SteveR wrote: Again with the Allan diversion? You, John and very Unprofitable Servant are in such darkness, you cant understand the very simple argument raised by Mr b. Mr b's argument isnt whether Catholics are saved or not, his argument is why does this message board(or perhaps Christians in general) have an insatiable appetite to attack people who are professing Christians instead of uniting against the great forces of evil coming against Christians in 2013. (My reply was that you are the ignorant allies of evil that cant help themselves to which your responses validate) This small ray of light noted by Mr b has thrown you, Johnuk and Unprofitable Servant scurrying for the dark corners of past message board arguments for cover
Hey Allan, you cannot fool everyone all of the time.
Sure the RCC is a false church and the whore. The fact that you love the whore exposes you as a false believer, trying to seduce true believers.
Mark 13:22 ..false prophets shall rise, and ... seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: SteveR, You know there are Christians in the RCC because they follow the commandments of God (I John 2:6), maybe because they hate every false way (Psalm 119:104), or could it be due to the fact that they have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness (Ephesians 5:11)could be it they are still there because they love the praise of men more than the praise of God (John 12:43) or they realize what fellowship has God with idols and are yoked together in their services with unbelievers and they have a part of a believer with an unbeliever but they don't have to come out from among them (I Corinthians 6:14-17) Maybe it is the forbidding to marry and abstaining from meats and the previous verses that describe them (I Timothy 4:1-3) Oh but what about people in all denominations, maybe you need to reread the parable of the tares and the wheat (Matthew 13:24-30) People may indeed be saved while they are a member of the RCC, but the proof in the pudding is they come out from it and its heretical teachings. If you have an issue with that then your argument is with the above Scriptures, take it up with the Author.
GREAT post US.
Don't expect Allan to be touched by the Word of God!
KJVer wrote: The issue here is not just the translation. If it were merely to update archaic English, then the matter can be resolved very easily. The issue against the "multi-versionists only" is the underlying texts. They will go to any lengths to discredit the Byzantine text family of which the TR is part. So what it boils down to is whether you believe that God has preserved the original text in the "Ecclesiastical Text" which formed the basis of the KJV and all previous translations, or whether you believe the current notion of preservation viz. that this is in the total number of manuscripts available and that the exact text preserved can only be deciphered by the "scholars"! Michael H - you should remember that both Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were in the hands of the RCC!! These are the 2 most problematic texts because they differ so widely from the rest, and yet these are the codices upon which the majority of modern versions are based!!
'AS MY WEBSITE, THAT'S BEEN ON THE INTERNET & CYBERSPACE SINCE THE 2002 ELECTION YEAR (http://www.lopez-cisnerosin2002.0catch.com), HAS ALSO BEEN REMOVED BY THE SATANIC-VATICANIST & ROMAN "CATHOLIC" CULTIC "JESUITS" & "JESUITICS": WHO MANIPULATE, OBSTRUCT, HINDER & COVERTLY "CONTROL" THE INTERNET, WORLD-WIDE-"WEB" & CYBERSPACE !'
(Continuation of Last Posted Comment)
(---- blank ----)
Maybe the satanic-vaticanist jesuit agents got Tony Lopez-Cisneros before he finished his post
'How is a person expected to know whether a Christian is "True" or "False" if they all spout the same hatred and intolerance?'
This sounds like a typical response from a homosexual when challenged with scripture BECAUSE the Bible exposes his sin as an abomination. Now interestingly I know several former homosexuals and a lesbian who had that exact opinion-chrstians are intolerant hypocrites filled with hatred-yet it was the very same christians who loved them enough to witness the gospel. Now that they no longer practise their chosen abomination they are the ones who the pink community can no longer tolerate and hate with venom! They have simply become enemies because they tell the truth and yes they evidence changed lives, but not perfection.
Read I John 1: 5-10. Those born again (John 3) still sin, but notice they belong to the red community-the BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST 'cleanseth' present tense.
Without God's Spirit you can not see spiritual truth-hence to you Jesus is not God the Son. Without Christ's blood you are a lost soul sunk in sin.
You are correct read Matthew 7: 16-22 and 23: 13-33
Here is a most important question: What think you of Christ?
It pointless you giving examples of folk who we do not know and who cannot defend themselves.
All who are TRUE Christians do know the the Lord Jesus Christ and most are readily set for the defence of the gospel, yet I don't believe you really need our input.
The problem is that most athiests claim to have a knowledge of the bible but few have studied the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ-many just simply google the well worn and refuted athiest arguments-yet the answers to any honest questions are readily available
Can I kindly suggest you go and intently study first the person and work of Christ in the gospels with the aim of honestly answering the question:
'What think you of Christ?'
Then I am sure you will have some very profound and interesting personal observations in reaching an honest conclusion, God be pleased to bless such an honest study
Is there not a FPCofUlster near you? They are everything you seem to desire-and have a good unity where men differ on baptism-so Ryle and Spurgeon sit side by side
'We have no time for a dead, intellectual Calvinism that refuses to offer Christ freely to sinners with the assurance that â€śwhosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be savedâ€ť (Rom. 10:13). Some of the greatest revival preachers in history have been strong asserters of Godâ€™s sovereignty in salvation, men like John Bunyan, Jonathan Edwards, Asahel Nettleton, George Whitefield, Robert Murray McCheyne, and Charles Haddon Spurgeon.' http://www.fpcna.org/fpcna_about_sep.asp?chapter=sep_sovereign
'In its evangelism, the Free Presbyterian Church has always taken its stand for the free offer of the gospel and has never seen the doctrines of election and particular redemption as taught in Scripture and as set forth in the Westminster Confession of Faith as any barrier to this position. It has sought to keep its Calvinistic theology Christ-centered.
Throughout its history, the Free Presbyterian Church has given itself to prayer and has made its progress on its knees.'
'J Gresham Machen, when asked why he did not call himself a fundamentalist, though he was a hero to many fundamentalists, responded to the effect that fundamentalism was too small a ledge to stand upon as the waves of modernity swept over the shores of America. He stood for full-blooded, confessional Protestantism of the Westminster type'
To quote above John's GOOD READ.
Looking at the Pastors/Ministers on the TBS Commitee you'll find those Westminister types above and also Reformed Baptists. These Reformed Baptists are also full blooded PROTESTANTS. Interestingly in the UK these are the ministries God uses/is using
Maybe there is something to note here?
The throwing off of PROTESTANT distinctives? The last uk revival would be Ian Paisley and the FPC of Ulster...interestingly returning to PROTESTANT DISTINTIVES including 'evangelising the lost' and God blessed such
pew view wrote: .....This whole discussion commenced with John delivering the heresy that Justification needs to be supported by human works.......
PV Can you point me to where John UK said that "justification needs to supported by human works.." and if he did say that (something that seems vague to me) what do you understand by it?
Incidentally would you care to argue with James when he wrote:
"Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?" Jas 2.21
"Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." Jas 2.24
"Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way" Jas 2.25
Or do you suppose that he was also talking (even though he was under inspiration of the Holy Spirit) a load of codswallop! said SC
AS far as I read John UK his understanding of doctrine seems to be similar to Spurgeon-this I noticed after his posts some weeks ago. Maybe if you reread all his posts and those of SC you might see what others seem to see
Mike wrote: 1 John 2:2 "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world" Who is the "ours only" referring to? Who is "the whole world" referring to? If they mean the same thing, the verse wouldn't make much sense.' said Mike
Have a read of Luke 2: 1 and notice 'all the world'...then research and find out if the WHOLE WORLD-EVERY INDIVIDUAL was taxed. SC makes a good comment