Charles Spurgeon's Sanity Litmus Test (are you insane?)

[Stranger]

It seems to me that we agree.
And if we do, I'd suggest you DO NOT tell people you are hyper-grace because it means something very specific.

I've been called a pharisee and told I don't believe in grace because I believe what you've stated above.

We can do nothing to save ourselves...
but once saved, we are required to do as Jesus commanded.

You'll be told that His commands are not for US but only for the Jews.
You'll be told that "works" are a bad word and we are not required to do ANYTHING.

It's a very interesting concept. Some use the term "easy believism" because they make believing so easy --- doing NOTHING is easy!

Well. Consider youself warned if you come across one.
!

I think we differ in some things concerning grace.

I never liked the term 'easy believism'. Belief is neither easy or hard. It is there or it isn't. You cannot make yourself believe something you really don't believe. Just like you cannot make yourself love some one you really don't love. It is there or it isn't.

If works were not required for our salvation, can we lose our salvation for lack of works?

Stranger

 

[Marymog]

You've misunderstood me.
To such a degree that it might be better to end this conversation.
I accept full responsibility...

The answer to your last question is NO.
You might be right about Nicodemus. I Always believed N was referring to being born again and Jesus was answering him about being born again NOT water baptism.

There are theologians that believe either way.

Blessings

Dear GG,

I respect your wishes to end this conversation. However, I also think you misunderstood me and in all fairness I should have one more chance to clarify.

I am agreeing with you that Nicodemus was referring to being born again (re-entering the womb)? That is why I said, "Nicodemus thought Jesus was speaking of a physical birth".

Jesus did answer Nicodemus's question about re-entering the womb (being born again). He told him that is NOT what I am talking about; re-entering the womb and being BORN again. Jesus told him he was talking about being baptized with water and Spirit just like when John the Baptist baptized me a few weeks ago with water and the Spirit came down upon me. He basically said to Nicodemus, Your the teacher of Scripture to the Jews and you can't even figure out what I am saying?

Jesus actions (being baptized by John) and words (one must be born again of water) were consistent. He instructed us to follow thru on his words and actions: The one who believes and is baptized will be saved.

It doesn't matter if Theologians "believe either way". Only one can be The Truth. I guess you have to figure out where you find The Truth. I have.

Respectfully, Mary

 

[GodsGrace]

Dear GG,

I respect your wishes to end this conversation. However, I also think you misunderstood me and in all fairness I should have one more chance to clarify.

I am agreeing with you that Nicodemus was referring to being born again (re-entering the womb)? That is why I said, "Nicodemus thought Jesus was speaking of a physical birth".

Jesus did answer Nicodemus's question about re-entering the womb (being born again). He told him that is NOT what I am talking about; re-entering the womb and being BORN again. Jesus told him he was talking about being baptized with water and Spirit just like when John the Baptist baptized me a few weeks ago with water and the Spirit came down upon me. He basically said to Nicodemus, Your the teacher of Scripture to the Jews and you can't even figure out what I am saying?

Jesus actions (being baptized by John) and words (one must be born again of water) were consistent. He instructed us to follow thru on his words and actions: The one who believes and is baptized will be saved.

It doesn't matter if Theologians "believe either way". Only one can be The Truth. I guess you have to figure out where you find The Truth. I have.

Respectfully, Mary

Theologians do not agree on everything.
If it does not have anything to do with salvation, I tend not to argue about it too much.

If you check John 3:6, Jesus tells N
"that which is born of flesh is flesh, that which is born of spirit is spirit".
NASB

To me this makes it seem that Jesus is speaking to a physical Birth and then a spiritual Birth.

Also, John the Baptist said that one was coming after him that would baptize not for repentance, but with fire and the Holy Spirit.
Mathew 3:11

So why would Jesus say that N, and Others,needed to be baptized with water?
When shortly after baptism would be for power to witness,
Acts 1:8

And the Holy Spirit would descend as a tongue of fire...
Acts 2:3 and they were filled with the Holy Spirit Acts 2:4

I understand the arguments for the water being the water of baptism,
I just cannot accept it.

Jesus did say to teach all that He taught and to be baptized.
Mathew 28:19

If we continue on this path, it brings up the question of WHEN is one saved?
At belief, or at baptism?

 

[Helen]

If works were not required for our salvation, can we lose our salvation for lack of works?

Stranger

NO!
Yet I guess it all depends on what a person thinks is the "works" that God requires of us.
It is already a-given that we have the NT commandment..."LOVE God, and love neighbour..."
And Jesus said :- John 6:29 "Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent."

Any other works we do..visit the sick, give to the poor, feed the fatherless and widows, or anything else...is nothing more than the "overflow of love"... these should just happen. Good works effortless...coming from God within.

Anything we do in believing that we "ought' to do, to keep on God's good side...is nothing more than dead works.
You asked:- Will not doing them lose us our salvation?
...NO...we just wont have any good works when God weighs us in the balance....we will at that time 'be found wanting.'
1 Cor 3:13 ...."Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Each man's work will be revealed. For the Day will declare it, because it is revealed in fire; and the fire itself will test what sort of work each man's work is.
If any man's work remains which he built on it, he will receive a reward.
If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire."

My two cents...but you probably agree anyway...I'm just jumping in to this conversation Ha!

 

[KBCid]

You are free to post whatever you want so long as it conforms to the standards of forum rules, friend.
Christians everywhere are "watchmen on the wall" and are obliged to sound the alarm when confronted with false doctrine, lest the blood of those who perish in false doctrine shall be on the watchmen's hands.

Sir, I hear your intent.
Unfortunately it would appear that there is not liberty here to present such an argument in the manner you are attempting to bring to the table.
Consider (if you would) my words for a moment please.
In the days when Christ came according to prophecy he brought with him a new covenant that included expanded meaning for some things and the elimination of some works from what the Jews had grown accustomed to over the centuries. As you know or should know the Jews had added a plethora of sub laws to the original written testament of Moses... a decent description has already been stated in better words than I would have used;

The Pharisees were are group of very zealous Jewish leaders who took their faith very seriously. They believed that the way they would please God and make it to Heaven was by meticulously following a long list of religious rules and regulations. Here’s a breakdown:

The Mosaic Law
The foundation of the Pharisaical rules was the Mosaic Law – the law that God gave through Moses to the Jewish people of the Old Testament. The most famous part of the Mosaic Law is the 10 Commandments, but these are actually just 10 of a total of 613 commandments given to the OT people.

The Midrash
While following 613 commandments would be hard enough, over time Jewish leaders began to slowly add to these laws in the Midrash. This additional teaching is basically an ongoing compilation of sermons and sayings by Jewish Rabbis meant to interpret the original Mosaic Law. The original intent of these additions was to clarify the law, but it ended up adding many layers of complicated regulations. This Midrash was already lengthy in Jesus’ day and continues to grow to this day. So for the Pharisees, they not only tried to follow the 613 commandments of the Mosaic Law, but the literally thousands of new commandments that were created to clarify the original 613 commandments.

For example, in the Mosaic Law, one of the commandments is to keep the Sabbath holy, which means that Jews were not supposed to work on Saturdays. But to clarify this, the Jewish scholars created 39 separate categories of what “work” means, and within those 39 categories there are many sub-categories. So to follow the rule of not working on the Sabbath, there are literally thousands of sub-rules to follow, including how many steps you can take, and how many letters you can write on the Sabbath.
The Rules of the Pharisees | pursueGOD.org

So, we see that these people at that time had not only God's pure word but also the traditions of men that had been added to it which essentially made God's word of no effect according to Christ, right? Now, here we are 2000 yrs later and I am feeling de javu for this story.

With that being said... I would like to hear more of what you have as an understanding without any reference to the viewpoints of others you may have an agreement with. I think you may be able to present it with a positive slant where you identify those things that are correct in your view and possibly those sects of Christianity that they can be found within. This way no one should be able to assert that you are only bringing a negative argument and at the same time I can see how many things we may actually have in common.

 

[Marymog]

Theologians do not agree on everything.
If it does not have anything to do with salvation, I tend not to argue about it too much.

If you check John 3:6, Jesus tells N
"that which is born of flesh is flesh, that which is born of spirit is spirit".
NASB

To me this makes it seem that Jesus is speaking to a physical Birth and then a spiritual Birth.

Also, John the Baptist said that one was coming after him that would baptize not for repentance, but with fire and the Holy Spirit.
Mathew 3:11

So why would Jesus say that N, and Others,needed to be baptized with water?
When shortly after baptism would be for power to witness,
Acts 1:8

And the Holy Spirit would descend as a tongue of fire...
Acts 2:3 and they were filled with the Holy Spirit Acts 2:4

I understand the arguments for the water being the water of baptism,
I just cannot accept it.

Jesus did say to teach all that He taught and to be baptized.
Mathew 28:19

If we continue on this path, it brings up the question of WHEN is one saved?
At belief, or at baptism?

Hi GG,

If we rely on "theologians" to help determine our beliefs then we have to decide WHICH ones. Do we just go with majority rules? Example: 51% of theologians believe the Real Presence doctrine therefor I have to believe it? What gives that 51% authority to determine what doctrine effects our salvation? It is a tough dilemma.

That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit is a reiteration of unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Jesus was speaking to a physical Birth AND then a spiritual Birth.

You are (physically) born of and from flesh (your mother). That birth does not save you.
Your physical body is born AGAIN with water (baptism) thru the Spirit; just like Jesus DID. This is what saves you.

Jesus is speaking of a physical birth thru your mother AND a spiritual birth thru baptism. A spiritual birth that saves you. Baptism now saves you (1Peter).

Jesus just didn't "say" that we need to be baptized with water. He DID it himself. He put his words into action. His final commandment was Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them....teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.” What did he command them to do? BAPTIZE! How did they baptize? With water. How was Jesus baptized? With water. Acts 1:8 does not negate any of that. You are acting like you can have only one or the other or one cancels out the other. That suggest God's word contradicts itself.

It is sad you can't accept water baptism when Jesus WORDS are clear about it. Jesus ACTIONS are very clear about it. The apostles ACTIONS are clear about it. Matthew, Mark, John, 1Corintians, Luke and Acts is very clear about it.

I find it fascinating that you were allegedly taught by the Catholic Church where you also taught the belief and also allegedly taught by a Nazarene Church yet you can not accept water baptism. Both churches have similar teaching on both.

When is one is saved? At belief or baptism? Why can't it be both?

What if at the age of 60 I accept Jesus and believe he is my Lord and Savior. My church then schedules my baptism for the following Sunday, 4 days away. I die in a car accident on Saturday. I never got baptized. Will I still go to heaven?

Curious Mary

 

[Stranger]

NO!
Yet I guess it all depends on what a person thinks is the "works" that God requires of us.
It is already a-given that we have the NT commandment..."LOVE God, and love neighbour..."
And Jesus said :- John 6:29 "Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent."

Any other works we do..visit the sick, give to the poor, feed the fatherless and widows, or anything else...is nothing more than the "overflow of love"... these should just happen. Good works effortless...coming from God within.

Anything we do in believing that we "ought' to do, to keep on God's good side...is nothing more than dead works.
You asked:- Will not doing them lose us our salvation?
...NO...we just wont have anyway good works when God weighs us in the balance....we will at that time 'be found wanting.'
1 Cor 3:13 ...."Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Each man's work will be revealed. For the Day will declare it, because it is revealed in fire; and the fire itself will test what sort of work each man's work is.
If any man's work remains which he built on it, he will receive a reward.
If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire."

My two cents...but you probably agree anyway...I'm just jumping in to this conversation Ha!

I do agree.

Stranger

 

[GodsGrace]

Hi GG,

If we rely on "theologians" to help determine our beliefs then we have to decide WHICH ones. Do we just go with majority rules? Example: 51% of theologians believe the Real Presence doctrine therefor I have to believe it? What gives that 51% authority to determine what doctrine effects our salvation? It is a tough dilemma.

That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit is a reiteration of unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Jesus was speaking to a physical Birth AND then a spiritual Birth.

You are (physically) born of and from flesh (your mother). That birth does not save you.
Your physical body is born AGAIN with water (baptism) thru the Spirit; just like Jesus DID. This is what saves you.

Jesus is speaking of a physical birth thru your mother AND a spiritual birth thru baptism. A spiritual birth that saves you. Baptism now saves you (1Peter).

Jesus just didn't "say" that we need to be baptized with water. He DID it himself. He put his words into action. His final commandment was Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them....teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.” What did he command them to do? BAPTIZE! How did they baptize? With water. How was Jesus baptized? With water. Acts 1:8 does not negate any of that. You are acting like you can have only one or the other or one cancels out the other. That suggest God's word contradicts itself.

It is sad you can't accept water baptism when Jesus WORDS are clear about it. Jesus ACTIONS are very clear about it. The apostles ACTIONS are clear about it. Matthew, Mark, John, 1Corintians, Luke and Acts is very clear about it.

I find it fascinating that you were allegedly taught by the Catholic Church where you also taught the belief and also allegedly taught by a Nazarene Church yet you can not accept water baptism. Both churches have similar teaching on both.

When is one is saved? At belief or baptism? Why can't it be both?

What if at the age of 60 I accept Jesus and believe he is my Lord and Savior. My church then schedules my baptism for the following Sunday, 4 days away. I die in a car accident on Saturday. I never got baptized. Will I still go to heaven?

Curious Mary

Yes.
And when did I say I was against baptism?

 

[Marymog]

Yes.
And when did I say I was against baptism?

Hi,

Where did I say you were against baptism?

Mary

 

[GodsGrace]

Hi,

Where did I say you were against baptism?

Mary

See post no. 88

Here is what you said:

I find it fascinating that you were allegedly taught by the Catholic Church where you also taught the belief and also allegedly taught by a Nazarene Church yet you can not accept water baptism. Both churches have similar teaching on both.

First of all, using the word "allegedly" is saying that you believe I'm lying.
This is not very nice of you. Why would I lie to you?

Second of all, as you can plainly see you DID say that I cannot accept water baptism even though both churches have similar teachings on it.

BTW, The Nazarene teaching on baptism is VERY DIFFERENT from the Catholic teaching.

I'd appreciate not being called a liar.

 

[Marymog]

See post no. 88

Here is what you said:

I find it fascinating that you were allegedly taught by the Catholic Church where you also taught the belief and also allegedly taught by a Nazarene Church yet you can not accept water baptism. Both churches have similar teaching on both.

First of all, using the word "allegedly" is saying that you believe I'm lying.
This is not very nice of you. Why would I lie to you?

Second of all, as you can plainly see you DID say that I cannot accept water baptism even though both churches have similar teachings on it.

BTW, The Nazarene teaching on baptism is VERY DIFFERENT from the Catholic teaching.

I'd appreciate not being called a liar.

Hi GG,

I do apologize. Here is the definition of allegedly: used to convey that something is claimed to be the case or have taken place, although there is no proof. I should accept your word as proof. However, proof is something that is visible. Your words aren't.

The reason I say "fascinating" is because you attended a Catholic Church and taught their doctrine but didn't believe what you were practicing or teaching. That simply fascinates me that someone would do that. But that is an assumption on my part. Maybe at the time you were living it and teaching it you believed it? Changed your beliefs later?

You were also taught the Nazarene belief/practice on baptism, which is similar to RCC practice, but you didn't accept it either? Can you now see why I say fascinating? Two different churches tell you almost the same thing about baptism and it appears (to me) you rejected both.
baptism – MANUAL 2013–2017
The Sacrament of Baptism – MANUAL 2013–2017

Yup....That's what I said dear. You can not accept water baptism.

I based that statement on your post #83 where you said: I understand the arguments for the water being the water of baptism,
I just cannot accept it.

The question you then asked me was: And when did I say I was against baptism?

Did I misunderstand your statement? I thought we were talking about WATER baptism. If so, I apologize. However, I think you can see how I came to that conclusion.

Since I thought we were talking about WATER baptism I was basing my "both churches have similar teaching" on that they both use water and it may be administered by sprinkling, pouring or immersion.

All in love, Mary

 

[GodsGrace]

Hi GG,

I do apologize. Here is the definition of allegedly: used to convey that something is claimed to be the case or have taken place, although there is no proof. I should accept your word as proof. However, proof is something that is visible. Your words aren't.

The reason I say "fascinating" is because you attended a Catholic Church and taught their doctrine but didn't believe what you were practicing or teaching. That simply fascinates me that someone would do that. But that is an assumption on my part. Maybe at the time you were living it and teaching it you believed it? Changed your beliefs later?

You were also taught the Nazarene belief/practice on baptism, which is similar to RCC practice, but you didn't accept it either? Can you now see why I say fascinating? Two different churches tell you almost the same thing about baptism and it appears (to me) you rejected both.
baptism – MANUAL 2013–2017
The Sacrament of Baptism – MANUAL 2013–2017

Yup....That's what I said dear. You can not accept water baptism.

I based that statement on your post #83 where you said: I understand the arguments for the water being the water of baptism,
I just cannot accept it.

The question you then asked me was: And when did I say I was against baptism?

Did I misunderstand your statement? I thought we were talking about WATER baptism. If so, I apologize. However, I think you can see how I came to that conclusion.

Since I thought we were talking about WATER baptism I was basing my "both churches have similar teaching" on that they both use water and it may be administered by sprinkling, pouring or immersion.

All in love, Mary

We were discussing John 3 NOT BAPTISM. I'm baptized (Catholic) and I DO believe in doing what Jesus said to do. This includes being baptized.

I was taught theology by the CC and I taught there.
I learned Protestant theology in the Nazarene Church.
Protestant baptism is different.

For your information and since you might be fascinated to know this,
I have taught in the CC even recently. I know 3 priests personally. One is a theologian who knows koinè Greek and has taught both.

When I taught the priest I worked for knows that I have protestant beliefs and have some problems with Catholicism. He accepts me for how I am and I have no problem. He trusted me to teach for 6 years including a bible study of Mathew in my home with adults (just a few).

All is in the open and all is well.
There is nothing very different when doing bible study.
1 Corinthians 15 could be problematic because of the doctrine of purgatory, but I really cannot think of anything else. ( and I never dealt with this).

Blessings

 

[Marymog]

We were discussing John 3 NOT BAPTISM. I'm baptized (Catholic) and I DO believe in doing what Jesus said to do. This includes being baptized.

I was taught theology by the CC and I taught there.
I learned Protestant theology in the Nazarene Church.
Protestant baptism is different.

For your information and since you might be fascinated to know this,
I have taught in the CC even recently. I know 3 priests personally. One is a theologian who knows koinè Greek and has taught both.

When I taught the priest I worked for knows that I have protestant beliefs and have some problems with Catholicism. He accepts me for how I am and I have no problem. He trusted me to teach for 6 years including a bible study of Mathew in my home with adults (just a few).

All is in the open and all is well.
There is nothing very different when doing bible study.
1 Corinthians 15 could be problematic because of the doctrine of purgatory, but I really cannot think of anything else. ( and I never dealt with this).

Blessings

Dear GG,

I believe you are the one who started the water baptism subject when you said, I understand the arguments for the water being the water of baptism, I just cannot accept it.

I only responded to it.

Some Protestants practice and accept the same baptism that Catholics do: Baptism with water, bapstism saves you (its' not symbolic), and infant baptism.

BTW...John 3 talks about baptism!!

Purgatory is probably the weakest doctrine the RCC has. You disagree with Purgatory also?

Mary

 

[Phoneman777]

@Phoneman777 ...As far as I am concerned you are an obsessive ranter. There are much worse things going on in the world than Catholics ...MUCH.
Get a grip and listen to the Lord. This is not His agenda that you think you are posting.
40 years ago I thought the things that you are obsessed with were important.
Then I grew up ....you should try it!

What you, in all your mature Christian experience, fail to realize is that the most fearful warning in all of Scripture - to shun the Beast, the Image of the Beast, the Mark of the Beast, the Name of the Beast, and the Number of the Beast or else suffer eternal damnation - is of UTMOST IMPORTANCE to Christians.

However, I understand your position. I would feel the same way if I believed as you - that the church will be raptured before the Antichrist arrives and the seven years of tribulation begin - and I would also characterize my words as "obsessive rant". However, if you would take the time to discover that your beliefs originated in Rome as a means to counteract the Biblical truth of Antichrist that Spurgeon along with the entire Protestant world was declaring as to what Antichrist is - the Roman Catholic Papacy - I'm sure you would change your mind post haste. www.historicism.com

 

[Phoneman777]

How can 'grace' not be hyper?

Stranger

When Grace is turned to Disgrace it is anything but "hyper", it does anything but "abound much more", and "covereth" over nothing except the truth.

 

[Helen]

However, I understand your position. I would feel the same way if I believed as you - that the church will be raptured before the Antichrist arrives and the seven years of tribulation begin - and I would also characterize my words as "obsessive rant". However, if you would take the time to discover that your beliefs originated in Rome as a means to counteract the Biblical truth of Antichrist that Spurgeon along with the entire Protestant world was declaring as to what Antichrist is - the Roman Catholic Papacy - I'm sure you would change your mind post haste. www.historicism.com

Well that just goes to show how little you seem to read on this site.
Everyone knows that I am anti-rapture and think it is man made fear mongering...
As for you quote " If I would have taken time to discover where my beliefs came from etc."..that is another stupid argument of yours. For you information I have spent MUCH time...54 year to be precise ... I was saved back in the sixties...and I am well versed in the roots of the established church, Halloween, Christmas and all the other stuff.....Plus I have looked into all the conspiracy theories ...there is much , much, more going on than to be concerned about the RC church!!!
So stop talking about things you have no idea about...you don't even know me.
How can you be saying what I believe and what I don't believe?
What you have is an opinion....everyone has opinions...

 

[Phoneman777]

I'm not Catholic and do not like being put in the position to defend the CC.
I will say, however, that the Pope has no such power as you ascertain above.

There is a magesterium to which any change in Catholicism must agree.
It consists of the Pope and Bishops which are titled with Cardinal.
They must be in full Agreement before the Pope can make any statement which MUST be, at that point, ex-cathedra. This is not an easy mission to accomplish.

On another post you said that Jesus said to come out from them.
He meant the secular world, of course. He DID NOT mean Catholicism,
which is the ONLY Church that can trace its roots to the Apostles.

Since you know so much about history, you must know that his is correct.
The Orthodox shism in the year 1,000 AD and Protestantism schisms at the year 1,500 AD. The CC remains in tact.

Stop trying to save people who are already saved and if your mission is to save that which is lost, try the secular world --- it is truly lost.
(which is what Jesus meant, anyway)

Your post demonstrates that you do not understand the history of the RCC that is so filled with intrigue, murder, deciet, blasphemy, etc.

The Pope is recognized as "God on Earth". If you need any evidence of this, just consider what happened to the many who were cruelly murdered for opposing his authority.

The call to "...come out of Babylon, MY PEOPLE" cannot in any way refer to a calling of the unsaved out of the world, for "if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His." Unless you are willing to argue that those in the world who lack His spirit yet belong to Him.

The RCC ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, WITH UTMOST CERTAINTY cannot trace it's roots back to the church Jesus founded.
Did Jesus establish prayers to the dead?
Did Jesus establish repetitious prayers with prayer beads?
Did Jesus establish celibacy among the clergy?(Peter, claimed by the RCC to be the FIRST POPE, was MARRIED)
Did Jesus establish a religious hierarchy?
Did Jesus establish infant baptism?

I could fill a thick volume with just such reasons for why Jesus' church was NEVER headquartered in Rome. Where men, women, and babies were killed in the Coliseum, there was His church. Where they were tossed over the cliffs one by one while being compelled to recant their views which opposed the RCC, there was His church. Where they were persecuted, robbed, banished, and hunted, for refusing to accept the blasphemous teachings of the RCC, there was His church. The RCC was NEVER His church.

The Protestant Reformation of the 16th century was God's movement to restore what had so been completely covered over by the RCC - grace, love, forgiveness, and most importantly, the free gift of salvation which the Bible says is purchased "without money and without price." And sadly, today, non-Catholics who are totally ignorant of church history are now standing up in defense of such an indefensible organization, like lambs denouncing among their ranks criticism of the wolves. www.historicism.com

 

[Phoneman777]

Well that just goes to show how little you seem to read on this site.
Everyone knows that I am anti-rapture and think it is man made fear mongering...
As for you quote " If I would have taken time to discover where my beliefs came from etc."..that is another stupid argument of yours. For you information I have spent MUCH time...54 year to be precise ... I was saved back in the sixties...and I am well versed in the roots of the established church, Halloween, Christmas and all the other stuff.....Plus I have looked into all the conspiracy theories ...there is much , much, more going on than to be concerned about the RC church!!!
So stop talking about things you have no idea about...you don't even know me.
How can you be saying what I believe and what I don't believe?
What you have is an opinion....everyone has opinions...

What do you mean you are Anti-Rapture? There will most certainly be a Rapture. You seem to be anti Scripture. Are you a Universalist?

 

[Helen]

Are you a Universalist?

What a strange question for this discussion! What on earth "has that got to do with the price of onions!!!!"

 

[Phoneman777]

What a strange question for this discussion! What on earth "has that got to do with the price of onions!!!!"

I'd be happy to enlighten you. Universalists generally don't concern themselves with apocalyptic aspects of the Bible, seeing that in the end "everyone's going to heaven anyway". Are you?