAFreedomReform Jesus is in charge of the church, guiding through the medium of the inspired, inerrant, all-sufficient Word of God. Nobody except maybe the Romish Catholics think the CHURCH is ultimately "in charge." The church of Christ is "charged with" certain duties, but certainly not ultimately "in charge." Jesus is the head of the church.

  • @lllannallll "guiding through the medium of the inspired, inerrant, all-sufficient Word of God"

    There is no MEDIUM ! This is the same as sorcery or witchcraft.

    Christians(real born again christians) have a direct link to GOD through Jesus Christ through prayer.We don't need a medium as you want to call it.

    I find that scripture is what it is. It may have been inspired by GOD , but remember, MAN still wrote it, and man is capable of error,so if there are errors in scripture

  • @USAFreedomReform "There is no MEDIUM ! This is the same as sorcery or witchcraft." LOL No, it's not. I can either speak to you directly or use the medium of my written word, dummy.

  • @USAFreedomReform "Christians(real born again christians) have a direct link to GOD through Jesus Christ through prayer." NonChristians do not have this privilege, though - so why have to "invite Jesus Christ into your heart"? According to you, He shoulda already been there at the point of faith before prayer, right?

  • @lllannallll Don't start telling me a manmade CoC has to invite a sinner in , in order for that person to be saved. YOUR WORKS ARE IN VAIN !!

    You can't save yourself just like you can't save anyone else. JESUS CHRIST does the saving, and HE DIDN'T NEED WATER TO DO IT.

    The sins of a man are not on the outside,they are inside,and unless you kill him and wash the sin out of the body(which you can't)because the sin is in the soul.

    HOW twisted,you think water can wash away SIN !!

  • @USAFreedomReform 'HOW twisted,you think water can wash away SIN !!" Who said water can literally wash away sin? NO ONE. The blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from sin. WHEN? Umm ... you'll need to explain Acts 22: 16 for that one - and I'd like to hear all about the middle voice, too.

  • @lllannallll "you'll need to explain Acts 22: 16 for that one"

    Where was Paul when he said this? WHERE?

  • @USAFreedomReform "Where was Paul when he said this? WHERE?" He SAID it when he was before the authorities, recounting his converstion. He shoulda been an expert on it. Do you honestly think that Paul's locale affects the truth/accuracy of his own conversion?

  • @lllannallll "Do you honestly think that Paul's locale affects the truth/accuracy of his own conversion?"

    His location does affect the avalibility of WATER.

  • @USAFreedomReform "His (Paul's) location does affect the avalibility of WATER." Indeed it might, but I've never seen anyone undertake to prove that no water was available, so you can undertake that. I do know that Paul was told to GET UP, and Holy Ghost baptism is not dependent upon POSTURE.

  • @lllannallll "Who said water can literally wash away sin"

    Thats what you believe. You skirt around the process and say baptism is necessary but then say that JESUS is what really saves.

  • @USAFreedomReform "You skirt around the process and say baptism is necessary but then say that JESUS is what really saves. " Sorta like you skirt around it and save "faith" and "repentance" are necessary, but JESUS is really what saves. It's the same principle, and that's why you get so tripped up on "nothing you can do, all you have to do is ... "

  • @lllannallll However, John 3:16 says you must first "believe" on the name of JESUS CHRIST , then you will be saved. Your water baptism to be saved is a work and my belief in JESUS CHRIST to be saved is a work too. Your idea is a physical work and my idea is a spiritual work (or a work to my soul).

    Before you were saved,did you feel the conviction power of the Holy Spirit compelling you to answer the call to be saved?

  • @USAFreedomReform "Your idea is a physical work and my idea is a spiritual work (or a work to my soul)." You know, you're close to correct on that. The glitch is that, yes, even mental assent is a work. Developing trust is a work. Repentance is a work. And baptism is a work. So it's all the same in the end. You're picking one or two works, and enforcing them.

  • @lllannallll "The glitch is that, yes, even mental assent is a work"

    mental assent (are you saying :of the mind , & to agree) what do you mean by that.

    I still don't see how water baptism can be better than faith believing on the name of Jesus Christ.

    John 3:16 For GOD so loved the world,that he gave his only begotten Son,that WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH IN HIM SHOULD NOT PERISH,BUT HAVE EVERLASTING LIFE.

  • @USAFreedomReform "I still don't see how water baptism can be better than faith believing on the name of Jesus Christ." I never said anything of the sort. Water baptism is a PART of Biblical faith. That is why the word is defined: believe, trust, compliance, confidence, obedience. Your definition of faith is LIMITED to the "belief and trust" part, I think, and you deliberately leave out "compliance and obedience." Why is that?

  • @lllannallll "Your definition of faith is LIMITED to the "belief and trust" part, I think, and you deliberately leave out "compliance and obedience." Why is that?"

    Because Jesus said so in John 3:16,and John said so in Mark 1:8,Peter said so in Acts 11:15,16,17, and Paul said it in Acts 22:16 , and in 1st John 5:7,8 John verified where the record is kept and who witness in earth.

  • @USAFreedomReform ""Your definition of faith is LIMITED to the "belief and trust" part, I think, and you deliberately leave out "compliance and obedience." Why is that?" You didn't answer that. You quoted John 3: 16, but you never REALLY delved into why all the lexicons translate "pistis/pisteuo" as "belief, obedience, trust, confidence, compliance", yet you deny the "obedience/compliance" part. WHY is that?

  • @USAFreedomReform ""For GOD so loved the world,that he gave his only begotten Son,that WHOSOEVER (believeth in, is compliant to, trusts in, is obedient to, has confidence in) HIM SHOULD NOT PERISH,BUT HAVE EVERLASTING LIFE." <-- Is that correct or not? C'mon now.

  • @USAFreedomReform "For GOD so loved the world,that he gave his only begotten Son,that WHOSOEVER (believeth in, is compliant to, trusts in, is obedient to, has confidence in) HIM SHOULD NOT PERISH,BUT HAVE EVERLASTING LIFE." I just wanna make sure you don't misunderstand the word translated here "believeth" is a way that excludes compliance or obedience.

  • @USAFreedomReform "The glitch is that, yes, even mental assent is a work. Developing trust is a work. Repentance is a work. And baptism is a work." <--- What's that mean? It MEANS that you are again inconsistent in exactly WHICH works you place antecedant to salvation. If one wants repentance, FINE! Loving God, FINE! Trust in Christ, FINE! Baptism? Oh, no, that's work. The point is that they are ALL works of some sort.

  • @lllannallll

    This verse declares that the church is the "church of GOD" not CoC.

    Wanna comment on this?

    1Cr 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called [to be] saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:

    1Cr 1:3 Grace [be] unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and [from] the Lord Jesus Christ.

  • @USAFreedomReform "This verse declares that the church is the "church of GOD" not CoC. Wanna comment on this?" Sure. The church is called the church of God, the church, the church of the firstborn, the church by Christ Jesus, as well as the churches of Christ. I've never used one term to the exclusion of the others. They are all "approved" by the Spirit through the apostles, i. e. "scriptural".

  • @USAFreedomReform "You can't save yourself just like you can't save anyone else. JESUS CHRIST does the saving" Who denies this? NO ONE. But watch: you'll say surely one must believe, right? Of course you do You'll say one must repent? Of course Then turn around and think if a person believes he must be baptized, oopsie, he's tryin to save himself. You teach salvation, best I can tell, based upon a dead faith.

  • @lllannallll "You teach salvation,best I can tell,based upon a dead faith"

    Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

    Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. <------

    Your belief has to see baptism by water (or a sign of being baptised)

    Where is your faith if you have to see to believe? WHERE?

  • @USAFreedomReform ""You teach salvation,best I can tell,based upon a dead faith" <-- never dealt with it, and it stands. Body + Spirit = Live Body. Body - Spirit = Dead both. Faith + works = Live faith. Faith - works = Dead faith.

  • @USAFreedomReform "Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith" I asked you to DEFINE faith, derived from pistis/pisteuo, in Thayer's or Liddell and Scott or combine the two. Want me to? "For by grace are ye saved through trust, compliance, confidence, assent, obedience - and that salvation isn't from you. It's not of works, not the works of the Jewish law."

  • @USAFreedomReform "I find that scripture is what it is. It may have been inspired by GOD...." MAY have been? Shades of infidelity! Why don't you simply say that it WAS? Man wrote it, but, wait .. man was guided directly BY God, so it's all the same in the end, isn't it? You want to open the door for errors, and I think you have a lackluster opinion of Biblical accuracy.

  • @lllannallll "Man wrote it, but, wait .. man was guided directly BY God, so it's all the same in the end, isn't it"

    WAIT A MINUTE NOW. At one place Paul said what he was telling one of the churchs in the letter was HIS OPINION and not from GOD. So how many other places did PAUL give his opinion but did not write it in.

    All scripture was written by man. Some places in scripture the men that wrote it were told what to write and other places they wrote it in their own understanding.

  • @USAFreedomReform "All scripture was written by man. Some places in scripture the men that wrote it were told what to write and other places they wrote it in their own understanding." LOL They IDENTIFIED passages that are their own opinion. By your way of reasoning, John 3: 16 might just be John's faulty recollection. Acts 2: 38 might just an error made by Peter.

  • @lllannallll "By your way of reasoning, John 3: 16 might just be John's faulty recollection. Acts 2: 38 might just an error made by Peter"

    2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God,a workman that needeth not to be ashamed,rightly dividing the word of truth.

    You can't take all of scripture and expect it all to be for YOU.

  • @USAFreedomReform "You can't take all of scripture and expect it all to be for YOU." ABSOLUTELY! Yet when John spoke of people being baptized in the Spirit at a future time, you think that means YOU got Spirit baptized 2,000 years later. What is Spirit baptism anyway? What are the signs of it? What was the purpose? What, if any, was the duration? Answer those, and you might see that you aren't Spirit-baptized.

  • @lllannallll "YOU got Spirit baptized 2,000 years later"

    Where does it say after Jesus departed the earth that a person is still not BAPTISED by the Holy Ghost thur Jesus Christ.

    Again your idea didn't come about until the mid 1800's. So what happen to all those before Alexander Campbells idea that started all this confusion. Do they all go to HELL !

    This water baptism thing HAS SATAN WRITTEN ALL OVER IT !! You just can't see it, because you are brainwashed, just like the JEWS.

  • @USAFreedomReform "Again your idea didn't come about until the mid 1800's." LOL That's what you said before, but when I ask for one - not ten, not five, but ONE - church father/early Christian who ever said "born of water" was anything other than water baptism, you were as silent as the tomb. They were unanimous on that point. I bet I can quote 20 who disagree with you on that verse alone. Alex Campbell, indeed!

  • @USAFreedomReform "you just can't see it, because you are brainwashed" Listen, anyone who tries to appear wise and say somberly, "Nothing you can do. All you have to do is ...." needs to quit pointing fingers - three point right back at you. An atheist could see that you are inconsistent, yet this viewpoint of hopping from "nothing" to "something" is the cornerstone of your theology.

  • @lllannallll 1Cr 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed:

    ---->and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost<------

    Do you say Jesus is Lord?

    I do so in order to know and believe that I have the Holy Ghost and if you can say that you have it too ! Amen !

  • @USAFreedomReform "I do so in order to know and believe that I have the Holy Ghost and if you can say that you have it too!" Haha! Whatta conclusion! Don't you think you coulda learned that by the WRITTEN WORD, without any miraculous Holy Ghost intervention. You think maybe "by the Holy Ghost" means the Spirit operating through the written or spoken word?

  • @USAFreedomReform "Do you say Jesus is Lord?" Yep, and, to you, that proves I have the baptism of the Holy Spirit. That's ridiculous. All that proves is that the Spirit led me, through the word, to have faith (which came by hearing - not by miracle) enough to say "Jesus is Lord." That's all that is; no miracle about it.

  • @lllannallll 1Cor 12:13 ---->For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body,<----

    whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

    So honestly, does water have a spirit. It says "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body", meaning we at the time we receive the Spirit baptism, we are baptized into the one body which is the CHURCH or bride of JESUS CHRIST !

  • @USAFreedomReform "It says "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body", meaning we at the time we receive the Spirit baptism" Umm... it doesn't say that - which is why you felt the need to "explain" it. Ok, this "baptism by one Spirit." Who is the administrator of it? The Spirit? And what is the element? The Spirit again? Sir, the administrator and the element can't be the SAME THING or PERSON. Explain it.

  • @lllannallll The JEWS had to have see a sign. Your Idea of PHYSICAL in your face baptism THAT YOU SEE AND FEEL is the same things Jesus was talking about when he said "those who believe without seeing are blessed".

    You have this touchy feely mentality and JUST BECAUSE YOU GOT WET DOES NOT MEAN YOU WERE EVER SAVED EITHER. You have no evidence of an inward change,because of the FRUIT YOU BEAR !!

    Mat 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me...

  • @USAFreedomReform "JUST BECAUSE YOU GOT WET DOES NOT MEAN YOU WERE EVER SAVED EITHER." I never claimed that it DID, so that's a false argument once again.

  • @USAFreedomReform "So how many other places did PAUL give his opinion but did not write it in." NONE! To do so would have been dishonest and misrepresentative on Paul's part. You mean you think Paul wrote some stuff that was his opinion, but implied by silence that it was from God? Surely not.

  • @USAFreedomReform USAFreedom: "All scripture was written by man." Paul: "All scripture is given by inspiration from God .. that the man of God may be perfect ... " Take note of the difference! And all you're doing is trying cast doubt on those sections of scripture that contradict your beliefs. That's why you have yet to offer any explanation of Acts 2: 38 or Acts 22: 16 - you can't afford to.

  • @lllannallll Do you even know how the books in the bible that we have in the KJV were decided on.

    We don't have all the writings because all of the writings are not in the KJV bible.

  • @lllannallll and man is capable of error,so if there are errors in scripture,they were put there for us to rightly divide the word of TRUTH from what is capable of being in error.

    Where does it say that everything written in scripture is all inspired by GOD, written by MEN.The only part that was ever written by GOD was the first tablets that GOD gave to Moses, and Moses had to go and loose his temper and broke those and had to go an carve out a stone another set.

  • @USAFreedomReform "Where does it say that everything written in scripture is all inspired by GOD, " Ummm ... II Tim 3: 15-17. Of course, somehow, you'll need to berate ... question .. detract from .. kind-of 'belittle' the accuracy and completeness of the Bible .. and why? To cast DOUBT on it. You do not DENY the Bible, per se: you DOWNGRADE it, by suggesting some of it is a human production and error-ridden. No wonder you do not answer questions.

  • @lllannallll We can't take a bible and set it before us, read it , and worship it as if it were a god.

    The Bible is physical, just like WATER, and neither should ever be put on a pedistal and worshipped as if a god.

    GOD said "You shall have no gods before the ONE TRUE LIVING GOD".

    Who do you worship, JESUS CHRIST or GOD?

    

  • @USAFreedomReform "The Bible is physical, just like WATER, and neither should ever be put on a pedistal and worshipped as if a god." I know of no group who WORSHIPS the Bible, and the plain truth is that you think the Spirit leads you SEPARATE and DISTINCT from the Bible. Certainly that is it! Deny it. So you'll take the Bible .. PLUS. You have an extra-added source of illumination, do you not?

  • @USAFreedomReform ""WHO DIED AND LEFT THE church of CHRIST in CHARGE?" <-- the question is flawed, and I perceive that you knew it. It's classic "bait and switch." Part 1 - "Who died?" I answered that. But you erroneously connect "left His church in charge" to it. There's no connection there at all. And left in charge of what? Preaching the gospel? You connect a fact with a vaguary.

  • @USAFreedomReform Actually, Jesus was NEVER in charge of the church while on earth: there was no church of Christ then. He left the apostles as His ambassadors, guided inerrantly by the Spirit. These apostles and others left us the written word, again inspired by the Spirit. Jesus is IN CHARGE from heaven, His Spirit is IN CHARGE - and they operate through the medium of the now-written word of God.  That should answer you.

  • @USAFreedomReform You can return the favor. Tell us a specific definition of "the church of Christ" including God's terms of entry into it. Are all saved people "the church of Christ"? And, if so, what specifically did they do to become such? Are infants saved or safe or what? How many baptisms are there today, one or two or fifty or what? Is any one of them (if you think there are more than one) necessary for entrance?

  • @USAFreedomReform

    Jesus did. 'nuff said.

  • Mmmm, can you feel the Calvinist love flowing forth here? So many want to be saved "like the thief on the cross", yet they don't bring a cross to church to be crucified on. The only way to be saved like a thief (violent robber) on the cross is to be crucified and then hope Christ grants you a special pardon. Baptism for salvation is the easier way. Christ was baptized to "fulfill all righteousness" but too many think they are better than Christ, they'll find their own way.

  • @JoeZyzyx Sir, the Son of God called the heretical Pharisees "blind guides", "fools", "children of Hell", and "liars" (Mt. 23:15-17, Jn. 8:55); I follow His example when I rebuke Gospel-attackers like "lllannallll". You have NO IDEA how much this woman hates the Gospel, sir; I have battled her on here for over a year now, and she continues to attack the truth and to accuse God's people falsely. Jude 3 (KJV): "Ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."

  • @Calvinist007

    There are other verses maybe more appropriate. Such as shaking the dust off your feet and leaving them behind. Proverbs offers option to not answer a fool according to their folly. Even Paul told Timothy to avoid wasting time on contentious people. We are called to peace, don't be pulled into the self formed hell such others create for themselves and anyone they can drag into it with them. You never need The Last Word, since you have The Word, leave them to be last.

  • @JoeZyzyx Sir, thank you for your comments; I intend to consider them seriously. God bless you.

  • baptism is used to save people says so in book of john

  • Comment removed

  • The thing I don't like about the churches of christ is that they seem to think they are they only true church. I believe in a God that will save others despite whether they got "baptized' under coc doctrine. To condemn honest God-fearing men and women who may be Lutheran, Baptist, or whatever, because of a possible mistake in interpretation is blasphemy. I believe water baptism is purely a symbolic act, an outward expression of your faith. "one true church" is bogus.

  • @MeLlamoBradly agreed. Condemning people sincerely trying to live for God in other denominations just because they are in other denominations is just totally wrong.

  • @Calvinist007 - The quote by Ireneaus states that man has free choice to follow God or Not , the message isnt changed by who he wrote for.

    @Bobsblues Again, HISTORICAL IGNORAMUS, in your quote Irenaeus is refuting GNOSTICISM, the great heresy of his day; what else did he write? "No doubt, if any one is unwilling to follow the Gospel itself, it is in his power [to reject it], but it is not expedient. For it is in man's power to disobey God, and to forfeit what is good;

  • "It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being Baptized, but [it served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: “Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

    [ Irenaeus ]

  • The Above quote proves that Ireneaus believed that a person is BORN AGAIN IN BAPTISM. STOP YOUR LYING

    Calvinist007 (4 hours ago)

    @Bobsblues Wrong, LIAR; here's Irenaeus: "He came to save all, all, I say, who through Him are born again unto God,

  • @Calvinist007- BLIND DECIEVER - WHO he wrote this to does not change the message - He states that FREE WILL IS maintained

    @Bobsblues Again, HISTORICAL IGNORAMUS, in your quote Irenaeus is refuting GNOSTICISM, the great heresy of his day; what else did he write? "No doubt, if any one is unwilling to follow the Gospel itself, it is in his power [to reject it], but it is not expedient. For it is in man's power to disobey God, and to forfeit what is good;

  • @Bobsblues No, HISTORICAL IGNORAMUS, it makes ALL the difference; the Gnostics denied that man was ACCOUNTABLE for his actions, that "fate made me do it". Irenaeus is refuting GNOSTICISM; he is NOT denying predestination. Irenaeus (A.D. 198): "God hath completed the number which He before determined with Himself, all those who are written, or ordained unto eternal life...Being predestined indeed according to the love of the Father that we would belong to Him forever." YOU LOSE. God be praised.

  • @Calvinist007 - Born Again occurs in Baptism , and this quote reaffirms his belief that those who ARE saved obtained it by being born again in Baptism. Limited attonement ?? Baloney ! He just told you being saved or not is by free choice.

    @Bobsblues Irenaeus (A.D. 180): "He came to save all, all, I say, who through Him are born again unto God, infants, ...

  • @Bobsblues Wrong, LIAR; here's Irenaeus: "He came to save all, all, I say, who through Him are born again unto God, infants, and little ones, and children, and young men, and old men...Jesus is the Savior of them that believe; but the Lord of them that believe not. Wherefore, Christ is introduced in the gospel weary...promising to give His life a ransom, in the room of, many." This man believed in salvation by grace through FAITH; do you see that? YOU LOSE. AGAIN. AS ALWAYS. God be praised.

  • @ calvinist007 - Ireneaus maintains that man has free will and that ALL are made in like condition. He states that mans obedience is by his own consent and choice. This trashes Calvinism.

    ".... and as, [also] agreeably TO THEIR OWN CHOICE , the disobedient DO NOT CONSENT TO HIS DOCTRINE ; it is manifest that His Father has made all in a like condition, EACH PERSON HAVING A CHOICE OF HIS OWN , and a free understanding;... "

    { Ireneaus }

  • @Bobsblues Again, HISTORICAL IGNORAMUS, in your quote Irenaeus is refuting GNOSTICISM, the great heresy of his day; what else did he write? "No doubt, if any one is unwilling to follow the Gospel itself, it is in his power [to reject it], but it is not expedient. For it is in man's power to disobey God, and to forfeit what is good; but [such conduct] brings no small amount of injury and mischief."--"Against Heresies", IV, 37, 4 The Gnostics denied that man was responsible for his actions.

  • @Calvinist007 - Observe what Ireneaus has said in this quote, that the Son comes to ALL ! Another refute to the error of Calvinism .

    " If then the advent of the Son COMES INDEED ALIKE TO ALL, but is for the purpose of judging, and separating the believing from the unbelieving, ...."

    {Ireneaus }

  • @Bobsblues Irenaeus (A.D. 180): "He came to save all, all, I say, who through Him are born again unto God, infants, and little ones, and children, and young men, and old men...Jesus is the Savior of them that believe; but the Lord of them that believe not. Wherefore, Christ is introduced in the gospel weary...promising to give His life a ransom, in the room of, many." This dear man affirmed limited (or, specific) atonement here. YOU LOSE. YET AGAIN. AS ALWAYS. Give it up, HERETIC.

  • @Calvinist007 - The Quote hasnt proven anything ? It certainly does as it proves again that Ireneaus believed that free choice is maintained in man, contrary to Calvins bologny.

    But on as many as, according to THEIR OWN CHOICE, DEPART FROM GOD, He inflicts that separation from Himself WHICH THEY HAVE CHOSE OF THEIR OWN ACCORD.." { Ireneaus }

  • @Bobsblues Wrong, HISTORICAL IGNORAMUS; Irenaeus is refuting GNOSTIC FATALISM in that quote, that man is accountable before a holy God for his actions, that he cannot blame his sin on fate. Irenaeus (A.D. 198): "God hath completed the number which He before determined with Himself, all those who are written, or ordained unto eternal life...Being predestined indeed according to the love of the Father that we would belong to Him forever." YOU LOSE. ONCE AGAIN. AS ALWAYS. Give it up, HERETIC.

  • @ Calvinist007 - Another part of Ireneaus quote - " If then the advent of the Son COMES INDEED ALIKE TO ALL, but is for the purpose of judging, and separating the believing from the unbelieving, since, as those who believe DO HIS WILL agreeably TO THEIR OWN CHOICE , and as, [also] agreeably TO THEIR OWN CHOICE , the disobedient DO NOT CONSENT TO HIS DOCTRINE ; it is manifest that His Father has made all in a like condition, EACH PERSON HAVING A CHOICE OF HIS OWN , and a free understanding;... "

  • @Bobsblues Again, Irenaeus is refuting GNOSTICISM, FATALISM, the great heresy of his day. Again, man has a will; however, it is enslaved to his own sin. What saith the Scriptures? Jn. 3:27, 5:40, 6:44 (YLT): 'A man is not able to receive anything, if it may not have been given him from the heaven; Ye do not will to come unto me, that ye may have life. No one is able to come unto me, if the Father who sent me may not draw him....' Man's will is EVIL because HE is EVIL, a GUILTY SINNER.

  • @Calvinist007 " Again, man has a will; however, it is enslaved to his own sin." Really? I thought it was "enslaved" by Adam's sin - not his own. So you teach man has a will? Well, evidently he has no choice in exercising that will, eh? "No one is able to come unto me, if the Father who sent me may not draw him...." <-- that proves nothing for your case, because ALL say that God draws sinners, and the question is HOW? I'll tell you: through the WRITTEN or SPOKEN WORD.

  • Another part of that chapter from Ireneaus that shows what Heresy Calvinism is - ".. And to as many as CONTINUE in their love towards God, does He grant communion with Him. But communion with God is life and light, and the enjoyment of all the benefits which He has in store. But on as many as, according to THEIR OWN CHOICE, DEPART FROM GOD, He inflicts that separation from Himself WHICH THEY HAVE CHOSE OF THEIR OWN ACCORD.." { Ireneaus }

  • @Bobsblues You have not proven anything from that quote from Irenaeus; he may have meant that those folks never were saved in the first place, which is scriptural. Yes, man has a will; however, it is enslaved to his own sin. What saith the Scriptures? Jn. 5:40, 6:44, 6:65 (YLT): 'Ye do not will to come unto me, that ye may have life. No one is able to come unto me, if the Father who sent me may not draw him.... No one is able to come unto me, if it may not have been given him from my Father.'

  • Is he trying to say that Acts 2:38 is talking on to a select few based on the grammar. Lawd today.

  • @Calvinist007 - When the part of the quote you REMOVED , is restored, What Ireneaus has told us in the following statement is quite plain, that no one can have salvation without Jesus , and if you depart from Him there is no way for you to obtain your own salvation. " For He did not set us free for this purpose, that we should depart from Him (no one, indeed, while placed out of reach of the Lord’s benefits, has power to procure for himself the means of salvation),.. "

    { Ireneaus }

  • @Bobsblues Here's Irenaeus: '...the Lord declared, “He that believes in Me is not condemned,” John 3:18-21 that is, is not separated from God, for he is united to God through faith. On the other hand, He says, “He that believes not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God;” that is, he separated himself from God of his own accord.'--"Against Heresies", V, 27 This man believed in salvation by grace through FAITH. YOU LOSE. ONCE AGAIN.

  • @Calvinist007 - What was my point in pointing out WHAT you REMOVE from peoples quotes ? That you are distorting the meaning of a persons quote by intentionaly removing part of a quote that stands in opposition to your heretical calvinist doctrine. In this case you removed the following " For He did not set us free for this purpose, that we should depart from Him " DEPART from Him is a rather inconvenient statement for a doctrine that believes That to be impossible.

  • @Bobsblues You LYING HERETIC, you FALSE PROPHET who preaches a FALSE, WORKS-BASED GOSPEL of baptismal regeneration, here's Justin Martyr: '...this was that saving bath of the olden time which followed s those who repented, and who no longer were purified by the blood of goats and of sheep, or by the ashes of an heifer, or by the offerings of fine flour, but by faith through the blood of Christ, and through His death....'--"Dialogue with Trypho", ch. 13  This man believed in salvation by FAITH.

  • @Calvinist007 - Some more parts of Ireneaus quote that you CUT OUT ,and DONT SHOW , in your attempt to once again alter the meaning of a writers quote : "......For He did not set us free for this purpose, that we should depart from Him (no one, indeed, while placed out of reach of the Lord’s benefits, has power to procure for himself the means of salvation), but that the more we receive His grace, the more we should love Him.

  • @Bobsblues First of all, "to once again alter" is a split infinitive, a grammatical violation. Secondly, what is your point? Irenaeus wrote, "Those, therefore, who cast away by apostasy these forementioned things, being in fact destitute of all good, do experience every kind of punishment. God, however, does not punish them immediately of Himself, but that punishment falls upon them because they are destitute of all that is good."--"Against Heresies", V, 27, 2 He affirmed TOTAL DEPRAVITY.

  • BORN AGAIN  "It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being Baptized, but [it served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: “Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

    [ Irenaeus ]

  • @Bobsblues Irenaeus: '...(no one, indeed, while placed out of reach of the Lord's benefits, has power to procure for himself the means of salvation), but that the more we receive His grace, the more we should love Him.' '...the Lord declared, “He that believes in Me is not condemned,” John 3:18-21 that is, is not separated from God, for he is united to God through FAITH [em.mine].'--"Against Heresies", Bks. IV & V, chs. 13, 27 This man believed in salvation by FAITH. YOU LOSE. ONCE AGAIN.

  • @Calvinist007 - In case you didnt notice ,the quote you just supplied says - ALL , WHO THROUGH HIM ARE BORN AGAIN" , BORN AGAIN occurs in Baptism, so this quote fully supports Ireneaus other quotes perfectly .

    @Bobsblues Irenaeus (A.D. 180): "He came to save all, all, I say, who through Him are born again unto God, infants, and little ones, and children, and young men, and old men.....his comments on water baptism are to be taken with these statements, LIAR.

  • @Bobsblues No, you LYING HERETIC, here's Irenaeus: '...(no one, indeed, while placed out of reach of the Lord's benefits, has power to procure for himself the means of salvation), but that the more we receive His grace, the more we should love Him.' '...the Lord declared, “He that believes in Me is not condemned,” John 3:18-21 that is, is not separated from God, for he is united to God through FAITH [em.mine].'--"Against Heresies", Bks. IV & V, chs. 13, 27 YOU LOSE. AGAIN. AND AGAIN.

  • @lllannallll Here's A.T. Robertson on I Pet. 3:20, LIAR: 'Through water (di udato). "By means of water" as the intermediate agent, an apparent change in the use of dia in composition just before (local use) to the instrumental use here. They came through the water in the ark and so were saved by the water in spite of the flood around them. Peter lays stress (Hart) on the water rather than on the ark ( Hebrews 11:7 ) for the sake of the following illustration.'--"Word Pictures" Why, YOU LOSE.

  • @Calvinist007 "Here's A.T. Robertson on I Pet. 3:20, LIAR: 'Through water (di udato). "By means of water" OF COURSE. So insert A. T. Robertsons's CORRECT grammatical meaning of "di udato" into the NASB: " ... were brought safely through 'by means of water." YOU SEE? And what was Robertson's commentary? "Peter lays stress on the WATER" and ".... so were saved BY THE WATER." Yet the NASB simply says "were brought through THE WATER." That's WRONG - according to Robertson.

  • @lllannallll No, Dr. Robertson is backing up the NASB, ESV, and CEV translations, that the water was the means of DEATH to them, NOT that it was the means of their salvation. Do you understand anything of how to read Greek scholarship, ya UNEDUCATED DUMMY? Either get an education or SHUT UP.

  • @Calvinist007 "No, Dr. Robertson is backing up the NASB, ESV, and CEV translations, that the water was the means of DEATH to them" Oh, what did ROBERTSON say that "di udato" means? TELL US! Does it simply mean "THE WATER" (as the NASB) says or does it mean "BY or THROUGH WATER" as the KJV/ASV render it? You be sure and answer it, and when you do, you'll see that the ASV/KJV are CORRECT, and the NASB is WRONG.

  • @lllannallll Oh, Here's A.T. Robertson on I Pet. 3:20, LIAR: 'Through water (di udato). "By means of water" as the intermediate agent, an apparent change in the use of dia in composition just before (local use) to the instrumental use here. They came through the water in the ark and so were saved by the water in spite of the flood around them. Peter lays stress (Hart) on the water rather than on the ark ( Hebrews 11:7) for the sake of the following illustration.'--"Word Pictures" Why, YOU LOSE.

  • @Calvinist007 Oh, what did ROBERTSON say that "di udato" means? TELL US! Does it simply mean "THE WATER" (as the NASB) says or does it mean "BY or THROUGH WATER" as the KJV/ASV render it? I could care less about your rhetoric. You were asked those questions -ANSWER THEM!

  • @lllannallll Oh, Dr. Robertson speaks for himself on I Pet. 3:20, LIAR: 'Through water (di udato). "By means of water" as the intermediate agent, an apparent change in the use of dia in composition just before (local use) to the instrumental use here. They came through the water in the ark and so were saved by the water in spite of the flood around them. Peter lays stress (Hart) on the water rather than on the ark (Hebrews 11:7) for the sake of the following illustration.'--"Word Pictures"

  • @lllannallll I Pet. 3:20 (J.B. Rotherham Emphasized Bible): 'Spirits unyielding at one time, when the longsuffering of God was holding forth a welcome in the days of Noah, there being in preparation an ark - going into which, a few, that is eight, souls, were brought safely through by means of water.'

  • @Calvinist007 Hey, HERETIC - will you accept Robertson's rendering of "di udato"? He said it is translated "by means of water"! YES OR NO! You like to copy and paste, so COPY and PASTE "by means of water" into the NASB. Sooooo .... watch the RETARD never say "yes" or "no": Do you accept Robertson's rendering "by means of water" for "di udato"? He won't ever say "yes" or "no". Poor lil boy.

  • @lllannallll Hey, HERETIC--will you read Dr. Robertson's comments again? 'Through water (di udato). "By means of water" as the intermediate agent, an apparent change in the use of dia in composition just before (local use) to the instrumental use here. They came through the water in the ark and so were saved by the water in spite of the flood around them. Peter lays stress (Hart) on the water rather than on the ark (Hebrews 11:7) for the sake of the following illustration.'--"Word Pictures"

  • @Calvinist007 "Hey, HERETIC--will you read Dr. Robertson's comments again?" I read them: "through water (di udato). I'm interested in his GREEK scholarship, not his theological comments. He says "Peter lays stress on the water." Well, yeah, he does! Where do YOU lay stress? ANYWHERE BUT the water! I asked if you'll merely ACCEPT Robertson as a GRAMMARIAN? "Through water (di adato)" If you DO, then the NASB is WRONG.

  • @lllannallll 'Through water (di udato). "By means of water" as the intermediate agent, an apparent change in the use of dia in composition just before (local use) to the instrumental use here. They came through the water in the ark and so were saved by the water in spite of the flood around them. Peter lays stress (Hart) on the water rather than on the ark (Hebrews 11:7) for the sake of the following illustration.'--Dr. A.T. Robertson, "Word Pictures", I Pet. 3:20

  • @Calvinist007 "Wanna see how three modern translations, two of them LEADING translations, render I Pet. 3:20, LIAR?" Why, I KNEW how those two rendered it - you wasted your time doing your usual "copy and paste" Remember, I asked you WHY someone would REFUSE to translate "di" and arbitrarily INSERT an article (the) which IS NOT THERE, and when the smoke clears, you NEVER ANSWERED - as usual.

  • @lllannallll Woman, you are in NO POSITION to challenge the grammatical opinions of ANY qualified Bible translator, and neither am I. Three translations DESTROY your Campbellite HERESY, plain and simple. Dr. Robertson is backing up the NASB, ESV, and CEV translations, that the water was the means of DEATH to them, NOT that it was the means of their salvation. Do you understand anything of how to read Greek scholarship, ya UNEDUCATED DUMMY? Either get an education or SHUT UP. Why, YOU LOSE; LOL!

  • @Calvinist007 " Woman, you are in NO POSITION to challenge the grammatical opinions of ANY qualified Bible translator, and neither am I. " <-- You're WRONG on that one, you heretical retard. The ASV and the NASB cannot BOTH be right in this case, and guess what? The NASB is the one that's WRONG. What was it Robertson said "di udato" means? He was VERY CLEAR on that. Robertson is AGAINST the NASB on I Pet 3: 20. Anyway, quit SPEWING and answer that question.

  • @lllannallll No, YOU are WRONG, ya HERETICAL RETARD; if you can't read the language, you are in NO POSITION AT ALL to challenge Greek grammatical opinions. I Pet. 3:20 (J.B. Rotherham Emphasized Bible): 'Spirits unyielding at one time, when the longsuffering of God was holding forth a welcome in the days of Noah, there being in preparation an ark - going into which, a few, that is eight, souls, were brought safely through by means of water.' Why, YOU LOSE; LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!­!!!!!!!

  • @Calvinist007 You: "(J.B. Rotherham Emphasized Bible): 'Spirits unyielding at one time, when the longsuffering of God was holding forth a welcome in the days of Noah, there being in preparation an ark - going into which, a few, that is eight, souls, were brought safely through by means of water." <-- STILL can't believe you were DUMB enough to quote one of MANY translations which disagree with you. Rotherman's doesn't say "brought through the water" or anything akin to it. You're 0-7.

  • @lllannallll Why, again, ya DUMMY, either learn how to read Greek scholarship or SHUT YOUR LYING FACE. Why, here's Robertson on I Pet. 3:20: 'Through water (di udato). "By means of water" as the intermediate agent, an apparent change in the use of dia in composition just before (local use) to the instrumental use here. They came through the water in the ark and so were saved by the water in spite of the flood around them.' Why, Vine says it means "through the Flood". Why, YOU LOSE; LOLOL!!!!!!