*Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About wretched

  • Rank
    Super Contributor

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Are you IFB?

Recent Profile Visitors

6,355 profile views
  1. Got it, I understand what you mean. I see that this time around I was countering with oranges while you were speaking of apples. There is a wide gulf of difference in this matter between mental assent and heart belief. As wide a gulf as hell is to Heaven respectively. Thank you for clarifying.
  2. This is your opening sentence This is your return to it. If the Spirit reproves of sin, righteous and judgment, it will produce a new found need to be spared His wrath in Hell. That "need" manifests itself by the desire to escape Hell and go to Heaven. How could you believe this is works based? If that is not what you meant, could you please explain and clarify?
  3. Your summary at the bottom states: To return to my opening sentence, I believe that if we try to come to Christ for those two reasons, we are coming for what we can get out of it, and that is a works based salvation, We should come to Christ because we realise we are vile sinners who have sinned against a just and holy God who sent his only begotten son to take our place and nailed our sins to his tree, and rose from the dead so that we may rise with him at the resurrection. However, your Scriptural passages do not support this summary unless you are conceding that Peter's sermon at Pentecost could not stand alone without previous seeds sown providing more background (which BTW: Peter's sermon already states that the audience had previous knowledge). In addition you leave out any mention of condemnation for the lost which logically indicates that you do not believe that knowledge is required in order for the lost to believe the Gospel. I forgot to ask another question which I just bolded in your quote. So are you claiming that if one becomes convicted of sin, righteous and judgment, their faith in the Gospel then somehow becomes works-based?
  4. The passage of Pentecost you quote makes no mention in any way of your conclusion at the bottom "We should come to Christ because we realise we are vile sinners who have sinned against a just and holy God who sent his only begotten son to take our place and nailed our sins to his tree, and rose from the dead so that we may rise with him at the resurrection." yet you attempt to use it as a proof text against condemnation. In addition you say: When Peter preached at Pentecost, he said, "You killed the author of life" The Jews knew who God was and most recognised who Jesus was. How could they unless they had already had seeds sown from our Lord's own Sermons in the Gospels. Those same Jews Peter was preaching to at Pentecost also knew of the Lord's Sermons which mentioned condemnation and hell constantly. See verse 22 from your post: "Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:" If they knew beforehand (IE seeds sown) that they were vile sinners then they had also heard and understood that this vile sinner status carried condemnation along with it. Peter's sermon mentions none of this "vile sinners or condemnation" but it certainly infers both to an audience Peter was 100% sure had heard the sin and condemnation sermons of our Lord. Your entire post here is moot from the standpoint of attempting to remove hell and condemnation from the Great Commission. Most born again believers use the term preaching the Gospel (just like the Apostles) with the understanding that they mean the Great Commission and not just the one passage from I Cor 15:1-4. There has to be other seeds sown just as there were obviously with this crowd at Pentecost. They had the background and they were convicted of their sin and their coming judgment: IE, they were afraid...period.
  5. No problem
  6. I am sorry but had no time to respond to your post earlier. I only presume to judge what people say against Scripture. And that is exactly how I worded the response in question to GP. Your Scriptural quote has no background or explanation of why the Gospel is needed. This is my argument against the falsehood presented. The Gospels on the other hand contain why God sent His Son to save the world and are written to the lost. Hence, the reason they are called the Gospels. People need far more Scripture then this one verse if that is how you present the Gospel to people without background or reasoning. Your Roman's quote standing alone or contextually does not present the need for God's goodness and until a lost person understands this need, they are clueless to what the Goodness of God means and are certainly not under the Spirit's conviction. It is now but it wasn't prior to salvation. God sent the Spirit to convict the world of their sin and coming judgement. Our Lord's first coming was to save but His second will not be. In the meantime, the Spirit and the written Word's job is to convince the lost of their condemnation. Once again, no one can be saved apart from conviction from the Holy Spirit By the Word of sin, righteous and judgement to come. Any other "conversion" is simply a religious one and not of God. Confusing Epistles written to the born again and not to the lost will keep you dangerously confused. No lost person can ever understand the Gospel (goodness of God) without understanding their condemnation FIRST. Once again, there is no good news without knowledge FIRST of the bad news. Put your cart behind the horse I judge noone's heart but I do judge what you say and what you say is dangerously wrong. BTW, this is not some semantic argument. What you espouse is a false "gospel". God is all love and no wraith is the devils nonsense and only when one gets the wraith before the goodness of God, will they know why they must believe the Gospel. I would think this is common sense among those born again. Is this long forgotten or was it never even known by you?
  7. No problem Jim The disservice is leaving you to your thoughts. But I will at your request.
  8. "So when you say that Jesus preached on condemnation and hell more than any other thing and that Jesus told us to do the same - have you ever looked into that? I have. And that is not true." Actually yes I did but the difference is that I studied the KJB using simple arithmetic to come to this conclusion. Much of the Lord's preaching on the Kingdom included hell as the alternative. Phrases like where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched or cast them into out darkness where there will be weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth. Hopefully these ring a bell somewhere in your heart. "Yes, we are saved from hell and condemnation, but we don't get saved because we are afraid of going there. We are saved because we believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. Period." Your Savior from what GP? You ignore context in every aspect of your thinking...this post is your worst example and most dangerous. You do not grasp audience, Jesus spoke of condemnation to the lost in the Gospels yet you quote passages written to the saved as your proof. Every quote you make in this post is out of context and directed to the wrong audience. Sounds like you got "saved" because you are a better than average person who could recognize the Lord's love long before your own condemnation. How can one recognize God's Love when they don't see their desperate need for it? Your cart has been before your horse from your religious beginning. Your hell less "gospel" is the same as the lost protestants and the "emerging" lost. If you don't get this one thing right in your heart, you will be blind guessing at everything that follows it just like the religious lost who write volumes of books on God's love-- but are blind.........This does explain allot however. You must work out your own salvation with fear and trembling and should stop right where you are and examine yourself carefully to make sure you are in the faith friend. I am not arguing with you, I am warning you about this. If you truly believe what you write in this post, you are dangerously lost. Dangerously because you are so very religious refusing to see your need. AND THE NEED IS TO BE SPARED ETERNAL DAMNATION not to some emerging protestant need to have a happier and more prosperous life on earth. I think NT churches from the beginning contained many weeds but in these last days the weeds are out of control because of false "gospels" like you describe.
  9. The exact opposite is true in my experience and that of our Lord. I have never met anyone truly convicted (scared to death) from the real Gospel that did not follow the Lord in Baptism and service. "But i forewarn you whom ye shall FEAR: FEAR HIM, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into HELL; yea, I say unto you, FEAR HIM". Without FEAR there is no salvation. Jesus preached on condemnation and hell more than any other single topic and He commanded us to preach to the same. So don't for one second believe the apostasy that claims the disciples did not preach condemnation and hell. Try Acts and Romans for condemnation and hell. Once again, there is no Gospel without condemnation and hell. Anyone who speaks differently is more often than not a tare spreading the same false "gospel" they were "saved" by. So GP, what were you saved from?
  10. Usually, this Morris fella seems pretty straight. This article is one of his few turkeys however. The context of Hebrews 10 has zero to do with sins of the flesh and everything to do with eternal security. It is an indictment against easy prayer-ism most of all IMO. Key verses are 23, 29-31, 38 and 39.
  11. I know you don't
  12. The dim view of a mid trib aside, the meeting with the Lord in the air is described and foretold in so many passages of Scripture only a lost person could mistake it for anything other than a "rapture" (IM non-dogmatic O). That being said however, I doubt anyone rational would be dogmatic about Revelation 4. I think many simply view is as symbolic of the catching away of the saints. Not rocket surgery to figure out why they would. And hardly a sticking point in Scriptural evidence indicating a pre-trib meeting in the air. It boils down to whether one has ears to hear or not. Some don't and probably never will so no worries, let them stumble along their merry way...
  13. True Invicta to a certain basal point. However, republican controlled states make voter identification mandatory by enlarge. So the level of difficulty to cheat goes way up and certainly cannot be done in large numbers. I find it revealing that the only states that seem to refuse to mandate government ID to vote are controlled locally by democrats. There is only one reason for this and that is voter fraud. What other possible reason could there be apart from it? It is a logical conclusion that without voter fraud, democrats would win no federal elections (and the top leaders in that party know it). That is why these states refuse to mandate voter ID IMO.
  14. Don't go thanking me yet Bro. Allan. I may not like what you post tomorrow (kidding). I have enjoyed your studies and think you hit the nail on the head in them. I recommend you disregard any and all objections from those without eyes to see nor ears to hear.
  15. And they did, believe me. All the NE states including New York, Nevada, California plus most of the other blue states rejected any ordinance for ID presentation at the polls. And for good reason, it would not allow the fraud that dems have been perpetrating for years. Hillary garnered less than 25% of the legal popular vote in many estimations. And we all know the types of "legal" reprobates that voted for her.