Are you a counterfeit Christian?

[rsc2a]

One cannot accept the Living Word and yet deny the Written Word and vice-versa. Their both equally important.

One is God. The other is not. You are promoting idolatry.

" In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.......................... And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

Yes. In this passage, the Word is Jesus, the Logos of God. It's not King Jimmy or whatever your preferred translation is.

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=ALAYMAN]You can't bother to answer a simple question with any specificity.  It's disingenuous, and it suits you.  To claim the Campbellite heresy is the gospel has you denying the very Scriptures you claim to uphold.  To embrace the heresy of baptismal regeneration rather than call it what it is shows this forum who is the heretic.  And the sad thing is that you won't admit it's another gospel because of your desire to win an argument.

The Bible doesn't answer the question with specificity other than to say from the Father by the Son through the Spirit. Does RTR need to trot out his list of verses that give about a dozen different modes of salvation?

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

But like TRT has observed (and I agree with), you were quick to ignore the seven points and jump to character assassination. Then you deny that any of the points could apply to you...something I find completely ridiculous since everyone would get pricked at least once or twice reading the list. I know which ones are most damning to me, and based on your history here, I could point to several that would apply to you. It is only a giant ego that would refuse to see this.

Which ones have I been guilty of, since you know me so well?[/quote]

Well certainly #2 and #7.

#2 - You believe the Bible is more important than Jesus.  You've even went so far as to set them co-equal before and strongly argued for such idolatry.

#7 You think Christian maturity is more about how much you know than what you do. In fact, you've stated repeatedly that it is your knowledge of Jesus that saves you even when pressed that it is Jesus who saves you, period.
[/quote]

#2 You are simply a liar.  I don't use that word lightly, I really don't, but you have shown a pattern now, and the word suits your character on this forum.  The real irony is that even in your allegation you present an illogical contradiction.  Saying they are co-equal, whatever that means, categorically refutes the notion that one is "more important than the other".  Put plainly, I've never said, implicitly or explicitly that the Bible is more important than Jesus.  That, again, makes you a liar, not to be trusted with simple communication.

#7 More lies.  I've NEVER said knowledge of Jesus saves.  I've said Jesus saves, and ordinarily (and in the preponderance of evidence in Scriptures) he saves through faith, and that faith is not devoid of cognitive awareness.  I made that statement to you within the last couple of weeks, but you sir, are a liar and you do what liars do.

The Bible does answer that there are false gospels, and it tells what the true gospel is, and it doesn't involve regeneration via baptism.

 

[rsc2a]

You are not claiming that Scripture is God itself?

Not anymore than I would claim your head is you.  It is part of you, but it is not all of you.  That simple explanation aside, we are talking about God's authority.  You are attempting to separate His authority from His word.  That is a logical fallacy.  His word has meaning, and that meaning imports his purpose/expectations to us.  To separate his word from his being is asinine.

Mark 16:16  Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved

Okay, so you have to believe and be baptized in order to be saved.

John 5:33 ?You have sent to John and he has testified to the truth. 34 Not that I accept human testimony; but I mention it that you may be saved.

Oh, wait, okay, you need to believe John the Baptist in order to be saved.

Acts 2:21  And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.

Ok, scratch the baptism, belief, and John the Baptist stuff.  All you have to do is call on the name of the Lord and you will be saved.

Acts 16:31 They replied, ?Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.

Wow, okay, scratch that again.  Believe in the Lord Jesus and not only will YOU be saved, but your whole household, too!

Romans 10:9  If you declare with your mouth, ?Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Wow, now it's getting complicated.  You don't have to believe in Jesus.  You have to say, "Jesus is Lord" out loud, and believe that God raised him from the dead.  THEN you'll be saved.

1 Timothy 2:15  But women will be saved through childbearing if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

Okay, there's an exception for women.  They have to have babies, AND continue in faith, love, and holiness in order to be saved.

Or maybe it's a combination of all of the above.  Okay, so let's recount what you must do to be saved:

1. Believe in something
2. Be baptized
3. Believe John the Baptist
4. Call on the name of the Lord
5. Believe in the Lord Jesus (bonus - your household gets saved, too)
6. Say out loud, "Jesus is Lord"
7. Believe God raised him from the dead
8. Exception for women:  They must have babies and be good and holy. 

Got that?  That's how you get saved.

 

[Mathew Ward]

So would you consider the author saved or unsaved?

The answer to that question is far above my pay grade. He does seem intent on showing love and grace to others as he tries to follow Jesus, so that's a good sign.

Yeah, but questioning his salvation is a good red herring to draw attention away from the points he was making.

See point #7.

Ya know  what is really funny here?  Just yesterday you and Costello impugned the character of AW Pink because he eventually fell away from fellowship with other Christians.  You did that in order to dismiss him (which I had already predicted you'd do before I ever listed a commentator).  Pink's error was being too selective in his dogma, but this Campbellite you're coddling preaches a false gospel and when I mention that he needs to get his spiritual priorities right before he goes speculating about the brethren on in-house issues you two become the biggest hypocrites this side of Judas.

Irony, ain't it rich?

Maybe richer than Bill Gates

 

[Mathew Ward]

The Spirit places a person in Christ through Jesus. The Spirit regenerates. He uses a variety of means to accomplish this. You, meanwhile, reject foundational Christian dogma and are, therefore, a heretic.

What variety means does he use?

By grace through faith?
By baptism?
By the sacraments?

 

[ALAYMAN]

Maybe richer than Bill Gates

And it's like raaaaaain, on your wedding day.....





isn't it ironic.....dontchathink.





I would feel bad as a fundy about using Alannis Morrisette as a reference, but my HAC pastor used a Beatles song via reference tonite, so maybe I'm not so bad after all.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Thanks for demonstrating your obtusity, again.  I'd almost forgotten how that tag came to you, but that sure refreshes the ol' noggin'.  If folk take the time to sort through that long mess they should really come away with why I find you intellectually disingenuous.

Thanks again lil nutty buddy.

You are not claiming that Scripture is God itself?

Not anymore than I would claim your head is you.  It is part of you, but it is not all of you.  That simple explanation aside, we are talking about God's authority.  You are attempting to separate His authority from His word.  That is a logical fallacy.  His word has meaning, and that meaning imports his purpose/expectations to us.  To separate his word from his being is asinine.

Mark 16:16  Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved

Okay, so you have to believe and be baptized in order to be saved.

John 5:33 ?You have sent to John and he has testified to the truth. 34 Not that I accept human testimony; but I mention it that you may be saved.

Oh, wait, okay, you need to believe John the Baptist in order to be saved.

Acts 2:21  And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.

Ok, scratch the baptism, belief, and John the Baptist stuff.  All you have to do is call on the name of the Lord and you will be saved.

Acts 16:31 They replied, ?Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.

Wow, okay, scratch that again.  Believe in the Lord Jesus and not only will YOU be saved, but your whole household, too!

Romans 10:9  If you declare with your mouth, ?Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Wow, now it's getting complicated.  You don't have to believe in Jesus.  You have to say, "Jesus is Lord" out loud, and believe that God raised him from the dead.  THEN you'll be saved.

1 Timothy 2:15  But women will be saved through childbearing if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

Okay, there's an exception for women.  They have to have babies, AND continue in faith, love, and holiness in order to be saved.

Or maybe it's a combination of all of the above.  Okay, so let's recount what you must do to be saved:

1. Believe in something
2. Be baptized
3. Believe John the Baptist
4. Call on the name of the Lord
5. Believe in the Lord Jesus (bonus - your household gets saved, too)
6. Say out loud, "Jesus is Lord"
7. Believe God raised him from the dead
8. Exception for women:  They must have babies and be good and holy. 

Got that?  That's how you get saved.

 

[Mathew Ward]

Maybe richer than Bill Gates

And it's like raaaaaain, on your wedding day.....

K



isn't it ironic.....dontchathink.





I would feel bad as a fundy about using Alannis Morrisette as a reference, but my HAC pastor used a Beatles song via reference tonite, so maybe I'm not so bad after all.

Before you know it you will be golfing in FL in shorts and talking about the Reds...

 

[rsc2a]

The Spirit places a person in Christ through Jesus. The Spirit regenerates. He uses a variety of means to accomplish this. You, meanwhile, reject foundational Christian dogma and are, therefore, a heretic.

What variety means does he use?

By grace through faith?
By baptism?
By the sacraments?

I've covered this many, many times. God does not fit in a box. He uses all kinds of means to save people including those you listed. He uses the ones in the verses from TRT way back when. He uses our love for one another, confession, repentance, our spiritual gifts, the church, still small voices, and countless other means. He (and His methods) are bigger than you or I could ever imagine.

And, yet, not of that is what ultimately saves us. Jesus saves us. Not confession. Not repentance. Not faith. Not knowledge. Not baptism. Not Communion. Simply Jesus. Stop thinking about salvation as a one time event and start thinking about it as a process whereby we conform more and more to the image of the Son, and this becomes so easy to grasp. Erroneously insist on salvation being a one-time thing, and you'll never understand. (Although it is easy to count "converts" that way!)

 

[Bo]

http://www.churchleaders.com/outreach-missions/outreach-missions-articles/266527-7-signs-you-are-a-counterfeit-christian.html

......i like this......this is very true

 

[rsc2a]

Thanks for demonstrating your obtusity, again.  I'd almost forgotten how that tag came to you, but that sure refreshes the ol' noggin'.  If folk take the time to sort through that long mess they should really come away with why I find you intellectually disingenuous.

Thanks again lil nutty buddy.

That list is quite long. I think I'll just dust off one of them:

More lies.  I've NEVER said knowledge of Jesus saves. - Alayman

So there's no requirement to have a proper object of faith by the individual who believes? - Alayman

 

[ALAYMAN]

Thanks for demonstrating your obtusity, again.  I'd almost forgotten how that tag came to you, but that sure refreshes the ol' noggin'.  If folk take the time to sort through that long mess they should really come away with why I find you intellectually disingenuous.

Thanks again lil nutty buddy.

That list is quite long. I think I'll just dust off one of them:

More lies.  I've NEVER said knowledge of Jesus saves. - Alayman

So there's no requirement to have a proper object of faith by the individual who believes? - Alayman

Yeah, I like that, and stand by it.  Jesus is the material cause.  Our faith is the instrumental cause.  Standard soteriology stuff, but I wouldn't expect a squirrel to own up to anything that would prove him wrong, at least not without trying to obfuscate or equivocate.

But if we attend to the four kinds of causes which philosophers bring under our view in regard to effects, we shall find that not one of them is applicable to works as a cause of salvation. The efficient cause of our eternal salvation the Scripture uniformly proclaims to be the mercy and free love of the heavenly Father towards us; the material cause to be Christ, with the obedience by which he purchased righteousness for us; and what can the formal or instrumental cause be but faith? John includes the three in one sentence when he says, "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life," (John 3: 16)

--Jean Calvin

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Yeah, I like that, and stand by it.  Jesus is the material cause.  Our faith is the instrumental cause.  Standard soteriology stuff, but I wouldn't expect a squirrel to own up to anything that would prove him wrong, at least not without trying to obfuscate or equivocate.

But if we attend to the four kinds of causes which philosophers bring under our view in regard to effects, we shall find that not one of them is applicable to works as a cause of salvation. The efficient cause of our eternal salvation the Scripture uniformly proclaims to be the mercy and free love of the heavenly Father towards us; the material cause to be Christ, with the obedience by which he purchased righteousness for us; and what can the formal or instrumental cause be but faith? John includes the three in one sentence when he says, "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life," (John 3: 16)

--Jean Calvin

Wow, first you quote Pink and now Calvin?  You're a closet Calvinist, aren't you?

Come on, you've said several times that people with the wrong doctrine can't be saved, and as much as said right doctrine saves.  In fact, that's the basis of your character assassination of this very author. 

I won't waste time on this, though, since anyone who goes to as much trouble as you did to try to discredit the author in order to distract from the butthurt the 7 points caused you isn't going to be reasonable. 

 

[praise_yeshua]

So would you consider the author saved or unsaved?

The answer to that question is far above my pay grade. He does seem intent on showing love and grace to others as he tries to follow Jesus, so that's a good sign.

What a joke. You agree with the article and then claims its above your pay grade?

Double minded men....

The article questions the faith of others over some rather silly things.

Does ignoring your own hypocrisy in this thread qualify you to be considered apostate?

What a joke!

 

[ALAYMAN]

Come on, you've said several times that people with the wrong doctrine can't be saved, and as much as said right doctrine saves.  In fact, that's the basis of your character assassination of this very author. 

I won't waste time on this, though, since anyone who goes to as much trouble as you did to try to discredit the author in order to distract from the butthurt the 7 points caused you isn't going to be reasonable.

I love it that you continue to come back for more of a beating.

What you do is similar to the cults, or the liberal news media outlets.  You give just enough of the story in half-truths to be enticing, but when examined in context you're found to have no clothes.  Folk who put their faith in a false Christ (like one who is the half-brother of Satan) have no hope because they haven't trusted in the Christ of the Bible.  That's what I've argued, and what I stand by, and what evangelicals of both reformed and Arminian camps have understood for centuries.  YOU are the one who ought to be ashamed of your heterodox stance (devoid of cognitive awareness) on the matter of how salvation comes to mankind (instrumentally, via faith Eph 2:8-9).

Oh, and the thing about quoting Calvies, I like demonstrating that many on this forum who claim to be reformed actually don't even know about their own heritage in terms of doctrinal pedigree.  The rat's first skirmish with me involved that very thing, as he claimed to be reformed but regularly held to statements that ran counter to that theological vein.

 

[rsc2a]

Thanks for demonstrating your obtusity, again.  I'd almost forgotten how that tag came to you, but that sure refreshes the ol' noggin'.  If folk take the time to sort through that long mess they should really come away with why I find you intellectually disingenuous.

Thanks again lil nutty buddy.

That list is quite long. I think I'll just dust off one of them:

More lies.  I've NEVER said knowledge of Jesus saves. - Alayman

So there's no requirement to have a proper object of faith by the individual who believes? - Alayman

Yeah, I like that, and stand by it.  Jesus is the material cause.  Our faith is the instrumental cause.  Standard soteriology stuff, but I wouldn't expect a squirrel to own up to anything that would prove him wrong, at least not without trying to obfuscate or equivocate.

But if we attend to the four kinds of causes which philosophers bring under our view in regard to effects, we shall find that not one of them is applicable to works as a cause of salvation. The efficient cause of our eternal salvation the Scripture uniformly proclaims to be the mercy and free love of the heavenly Father towards us; the material cause to be Christ, with the obedience by which he purchased righteousness for us; and what can the formal or instrumental cause be but faith? John includes the three in one sentence when he says, "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life," (John 3: 16)

--Jean Calvin

You're citing Calvin? This Calvin? Have you even looked at his views on baptism?

Hence those who have thought that baptism is nothing else than the badge and mark by which we profess our religion before men, in the same way as soldiers attest their profession by bearing the insignia of their commander, having not attended to what was the principal thing in baptism; and this is, that we are to receive it in connection with the promise, ?He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved?

I know it is a common belief that forgiveness, which at our first regeneration we receive by baptism alone, is after baptism procured by means of penitence and the keys. But those who entertain this fiction err from not considering that the power of the keys, of which they speak, so depends on baptism, that it ought not on any account to be separated from it...

...Believers become assured by baptism, that this condemnation is entirely withdrawn from them... Institutes, Book IV, Chapter XV

Frankly, I could quote the whole chapter.

Secondly, you would disagree with Calvin on virtually everything theologically, especially in regards to baptism. Completely ignoring his views on the salvific purposes of baptism, he clearly favored infant baptism. Much like your citation of Pink yesterday (another person for whom you would find MUCH in disagreement), I have to wonder if you just randomly pick out commentators that are supposedly agreeing with you while ignoring everything else these commentators believe, beliefs that also inform the particular view you supposedly agree with them on. It's like a weird form of theological find a word.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=The Rogue Tomato]Come on, you've said several times that people with the wrong doctrine can't be saved, and as much as said right doctrine saves.  In fact, that's the basis of your character assassination of this very author.  [/quote]

If he admitted that, he would have to apologize for calling me a liar then admit that he himself lied when he said he "NEVER" said that. I'm not holding my breath.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

You're citing Calvin? This Calvin? Have you even looked at his views on baptism?

ROFL!!!  Perfect response.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Thanks for demonstrating your obtusity, again.  I'd almost forgotten how that tag came to you, but that sure refreshes the ol' noggin'.  If folk take the time to sort through that long mess they should really come away with why I find you intellectually disingenuous.

Thanks again lil nutty buddy.

That list is quite long. I think I'll just dust off one of them:

More lies.  I've NEVER said knowledge of Jesus saves. - Alayman

So there's no requirement to have a proper object of faith by the individual who believes? - Alayman

Yeah, I like that, and stand by it.  Jesus is the material cause.  Our faith is the instrumental cause.  Standard soteriology stuff, but I wouldn't expect a squirrel to own up to anything that would prove him wrong, at least not without trying to obfuscate or equivocate.

But if we attend to the four kinds of causes which philosophers bring under our view in regard to effects, we shall find that not one of them is applicable to works as a cause of salvation. The efficient cause of our eternal salvation the Scripture uniformly proclaims to be the mercy and free love of the heavenly Father towards us; the material cause to be Christ, with the obedience by which he purchased righteousness for us; and what can the formal or instrumental cause be but faith? John includes the three in one sentence when he says, "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life," (John 3: 16)

--Jean Calvin

You're citing Calvin? This Calvin? Have you even looked at his views on baptism?

Hence those who have thought that baptism is nothing else than the badge and mark by which we profess our religion before men, in the same way as soldiers attest their profession by bearing the insignia of their commander, having not attended to what was the principal thing in baptism; and this is, that we are to receive it in connection with the promise, ?He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved?

I know it is a common belief that forgiveness, which at our first regeneration we receive by baptism alone, is after baptism procured by means of penitence and the keys. But those who entertain this fiction err from not considering that the power of the keys, of which they speak, so depends on baptism, that it ought not on any account to be separated from it...

...Believers become assured by baptism, that this condemnation is entirely withdrawn from them... Institutes, Book IV, Chapter XV

Frankly, I could quote the whole chapter.

Secondly, you would disagree with Calvin on virtually everything theologically, especially in regards to baptism. Completely ignoring his views on the salvific purposes of baptism, he clearly favored infant baptism. Much like your citation of Pink yesterday (another person for whom you would find MUCH in disagreement), I have to wonder if you just randomly pick out commentators that are supposedly agreeing with you while ignoring everything else these commentators believe, beliefs that also inform the particular view you supposedly agree with them on. It's like a weird form of theological find a word.

You do conflate the issues of theological error and heresy.  No surprise that you would equate infant baptism with baptismal regeneration.  Next thing you'll go about establishing how Premillenial theology is equivalent to Sacerdotalism.  Apples and horse shoes my slippery little friend.  The real funny thing is that the part you snipped out of Calvin's Institutes deals with his treatment of Rome's salvific heretical baptismal font.  A real slippery one your are ratboy.  But go ahead and keep high fiving each other over your duplicitious ways.  It will bear record to those who try to discuss theology with y'all that subterfuge will be your order of the day.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=ALAYMAN]You do conflate the issues of theological error and heresy.[/quote]

Error: a state of being wrong
Heresy: a belief contrary to orthodox doctrine

Heresies are erroneous but not all errors rise to the level of heresy, especially on so-called secondary issues. Error regarding primary (i.e. fundamental) issues can be heretical. A flat rejection of an orthodox view would qualify, for example, your rejection of the Church universal.

No surprise that you would equate infant baptism with baptismal regeneration.

I've equated what? Calvin spoke to both. The particular parts I quoted explicitly spoke to the salvific effects of baptism. You just didn't know what you were talking about.

Next thing you'll go about establishing how Premillenial theology is equivalent to Sacerdotalism.  Apples and horse shoes my slippery little friend.

Interesting...instead of addressing the points, you divert.

The real funny thing is that the part you snipped out of Calvin's Institutes deals with his treatment of Rome's salvific heretical baptismal font.

The parts I snipped out? The chapter is nearly 8000 words long! Part 3 of the chapter is called " Forgiveness not only of past but also of future sins. This no encouragement to license in sin"! In fact, if you want to read his chapter on sacraments (it's only one earlier), he refutes those who would consider sacraments to be merely symbolic. (He also then rightly refutes those thinks the sacraments are salvific in and of themselves.)

I know you want to avoid it so I'll repeat again the very first thing Calvin says baptism accomplishes:

Baptism contributes to our faith three things, which require to be treated separately. The first object, therefore, for which it is appointed by the Lord, is to be a sign and evidence of our purification, or (better to explain my meaning) it is a kind of sealed instrument by which he assures us that all our sins are so deleted, covered, and effaced, that they will never come into his sight, never be mentioned, never imputed. For it is his will that all who have believed, be baptised for the remission of sins. Hence those who have thought that baptism is nothing else than the badge and mark by which we profess our religion before men, in the same way as soldiers attest their profession by bearing the insignia of their commander, having not attended to what was the principal thing in baptism; and this is, that we are to receive it in connection with the promise, ?He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved?

A real slippery one your are ratboy.  But go ahead and keep high fiving each other over your duplicitious ways.  It will bear record to those who try to discuss theology with y'all that subterfuge will be your order of the day.

Calvin's entire chapter on baptism: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.vi.xvi.html