What is the Gospel?

Ignoring your posts, and mocking you, is properly addressing them.
And it's how anti-Christian disinfo agents would respond.

Your whole "FFF" smear operation here just tanked with that one post.

Every Christian now knows you're Biblically illiterate because you don't even understand the fundamentals, which is why you're arguing for the celebrity, dumbed-down version of Christianity that is "Lordship Salvation".

All real Christians who have actually read their Bible and not just attended politically-run megachurches their whole lives know those famous Lordshippers aren't the real Christians.
 
UGC is locked into the word "metanoia" because that is all he has learned from his antinomian false teachers (and YouTube).

The teaching of "repentance" is much greater in Scripture than one word... While we watch the squirming UGC fail to resolve issues related to metanoia... here is a more full look at repentance in Scripture.

In ADDITION to the word "metanoia," here are the others...
  • STREPHOMAI στρέφομαι "changing one's manner of life, with the implication of turning to God" in other words "repent" Matthew 18.3
  • EPISPREPHW ἐπιστρέφω "to change one's manner of life in a particular direction with the implication of turning back to God." Mk 4.12
  • GENNAO ANOTHEN: γεννάω ἄνωθεν and PALINGENESAI παλιγγενεσία BOTH words meaning to be born again "to be born again" That is experiencing a complete change in one's way of life to what it should be. It is a wonderful illustration as the individual is born again and experiencing a new life! Titus 3.5
  • ... and the antonym AMETANOETOS ἀμετανόητος: This is the opposite to metanoia. It means to refuse to turn to God. Romans 2.5

Here is what UGC is complaining about. He is just not capable of making a coherent argument against your source.

Your comments and reference is full of commentary. NOT facts as seen solely through the lens of language. Which is a valid concern when you start discussing the original meaning of the Scriptures.

While you demand secular reference, you're including theological dogma that varies based upon your own beliefs. UGC is doing the same.
 
And it's how anti-Christian disinfo agents would respond.

Your whole "FFF" smear operation here just tanked with that one post.

Every Christian now knows you're Biblically illiterate because you don't even understand the fundamentals, which is why you're arguing for the celebrity, dumbed-down version of Christianity that is "Lordship Salvation".

All real Christians who have actually read their Bible and not just attended politically-run megachurches their whole lives know those famous Lordshippers aren't the real Christians.

"Lordship Salvation" is nothing more than a regurgitation of ages old arguments of carnal minds.

People love to talk about what Salvation brings until they fail to produce themselves.
 
Your comments and reference is full of commentary. NOT facts as seen solely through the lens of language.
What is a lexicon, if not a compendium of facts about language? Neither FSSL nor I have been citing commentaries--only dictionaries.
While you demand secular reference, you're including theological dogma that varies based upon your own beliefs.
No one is "demanding secular reference." It's normal for lexica to cite examples of usage, both sacred and secular. It shows the complete semantic range of the term, and can show (for example) where a biblical author got a term, or how it's been given a specialized theological meaning.
 
What is a lexicon, if not a compendium of facts about language? Neither FSSL nor I have been citing commentaries--only dictionaries.

The last reference I quoted contains associations, that do not exist, solely based upon language. Those connections only exists based upon religious dogma.

No one is "demanding secular reference." It's normal for lexica to cite examples of usage, both sacred and secular. It shows the complete semantic range of the term, and can show (for example) where a biblical author got a term, or how it's been given a specialized theological meaning.

When I said "demand", I'm was talking about the necessity to include secular reference. What good is secular reference if you refuse to use it?
 
When said "demand", I'm was talking about the necessity to include secular reference. What good is secular reference if you refuse to use it?
That makes no sense. It's perfectly normal to omit parts of a quotation that have no bearing on your argument.
 
That makes no sense. It's perfectly normal to omit parts of a quotation that have no bearing on your argument.

I wasn't claiming something was omitted. I'm just dealing with the entirety of the reference used. Which includes connections based upon religious beliefs
 
I don't know if you've ever read this thing called the Bible, but turning from sin is literally defined BY GOD as works:

Since you skipped all your Sunday school classes as a child, let's go allll the way back to the basics:


1. The Law of Moses was provided to outline what sin is, so that by it we have the knowledge of sin (more specifically laid out than conscience):

"Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin." -Rom. 3:20

2. WHOEVER commits sin breaks the law, therefore PRIOR to the new birth (which removes you from under the curse of the law),
DOING sin is breaking the law and NOT DOING sin is obeying the law, now that the law was provided mankind:

"Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." -1 Jn. 3:4

3. The law concluded ALL under sin, meaning ALL of your efforts in trying to turn from, abstain from, live apart from SIN can't get you eternal life:
"Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight [THIS MEANS TURNING FROM SIN IN OBEDIENCE TO THE LAW PRIOR TO RECEIVING ETERNAL LIFE WILL NOT GET YOU SAVED]: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely [IT'S NOT FREE IF YOU THINK YOU HAVE TO DO SOMETHING LIKE "TURN FROM YOUR SINS" TO GET IT: THAT'S REJECTING THE FREE GIFT AND TRYING TO DO A LITTLE PET BACKFLIP TO IMPRESS GOD LIKE TURN OVER A NEW LEAF AND PROMISE TO STOP SINNING FROM NOW ON TO DESERVE IT] by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:" -Rom. 3:19-24

4. Trying to turn from sin BEFORE Salvation or AT THE MOMENT of trying to be saved is essentially still working to do so in our flesh under the law:
"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. [YOU NEED THE NEW BIRTH BEFORE YOU CAN HAVE THE POWER TO TURN FROM YOUR SINS]" -Rom. 8:3
So if deciding to reject sin is a work, than deciding to accept God would also be a work. In essence your mutilated version of repentance also would be considered works based salvation. I've heard folks get really silly with trying to avoid being in the "works" camp. Down to praying for salvation is a work and believing is a work.
 
So if deciding to reject sin is a work, than deciding to accept God would also be a work. In essence your mutilated version of repentance also would be considered works based salvation. I've heard folks get really silly with trying to avoid being in the "works" camp. Down to praying for salvation is a work and believing is a work.

We depend upon the work of another. Jesus Christ.

Crying out "in appeal" to the work of another..... is NOT of itself.... a work. Its the exact opposite. It is recognizing you can't do it yourself.
 
Every Christian now knows you're Biblically illiterate because you don't even understand the fundamentals, which is why you're arguing for the celebrity, dumbed-down version of Christianity that is "Lordship Salvation".
Ransom, I never knew you had such a reach of influence. Apparently "every" Christian is paying attention to you here on FFF. That should help with the ad revenue. His exaggerations are fun, literally. Not sure I would want someone attempting to teach the Bible that couldn't control his own exaggerations, though.
 
Jesus is Lord
If Jesus was your Lord, you'd listen to what he said about how to be saved.

And someone actually tried to argue faith was a work and others thumbed him up. You guys have never read the Bible: it says your initial moment of faith is not a work.

Now I leave you all to get hardened in your own deceit. I'm getting rewards in heaven for this, thank you guys for providing further evidence to the world on why sinners and pharisees (like yourselves) who refuse God's grace deserve to go to hell: they so blatantly reject truth, even when it stares them straight in the face.

God bless, readers. Commenters, your demons are showing. ✌😎
 
thank you guys for providing further evidence to the world on why sinners and pharisees (like yourselves) who refuse God's grace deserve to go to hell
So is UGC stating he others like him do not deserve to go to Hell? Yep, looks like ol' UGC earned his place in Heaven.
 
Last edited:
If Jesus was your Lord, you'd listen to what he said about how to be saved.

He said to repent (Lk 24) and "change and become like little children..." (Mt 18:3)
You chose the secular route.

He also had the unique ability to know who was going to heaven. You not only provide a secular route to understanding Scripture, you assume the authority of Jesus. Not cool.
 
Top