Search results

So you are deciding who is lost and who is saved. You and God. Interesting.

So says the ignorant.

So says the Zwingliist.

God has spoken to you only through His written word. What you think is "the Living Spirit witnessing God's truth to your heart/spirit" is nothing more than your own, not God's, personal feelings. It is not a good source of truth. Rom 10:10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and...

You are promoting Galatianism. You need to read and study carefully Paul's letter to the Galatians. Yes, once saved always saved is a lie. However, you do not lose salvation through sinning, nor by not doing enough work. We are saved by grace through faith. One can lose their salvation only...

I am with you on some of that but not all of it. The Bread and Wine ritual and the Good Deeds have nothing to do with being saved. Both are works to be done by the one who has been saved. Being saved is accomplished by God in an instant. Having sins forgiven and being given the gift, the...

And no way Paul would have baptized those Ephesians again if it were only to demonstrate to the community that they were already saved.

Nope it is not

No He doesn't. But man does, including you.

He has misinterpreted what John said. John said "Jesus will baptize you with the Holy Spirit AND fire, not Spirit or fire. In that case fire is a cleansing fire, a purifying fire. It is the gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit given to the repentant believer in water baptism (Acts 2:38).

Romans 6 and Colossians 2 are the same as Acts 2:38. Galatians 5 is similar. 1 Corinthians 12 is something different altogether. It is the same as Acts 2:4, 10:44 and all the occurrences of the laying on of hands of the apostles such as with Peter and John Acts 8:17, etc. The first group...

What do you think it is?

Well yes, that would be stupid, but I don't do that. And what is stupid is your thinking I do. Again, you can't read.

That is a big AMEN !!!

There is nothing wrong or improper about the double negative. It is used sometimes for emphasis. The problem with the double negative arises when someone uses it improperly and ends up actually saying just the opposite of what was intended. But you didn't know that did you. That only again...

It is offensive because you are trying to tell me what I said and in doing so, you lie. I didn't say what you claim I said. That is why I said it is stupid. I have not claimed you have said something you didn't. I have only disagreed with your terribly faulty soteriology. If you cannot handle...

The Bible cult.

First of all, there are none in hell yet. That comes after Jesus returns and all have stood before Bema, the judgment seat of Jesus. But that is probably best held for another topic discussion. Second, any who have died and have not been saved by grace through faith have not been saved because...

That you need an explanation for that perfectly good and valid double negative illustrates quite nicely how your soteriology has gone so far awry.

That is not only a stupid statement, it is terribly offensive. I don't make that claim. In fact, I claim just the opposite.