Advanced Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Alimantado

  • Rank
    Super Contributor

Profile Information

  • Gender Male
  • Are you IFB? No
  1. Why Did Paul Say to Follow Him?

    Gotta say, John, the last few weeks on here have felt like an eye-opener. Though the eschatology wars have been difficult to watch, there have always been eschatology debates/discussions on OB. But when it came to soteriology, I had always throught that folk on here--and IFBs in general--were united in believing that salvation is and always has been by grace through faith alone. Multiple threads and posts proclaiming works salvation--be it for times past or times future--with relative silence from forum regulars who have traditionally been quick and rigorous in defending OB's stance on free will and end times doctrines is something I never expected to see. But it might just be because we are down to about a dozen regular posters.
  2. Conclusion to my post on other thread

    You know, I thought you were gonna say " I had lots of time to stand around and discuss theology."
  3. Conclusion to my post on other thread

    Person A: "This entrance to this building here--is it the only way in?" Person B: "Yes, it is the only entrance to the building." Person A: "Oh, so the building has just one entrance." Person B: "Yes, this one and the entrance to the side." Person A: "So this isn't the only entrance?" Person B: "No, no. This is the one and only entrance. But in addition to this one and only entrance, there is an entrance to the side." Person A: "But if there is an entrance to the side, how can this be the one and only entrance??" Person B: "Because it is the one and only entrance. It's just that there is also an entrance to the side." Etc. etc.
  4. Conclusion to my post on other thread

    Ronda, it isn't that it doesn't matter. Pastor Markle has explained why he hasn't discussed your references so far. The reason is that to discuss in detail whether he (or anyone) thinks your position is true, he (or anyone) first needs to know what your position is. Now on the one hand you say this: "SALVATION BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST is the GOSPEL, the ONE and the ONLY GOSPEL." (Emphasis is yours.) So if there is a "one and only gospel" then by definition that gospel must be the only true gospel that has ever existed for anyone, anywhere, ever. That's what "the one and the only" means in English. But on the other hand you say that there has been more than one gospel. You say that in the past Peter (for example) preached a Gospel that wasn't grace through faith alone. It may have included faith, but it wasn't faith alone. And that to at least some of his hearers it was true: to be saved they needed to get baptised. So you are saying two things at once: --there has only ever been one gospel; --there has been more than one gospel. Those are mutually exclusive positions that can't both be true at once. If you think Peter taught a different gospel to Paul and you have your reasons why then that's great--it's something that can be discussed. But it can't be discussed if you simultaneously say that there has only ever been one gospel.
  5. Conclusion to my post on other thread

    My point, Ronda, is that sometimes you have claimed that by adding things to grace, Peter (and others) by definition taught a different Gospel, and other times you have claimed that actually they were teaching the same gospel. Both claims can't be true at once. You've just said that Peter added works to the gospel of grace. To clarify your beliefs for my sake, I wonder whether you'd be willing to answer the following questions very clearly and very simply: 1. Do you believe that at some point in man's history, it has been necessary for some people to be baptised in water in order to be saved? 2. Do you believe that by adding works to the gospel of grace, the complete message that Peter taught was a different gospel to the gospel that Paul was teaching? Like I said before, it's right to bring forth scriptures and point out what we think they say, but I believe we should also be able to go from there to state in our own simple terms what our beliefs are, like a church's statement of faith.
  6. Conclusion to my post on other thread

    I don't understand how a gospel with stuff added to it could be called the same gospel. A few days ago you were calling them separate gospels yourself, Ronda: "If words mean anything (and I revere the words of the Bible as being God's Word), Peter and Paul preached two separate Gospels."
  7. Conclusion to my post on other thread

    Oh no, this isn't that guy again who wants us to read a part of scripture 28 times before he leads us on a Bible study is it?  
  8. Conclusion to my post on other thread

    Ronda, I've been reading your posts and I've also been thinking that you've been trying to say that Paul and Peter taught two different ways of being saved. Here's a few examples of comments of yours that have made me think that's what you're saying: "Obviously, these are not the same message. Peter told people to repent and then get water baptized, so they could receive forgiveness of sins and receive the Holy Spirit. Yet, Paul simply taught that salvation comes by 'believing on'  the Lord Jesus Christ, without preaching water baptism or repentance. I believe all of the Bible should be taken literally as far as we can. If words mean anything (and I revere the words of the Bible as being God's Word), Peter and Paul preached two separate Gospels." "I contend that Peter continued to preach water baptism as a contingency of salvation - to Peter's audience. Whereas Paul taught baptism of the Holy Ghost (when we accept Christ as Lord and savior) to his audience." "Our salvation (for us in this age of grace) is NOT contingent upon water baptism. We are baptized with the Holy Spirit when we accept Christ as our Lord and Savior." With these statements you appear to be saying that some people cannot be saved without being baptised in water and some other people can be saved without being baptised in water (though once saved these other people will desire to be baptised in water--r.e. Wretched's point with John81). If that's what you're saying, I wouldn't call it the same gospel with two presentations. If it's not what you're saying, then you have my apologies for misunderstanding but in fairness I think you've been a little unclear. Now at this point you could reply back to me with something along the lines of "well these aren't my words but Paul's and Peter's", and "I'm just presenting scripture". Those would be true statements but I don't think saying them would help confused folk like me. If we say "Peter taught X", and we believe Peter is teaching the truth, we should also be able to say "X is true". For example, Paul taught that Christ died and rose again and I'm happy to say that Paul taught this. I'm just as happy to make the simple, direct statement that I believe Christ died and rose again. I think it would be helpful for clarity's sake if you could confirm very simply whether you believe it's true that for certain people, now or in the past, it has been impossible for individuals to be saved without being baptised in water. That would help me anyway!
  9. The Great Commission, Pentecost, and Paul's Meeting with the Apostles

    A thing I want to say first is that I think Ronda, Pastor Markle, NN and others are giving wonderful examples of the principle of earnest Bible study--something I do far too little of. Is this direct, personal interaction the only way that the Holy Spirit causes us to rightly divide, I wonder? Does the Holy Spirit also put people in our path--a pastor's sermon, a discussion on an internet forum, a church Bible study etc? If He doesn't, are those things therefore redundant and worse a distraction? Is it only ever the Holy Spirit and I? That's an open question, since I know a lot of people who would say yes.
  10. Any Interest in a Forum Bible Study

    Pastor Markle--yes please! And as a consistent observer. And I might suggest some sort of passage about how, as believers, we interact with a local church. But equally I'd be happy for it to be about some other topic/passage that we haven't much discussed on the forum of late and I see there have been suggestions already.
  11. The Widow's Mites

    I feel I've mostly been pointing out flaws I perceive in a position you hold, not you as a person, though I admit in the last post I did criticise you personally for apparently not reading my posts. I also admit I've been unkind to others in the past: GenevanPreacher, Candlelight and others. Still, if you scroll up you'll see a fair proportion of your comments are directed at me personally: mocking comments like calling me a 'sharpshooter' and now comparing me with flies, and focusing on whether I contribute enough to particular discussions. Looks like we're all at it, eh? Perhaps this forum brings out the worst in me now that most folk have left and there's little remaining to contribute to except a couple of perpetual theological topics I don't know much about--maybe after 8 years, it's time to prayerfully seek fellowship elsewhere.
  12. The Widow's Mites

    I don't know enough about Eschatology or Dispensationalism to contribute (and in any case I think you demonstrate that you don't read peoples' posts). Back in the day when this forum used to be about more than just those two topics, I used to get involved in more conversations. But I do read some of these threads and sometimes I come across your "all Christian authors are after the money and no-one should read any books except the Bible" doctrine, which you dish out no matter the topic, and sometimes when you do it I feel like commenting.
  13. The Widow's Mites

    The last time I remember bringing up an anecdote on this forum was when I shared my testimony several months ago--are you referring to something else? The point I was making was, Invicta made a series of assertions about recent history--as an aside to his claims about scripture--and you specifically referred to and rubbished those on the grounds that Invicta must have got the information from a book. That puts you in the absurd position of having to reject all knowledge that doesn't come from the Bible or personal experience, not just doctrinal claims. I agree that men have their own agendas and biases. But I don't believe this bias is necessarily more apparent in their printed works than it is in their spoken words or even what they type on an internet forum--that magical distinction is a claim of yours that I've yet to see you back up. When it comes to doctrinal claims, I'd be interested to know whether you think that when someone says something on here that you agree with, that those same statements would become untrue were they to print them in a book. Because there are folk on here whose posts you've 'liked' or otherwise applauded who do author books on scripture.
  14. The Widow's Mites

    Was he born in the 1940s, though, OFP? According to Wretched, unless you can find it written in the Bible that Invicta was born in the 1940s then you need to throw that information out, as it written by a 'muttonhead', even if it was Invicta himself. Ditto with the Gregorian calendar you just used to specify the date. Here's the most ludicrous thing about what Wretched has just said: Invicta was just speaking about what he believes to be the history of a teaching. He didn't attempt to speak about the Biblical basis or non-basis for it, just its history. Maybe Invicta is right, maybe he's wrong, maybe it's relevant, maybe it's irrelevent, but he was talking about history. Now Wretched attacks him for getting his supposed historical info from another person, i.e. not from scripture and not from his own personal experience. Do you see where that logic leads us? According to Wretched, we need to reject all history--or facts even--that we haven't experienced for ourselves or read about in the Bible. So this means we need to reject that the American civil war happened, and the list of former presidents etc. On another thread, Wretched 'liked' a post where Ronda speaks of Martin Luther's views on the authorship of Hebrews. Yet according to Wretched, we can't even say that Martin Luther existed. And once again, we have Wretched calling everything that anyone else writes the view of a 'muttonhead' and appealing to us not to read anything except the Bible, while at the same time he writes reams of stuff himself on this forum with the expectation that others will read, believe and follow it.