Alimantado

Advanced Member
  • Content count

    1,800
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Alimantado

  • Rank
    Super Contributor

Profile Information

  • Gender Male
  • Are you IFB? No
  1. My brother David

    That is true, John!
  2. My brother David

    That's unfortunate, then, because the action was deceptive (circumventing a ban by creating a new account) even though the motive wasn't. I would have asked the forum admin what I could do to have the ban overturned, and then I would have respected the outcome of that discussion.
  3. From old England

    Hi Ronda Since your earlier post seemed to be aimed at me (i.e. you quoted me), I'm going to reply to you out of respect, even though you've rarely responded when I've talked to you in the past. Firstly, I'm not sure I understand your point here, but since I'm the one who's just brought up the promotion of multiple gospels, I can only think you are saying that 'pot calls the kettle black' applies to me because I am objecting to the promotion of multiple gospels while at the same time affirming multiple gospels myself by believing in reformed doctrines. If you think this, please consider that I don't believe in reformed doctrines, and I'm not a member of that site. Secondly, I know you don't subscribe to replacement theology and I don't think anything I've said in this thread (or any other) implies or in some way relies on a presumption that you do. Whether or not you feel your beliefs are honestly and sincerely held, whether you feel you interpret scripture literally while others don't, whether you can write a robust, scriptural defence of your doctrinal beliefs--none of those things are relevant to the point I was making. What I was saying was, if we want to say that those who hold to calvinism or don't hold to dispensationalism or do or don't hold to some other eschatological view aren't welcome on this IFB forum, then what do we say about the range of views on the gospel? There are folk on here, including yourself (see below--just one example of many such postings) who on the one hand are saying the forum needs to take a hard line on things like eschatology and the atonement but on the other hand seem to be saying a wide spectrum of views on the gospel is fine so long as the holders are sincere. That doesn't sound very consistent to me. My own opinion on it? I'd welcome an approach like the one Pastor Markle highlighted earlier, and yeah that would involve a more precise set of board rules than we have at present. For my first three years on this forum I was an atheist and in that time I questioned just about every Christian belief as politely as I could and as quietly as I could, and I got patient answers back. So I'm all for sincere, moderated discussion.
  4. From old England

    And I should have said--contending earnestly for any true belief is still good and the rest of us are blessed by those like you who do it, Alan.
  5. From old England

    I don't think Covenantor should be trying to come back on this forum if he's been banned, unless the ban has expired or been forgiven by the mods. And I think Covenantor and GP's relentless, non-stop efforts over many years to push a particular viewpoint on a web forum where it's obvious almost no-one on the forum agrees with them represents a severe case of someone's-wrong-on-the-internet syndrome, to say nothing of the spiritual aspects. But I do think some of your comments there highlight a difference between us, Alan. You say the belief that baptism is necessary for salvation (since that's the main 'work' being promoted here) is "mild" compared to the belief that baptism is a sacrament, whereas I'd say adding baptism to saving faith is the more dangerous view. Likewise I don't think using a NIV is worse per se than believing in salvation by works, or that holding a particular eschatological view is worse than teaching that there are 2, 3, 4 or even 5 gospels. Calvinism's getting closer but even there I'm tempted to say that reformed beliefs aren't as bad as believing in works for salvation. I don't believe you support or enable any of these false beliefs, Alan. But I have noticed on this forum a general tendency for folk to contend more earnestly for the true end times view, or the true view of atonement, than the true Gospel. And I'm not the first to say that.
  6. From old England

    Alan, and yet while they've been away, their particular profusion of 'interesting arguments' has been more than replaced in volume and frequency by another profusion of arguments, about there being multiple gospels and about how salvation isn't always by grace through faith alone. And this latter profusion appears to have been more widely tolerated on OB than the former.
  7. From old England

    Hmmmm, John.
  8. From old England

    Welcome back, Covenanter! Do you know, it so happens your forum companion GenevanPreacher has just returned to the forum as well? Life is full of little coincidences.
  9. 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.
  10. Conclusion to my post on other thread

    You know, I thought you were gonna say "...so I had lots of time to stand around and discuss theology."
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. Conclusion to my post on other thread

    Ronda, you seem to be asking this question as if to make the point that so long as we all believe that salvation is by grace through faith alone today, it's not really a big deal if we disagree on whether salvation was contingent on works in the past. If that's the implied statement, then I think it goes back to Pastor Markle's comments earlier: if you present a belief to a group of people that is contrary to a fundamental belief that they hold, it's likely to cause controversy. Now as to whether there should be room to agree to disagree on certain doctrines on this forum, I'll hold my hand up and say I've always been in the more 'ecumenical' camp (for want of a better word) when it comes to how this forum ought to be run, as opposed to others who have always felt it should be strictly IFB-only. Ironically, perhaps, you've been in the more IFB-only camp, Ronda (see quote below). More than once I've seen you ask folk who have been giving a different view of eschatology why they are on a IFB forum. Thing is, whatever their views on eschatology, all those people (Genevan Preacher, Covenanter etc.) could have said--like you just did--that they believed in salvation by grace through faith alone. Arguably, differences in belief about eschatology are less foundational to IFB teachings (definitely no more foundational) than the belief that salvation has always been by grace through faith alone (which you disagree with), as John81 pointed out earlier.
  14. 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.
  15. 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."