Randall Johnson, another good at "non-answer asnwers
Todd
Randall Johnson wrote:
>What is the point?
> It wouldn't matter if I said yes or no. It wouldn't put him in
heaven or
> hell repectively.
> If you are not born of the water and the Spirit you are not saved.
That
> is if you are not baptized in the Name of Jesus, (that is if someone
has not
> immersed you in water in faith believing that the name of Jesus
washes away
> sins based upon the blood that wash shed at calvary), and you have
not
> received the gift of the Holy Ghost as it was given on the day of
Pentecost
> and in Acts 8, 10, and 19, (which is speaking in tongues as the Spirit
gives
>the utterance), then you are not born again, you are not saved.
> Whether God sends someone to hell or welcomes them to heaven is up to
God.
>He is the Judge not I. But He has commissioned and called me to preach
what
>the Bible says.
> Not what I think.
Another "Non-answer answer" from a UPC preacher.
What is the point Randall? The point is I want to see just how you
really believe and just how you are deceiving your flock.
I wanted a yes or no.
Here's the part you ignored in my example. The man I used as an example
was NEVER in a church in his life. But for some reason he opens a Bible
in that motel room.
He believes, but doesn't have a chance to get baptised before he dies.
Is he saved or not?
Come on Randall, answer. You're a preacher, so you ought to know.
Also remember. "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall
be saved."
In my example this man called on the Lord.
--
Todd--Only a sinner, saved by grace
Proverbs 3:
5: Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not
unto thine own understanding.
6: In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct
thy paths.
Authorized User
read before you uncorked the rhetoric.
I will indicate the place in his response where the answer which you sought
lies.
Todd wrote in message <35BD4C26...@nospamrocketmail.com>...
>Randall Johnson wrote:
>
>>What is the point?
>> It wouldn't matter if I said yes or no. It wouldn't put him in
>heaven or
>> hell repectively.
>> If you are not born of the water and the Spirit you are not saved.
>That
>> is if you are not baptized in the Name of Jesus, (that is if someone
>has not
>> immersed you in water in faith believing that the name of Jesus
>washes away
>> sins based upon the blood that wash shed at calvary), and you have
>not
>> received the gift of the Holy Ghost as it was given on the day of
>Pentecost
>> and in Acts 8, 10, and 19, (which is speaking in tongues as the Spirit
>gives
>>the utterance), then you are not born again, you are not saved.
[Read immediately above, OK?]
>> Whether God sends someone to hell or welcomes them to heaven is up to
>God.
>>He is the Judge not I. But He has commissioned and called me to preach
>what
>>the Bible says.
>> Not what I think.
>
>Another "Non-answer answer" from a UPC preacher.
>What is the point Randall? The point is I want to see just how you
>really believe and just how you are deceiving your flock.
>
>I wanted a yes or no.
>
>Here's the part you ignored in my example. The man I used as an example
>was NEVER in a church in his life. But for some reason he opens a Bible
>in that motel room.
>He believes, but doesn't have a chance to get baptised before he dies.
>Is he saved or not?
>Come on Randall, answer. You're a preacher, so you ought to know.
Other folks in these ng's would call you a "LIAR", todd, because he did
clearly answer you. But I simply assume that your excitement got ahead of
your reading.
Todd
>
> Rev Johnson answered you Todd. Evendently you didnt think that others would
> read before you uncorked the rhetoric.
No, he didn't. I want to know what his beliefs are. I asked you the same
question, and as I recall it took you weeks to answer.
<snip>
> Other folks in these ng's would call you a "LIAR", todd, because he did
> clearly answer you. But I simply assume that your excitement got ahead of
> your reading.
No, he didn't. I wanted a simple yes or no. Not some long winded
explanation that doesn't at all fit the scenario I used.
Todd Rosel
.
>Is he saved or not?
>Come on Randall, answer. You're a preacher, so you ought to know.
>
>be saved."
>
>In my example this man called on the Lord.
>Todd--Only a sinner, saved by grace
>
Being a preacher does not make one God. Only he is the judge of
both the dead and the living. If God wants to let people into the
pearly gates who have not experienced the new covenant rebirth of
water and spirit, then that it His buisness.
But as for me, Acts 2:38 that many of you hate and fight is still true and
it is the full gospel standard of salvation.
True justification by faith is not just mental assent in who Jesus is
or in what he did, but it is faith in action obeying his plan for man.
Salvation was purchased for us by Christ on calvary, and we receive it
when we receive him thru faith we repent of our sins, are baptized in
His precious name, and are filled with His precious Spirit.
Todd Rosel
MW Bassett
Todd wrote in message <35BE1631...@nospamrocketmail.com>...
>Authorized User wrote:
>>
>> Rev Johnson answered you Todd. Evendently you didnt think that others
would
>> read before you uncorked the rhetoric.
>
>No, he didn't. I want to know what his beliefs are. I asked you the same
>question, and as I recall it took you weeks to answer.
>
><snip>
>
>> Other folks in these ng's would call you a "LIAR", todd, because he did
>> clearly answer you. But I simply assume that your excitement got ahead of
>> your reading.
>
>No, he didn't. I wanted a simple yes or no. Not some long winded
>explanation that doesn't at all fit the scenario I used.
I guess that means that you decided not to read his answer. It was contained
in one sentance, and, I am very unhappy to say, if you consider the
following brief text to be long-winded, there is a problem.
Here is Rev. Johnson's text:
****
What is the point?
It wouldn't matter if I said yes or no. It wouldn't put him in heaven or
hell repectively.
If you are not born of the water and the Spirit you are not saved. That
is if you are not baptized in the Name of Jesus, (that is if someone has not
immersed you in water in faith believing that the name of Jesus washes away
sins based upon the blood that wash shed at calvary), and you have not
received the gift of the Holy Ghost as it was given on the day of Pentecost
and in Acts 8, 10, and 19, (which is speaking in tongues as the Spirit gives
the utterance), then you are not born again, you are not saved.
Whether God sends someone to hell or welcomes them to heaven is up to God.
He is the Judge not I. But He has commissioned and called me to preach what
the Bible says.
Not what I think.
***
That is about 260 words. I read with nearly 100% comprehension it in about 4
seconds, and that is pretty slow by modern standards.
Paragraph # 2 (about 195 words) answered your question twice, once in
summary, and then in minimal detail.
Todd, why pretend to be participating in a conversation when you are
obviously more interested in creating and sustaining attending strife. At
least that is my evaluation.
Mike
Todd wrote:
> Authorized User wrote:
> >
> > Rev Johnson answered you Todd. Evendently you didnt think that others would
> > read before you uncorked the rhetoric.
>
> No, he didn't. I want to know what his beliefs are. I asked you the same
> question, and as I recall it took you weeks to answer.
>
> <snip>
>
> > Other folks in these ng's would call you a "LIAR", todd, because he did
> > clearly answer you. But I simply assume that your excitement got ahead of
> > your reading.
>
> No, he didn't. I wanted a simple yes or no. Not some long winded
> explanation that doesn't at all fit the scenario I used.
Of course it fits. The guy wasn't baptized, and had not received the Holy
ghost. No, he wasn't saved. What had he been doing his whole life? He was
wasting the time he had. He never sought God, not until the night he died. He
had plenty of opportunity. Will God be merciful on him? I can't answer that, nor
can anyone else. Who am I, or you, or anyone else, to say we fully understand
the mercies of God? I can tell you what I think, and I can tell you what I'd
LIKE to think...you see, I was just through this last week, when my unsaved
bro-in-law died. A good guy, not a mean bone in his body...but unsaved. A
sinner, lost without God. What is his final fate? I won't know that in this
life. I will only know what I think. Question is, are you going to take the
chance that maybe God will be merciful on you, because you were too obstinate to
accept His truth? Or are you going to assure your fate with a dedication and
obedience to His truth? That's not a chance I'd like to take.
>
>
> --
> Todd--Only a sinner, saved by grace
>
Todd
>
> Todd wrote:
>
> > Authorized User wrote:
> > >
> > > Rev Johnson answered you Todd. Evendently you didnt think that others would
> > > read before you uncorked the rhetoric.
> >
> > No, he didn't. I want to know what his beliefs are. I asked you the same
> > question, and as I recall it took you weeks to answer.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > Other folks in these ng's would call you a "LIAR", todd, because he did
> > > clearly answer you. But I simply assume that your excitement got ahead of
> > > your reading.
> >
> > No, he didn't. I wanted a simple yes or no. Not some long winded
> > explanation that doesn't at all fit the scenario I used.
>
> Of course it fits. The guy wasn't baptized, and had not received the Holy
> ghost. No, he wasn't saved.
Not your call to make. You are playing God here. The Bible is very clear
and states that "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be
saved."
My example can and does happen every day in the real world.
> What had he been doing his whole life?
Who knows? Some people are born into families that don't believe in
church, so they aren't raised to believe that going to church is
important.
> He was
> wasting the time he had. He never sought God, not until the night he died.
So, are you saying that God, the God who is merciful would condemn this
man because he didn't seek Him early in life? Do you have any idea how
many people don't come to know God until late in life?
A personal experience here.
About 15 years ago, when i was a teenager, I was in a small church with
an absolutely wonderful man as pastor. He preached sermons that not only
touched the heart but convicted you. He had one problem, a slight speech
impediment. For this, about half the people in the church wanted to
throw him out and get a new pastor. They said he wasn't "smooth enough."
Well, the church split and he left. That whole experience left me pretty
disgusted. I could have easily walked away from the church. As a young
person who was very early in my walk with the Lord, that experience
could have easily pushed me away. So called Christians judging a man
because he didn't speak clearly enough. But it didn't. My faith remained
strong.
But not all were like me. Some did indeed leave.
The point of the above is, for those people that quit attending church
because of how so-called Christians act, they may come back. And I stand
by the belief that our merciful God will welcome them with open arms.
You don't know, nor should you judge why some people don't come to know
Christ until later in life.
Another true example.
I used to work in a small community populated with mainly one particular
nationality of people that I won't name. These people call themselves
Christians. They attend church every week and brag about what wonderful
people they are. However, some of them think nothing of going into
church on Sunday morning with a hangover. Also, some of them will sit in
that front pew on Sunday, but during the week would, for lack of a
better word, screw you over in a business deal every chance they have.
I can tell you what kind of affect this has on the non-believers in the
community.
One guy told me "If that is what being a Christian is, no thanks."
Another said "There are bar hopping drunks I trust more than I do those
Christians."
These people are driven away from the church. Will they ever come to
know Christ? I sure hope so. But when you ask what people did their
whole life, there are reasons and circumstances that keep some people
away until late in life. It's a fact.
> He
> had plenty of opportunity. Will God be merciful on him? I can't answer that, nor
> can anyone else.
Ahh but you did answer it above. You played God and said the man wasn't
saved. You have no right to do that.
Mike Williamson
Todd wrote:
> Mike wrote:
> >
> > Todd wrote:
> >
> > > Authorized User wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Rev Johnson answered you Todd. Evendently you didnt think that others would
> > > > read before you uncorked the rhetoric.
> > >
> > > No, he didn't. I want to know what his beliefs are. I asked you the same
> > > question, and as I recall it took you weeks to answer.
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > Other folks in these ng's would call you a "LIAR", todd, because he did
> > > > clearly answer you. But I simply assume that your excitement got ahead of
> > > > your reading.
> > >
> > > No, he didn't. I wanted a simple yes or no. Not some long winded
> > > explanation that doesn't at all fit the scenario I used.
> >
> > Of course it fits. The guy wasn't baptized, and had not received the Holy
> > ghost. No, he wasn't saved.
>
> Not your call to make. You are playing God here. The Bible is very clear
> and states that "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be
> saved."
No sir. Based on what you say, everyone who yells out "Jesus" is saved. Why is it you
recognize one verse relating to salvation, but refuse to recognize others? Doesn't the
bible need to be taken as a whole, not taking any part out by itself, but understanding
what all the verses are saying together? If we do as you are doing here, we see that
calling on the name of the Lord saves you. And yet, Mark 16:16 tells me that if I
beleive I will be saved? Is this a contradiction? They don't agree when taken
separately. But when we look at the Word as a whole, we see the plan of salvation
spread out, just as Isaiah 28:9-11 tells us "here a little, and there a little, precept
(commandment) upon precept. Want to know how to be saved? Take ALL the verses dealing
with salvation, and let each build upon the others...you can't build a salvation
doctrine on one verse.
(Isaiah 28:9-11 KJV) Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to
understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
{10} For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon
line; here a little, and there a little: {11} For with stammering lips and another
tongue will he speak to this people.
> My example can and does happen every day in the real world.
>
> > What had he been doing his whole life?
> Who knows? Some people are born into families that don't believe in
> church, so they aren't raised to believe that going to church is
> important.
>
So now we can be saved based on whether our parents knew the truth? Lets ask another
question. Say this man had not quite reached the place where he was ready to repent.
Or maybe he wasn't quite ready to call on the name of the Lord. Or maybe he wasn't
quite ready to admit Jesus was real...but he planned on it, soon. And then he dies.
Does God admit him into the kingdom based on what might have been? As Bro. Mark has
said, God is in charge of when the man dies too. We can hypothesize and talk in
circles all day long, but the fact remains: The bible does deal with what salvation is,
and what happens to those who are not saved. You figure it out. Was the guy saved? I
can't say for sure, but I can sure tell you what I think. No
> > He was
> > wasting the time he had. He never sought God, not until the night he died.
>
> So, are you saying that God, the God who is merciful would condemn this
> man because he didn't seek Him early in life? Do you have any idea how
> many people don't come to know God until late in life?
The bible says to decide THIS DAY whom you will serve. It tells us the today is the day
of salvation, NOW is the accepted time.
(2 Corinthians 6:2 KJV) (For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in
the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold,
now is the day of salvation.)
>
>
> A personal experience here.
> About 15 years ago, when i was a teenager, I was in a small church with
> an absolutely wonderful man as pastor. He preached sermons that not only
> touched the heart but convicted you. He had one problem, a slight speech
> impediment. For this, about half the people in the church wanted to
> throw him out and get a new pastor. They said he wasn't "smooth enough."
> Well, the church split and he left. That whole experience left me pretty
> disgusted. I could have easily walked away from the church. As a young
> person who was very early in my walk with the Lord, that experience
> could have easily pushed me away. So called Christians judging a man
> because he didn't speak clearly enough. But it didn't. My faith remained
> strong.
> But not all were like me. Some did indeed leave.
> The point of the above is, for those people that quit attending church
> because of how so-called Christians act, they may come back. And I stand
> by the belief that our merciful God will welcome them with open arms.
> You don't know, nor should you judge why some people don't come to know
> Christ until later in life.
Sure, God may very well bring them back...but that doesn't make them saved while they
are off doing their own thing, sucking their thumb.
> Another true example.
>
> I used to work in a small community populated with mainly one particular
> nationality of people that I won't name. These people call themselves
> Christians. They attend church every week and brag about what wonderful
> people they are. However, some of them think nothing of going into
> church on Sunday morning with a hangover. Also, some of them will sit in
> that front pew on Sunday, but during the week would, for lack of a
> better word, screw you over in a business deal every chance they have.
> I can tell you what kind of affect this has on the non-believers in the
> community.
> One guy told me "If that is what being a Christian is, no thanks."
> Another said "There are bar hopping drunks I trust more than I do those
> Christians."
So, here you have people basing their opinions of God on humans. True, the so-called
christians will have to answer for their effects on others, but that does not remove
the sin of the unsaved. I can't be saved just because you gave me a bad example. I am
responsible for my own actions and inactions.
> These people are driven away from the church. Will they ever come to
> know Christ? I sure hope so. But when you ask what people did their
> whole life, there are reasons and circumstances that keep some people
> away until late in life. It's a fact.
And there are others who stay away their entire life. Are they saved too?
>
>
> > He
> > had plenty of opportunity. Will God be merciful on him? I can't answer that, nor
> > can anyone else.
>
> Ahh but you did answer it above. You played God and said the man wasn't
> saved. You have no right to do that.
Ahh, but we do...How can we preach salvation to people, when we ourselves are unsure
about what is required...and if we DO know what is required, then we know that those
who don't meet the requirements aren't saved. Its a simple equation. Now, what
mercies God will grant to these folks, I can't say. I can only tell you what the bible
says.
Todd
>
> Todd wrote:
> >
> > Not your call to make. You are playing God here. The Bible is very clear
> > and states that "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be
> > saved."
>
> No sir. Based on what you say, everyone who yells out "Jesus" is saved.
Please don't take my remarks out of context. That is not at all what I
meant. Calling on the name of the Lord does not involve just yelling
Jesus.
> Why is it you
> recognize one verse relating to salvation, but refuse to recognize others? Doesn't the
> bible need to be taken as a whole, not taking any part out by itself, but understanding
> what all the verses are saying together?
That is exactly what I do. I haven't seen you post here before so i
assume you are new. I do indeed take the entire Bible but I didn't in
this post. You happened upon a discussion that has been ongoing. The
Bible teaches that it is belief in Jesus Christ that saves us.
<snip>
>
> > Who knows? Some people are born into families that don't believe in
> > church, so they aren't raised to believe that going to church is
> > important.
> >
>
> So now we can be saved based on whether our parents knew the truth? Lets ask another
> question. Say this man had not quite reached the place where he was ready to repent.
> Or maybe he wasn't quite ready to call on the name of the Lord. Or maybe he wasn't
> quite ready to admit Jesus was real...but he planned on it, soon. And then he dies.
You're twisting my example. I didn't say the man I used read the bible
and "planned on believing."
I said he believed and died shortly thereafter.
Obviously if he merely "planned on believing" he wasn't saved. Big
difference.
>
> > > He was
> > > wasting the time he had. He never sought God, not until the night he died.
> >
> > So, are you saying that God, the God who is merciful would condemn this
> > man because he didn't seek Him early in life? Do you have any idea how
> > many people don't come to know God until late in life?
>
> The bible says to decide THIS DAY whom you will serve. It tells us the today is the day
> of salvation, NOW is the accepted time.
Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough. I have met some older people
who have NEVER heard the gospel for various reasons. Perhaps there
parents weren't church goers, so they didn't realize the importance.
There can be any number of reasons. I am not talking about people that
hear the gospel and reject it for long periods of time.
There are tribes in other countries that have never heard the gospel
until missionaries bring it to them. Some of them are very old. The
person i was discussing this with appeared to be saying that they wasted
the time they had. Well good grief, what about people that never hear it
until late in life??
> > The point of the above is, for those people that quit attending church
> > because of how so-called Christians act, they may come back. And I stand
> > by the belief that our merciful God will welcome them with open arms.
> > You don't know, nor should you judge why some people don't come to know
> > Christ until later in life.
>
> Sure, God may very well bring them back...but that doesn't make them saved while they
> are off doing their own thing, sucking their thumb.
I didn't say that. Point was, and maybe I need to be more clear, is that
some people see things that cause them to walk away. They don't accept
the free gift of salvation. But they can and do come to know Jesus at
some point.
<snip>
> So, here you have people basing their opinions of God on humans. True, the so-called
> christians will have to answer for their effects on others, but that does not remove
> the sin of the unsaved. I can't be saved just because you gave me a bad example. I am
> responsible for my own actions and inactions.
I agree. But when you have people that don't know God, they go to a
church full of people like I described above, they tend to think that's
what Christians are because that is all they have seen.
>
> > These people are driven away from the church. Will they ever come to
> > know Christ? I sure hope so. But when you ask what people did their
> > whole life, there are reasons and circumstances that keep some people
> > away until late in life. It's a fact.
>
> And there are others who stay away their entire life. Are they saved too?
Of course not.
Mike Williamson
Todd wrote:
> Mike Williamson wrote:
> >
> > Todd wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Not your call to make. You are playing God here. The Bible is very clear
> > > and states that "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be
> > > saved."
> >
> > No sir. Based on what you say, everyone who yells out "Jesus" is saved.
>
> Please don't take my remarks out of context. That is not at all what I
> meant. Calling on the name of the Lord does not involve just yelling
> Jesus.
I know that, but do you? Why don't you explain what it means.
> > Why is it you
> > recognize one verse relating to salvation, but refuse to recognize others? Doesn't the
> > bible need to be taken as a whole, not taking any part out by itself, but understanding
> > what all the verses are saying together?
>
> That is exactly what I do. I haven't seen you post here before so i
> assume you are new. I do indeed take the entire Bible but I didn't in
> this post. You happened upon a discussion that has been ongoing. The
> Bible teaches that it is belief in Jesus Christ that saves us.
What do you do with Mark 16:16? Acts 2:38? John 3:5? And the multitude of other verses
dealing with salvation? You are taking one verse, and ignoring the others, for the sake of
preserving a doctrine that isn't biblical.
>
>
> <snip>
> >
> > > Who knows? Some people are born into families that don't believe in
> > > church, so they aren't raised to believe that going to church is
> > > important.
> > >
> >
> > So now we can be saved based on whether our parents knew the truth? Lets ask another
> > question. Say this man had not quite reached the place where he was ready to repent.
> > Or maybe he wasn't quite ready to call on the name of the Lord. Or maybe he wasn't
> > quite ready to admit Jesus was real...but he planned on it, soon. And then he dies.
>
> You're twisting my example. I didn't say the man I used read the bible
> and "planned on believing."
> I said he believed and died shortly thereafter.
> Obviously if he merely "planned on believing" he wasn't saved. Big
> difference.
>
> >
> > > > He was
> > > > wasting the time he had. He never sought God, not until the night he died.
> > >
> > > So, are you saying that God, the God who is merciful would condemn this
> > > man because he didn't seek Him early in life? Do you have any idea how
> > > many people don't come to know God until late in life?
> >
> > The bible says to decide THIS DAY whom you will serve. It tells us the today is the day
> > of salvation, NOW is the accepted time.
>
> Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough. I have met some older people
> who have NEVER heard the gospel for various reasons. Perhaps there
> parents weren't church goers, so they didn't realize the importance.
> There can be any number of reasons. I am not talking about people that
> hear the gospel and reject it for long periods of time.
> There are tribes in other countries that have never heard the gospel
> until missionaries bring it to them. Some of them are very old. The
> person i was discussing this with appeared to be saying that they wasted
> the time they had. Well good grief, what about people that never hear it
> until late in life??
>
> > > The point of the above is, for those people that quit attending church
> > > because of how so-called Christians act, they may come back. And I stand
> > > by the belief that our merciful God will welcome them with open arms.
> > > You don't know, nor should you judge why some people don't come to know
> > > Christ until later in life.
> >
> > Sure, God may very well bring them back...but that doesn't make them saved while they
> > are off doing their own thing, sucking their thumb.
>
> I didn't say that. Point was, and maybe I need to be more clear, is that
> some people see things that cause them to walk away. They don't accept
> the free gift of salvation. But they can and do come to know Jesus at
> some point.
>
> <snip>
>
> > So, here you have people basing their opinions of God on humans. True, the so-called
> > christians will have to answer for their effects on others, but that does not remove
> > the sin of the unsaved. I can't be saved just because you gave me a bad example. I am
> > responsible for my own actions and inactions.
>
> I agree. But when you have people that don't know God, they go to a
> church full of people like I described above, they tend to think that's
> what Christians are because that is all they have seen.
>
> >
> > > These people are driven away from the church. Will they ever come to
> > > know Christ? I sure hope so. But when you ask what people did their
> > > whole life, there are reasons and circumstances that keep some people
> > > away until late in life. It's a fact.
> >
> > And there are others who stay away their entire life. Are they saved too?
>
> Of course not.
bjm
have had myself. Prehaps KNOWING of our own salvation while still here on
earth is a comfort to ourselves, in knowing God has promised to have mercy
on our soul, and experiencing the Joy of his Grace while still in the
flesh. However, we all face our own day of reconning, saved and unsaved
alike, ... Is that correct? Isn't it on this day when, that man who died
before his salvation, has his final chance at Grace? When that man comes
to God on his knees and begs forgiveness because he did not know.... and
God sees his heart and knows that even though he never found religion,
church, Christ and faith while in this life, but he had a pure heart and
did many great works. Isn't it then God's call? Doesn't He understand the
heart? And isn't "forgiveness" his middle name? Or was it "Love".... or
"Mercy"?
I'm certainly not suggesting that ANYONE put off honoring our Lord by
rejecting the Grace he freely offers, or that there is no need to live by
the SPIRIT of the bible while in the flesh. And that the time is NOW. But
none of us can say how God will ultimately deal. I personally want to do
all God has asked of me in order to cherrish and honor the Grace He offers
me.
Lets reverse the example. What about the man who found Christ, was
baptised, walked in Christ, did many great works ... but then fell on hard
times and turned to booze and other sinful abuses? He allows satan to have
every control over his life, turns to all wicked ways and looses all faith.
Is it "once saved always saved"? Or could you say that if he could allow
this evil to overtake him, he was never really saved at all?
My mother was deeply involved with the church. Helped in driving the nails
that built it from the ground up. Believed in the scriptures. Worshiped
every Sunday, sang in the Church regularly, lifting her beautiful voice to
God. Then there was a falling out over gossip in the church. I believe it
was accusations over an affair, and i've no idea if true or not, all i knew
at the time is i was in Sunday school one day, and my Mom came in, got us
kids, and left for good in anger. She found another church.... It was a
different faith.... she attended something like twice and quit. And then
church and faith was over. Now almost 30 years latter she has no qualms in
using God's name to cuss, has no qualms in tossing an extra bag of
ferterlizer in the trunk if she can get away with it. Has no problem taking
too much change back from the vendor. Has no problem always being criticle
and judgemental of everyone. Had no problem abusing her children after she
left the church. If questioned.... does she believe in God? She believes
that it doesn't matter what she does because according to the bible we are
all sinners and fall short and are damned no matter what we do. Now.... was
it her own guilt over having had an affair?? Or was it hurt over all these
scripture loving Christians, whom she'd loved and helped to build the
church with, and the way they could hurt and disgrace her with wicked
gossip? Or does the reason even matter? She was baptised. She was fully
with Christ up until that time. She had followed every scripture that any
of you can claim she needed for salvation. But now she lives contrary to it
all. Is she still saved?
My points are that until you've walked in another man's shoes, you cannot
know what it feels like and the struggles faced in coming to Christ. Until
God has either Graced or cast away a sinner, we cannont know what He will
choose to do with the good hearted, but unsaved.
It is an ultimate blessing to find God's love and forgiveness here on
earth, but arguing over whether or not God will forgive a man on his own
day of reconning is a question only God can answer, and something i don't
want to risk.
Anyway, that is what i believe in my early learning. No offense intended
to anyone who does not see it the same.
Praise God for all of His mysteries.
God Bless
Bjm
(sorry no spell check)
Tanner
for Randall to say something like this. This is so uncalled for. If people want to
have a discussion, that is great. To get to the level of another nameless person
that posts all of his hate on the net is another. Randall, you have stepped over the
line.
Randall S Johnson wrote:
> Let me ask you a question Todd.
>
> Are you and your wife getting along better since you quit beating her?
>
> that is a yes or no question.
> No need to elaborate. I'm not interested in a bunch of rhetoric.
> Just a yes or a no will do.
>
> You're question was just as loaded and just as assuming of things that are either
> untrue or not relative.
>
MW Bassett
>I agree with you Tanner. A low blow.
>> Randall S Johnson wrote:
<snip>
>> > You're question was just as loaded and just as assuming of things that
>are either untrue or not relative.
No.. Bro Johnson explained that the comment was simply a just comparison to
a similar presumed guilt that he had been attacked with. Look at the
comment above, please.
Randall S Johnson
Are you and your wife getting along better since you quit beating her?
that is a yes or no question.
No need to elaborate. I'm not interested in a bunch of rhetoric.
Just a yes or a no will do.
You're question was just as loaded and just as assuming of things that are either
untrue or not relative.
Todd wrote:
> Authorized User wrote:
> >
> > Rev Johnson answered you Todd. Evendently you didnt think that others would
> > read before you uncorked the rhetoric.
>
> No, he didn't. I want to know what his beliefs are. I asked you the same
> question, and as I recall it took you weeks to answer.
>
> <snip>
>
> > Other folks in these ng's would call you a "LIAR", todd, because he did
> > clearly answer you. But I simply assume that your excitement got ahead of
> > your reading.
>
> No, he didn't. I wanted a simple yes or no. Not some long winded
> explanation that doesn't at all fit the scenario I used.
>
bjm
Tanner <tan...@prodigy.net> wrote in article
<35C5071F...@prodigy.net>...
> I read through the rest of the posting for this subject and I can not see
any reason
> for Randall to say something like this. This is so uncalled for. If
people want to
> have a discussion, that is great. To get to the level of another
nameless person
> that posts all of his hate on the net is another. Randall, you have
stepped over the
> line.
>
> Randall S Johnson wrote:
>
bjm
statement ... but it is a true example all around of how statements are
thrown out there carelessly, and pretty soon everyone's argueing over it,
and believing Todd to be a wife beater. Is itTrue or not?? I THOUGHT he
was just trying to make a point, but it was stated in such a way that it
did have me wondering if Todd had confided this to him in the past. I guess
i would have stated my point differently so as to make it clear it was an
example.... like, "For example, if i said.....".
I compare it to my nephew. He is always telling stories.... and when he
gets you to fall for it..... "Sucker". I wonder how many "Suckers" read the
post and didn't get it that those comments were really meant as examples,
and realized they were assuming something that was untrue? Or was it
really?
I seem to recall a mean spirit who likes to broadcast confidential
conversations, and very (mis)-leading statements. It just makes me
uncomfortable. But then i am neither your concious nor his, nor anyone's.
I guess i am just too sensitive, and I need to stop putting myself in the
other guys shoes and seeing what it would feel like to have it aimed at me.
No Offense
bjm
MW Bassett <mba...@iconn.net> wrote in article <6q3b7l$p...@netaxs.com>...
> bjm wrote in message <01bdbe81$2d38d5c0$d71aa2d1@default>...
> >I agree with you Tanner. A low blow.
>
> >> Randall S Johnson wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >> > You're question was just as loaded and just as assuming of things
that
> >are either untrue or not relative.
>
Todd
>
> I read through the rest of the posting for this subject and I can not see any reason
> for Randall to say something like this. This is so uncalled for. If people want to
> have a discussion, that is great. To get to the level of another nameless person
> that posts all of his hate on the net is another. Randall, you have stepped over the
> line.
I agree, he did. But I know why.
My question to him was indeed "loaded" but contrary to what Randall
says, it was not "just as assuming of things that are either untrue or
not relative."
If he were to say, "no the man is not saved" then he is playing God and
the Oneness people don't want to quite take that step.
But if he were to say "yes, he is saved" then his entire screwy belief
system goes up in smoke.
I have tried to get other Oneness people to answer similar questions
without success. It's almost like they are trained what and how to
answer.
This same problem affects other cults like the J-Witnesses and others.
They can't answer a simple yes or no question. They want to throw in the
"but if's" and "what about this" and so on and so on. Randalls answer
does not surprise me in the least. As I said, I think they are trained
in how to answer.
>
> Randall S Johnson wrote:
>
> > Let me ask you a question Todd.
> >
> > Are you and your wife getting along better since you quit beating her?
For the record, in case some people get confused, and do not understand
how Randall is attempting to weasel out of my question, I am not, nor
have I ever been married.
Todd
>
> bjm wrote in message <01bdbe81$2d38d5c0$d71aa2d1@default>...
> >I agree with you Tanner. A low blow.
>
> >> Randall S Johnson wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >are either untrue or not relative.
>
> a similar presumed guilt that he had been attacked with. Look at the
> comment above, please.
What presumed guilt? I asked him to answer yes or no to a question
regarding the salvation of a man who died before being able to be
baptized.
Good grief! Presumed guilt?? And attacked? Is that the way Oneness
responds to questions they can't answer? Attacked?? Wow!
Todd
>
> Let me ask you a question Todd.
>
> Are you and your wife getting along better since you quit beating her?
To people who don't know me or perhaps have not been following this
thread, you could easily come to the conclusion that A: Mr Johnson knows
me and B: That I am a wife beater.
And neither is true.
I have never been married, and only a coward would lay a hand on a lady.
The way he worded the above question and the fact that he refuses to
give a simple answer to a simple question leads me to believ that Mr
Randall Johnson is one thing. SLIME.
God forgive me for my anger. But this goes beyond healthy dialogue and
disagreement.
Mr Johnson could have been decent enough to put a disclaimer on his
idiotic question, but he didn't. But why am I not surprised? After all,
this is a man who......
Thinks he is better than others. (Check it out folks, he said it in a
discussion with Berry)
Seriously shortchanges his small flock by preaching the same verse as he
said "nearly every time I get behind the pulpit."
Displays such arrogance when discussing anything with anyone who
disagrees with him.
This is, I am sad to say typical of the majority of the Oneness
preachers and other Oneness believers that post here. Not all mind you,
but most.
These are people that believe that salvation=sin free to mean they
become sinless. When in reality salvation means to be free from the
bondage of sin.
These are people that admit to basing their entire doctrine around one
verse.
It's not limited to Randall Johnson either.
Mike Williamson snips entire sentences from verses and puts in his own
which don't even come close to the original sentence he snips. I have
pointed out this error he commits regarding 1 Peter 3:21 at least three
times, but in his arrogance he ignores that and continues to do it.
Jerry Moon thinks he was being cute in his ongoing fight with Steve
Winter and hints that he has photos of Mr Winter saying, "It's a hair
thing this summer."
He also, in an obvious attempt at bragging and trying to annoy Steve
Winter, posts a message intended for Mr Bassett. The message was
bragging about how many were at Easter service. Pride. Pride. Pride.
Mark Bassett, whom I now call "Mr Excuses" has come up with one lame
excuse after another to justify his continued emails, IRC chats and now
his excuses about repeated phone calls to Winter.
His latest excuses about the phone calls consisted of him saying
something to the effect of Winter calling his wife and yelling at her
over the phone when he wasn't there.
I haven't heard or used the old "he started it" excuse since I was in
the third grade.
Steve Winter. No comments needed. He speaks for himself.
David Schluter, whom I haven't seen post lately displays such arrogance
that he once stated "you speaks against me you speak against the Holy
Spirit."
Never once thinking he could possibly be wrong. That would just be
impossible.
Bottom line is, these people are pond scum.
Randall Johnson owes me an apology.
And every one of them need to get on their knees and ask for forgiveness
and for the leading of the Holy Spirit.
Again I say, God forgive me for my anger, but this went too far.
kei...@midtown.net
<Swi...@nospamrocketmail.com> wrote:
>Randall Johnson owes me an apology. And every one of them need to
>get on their knees and ask for forgiveness and for the leading of the
>Holy Spirit.
Todd, you're not living in a real world. Did Jesus tell His false
accusers in the court of the Gentiles they owed Him an apology?
No He did not. Did the apostles of the early church tell the Jews
they owed them an apology for falsely accusing and beating them?
No, the scripture says they were glad they were falsely accused
and beaten per Acts 5:40,41 which reads; "They took his advice;
and after calling the apostles in, they flogged them and ordered
them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and then released them.
So they went on their way from the presence of the Council,
rejoicing that they had been considered worthy to suffer shame
for His name."
Sincerely, Keith K
Rev. Steve Winter
>What presumed guilt? I asked him to answer yes or no to a question
>regarding the salvation of a man who died before being able to be
>baptized.
>Good grief! Presumed guilt?? And attacked? Is that the way Oneness
>responds to questions they can't answer? Attacked?? Wow!
You are talking to known lying scum, Todd. You can simply count the number of
people who did not board Noah's ark who did not drown. That will give you the
number of trinitarians who will be saved and the number of people who were not
baptised in Jesus Name who will be saved (REGARDLESS of intentions).
Lost people go to hell. That is the problem with false churches and the
reprobate whores you have been debating with.
Good people are dieing and going to hell every day.
Rev. Steve Winter
--
-={ PreRapture BBS 919-286-2100 33600bps / Telnet to PRIME.ORG }=-
http://www.prime.org Home of the PRIME Christian Network
Are the false christians pitching fits because I call them names,
or because I am proving my allegations from their own Bibles?
(Check the web site for info as 3 god cults embrace canine morals.)
MW Bassett
Todd wrote in message <35C594AC...@nospamrocketmail.com>...
>MW Bassett wrote:
>>
>> bjm wrote in message <01bdbe81$2d38d5c0$d71aa2d1@default>...
>> >I agree with you Tanner. A low blow.
>>
>> >> Randall S Johnson wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>> >> > You're question was just as loaded and just as assuming of things
that
>> >are either untrue or not relative.
>>
>> No.. Bro Johnson explained that the comment was simply a just comparison
to
>> a similar presumed guilt that he had been attacked with. Look at the
>> comment above, please.
>
>regarding the salvation of a man who died before being able to be
>baptized.
>Good grief! Presumed guilt?? And attacked? Is that the way Oneness
>responds to questions they can't answer? Attacked?? Wow!
Sorry Todd.. I cannot reply because I cannot get a copy of the original. I
assumed that Bro Johnson had answered you appropriately, and still do, but I
cannot prove it.
Lets see... can we address this? Sure... Let ME make a few assumptions.
Assumption ONE - you are correct, and you did not use a personal example.
Now, did you presume anything about Bro Johnson, or place a question that
would put him in a bind? Remember, I cannot get at the original. Let me
assume:
You probably said something like "Don't give me all the details - just a
'yes' or 'no'" (Resaonable guess, since you have done this repeatedly).
What was the question? "If a man expires before being baptized properly, can
he be saved?".
I addressed this question, but you are out for blood,m and rejected the
answer. Now, you want someone to condemn themselves by applying your own
terms and conditions. Here is why the situation is bad, in general, Todd.
Listen up, ok?
The Bible gives the way to be saved. It does NOT address the myriad or
zillions of excuses, permutations, and opinions that human reasoning lead
into. Bro Johnson is simply saying "this is what the Bible says". When you
ask, "Well, does God send unsaved babies to hell?", and questions of that
sort, and follow up with "Well, if what you say is true then it means that
God sends unsaved babies to hell", this is really unjust and unreasonable,
not to mention pathetically amaturish debating (I believe you indicated that
you were "debating" in these newsgroup conversations, no?)
When you attempt to tag someone who is professing the POSITIVES of the
scipture, with all the NEGATIVES which you surmise, it is exactly the same
kind of question as "Todd, when did you quit beating your wife?".
Now, Todd, I am getting the impression that it is entirely possible that it
is the first time you have heard that example used, but friend, I need to
tell you the "when did you stop beating your wife?" comment, is a well known
ideological comnment, and could not possibly be taken to refer to you by
ANYONE with any brains. This is an expression that implies that someone has
been put unfairly in a corner.. By your reaction, it seems that you
UNDERSTOOD the concept. Believe me, that was ALL that was intended.
I perceive Todd, that you are a little more than oversensitive. You need to
remember that
a) no one knows you personally here
b) not too many people probably really care very much
c) the medium is inclined to over-beligerance, simply because people take
what is written wrongly, very often.
Ease off the condemnation control, and see how life looks without a lot of
invective, ok?
Tanner
stick to their beliefs and when they can not answer, they just stop responding. I am still
trying to get an answer on whether or not the belief in trinity is enough to send somebody
to hell.
Todd
> >> No.. Bro Johnson explained that the comment was simply a just comparison
> to
> >> a similar presumed guilt that he had been attacked with. Look at the
> >> comment above, please.
> >
> >What presumed guilt? I asked him to answer yes or no to a question
> >regarding the salvation of a man who died before being able to be
> >baptized.
> >Good grief! Presumed guilt?? And attacked? Is that the way Oneness
> >responds to questions they can't answer? Attacked?? Wow!
>
> Sorry Todd.. I cannot reply because I cannot get a copy of the original. I
> assumed that Bro Johnson had answered you appropriately, and still do, but I
> cannot prove it.
He replied the same way you tried to reply for weeks. He added some
"what if's" and "buts" that didn't answer the question. Hence the topic,
"Randall Johnson, another good at non-answer answers"
>
> Lets see... can we address this? Sure... Let ME make a few assumptions.
>
> Assumption ONE - you are correct, and you did not use a personal example.
> Now, did you presume anything about Bro Johnson, or place a question that
> would put him in a bind? Remember, I cannot get at the original. Let me
> assume:
Yes I fully admit I asked a question that would put him in a bind. That
was the point. I am trying to show that the Gospel according to Oneness
is not one of grace in contradiction to the Bible.
>
> You probably said something like "Don't give me all the details - just a
> 'yes' or 'no'" (Resaonable guess, since you have done this repeatedly).
Wonder why this bothers you? In fact, why does it bother any Oneness
person to answer simple yes or no questions? Hmmmmm?
>
> Now, Todd, I am getting the impression that it is entirely possible that it
> is the first time you have heard that example used, but friend, I need to
> tell you the "when did you stop beating your wife?" comment, is a well known
> ideological comnment, and could not possibly be taken to refer to you by
> ANYONE with any brains. This is an expression that implies that someone has
> been put unfairly in a corner.. By your reaction, it seems that you
> UNDERSTOOD the concept. Believe me, that was ALL that was intended.
Well, a thousand apologies for not knowing of a tactic like that Mark.
And I am not the only one. Seems Tanner and bjm commented about it being
out of line also. Is this type of insulting tactic unique to Oneness
people?
And as far as someone "been unfairly put in a corner," why? Why is
asking a simple yes or no question putting someone in a corner? The
simple answer seems to be that no Oneness person on this group can ever
give a straight answer to anything without first putting their own spin
ON said question to make it easier to answer.
>
> I perceive Todd, that you are a little more than oversensitive. You need to
> remember that
> a) no one knows you personally here
Yes. A benefit to posting anon.
> b) not too many people probably really care very much
Well, Tanner and bjm cared enough to comment.
> c) the medium is inclined to over-beligerance, simply because people take
> what is written wrongly, very often.
Oh I see. So a Oneness asks a loaded question that is insulting but it
is OUR fault for reading it wrongly. Ok, gotcha. That just clears it all
up. heh.
And you wonder why I think of you people as slime and pond scum.
MW Bassett
Todd wrote in message <35C5FE29...@nospamrocketmail.com>...
>And you wonder why I think of you people as slime and pond scum.
Nice, Todd.
I doubt anyone will cry out against this kind of comment when it comes from
you, but thats life.
Thats ok, Todd.. some folks have a great big God who helps to shoulder
burdens. All I want you to know is that it would be a lot more in your
credit to refrain from this kind of comment. It makes you sound a lot like
Steve Winter.
MW Bassett
>And as far as someone "been unfairly put in a corner," why? Why is
>asking a simple yes or no question putting someone in a corner? The
>simple answer seems to be that no Oneness person on this group can ever
>give a straight answer to anything without first putting their own spin
>ON said question to make it easier to answer.
When one frames a very specific question, there is often no real desire for
an answer, but rather it is an effort to corner the opponent and cause him
to struggle.
I realize you know that, but I wonder why this kind of conversation is
deemed to be acceptable, when it invariably pits personalities against one
another while lessening the value of the answer, or subject in question
(which is being used as a tool) ?
Examples of this are seen numerous times in the Bible. For example, in Mat
22:
"23 The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no
resurrection, and asked him, 24 Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die,
having no children, his brother shall marry his wife , and raise up seed
unto his brother. 25 Now there were with us seven brethren: and the
first, when he had married a wife , deceased, and, having no issue, left
his wife unto his brother: 26 Likewise the second also, and the third,
unto the seventh. 27 And last of all the woman died also. 28 Therefore
in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven ? for they all
had her. "
Jesus also did it in debating the Pharisees. From Mark 12:
"35 And Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, How say the
scribes that Christ is the Son of David ? 36 For David himself said
by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till
I make thine enemies thy footstool. 37 David therefore himself calleth
him Lord; and whence is he [then] his son?"
In all fairness, the technique is not in and of itself wrong. However, it is
when and how it is used and whether the assertions that accompany the
"cornering question" are designed to bring shame, or reveal truth, that
really makes the difference.
When you make such a hypotethetcal question, that is really a foolish
question, to imply that a man is saying something that does not logically
follow from the "yes" or "no", but you frame the question so as to make
those implications, it is NEVER wise for the man to answer it.
The point is, if you were to deny beating your wife, you are already in a
conversation about beating your wife, and your opponent delights in the
shame that he has introduced by getting you on his turf. I mean, you *know*
that is how it works, so why express such surprise, as though this is the
first time that it ever occured to you that a person is not always doing the
best thing to sit like a blindfolded prisoner being interogated. The
questioner can lead and introduce fault though the nature of his questions.
bjm
Deb <dmi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<35c87935...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
> On Mon, 03 Aug 1998 04:29:33 GMT, "bjm" <NOSPAMm...@thegrid.net>
> wrote:
>
> >gets you to fall for it..... "Sucker". I wonder how many "Suckers" read
the
> >post and didn't get it that those comments were really meant as
examples,
>
> Only those that stopped reading halfway through. I read it, and it
> was clear to my by the followup statement what the point was.
On the contrary, i did read it all the way through, a couple of times to
understand. And yes, i did get it, that i THOUGHT it was meant as example.
But was not sure.
Please consider that perhaps it was an open enough statement for one to
have doubts, rather then doubting my my savy. I may not be the crispest
cookie in the jar, but i am not all soggy either.
bjm
>
>
> Deb
> ***** Note: If you are sending email from hotmail.com,
> don't bother, that domain is blocked here
> due to excessive spam
>
Todd
>
> Nice, Todd.
>
> I doubt anyone will cry out against this kind of comment when it comes from
> you, but thats life.
>
> Thats ok, Todd.. some folks have a great big God who helps to shoulder
> burdens. All I want you to know is that it would be a lot more in your
> credit to refrain from this kind of comment. It makes you sound a lot like
> Steve Winter.
Well I will say this. You have an uncanny ability to manage to turn the
mistakes of the Oneness around and slam all of the blame onto us. Such
arrogance.
I generally don't engage in name calling but you and Randall both really
ticked me off. And as I said in another post, God forgive me for my
anger.
I notice you didn't answer the question about why it bothers Oneness
people so much to have to answer yes or no questions.
And this statement made by you says a lot...
> c) the medium is inclined to over-beligerance, simply because people take
> what is written wrongly, very often.
My response was...
Oh I see. So a Oneness asks a loaded question that is insulting but it
is OUR fault for reading it wrongly. Ok, gotcha. That just clears it all
up. heh.
This is something I pointed out regarding David Shluter who said "you
speaks against me you speak against the Holy Spirit."
You Oneness people express such arrogance that no matter what you never
seem to make a mistake. Even when one writes something insulting it is
OUR fault for reading it wrong. Amazing.
Todd
>
> Deb <dmi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
> <35c87935...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
> > On Mon, 03 Aug 1998 04:29:33 GMT, "bjm" <NOSPAMm...@thegrid.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >gets you to fall for it..... "Sucker". I wonder how many "Suckers" read
> the
> > >post and didn't get it that those comments were really meant as
> examples,
> >
> > Only those that stopped reading halfway through. I read it, and it
> > was clear to my by the followup statement what the point was.
Maybe I am not as smart as some others. Or perhaps I just happen to
think it is low to do something like that without adding a "For example"
I think it's low to attempt dialogue in that manner. I have been posting
here a while, but perhaps not long enough to know such lame tactics
exist. But I DID learn these tactics are used, and who taught me? Who
else, the Oneness people.
The point however is that this is simply another attempt by a Oneness
person to weasel out of answering a simple question. And call em on it,
the others jump in with the excuses and turn the blame around on us
saying people misread things.
I only regretfully came back to this after saying I wasn't going to last
week.
This discussion only shows me that it doesn't pay to try and reason with
unreasonable people. I guess I am a fool because I really realized this
months ago but I kept trying.
The Oneness people are some of the most arrogant people posting on
Usenet. They can do no wrong, at least in their own eyes, and attempting
dialogue with them is an excercise in futility.
>
> On the contrary, i did read it all the way through, a couple of times to
> understand. And yes, i did get it, that i THOUGHT it was meant as example.
> But was not sure.
> Please consider that perhaps it was an open enough statement for one to
> have doubts, rather then doubting my my savy. I may not be the crispest
> cookie in the jar, but i am not all soggy either.
> bjm
You know, bjm pointed out in another post that she thought perhaps I may
have confided something to Randall at one time. When a statement is
worded the way Randall worded it it can be intrepreted that way.
However, I don't expect any Oneness person to see the error in judgement
because of blind arrogance they all seem to suffer from.
Mark Bassett
<Swi...@nospamrocketmail.com> wrote:
>MW Bassett wrote:
>>
>> Todd wrote in message <35C5FE29...@nospamrocketmail.com>...
>>
>> >And you wonder why I think of you people as slime and pond scum.
>>
>> Nice, Todd.
>>
>> I doubt anyone will cry out against this kind of comment when it comes from
>> you, but thats life.
>>
>> Thats ok, Todd.. some folks have a great big God who helps to shoulder
>> burdens. All I want you to know is that it would be a lot more in your
>> credit to refrain from this kind of comment. It makes you sound a lot like
>> Steve Winter.
>
>Well I will say this. You have an uncanny ability to manage to turn the
>mistakes of the Oneness around and slam all of the blame onto us. Such
>arrogance.
Todd, let me mention that it is your pretense that you are addressing
mistakes. That may agrivate you, but remember: simply because you have
an opinion that someone with another position on a matter is wrong,
does not in and of itself make them wrong.
Furthermore, I did not slam you. I did say that calling people "pnd
scum" and such does not exactly help to elevate your position of
denouncing them on the basis that they are rude.
>I generally don't engage in name calling but you and Randall both really
>ticked me off. And as I said in another post, God forgive me for my
>anger.
I understand. We have all made excuses at one time or another.
Fortunately spiritual maturity is not denied, as a wonderful target or
goal, from any person - obviously spiritual immaturity is not held
against a person seeking maturity. Aren't you glad that God is
magnanimous? You do not today know *what* will transpire in your life,
and you can be very opitimistic concering even your own ability to
deal with difficult situations. I need this same promise and find that
God provides and reassures, abundantly.
>I notice you didn't answer the question about why it bothers Oneness
>people so much to have to answer yes or no questions.
Yes I did. I wll repeat it briefly, and recommend that you go back and
read my answer again, this time with the intent of comprehending.
Yes and no questions, set up by an adversary, often cause a person, in
replying in absolute, to appear to imply something else. Real
communication ONLY takes place when
I can tell you this, and HAVE told you this: There is only ONE WAY of
salvation, and it is outlined and preached regularly by the Apostles.
This MINIMALLY includes repentance, baptism into the name of Jesus
Christ, and the baptism of the Holy Ghost. I cannot preach anything
else as a hope, and neither can anyone else who reads the scriptures
honestly, and completely.
However, can I say absoltely that there is NO WAY, NO HOW that someone
cut another deal with God? No. I see none in scripture. We are told by
God to look no where else but the gospel, in Christ Jesus. Is there
another path? I wouldnt gamble on in if it was only a 2 cent lottery.
However, I am not God, and I cannot make these absolute statements,
LISTEN NOW, ... WHEN, a person has access to the scriptures, KNOWS for
himself that the ball is in his court, and has had a witness of these
things - I personally hold off from condemning them. YOur friend
Winter will condemn you right away, so if you want a slug-head to
answer your yes and no questions, you know where to find one.
>And this statement made by you says a lot...
>> c) the medium is inclined to over-beligerance, simply because people take
>> what is written wrongly, very often.
It is true, nevertheless. I doubt any rational observer would
disagree.
>My response was...
>
>Oh I see. So a Oneness asks a loaded question that is insulting but it
>is OUR fault for reading it wrongly. Ok, gotcha. That just clears it all
>up. heh.
>This is something I pointed out regarding David Shluter who said "you
>speaks against me you speak against the Holy Spirit."
Huh?
I would not make the same statement. Take this up with David Shulter,
if you are concerned about it, Todd.
>You Oneness people express such arrogance that no matter what you never
>seem to make a mistake. Even when one writes something insulting it is
>OUR fault for reading it wrong. Amazing.
I'm not in a me versus you game here, Todd, so forgive me if I fail to
play ball, ok?
You may be seeing things a little differently. I personally dont see
it to be very kind, or very profitable to steretype and catalog people
for convenience. I am an individual, and I suppose that you are also.
The best bet is to treat people with respect, wherever possible.
(ps. why are *you* massively cross posting now?)
Mark Bassett
<Swi...@nospamrocketmail.com> wrote:
> I have been posting
>here a while, but perhaps not long enough to know such lame tactics
>exist. But I DID learn these tactics are used, and who taught me? Who
>else, the Oneness people.
Oh please!!! Really! The phrase "when did you stop beating your wife",
is in VERY common use, and well know throughout society, and the fact
that you never heard it or did not know it does not fault the person
who said, it... it simply indicates that you havent really been in
circulation much, or don't read much.
Thats like saying you caught a cold from the Chineese because you
walked by a chineese restraurant and heard a sneeze.
And why is this cross posting going on?
You sometimes seem to have no purpose in posting except for using the
word "Oneness" in your posts, in a derogatory way.
Mark Bassett
wrote:
>And why is this cross posting going on?
>
>You sometimes seem to have no purpose in posting except for using the
>word "Oneness" in your posts, in a derogatory way.
I am sorry Todd. I did not mean to be so snappy.. I re-read this
message, and see that it certainly doesnt sound as I meant it. I was
thinking, "I asked before, but am still wondering why EVERYONE seems
to cross post EVERYTHING." Seems like it should be possible to have a
conversation in a single newsgroup.
I dont get alt.religion.christian.pentecostal, by the way.
Mark Bassett
<Swi...@nospamrocketmail.com> wrote:
>However, I don't expect any Oneness person to see the error in judgement
>because of blind arrogance they all seem to suffer from.
Hey Todd.. let me just say this:
Yes, if everyone reading was ignorant, they you might have taken some
hurt from Bro. Johnspon's effort to communicate a point to you. Fact
is, I have OFTEN been misunderstood, and have been the victim of
carelessly composed statements.
So, let me apologize, if I would be allowed, for all or most of us,
for our fault, and sometimes carelessness, in posting here. I know
that I could certainly do better, and your comments seemed to be
somewhat justified, even if you were the only one effected.
I guess you could see this as a cheap apology, but, I dont know what
else to say.
bjm
Mark Bassett <mba...@iconn.net> wrote in article
<35d0365a...@news.iconn.net>...
> On Tue, 04 Aug 1998 09:43:03 +0000, Todd
> Oh please!!! Really! The phrase "when did you stop beating your wife",
> is in VERY common use, and well know throughout society, and the fact
> that you never heard it or did not know it does not fault the person
> who said, it... it simply indicates that you havent really been in
> circulation much, or don't read much.
I don't see this as the strongest arguement here... But perhaps that is
just because Iam one who has never heard this term used.... but then i have
heard a lot here that i'd never heard before. I would guess if Mr Johnson
Meant no harm by the statement, then he will have regrets for any damage
such a statement would cause.
> And why is this cross posting going on?
I'd like to speak for myself on this question. Personally.... I don't know
the NG rules, and that there is a problem cross posting. The reasons it
seemed sensible to me was 1) If it is feedback you are looking for, the
more from different sources, the better. 2) I have sometimes posted hoping
to reach a specific person.... and have no idea if that person reads and
posts from this group or another. Example, I have seen many messages posted
here to SW that are never answered. I know he most likely simply chooses
not to reply.... but i also wondered if he reads and cross posts from
another site and so never sees them.
I don't want to do it if it is a problem.... but can you explain why that
is a problem??
Be clear, i am not taking any sides here. I still think the comment could
easily be taken wrong. To someone who never heard the phrase it could have
just as easily said "do you still beat your children" or, "Are you still on
drugs"? I hope the statement was made without mallicious intent.... just as
i hope the comments and arguement to follow were just an emotional
reaction, and not just meant to make the other guy look bad. But that is
something we each have to answer for ourselves.
No offense intended,
God Bless you all,
Bonnie
>
bjm
Mark Bassett <mba...@iconn.net> wrote in article
<35d43999...@news.iconn.net>...
> On Tue, 04 Aug 1998 16:31:01 GMT, mba...@iconn.net (Mark Bassett)
> wrote:
>
Now this is something very rarely.... if ever, stated in this Newsgroup.
Anyone have a verual frame?? Something to hang on the wall as a reminder?
It is nice to know these browsers do have an appology button.
Thank you Mark for being REAL.
God Bless You
Bonnie
Mark Bassett
wrote:
>> And why is this cross posting going on?
>
>I'd like to speak for myself on this question. Personally.... I don't know
>the NG rules, and that there is a problem cross posting. The reasons it
>seemed sensible to me was 1) If it is feedback you are looking for, the
>more from different sources, the better. 2) I have sometimes posted hoping
>to reach a specific person.... and have no idea if that person reads and
>posts from this group or another. Example, I have seen many messages posted
>here to SW that are never answered. I know he most likely simply chooses
>not to reply.... but i also wondered if he reads and cross posts from
>another site and so never sees them.
>I don't want to do it if it is a problem.... but can you explain why that
>is a problem??
Ok, substantial, repeated cros posting is called SPAM, by internet
bigwigs and convention. Its a no-no for a number of reasons including
1) eliminating of the distinction between newsgroups and,
2) wasting of bandwith with significant duplication and mail volume,
this has the potential of useing vast amounts of storage resources and
channel bandwith while inflating the over-posted groups.
Anyway, thats my understanding.
:-)
Todd
>
> >And why is this cross posting going on?
> >
> >word "Oneness" in your posts, in a derogatory way.
>
> message, and see that it certainly doesnt sound as I meant it. I was
> thinking, "I asked before, but am still wondering why EVERYONE seems
> to cross post EVERYTHING." Seems like it should be possible to have a
> conversation in a single newsgroup.
>
> I dont get alt.religion.christian.pentecostal, by the way.
That is precisely why I crossposted. There are times when my news server
doesn't pick up all posts until days later on some newsgroups, but does
on others. And I know not all have access to all groups, as in your case
not having access to a.r.c.pentecostal.
I didn't think three newsgroups was massive crossposting. If it bothers
you I can stop. Not a problem.
And, I didn't think you were "snappy." :)
bjm
Mark Bassett <mba...@iconn.net> wrote in article
<35cb8bcf...@news.iconn.net>...
>
> >I don't want to do it if it is a problem.... but can you explain why
that
> >is a problem??
>
> Ok, substantial, repeated cros posting is called SPAM, by internet
> bigwigs and convention. Its a no-no for a number of reasons including
>
> 1) eliminating of the distinction between newsgroups and,
> 2) wasting of bandwith with significant duplication and mail volume,
> this has the potential of useing vast amounts of storage resources and
> channel bandwith while inflating the over-posted groups.
>
> Anyway, thats my understanding.
>
> :-)
Okie Dokie. Thanks for the education. I thought Spam was just all the junk
mail i used to get for days after every post.... until i wrote "nospam" in
my return mail address.
But it does makes sense, the taking up space think. Guess all the cool
people will just have to come here :-}
Bjm
Randall S Johnson
You proposed a hypothetical situation wherein I am supposed to establish whether
a person is going to heaven or not.
I answered you by saying very clearly and simply that I do not put myself in
the position of putting people in heaven or in hell. But because of what I
preach you condemn me.
Do you condemn preachers who believe in what you believe by the same standard?
Do you ask them the same question?
How about this one, if you didn't like the wife beating question.
Lets say that a man is laying in his bed in a hotel room and he reads the
Gideon's Bible that was there in the night stand. He turns to Romans 10 and
reads that whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved. And he reads
John 3:16 where it says that whosoever believeth in him shall have everlasting
life. And in his heart he looks toward heaven and thinks 'God if you are real
please save me'. This is his only approach to God ever in his life.
Did this man go to heaven?
Yes or No.
Second question:
How can you prove it either way?
The thing is Todd is simply this, God is the Judge, not you and not me. You
are trying to make me appear as a judge by asking these questions. That is what
you are trying to do is condemn me for being judgemental after you rhetorically
force me to answer a judgemental question.
Your logical problems prove nothing though. As I have said before, it does not
matter what hypothetical situations we can contrive all that matters is what does
the word of God say.
Todd wrote:
> MW Bassett wrote:
> >
> > bjm wrote in message <01bdbe81$2d38d5c0$d71aa2d1@default>...
> > >I agree with you Tanner. A low blow.
> >
> > >> Randall S Johnson wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > >> > You're question was just as loaded and just as assuming of things that
> > >are either untrue or not relative.
> >
> > No.. Bro Johnson explained that the comment was simply a just comparison to
> > a similar presumed guilt that he had been attacked with. Look at the
> > comment above, please.
>
> What presumed guilt? I asked him to answer yes or no to a question
> regarding the salvation of a man who died before being able to be
> baptized.
> Good grief! Presumed guilt?? And attacked? Is that the way Oneness
> responds to questions they can't answer? Attacked?? Wow!
>
Randall S Johnson
You will die in your sins.
If you believe that He is anything other than God manifest in the flesh you will die in your
sins. You will be in the same position as anyone else because you do not know who Jesus Christ
is.
Randall S Johnson
people in a responsible and accurate manner but to try to find fault in
anyway possible.
I have no problem providing fault for you to find either. Because if you
are not hungry for the truth my integrity will never be good enough for
you. You will find something wrong with me.
If you are hungry for the truth you will follow it regardless of what I or
any other preacher does.
You attempt to discredit Bible truth by contriving straw men to knock down
for your own amusement.
Let me tell you the answer to one yes or no question sir.
Is Todd saved?
No
Todd wrote:
> that he once stated "you speaks against me you speak against the Holy
> Spirit."
> Never once thinking he could possibly be wrong. That would just be
> impossible.
>
> Bottom line is, these people are pond scum.
> Randall Johnson owes me an apology.
> And every one of them need to get on their knees and ask for forgiveness
> and for the leading of the Holy Spirit.
>
> Again I say, God forgive me for my anger, but this went too far.
>
Randall S Johnson
The teaching of the Oneness of the Godhead is fairly well defined and fairly uniform among those
that are considered authorities in the established Oneness organizations.
The trinity however, is not. The teaching of the trinity is not consistent from denomination to
denomination. It has not been consistent throughout history. And those that believe in it or say
they do are not consistent between themselves as to what they believe.
So when I speak of Oneness and what I believe I try to be as practical and clear as I possibly can
so that people do not argue against me when in fact they believe the same thing I do and call it the
trinity.
The natural conclusion of reading the Bible is that of Oneness. The teaching of the formal
official doctrine of the trinity has been forced upon the Bible by tradition and is not a of
Biblical origin.
Deb wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Aug 1998 18:38:00 -0700, Randall S Johnson
> <john...@sinclair.net> wrote:
>
> > If you do not believe that Jesus is the One and only God then you are not saved.
> > You will die in your sins.
> > If you believe that He is anything other than God manifest in the flesh you will die in your
> >sins. You will be in the same position as anyone else because you do not know who Jesus Christ
> >is.
>
> I do believe those things, yet I am what you would call a
> "Trinitarian". I have long believed that we actually believe much the
> same thing, it is simple semantics and "operational definitions" that
> are building a wall between us.
Randall S Johnson
To the response with all the serious tones about who and what you are I
have one thing to say, PUH LEEEASE!. uhg.
Come on, you have never heard this expression before? Really? I find this
amazing.
The point is completely lost on you? I am truly at a loss. If I had
intended to seriously accuse you of being a wife beater I wouldn't have done
it in such a ridiculous manner and I wouldn't have ended the comment with a
statement that the phrase was an illustration of your misleading and
dishonest line of questioning.
No, this whole thing with taking the phrase so seriously is simply a
diversion from the real issue. The real issue is not whether some
hypothetical person will be saved in some imaginary scenario. The real
issue is whether you will accept the truth of what the word of God says
rather than coming up with all these lame excuses and stories.
That was the point. Sure the illustration was ridiculous. But so was
your question. That was the point.
1. The point that I was making in the question are you and your wife
getting along better since you quit beating her scenario is this: Todd
here, is trying to set me up as a judge. He knows that God is the Judge.
And he has stated his strategy in so many words that he had no intention of
asking an honest question but to propose a hypothetical situation that in
his mind for me there would be no escape.
I answered his question clearly and honestly and then he began to attack
me personally. Why is that necessary? Why is it necessary for those who do
not believe in the truth to constantly try to intimidate and frustrate those
who simply wish to present the Bible as it reads, to try to force them to
say things they have not said? Because of their twisting of the scritpure
to their own destruction.
The parallel of the wife beating statement and the question that Todd
asked is simply this. He assumed that I have set myself up as a judge of
all men and that I should answer a yes or no question to that effect and if
I do not then I have to deny what I believe in. This is preposterous and
ridiculous. I illustrated this by asking a question that was no less
preposterous. Granted, it was a bit on the crass side, but if you will read
the Word of God you will also find a few crass illustrations coming from the
mouth of the Lord. Such as likening worldliness to whoredom and
prostitution. Certainly it is a crass illustration but it gets the point
accross.
Furthermore, others have written than I went over the line or struck a
low blow. This I find to be very interesting. Certainly a reasonable
person would not take my question seriously. Certainly, my question was
familiar enough in the venacular as an expression of incredulity that any
reasonable person would recognize it as rhetorical and not a serious
acusation. And I made myself clear at the end of the statement in that I
said that it was a parallel of the question that I had been asked.
Why is it all right for Todd to ask me a question in a very serious manner
in an attempt to discredit what I believe in a rhetorical manner, to try to
corner me into a rhetorical box so that he would appear to be vindicated
through some sort of verbal chess, why is it all right for him to engage in
a serious effort to discredit what I believe through a dishonest verbal
strategy? And yet it is not all right for me to point out the hypocrisy and
dishonesty and fraudulent nature of his question?
2. Lest I be missunderstood,
I believe that a person must first believe that God is and that He is a
rewarder of them that diligently seek Him. Those that do not diligently
seek Him will be lost. They will go to hell.
I believe that a person must believe that the Lord Jesus is the same God
that spoke to Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Adam, Isaiah and to all and in all
other situations wherein the Lord God was manifested to man in the Old
Testament. That when a person goes to heaven, if they make it, there will
only be one throne there and the One that will be sitting on it is Jesus.
In short, a person must believe in One God and not three different whatevers
in whatever substance and existence. They must believe that Jesus Christ is
the One and only I Am that Moses met on the mountain or they will die in
their sins.
I believe that Acts 2:38 is the one and only plan of salvation. That
there is no other way to get saved and those who have not obeyed Acts 2:38
are lost and going to hell.
That is a person must repent of their sins, be baptized in the Name of
Jesus Christ and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost speaking in other
tongues. This constitutes being born again without which a person will not
see the kingdom of God.
I believe that people who do not live holy and separate from the world
and worldly activity such as smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol, looking
at pornography in movies or magazines, participating in lustful activities
are of the world and the love of the Father is not in them they do not have
holiness with out which they shall not see God. They are lost and going to
hell even if they have obeyed Acts 2:38.
Randall S Johnson
I made that clear in the statement I made.
I owe you no apology.
I suggest you grow up
Randall S Johnson
This guy is allowed to rant and rave about all sorts of hypothetical
situations and I pose a rhetorical question to illustrate the manner in which
he is setting up the question to assume that I take a certain position and you
clowns take the illustration as a personal attack.
You people are shallow
bjm wrote:
> I agree with you Tanner. A low blow.
>
> Tanner <tan...@prodigy.net> wrote in article
> <35C5071F...@prodigy.net>...
> > I read through the rest of the posting for this subject and I can not see
> any reason
> > for Randall to say something like this. This is so uncalled for. If
> people want to
> > have a discussion, that is great. To get to the level of another
> nameless person
> > that posts all of his hate on the net is another. Randall, you have
> stepped over the
> > line.
> >
> > Randall S Johnson wrote:
> >
> > > Let me ask you a question Todd.
> > >
> > > Are you and your wife getting along better since you quit beating her?
> > >
> > > that is a yes or no question.
> > > No need to elaborate. I'm not interested in a bunch of rhetoric.
> > > Just a yes or a no will do.
Mark Bassett
<Swi...@nospamrocketmail.com> wrote:
>And I know not all have access to all groups, as in your case
>not having access to a.r.c.pentecostal.
>I didn't think three newsgroups was massive crossposting. If it bothers
>you I can stop. Not a problem.
I see.. I guess I am sort of self-centered. See, I get
alt.christnet.public, which everyone else *seems* to get, so I figure
it's central. Maybe there are some that dont get it. Bet they wont
write to tell me if they dont :-)
Only three groups? It lookse like more <sheepish grin>
bjm
Deb <dmi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<35cbc014...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
> On Tue, 04 Aug 1998 06:43:31 GMT, "bjm" <NOSPAMm...@thegrid.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >On the contrary, i did read it all the way through, a couple of times to
> >understand. And yes, i did get it, that i THOUGHT it was meant as
example.
> >But was not sure.
> >Please consider that perhaps it was an open enough statement for one to
> >have doubts, rather then doubting my my savy. I may not be the crispest
>
> perhaps my problem is then, that I tend to give folks the benefit of
> the doubt before jumping to the conclusion that there is a "deeper
> meaning"...
I also like to give people the benifit of the doubt, so i will not jump to
the conclusion that your comment was meant to imply that i am doing so.
I did give Todd the benifit of the doubt, and did not jump the the
conclucion that the statement was true. It did however give room for
speculation. Perhaps if you had never heard that particular statement, or
another statement had been in it's place, you might have considered IF it
could be true. And CONSIDERING that it is possible is far different than
not giving him the benifit of the doubt and jumping to conclusions. And in
fact i would never just believe anything that someone posted like that
without first hand knowledge. ... so perhaps here you might extend me that
"benifit of the doubt"
Yes... ah well.
God Bless
Bjm
>
> ah well...
Mark Bassett
wrote:
>It is nice to know these browsers do have an appology button.
Yeah, but you know I sometimes punch the wrong button. :-)
jEzZa
that has spun out of control.....we are all sinners at heart and we are
all wrong for God is the only one who is ever always right! So swallow
your pride....all of you. You are all a bad example to the 100's of
non-christians who have a quick galnce at this site and decide that
Christians are all hypocrites!!!! And all they do is argue with each
other.....may I start the flood of conviction by saying that I am sorry
for being a sinner but I have no choice because it is in my nature.
Father forgive me as you forgive my other brothers and sisters!
On Mon, 3 Aug 1998 kei...@midtown.net wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Aug 1998 11:08:45 +0000, Todd
> <Swi...@nospamrocketmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Randall Johnson owes me an apology. And every one of them need to
> >get on their knees and ask for forgiveness and for the leading of the
> >Holy Spirit.
>
> Todd, you're not living in a real world. Did Jesus tell His false
> accusers in the court of the Gentiles they owed Him an apology?
> No He did not. Did the apostles of the early church tell the Jews
> they owed them an apology for falsely accusing and beating them?
> No, the scripture says they were glad they were falsely accused
> and beaten per Acts 5:40,41 which reads; "They took his advice;
> and after calling the apostles in, they flogged them and ordered
> them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and then released them.
> So they went on their way from the presence of the Council,
> rejoicing that they had been considered worthy to suffer shame
> for His name."
>
> Sincerely, Keith K
>
>
************************** jEzZa
************************** Living Out A Destiny
************************** j.gre...@student.qut.edu.au
Todd
Heh heh.
Alt.religion.christian.pentecostal, alt.religion.christian and
alt.christnet.public
Those were the ones I used.
Todd
>
> It is clear that your entire effort here is not to honestly speak with
> people in a responsible and accurate manner but to try to find fault in
> anyway possible.
Amazing. I get a wee bit ticked off in answer to your slimey question
and it is now my fault? I will say this. You Oneness have an uncanny
ability to turn blame around on everyone else.
> I have no problem providing fault for you to find either. Because if you
> are not hungry for the truth my integrity will never be good enough for
> you. You will find something wrong with me.
I find things wrong with your intrepretation of the Bible. And you
continue to prove it over and over again.
> If you are hungry for the truth you will follow it regardless of what I or
> any other preacher does.
> You attempt to discredit Bible truth by contriving straw men to knock down
No, that simply isn't true. You see, I have studied long enough, had 12
years of Christian school where the focus was on the Bible, and I have
learned the truth. Your version of salvation is not the truth. Your is a
works oriented salvation. Not only the works of the person getting
saved, but also the works of the minister conducting the baptism, ie
saying the right words.
> for your own amusement.
> Let me tell you the answer to one yes or no question sir.
>
> Is Todd saved?
>
> No
Your statement surprises me, but then again it doesn't. You guys do seem
to like to play God. But then again, when you teach it is a commandment
to obey your pastor, why am I not surprised?
Todd
About as clear as mud.
I might suggest you do the same.
Arrogance, arrogance, arrogance.
Mike Williamson
>
> Your statement surprises me, but then again it doesn't. You guys do seem
> to like to play God. But then again, when you teach it is a commandment
> to obey your pastor, why am I not surprised?
Are you saying this isn't a commandment?
>
Fredericka
>
> > If you do not believe that Jesus is the One and only God then you are not saved.
> > You will die in your sins.
> > If you believe that He is anything other than God manifest in the flesh you will die in your
> >sins. You will be in the same position as anyone else because you do not know who Jesus Christ
> >is.
>
> I do believe those things, yet I am what you would call a
> "Trinitarian". I have long believed that we actually believe much the
> same thing, it is simple semantics and "operational definitions" that
> are building a wall between us.
Deb, I don't think the problem with 'Oneness' Pentecostalism is simple
semantics. They will tell you that there was no 'Son of God' prior to
the incarnation. This is an idea which is provably wrong by scripture:
"...having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like
unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually." (Hebrews 7:3).
That's why the Council at Nicaea anathematized the idea that there was a
time when the Son of God was not.
Fredericka
Berry
Randall S Johnson <john...@sinclair.net> wrote in article
<35C7F5C2...@sinclair.net>...
> I believe that Acts 2:38 is the one and only plan of salvation. That
> there is no other way to get saved and those who have not obeyed Acts
2:38
> are lost and going to hell.
You don't get to decide who is saved and who is not, that is a perogative
that belongs ONLY to God.
Second, how can you say that Acts 2:38 is THE plan of salvation when you
are misinterpreting Acts 2:38.
> holiness with out which they shall not see God. They are lost and going
to
> hell even if they have obeyed Acts 2:38.
And what about those who have followed your misinterpretation of Acts 2:38,
where are they going.
ALL Acts 2:38 says is that we should repent and then be baptized on the
authority of Christ, as public declaration that you have accepted Christ.
And that ALL it says.
Acts 2:38 gives no formula of words for either baptism or salvation
Berry
Randall S Johnson <john...@sinclair.net> wrote in article
> If you do not believe that Jesus is the One and only God then you are
not saved.
> You will die in your sins.
> If you believe that He is anything other than God manifest in the flesh
you will die in your
> sins. You will be in the same position as anyone else because you do not
know who Jesus Christ
> is.
Wrong Randall. I can either believe you or Christ. Christ did not teach
this Oneness doctrine that you cling to. Christ was not a role but an
distinct individual being who was both human and the Son of God.
I have to accept Christ's word as to who He was and also who He WASN'T. He
was NOT the Father and NOT the Holy Spirit.
Berry
Randall S Johnson <john...@sinclair.net> wrote in article
> The natural conclusion of reading the Bible is that of Oneness.
Can't disagree more. the ONLY logical conclusion after reading and studying
the Bible is that Oneness is NOT an option and the Trinity is for real
Tanner
Repent
Be Baptized (only in Jesus' name)
Speak in tongues
Believe in the oneness
Did you OK this with God first? I have done the first three but I do not believe the last. Can
you back up your belief? Did the translators forget some of Peter's message? I maybe old
fashion, but I believe Jesus saves and not doctrine.
Mark Bassett
<Swi...@nospamrocketmail.com> wrote:
> You see, I have studied long enough, had 12
>years of Christian school where the focus was on the Bible, and I have
>learned the truth. Your version of salvation is not the truth. Your is a
>works oriented salvation. Not only the works of the person getting
>saved, but also the works of the minister conducting the baptism, ie
>saying the right words.
Todd, it is not anyone else's fault that the folks who took twelve
years of your life had no respect for Apostolic doctrine, or
scripture.
Think about it.. Wouldnt you be saying the same thing if you had
studied for twelve years in a Catholic monastary, or for that matter
in a Zoroastrian school of secret wisdom.
The fact that you attended a "Christian school", is not going to help
when the Lord opens the book and says to you, "How do you answer for
the witness of the truth of my word that I sent by my servants".
When you can show that the name of Jesus is INSIGNIFICANT and that
baptism is INSIGNIFICANT, and that what you FEEL about a matter is
more important than what the scriptures communicate (regardless of how
many others also mock), then we can talk about the trajedy of wasting
time, and listening to the wrong voices. However, while we live and
breath, we are STILL responsible for evaluating the word of God, for
seeking the face of God, and for being honest in the exercises that
life brings to us.
No one can explain how anyone on this earth is somehow free from
voices that confuse, or why a person should not be under attack of
false doctrine.. Furthermore, no one will apologize for it. IN fact,
we all are subject to the same things. However, at any given moment,
we can set our sights on a better course, and toward light and away
from dark.
Let me give you a clue as to how that takes place. One does NOT say,
"I went to Christian school, therefore what I learned must have been
truth". What makes you more eligable to escape error than some
unfortunate Hindu born into Calcuttas gutters with about a 9 million
to one chance of hearing the liberating gospel of Jesus Christ.
Americans really think they are something else: just because they have
something that calls itself Christianity nearby, they are not subject
to the same spiritual pressures and deceptions that the rest of the
world is.. Sorry, God is no respecter of persons. For all the richness
of american culture, and the many favors of Christendom here, it aint
salvation.
Thank God *today* for the opportunities we have today! And if one can
actually feel and experience the presence of God, then they are
blessed indeed. If that is the case, bring charity to someone else.
God Bless!
Rev. Steve Winter
>In summary I would like to make a few statements:
>
> To the response with all the serious tones about who and what you are I
>have one thing to say, PUH LEEEASE!. uhg.
>Come on, you have never heard this expression before? Really? I find this
>amazing.
> The point is completely lost on you? I am truly at a loss. If I had
>intended to seriously accuse you of being a wife beater I wouldn't have done
Randall, you need to keep in mind that you are now known as a liar and a
reprobate in the same sewer with Mark Bassett (interested readers see
http://www.prime.org/impsmail/bassett.html for documentation.)
You might want to consider that your reprobate "bro", Mr. Bassett has been
lying through his teeth regarding the matter of the conversation where he
mentioned to me that he had considered murdering his first wife. This week
he is even back to admitting the conversation took place.
Now you might say this is a "cheap shot", but it pales in comparison to your
malicious attempts to have prime.org closed down trying to use your "clout"
as a Dept of Defense guy and your email harassment etc., so here goes:
For you to publicly accuse Todd of wife beating to make a point was at best
poor judgment and ill timed. It is, however, consistent with your disregard
for the truth when it suits your whim and fancy to simply LIE.
Now I am on record repeatedly stating that Todd is unrepentant false christian
scum so it should not surprise you that he is "false christian scum", but you
Mr. Johnson are lying reprobate scum; I believe you will be spending eternity
with the "Todd"s of this world.
Rev. Steve Winter
--
-={ PreRapture BBS 919-286-2100 33600bps / Telnet to PRIME.ORG }=-
http://www.prime.org Home of the PRIME Christian Network
Check the web site for info as 3 god cults embrace canine morals.
Rev. Steve Winter
>I never intended to say you were a wife beater.
>I made that clear in the statement I made.
>I owe you no apology.
>I suggest you grow up
I posted my other reply before considering the above. Mr. Johnson, it
is lying, malicious, pompous, pride engorged reprobate scum like yourself
that are dragging the UPCI down.
Randall, you need to keep in mind that you are now known as a liar and a
reprobate in the same sewer with Mark Bassett (interested readers see
http://www.prime.org/impsmail/bassett.html for documentation.)
You might want to consider that your reprobate "bro", Mr. Bassett has been
lying through his teeth regarding the matter of the conversation where he
mentioned to me that he had considered murdering his first wife. This week
he is even back to admitting the conversation took place.
Now you might say this is a "cheap shot", but it pales in comparison to your
malicious attempts to have prime.org closed down trying to use your "clout"
as a Dept of Defense guy not to mention your email harassment etc., so here
goes:
For you to publicly accuse Todd of wife beating to make a point was at best
poor judgment and ill timed. It is, however, consistent with your disregard
for the truth when it suits your whim and fancy, to simply LIE.
Now I am on record repeatedly stating that Todd is unrepentant false christian
scum so it should not surprise you that he is "false christian scum", but you
Mr. Johnson are lying reprobate scum; I believe you will be spending eternity
with the "Todd"s of this world.
Do a service, Mr. Johnson, if you have any integrity whatsoever turn in your
UPC license and make the UPC just a little cleaner. One less viper in the
camp would certainly be a small step, but a small step in the right direction.
Then you could find yourself a real pastor and get cleaned up (hopefully
before the rapture). The above advice would also be good for your reprobate
brethren like Bassett etc.
R johnson
God doesn't refer to me when He dispences truth. I only follow it and
preach it.
Oh, and the speaking in tongues thing should read, "receive the holy
ghost speaking in other tongues."
On Wed, 05 Aug 1998 18:18:19 -0500, Tanner <tan...@prodigy.net>
wrote:
Mike Williamson
<snip>. Steve Winter wrote:
> Randall S Johnson <john...@sinclair.net> wrote:
>
> >In summary I would like to make a few statements:
> >
> > To the response with all the serious tones about who and what you are I
> >have one thing to say, PUH LEEEASE!. uhg.
> >Come on, you have never heard this expression before? Really? I find this
> >amazing.
> > The point is completely lost on you? I am truly at a loss. If I had
> >intended to seriously accuse you of being a wife beater I wouldn't have done
>
> Randall, you need to keep in mind that you are now known as a liar and a
> reprobate in the same sewer with Mark Bassett (interested readers see
> http://www.prime.org/impsmail/bassett.html for documentation.)
Steve, this discussion didn't have anything to do with you. Why do you feel the
need to interject your stupidity into ever aspect of this newsgroup? And while
I'm asking questions, why have you not responded to what I posted a couple days
ago, listing several questions you have persistently evaded? Is it because you
are scared to answer? Is the "boldness of the spirit" that you pretend to have
only operative when you can criticize, and not when you are asked to give an
account for your own actions?
>
>
> <snip>
> For you to publicly accuse Todd of wife beating to make a point was at best
> poor judgment and ill timed. It is, however, consistent with your disregard
> for the truth when it suits your whim and fancy to simply LIE.
Are you really this stupid? I at one time thought you of at least middling
intellect, but you are fast showing me that what I saw was nothing but a facade,
covering the empty hole where your mind should be.
>
>
> <snip>. Steve Winter
Mike Williamson
Mike Williamson wrote:
> <snip>. Steve Winter wrote:
>
> > Randall S Johnson <john...@sinclair.net> wrote:
> >
> > >In summary I would like to make a few statements:
> > >
> > > To the response with all the serious tones about who and what you are I
> > >have one thing to say, PUH LEEEASE!. uhg.
> > >Come on, you have never heard this expression before? Really? I find this
> > >amazing.
> > > The point is completely lost on you? I am truly at a loss. If I had
> > >intended to seriously accuse you of being a wife beater I wouldn't have done
> >
Rev. Mike
Mike Williamson wrote in message <35C95E7C...@gatorPLEASE.net>...
>REPOST
>
>Mike Williamson wrote:
>
>> <snip>. Steve Winter wrote:
>>
>> > Randall S Johnson <john...@sinclair.net> wrote:
and so on, and so on, and so on, ad infinitum, ad nauseum!!
Folks, is there any possibility that USENET might establish a new newsgroup
(maybe soc.religion.upc or something) where you people who care little for
the kind of witness that your constant bickering and name calling presents
to the rest of the world can bash each other to your heart's content? That
way you can call each other whatever you want, say whatever you want without
causing injury to the cause of Christ.
There was a recent post titled, "8 Reasons Why I Can't Be United
Pentecostal" or something along those lines. I think that 3 of the reasons
that weren't listed are mentioned above.
In Christ,
Rev. Mike Bugal
Heartland Chapel Ministries
http://www.mindspring.com/~revmikeb/
ICQ#3839265
Mark Bassett
<NOonen...@gatorPLEASE.net> wrote:
>> For you to publicly accuse Todd of wife beating to make a point was at best
>> poor judgment and ill timed. It is, however, consistent with your disregard
>> for the truth when it suits your whim and fancy to simply LIE.
>
>Are you really this stupid? I at one time thought you of at least middling
>intellect, but you are fast showing me that what I saw was nothing but a facade,
>covering the empty hole where your mind should be.
Yes, I think that Winter is indeed requesting that people begin to
regard him as just that stupid. What a busy-body.
The bottom line is that he really thinks he owns usenet, and goes
green-eyeed when anyone else gets involved in a discussion without him
looking important.
Go on communicating without him, and keep up a conversation without
need of this professional fault-finder, and eventually, he will morph.
Mark Bassett
>
>
>Randall S Johnson <john...@sinclair.net> wrote in article
><35C7F5C2...@sinclair.net>...
>
>> I believe that Acts 2:38 is the one and only plan of salvation. That
>> there is no other way to get saved and those who have not obeyed Acts
>2:38
>> are lost and going to hell.
>
>You don't get to decide who is saved and who is not, that is a perogative
>that belongs ONLY to God.
Thats right, Berry, the scriptures and the doctrine of the Apostles,
in particular, is the standard by which savation is delivered and then
measured. If you have any doubts of this, then ask yourself, whether
1) you believe John 12:48, and 2) you believe 1 John 4:6. The issue of
Apostleship is critical to whether you belong to a church or a cult.
Those that reject the authority of the Apostles and thus, their
doctrine as the word of God, certainly do not belong to the ecclesia
that Peter, James and John are on the foundations of.
>Second, how can you say that Acts 2:38 is THE plan of salvation when you
>are misinterpreting Acts 2:38.
It is your opinion that people are misinterpreting Acts 2:38. IN fact,
this is the record of what was given as the answer to the question
"What shall we do?", by the anointed vessels of God when FOR THE FIRST
TIME EVER, it was publically and universally recognized in preaching,
that Jesus Christ would be worshipped as deity. Not strangely, the
Spirit of God was poured out for those who would believe on Him, in
that same day. Peter's sermon describe the means into the Kingdom of
Heaven for those listening.
Should you suppose that the elements of this message were capricious,
and arbitrary, consider this:
1) Repentance is the cover-to-cover method of approaching God. No one
ever in any way shape or form was instructed to approach God without
repentance, since the fall (except Satan who is of angelic nature)
2) While you will below state that Acts 2:38 does not provide a
"formula" (even though people who say this at the same time say that
Matt 28:19 DOES), in fact, this specific association of this singlular
name of Jesus Christ with baptism is repeated in four other instances
in the book of Acts, and is highlighed in Paul's teaching on salvation
in Romans 6, and Col 2. Even if his identity as supreme deity remains
in question, since baptism is association with His burial, and Eph
3:15 provides for His name to be transmitted in adaption, it is
nonsensical to say that Jesus' name has nothing to do with baptism.
Further, the calling of the name of Jesus Christ over the baptized
individual is consistent with the ancient marketplace practice where
the name of the bidder purchasing the grain or other commodity would
be called outright - then the workers would come and mark, or "seal"
the purchased items. "... the church of God, which he hath purchased
with his own blood." - Acts 20:28
3) The baptism of the Holy Ghost, a unique and separate experience,
though a component of the New Birth (of water and spirit), is also
consistently represented in the book of acts as essential to the
conversion experience. From what we read in the doctrine of scripture,
concerning the effects and availability of the baptism of the Holy
Ghost, it is indeed VERY HARD to conceive of God providing for ANYONE
who has NOT received it. It is rather like saying to a father who has
just bought their teen ager a bdand new BMW, "Well, you want me to go
to work, but how am I going to get there?"
>> holiness with out which they shall not see God. They are lost and going
>to
>> hell even if they have obeyed Acts 2:38.
>
>And what about those who have followed your misinterpretation of Acts 2:38,
>where are they going.
It is your OWN arbitrary premise that Acts 2:38 is interpretted in a
certain way. You must realize that if YOU can say that Acts 2:38 can
be misinterpretted, then it may also be misinterpretted in your own
life. This is actually the case. You are living in a world in which,
in popular Christendom, for the first time every this century, baptism
has been reduced to a non-essential. This means that thinkers and
clergy of all dispositions (whether fully true or not) visiting this
century, would be shocked at this aspect. When you seek apporval of
your contemporaries and not the stadard of scripure, your views are
inclined to false security, Berry.
>ALL Acts 2:38 says is that we should repent and then be baptized on the
>authority of Christ, as public declaration that you have accepted Christ.
>And that ALL it says.
>
>Acts 2:38 gives no formula of words for either baptism or salvation
It seems to be plainly stated that Baptism is to be administrated "in
the name of Jesus Christ", and since words are called at baptism, and
the actions are recognized in heaven *through real faith*, there is no
question that this verse offers significant input, into this area of
concern. I wonder why, when there are only a certain number of verses
available for input, that you wish to dismiss those that ARE
available.
As to the idea that Acts 2:38 give no instruction on salvation, it is
flabergasting. Your proposal is that Peter's comments were 1)
uninspired, 2) incorrect, and/or 3) inapplicable to the question asked
by sinners who were desperately in fear for their souls.
I really have no idea how *anyone* can make a sweeping comment like
this, and still expect to be taken seriously.
Can you explain the basis or authority for your comments, Berry?
-mwb
Mark Bassett
>You might want to consider that your reprobate "bro", Mr. Bassett has been
>lying through his teeth regarding the matter of the conversation where he
>mentioned to me that he had considered murdering his first wife. This week
>he is even back to admitting the conversation took place.
I am sorry to have to bother people with this again, however, for the
record let me state this:
I never denied that a conversation took place in which I proposed to
Winter that one, if they were to listen to his ideas, would actually
be better off comitting murder and being forgiven, than in disobeying
God. This was pointed out clearly as a ridicule of his idea. The only
thing that is different this week than last is Winter's pathetic dance
step.
No one was ever interested in looking at Winter as some kind of
spiritual leadership in the first place, and no one was concerned with
what he said about anything. The man had his own well known problems.
Winter is simply trying to milk the very cheap opportunity for a
slander, and has been engaged in this one for years and years.
Republshing this wicked libel over and over, while pretending that
people who object to this kind of thing are "trying to destroy him",
is just evidence of his sick and unrepentant condidition.
It shows you how this person really lacks a real life, or substance in
his soul.
Mark Bassett
>Do a service, Mr. Johnson, if you have any integrity whatsoever turn in your
>UPC license and make the UPC just a little cleaner. One less viper in the
>camp would certainly be a small step, but a small step in the right direction.
Steve, you are pretty funny.
What do you know about the UPC? Seriously. What do you propose to know
and from what standpoint? You are an ignorant shut-in, who is too
socially and mentally to even get involved with real people, so you
sit behind a computer and float a little rubber raft around with the
label "Oneness Apostolic". Give it a rest, you are getting close to
the high voltage, and dont even know it.
Listen up, Steve.
You are here impersonating clergy. Everyone knows it.
You havent significantly fellowshipped with Christians or been subject
to a spiritual counselor or pastor for years and years. Everyone knows
it.
Who exactly do you think you are kidding?
You could have a good, meaningful life serving God. Why do you want to
throw away chances for you, and your children to be saved?
anthony
Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost?
I don't know exactly where it is. Just curious.
Anthony
Duc...@my-dejanews.com
brought down to their level. I suggested someone start a newsgroup called
alt.hate.your.religion. where they could post all their silliness.
In article <6qc88h$863$1...@camel29.mindspring.com>,
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
bjm
Rev. Mike <revm...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<6qc88h$863$1...@camel29.mindspring.com>...
>
> Mike Williamson wrote in message <35C95E7C...@gatorPLEASE.net>...
> >REPOST
> >
> >Mike Williamson wrote:
> >
> >> <snip>. Steve Winter wrote:
> >>
> >> > Randall S Johnson <john...@sinclair.net> wrote:
>
>
> and so on, and so on, and so on, ad infinitum, ad nauseum!!
>
> Folks, is there any possibility that USENET might establish a new
newsgroup
> (maybe soc.religion.upc or something) where you people who care little
for
> the kind of witness that your constant bickering and name calling
presents
> to the rest of the world can bash each other to your heart's content?
That
> way you can call each other whatever you want, say whatever you want
without
> causing injury to the cause of Christ.
I agree about causing injury to the cause. I think the name calling, and
worse, trying to stiffle how the spirit moves in different peoples lives,
it is tragic. It would be great if you could get a seperate place where
these people could go and try to work out these problems on their own....
but then that would take all the fun out of it for them and that place
would always be empty ..... otherwise they could just use email if they
were willing to take it private. It is the nature of the beast.... or is
that human nature... i don't know, I sometimes see them confussed.
PEOPLE!!!!
There is a very important election coming up soon!! People are pushing
their candidates aggressivly for the most votes they can get. And they do
not ALL run a clean campaign, (which i'm sure grieves their candidate
greatly, and He will deal with them). Won't their faces all be red when
they find (most of them) that they are in fact promoting the same
candidate?
FOR THE BEST CHOICE YOU CAN MAKE,
>>>>>>VOTE CHRIST<<<<<<<<
YOUR VOTE WILL MAKE ALL THE DIFFERENCE!!
God Bless and show us all Mercy.
bjm
Mark Bassett
wrote:
>I would say that the Onenes part comes first.
Knowledge of the identity and nature of God is clearly *essential*.
Some would disagree, pointing out that understanding varies and
salvation is not acheived through rote, or mental apprehension. I
completely agree that salvation is not acquired through intellectual
(or gnostic) achievement. Nevertheless, these attitudes are perhaps,
more than anything else, born of rationalization eith an eye toward
the present world and its religions, and of neglect of scripture.
Peter, a voice of God in our present era, says ...
"Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of
God, and of Jesus our Lord, 3 According as his divine power hath
given unto us all things that [pertain] unto life and godliness,
through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and
virtue: 4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious
promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature,
having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. " - 2
Peter 1:2-4
Thus, the Bible says that "all things that pertain to life and
godliness" are received through the "knowledge of Him". Certainly this
knowledge exceeds mere intellectual understanding, but we cannot
escape the fact that an intimate personal contact with a phenomenon,
identity or force provides *knowledge* that cannot be secured in any
other way. Personal experience with God must must fulfill the promise
of scripture, and in turn, be validated by scripture.
Israel was compelled to know that the Lord is ONE. Life itself, and
ALL THINGS needful to man are secured in JESUS CHRIST, and not
another. Let me say, as a Christian, that KNOWING GOD, is knowing the
reality and life behind the words wherein the Apostle stated "In HIM
dwelleth the fullness of the godhead bodily"
A personal knowledge or contact with God will invariably produce an
inate identification of Jesus Christ as the Eternal God. One cannot
enter into His presence and remain blind, HOWEVER, there is an issue
of HOW and WHEN people deal with the formulations of theology.
We are quite aware that there are many many people, in fact a great
majority, who have had contact with God, BELIEVE and KNOW the
identify of Jesus Christ, and yet themselves still rely on the
inadequate theological expressions and realizations. IN fact, we are
certain that there are many "good" people who are really emotionally
comitted to making these formulations work (though they really never
will), for various reasons. Nevertheless, it is common knowledge that
most traditional trinitarians do in fact conceive of God and the Lord
Jesus Christ in a way that is compatable with scripture and Apostolic
doctrine of the godhead, though they do not make such expressions
clear, largely because of a lack of vocabulary. Bible study alone can
repair this, which is why we are committed to the study of scripture,
and NOT post-apostolic theology.
So, a formal declaration that one is somehow "oneness", is not the
same as real knowledge, but we ought never imagine God permits himself
to be visualized or projected in any "form", or image, except that
which HE validates. Furthermore, distinguishing characteristics of
God, projected in scripture, and beyond that, experienced in reality,
are
In the bottom line, there are liars who say they have had been
transported to heaven and there have seen three thrones, and saw Jesus
(with robe and long hair, no doubt), and another "foggy" figure behind
him, who is supposed to be "the Father". This is out and out
craziness, which the scripture reveals as a wild imagination and
effort to deceive. We can know, without a shadow of a doubt, that
whatever spiritual inluence was involved in this was NOT of God.
However, people may make extensive efforts together to promote the
trinity dogma and among them, we will find people who mean very
different things. All in all, as you have recently said, because it
derives, by admission of notable theologians, from an era after the
Apostles and with thoughts that extend scripture (Catholics and many
protestants admit this), there is no bedrock definition for the dogma
of trinity which has foundations comparable to and as solid as
scripture.
Obviously, we would warn against making ANY formulation equivalent to
scripture (while people as saying that we do the same thing... anyway,
let them throw the rocks, but lets all observe the principle)
Mark Bassett
wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Aug 1998 08:11:56 GMT, john...@sinclair.net (R johnson)
>wrote:
>
>>I would say that the Onenes part comes first.
>
>Knowledge of the identity and nature of God is clearly *essential*.
Oh, by the way, very good comments on this subject from the 1986
Symposium on Oneness Pentecostalism, entitled "The Essentiality of
Oneness".
The author is a very good friend, and has written what I believe to be
a very important paper for our own movement, as well as for the world.
Mike Williamson
anthony wrote:
> What about where Jesus Himself says to baptize in the name of the
> Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost?
What IS the name of the son? It certainly is not "son" as the
trinitarian mode of batpism suggests. Notice also that is says "name"
not "names".
Todd
Have to piggyback here. Randalls post has not shown up on my server as
of now.
Billy Jones wrote:
>
> Randall S Johnson wrote in message <35C7F840...@sinclair.net>...
> >This is so silly.
> >
> >
> > This guy is allowed to rant and rave about all sorts of hypothetical
> >situations and I pose a rhetorical question to illustrate the manner in
> which
> >he is setting up the question to assume that I take a certain position and
> you
> >clowns take the illustration as a personal attack.
> >
> > You people are shallow
I asked you a simple yes or no question in a polite way. I began to get
annoyed when you didn't answer right away, but I didn't "rant and rave"
until you threw that slimeball question about wife beating.
Yes Randall, I admit I did indeed "rant and rave" however not in the way
you suggest.
Did I over-react? Perhaps. In my defense I will say it again. I had
never heard of such a tactic before, and it seems fitting that I learned
about it from a Oneness person.
So, I have been accused of.....
"ranting and raving"
being "shallow"
being a LIAR
being more interested in "creating and sustaining attending strife."
I "attacked Randall with a presumed guilt"
I "am not saved"
All because I asked a rather simple question.
Who wouldn't "rant and rave" ?
What really surprises me though is the lack of "mistakes" with the
Oneness people. They don't make any. No matter what the situation, the
blame gets turned around somehow. That's the arrogance I speak of. And
it's also why I changed the thread title to "By their fruits ye shall
know them"
> >
> >
> But not as shallow as to teach and belive that one's salvaton hinges on the
> words of another man.
Billy, a great big AMEN!
Marvin Edwards
Rev. Mike wrote in message <6qc88h$863$1...@camel29.mindspring.com>...
[Folks, is there any possibility that USENET might establish a new
newsgroup (maybe soc.religion.upc or something) where you people who
care little for the kind of witness that your constant bickering
and name calling presents to the rest of the world can bash each
other to your heart's content? That way you can call each other
whatever you want, say whatever you want without causing injury to
the cause of Christ.]
Amen.
Mike Williamson
Deb wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Aug 1998 16:18:19 -0400, Fredericka <frede...@pivot.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> are building a wall between us.
> >
> >Deb, I don't think the problem with 'Oneness' Pentecostalism is simple
> >semantics. They will tell you that there was no 'Son of God' prior to
> >the incarnation. This is an idea which is provably wrong by scripture:
> >"...having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like
> >unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually." (Hebrews 7:3).
>
> I'd have to again disagree......I think if both "sides" of the issue
> could sit down and openly discuss with each other, keeping an open
> mind, that we would find that our beliefs are really not all that
> different on this aspect.
>
> Most of the "Oneness" folks I've had dialog with have a firm belief in
> their minds to start with that the Trinitarian belief is wrong, but
> are not really "listening" to what the Trinity is.
While it may be true that some folks who are oneness don't understand the
points of the trinity doctrine, that does not mean that they are similar.
There are many more of us who have listened to the various versions of the
trinity, and understand the differences in the doctrines, and that those
differences are of ultimate importance.
>I think most of
> this goes back to the radical "anti-papist" days centuries ago, when
> Protestants were taught many inaccuracies about the Catholic Church.
> To this day, many of those same inaccuracies are believed to be fact
> and folks just won't open their minds to the fact that many of the
> traditional prejudices they have been taught just.aren't.so.....
>
> If one will open the mind to listen to the actual words, instead of
> hearing the word Trinity and closing off all the rest, much of this
> argument would go away.
No, it really wouldn't. Again, this shows your lack of understanding about
one or both concepts.
>
>
> Deb
> ***** Note: If you are sending email from hotmail.com,
> don't bother, that domain is blocked here
> due to excessive spam
Mark Bassett
wrote:
>What about where Jesus Himself says to baptize in the name of the
>Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost?
>
>I don't know exactly where it is. Just curious.
It's Matthew 28:19, and it was delivered to hearers who believed that
God is revealed as Father in creation, Son in redemption, and Spirit
emanating in the church, and as Peter demonstrated, believed that that
God is known by the name of Jesus.
Tanner
Mark Bassett wrote:
> In the bottom line, there are liars who say they have had been
> transported to heaven and there have seen three thrones, and saw Jesus
> (with robe and long hair, no doubt), and another "foggy" figure behind
> him, who is supposed to be "the Father". This is out and out
> craziness, which the scripture reveals as a wild imagination and
> effort to deceive. We can know, without a shadow of a doubt, that
> whatever spiritual inluence was involved in this was NOT of God.
I also have a very hard time believing these people, however, John did
have a vision of heaven. In Revelations 5:1-8, he talks about his vision
of heaven.
1. And I saw in the right hand of Him who sat on the throne a book
written inside an on
the back, sealed up with seven seals.
2. And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, "Who is
worthy to open
the book and to break its seals?"
6. And I saw between the throne (with the four living creatures) and
the elders a
Lamb standing, as if slain.....
7. And He came, and He took it out of the right hand of Him who sat
on the throne.
8. ...fell down before the Lamb...
NAS
To me, and maybe I have a simple mind, but I think John saw a distinction
between the Father and the Son. To be honest Mark, my beliefs did not
really change much when I left the UPC, but I consider myself a
Trinitarian. The three makes one. Each of them have different duties. I
am so glad that the Son constantly makes intercession to the Father on my
behalf.
Dave
and all I've seen are accusations left, right and center. If words were
bullets they'd all be dead.
Having said that I think I'll take a leave of absence from this group.
After reading all that crap I feel like a proctologist.
PS: I suggest that all the assailants do a long study on 1 Cor 13.
Marvin Edwards wrote in message <6qdj85$9dv$1...@Skuzzy.cstone.net>...
Berry
Mark Bassett <mba...@iconn.net> wrote in article
<35ca67b7....@news.iconn.net>...
> It's Matthew 28:19, and it was delivered to hearers who believed that
> God is revealed as Father in creation, Son in redemption, and Spirit
> emanating in the church, and as Peter demonstrated, believed that that
> God is known by the name of Jesus.
The Son is known by the name of Jesus, or more correctly Jesus Christ. The
Father is NOT known by the name of Jesus and it is improper and
disrespectful to refer to the Father by a human name
Mike Williamson
Berry wrote:
Hmm...Jesus had a human name...said to be the name above EVERY other. Where
does it say the Father is not known by the name of Jesus, and where does it
say that it is disrespectful to call him by a human name?
R johnson
You asked a set up question that had presupposed answers that you
admitted that you had anticipated so as to deny what I believe.
This is the same nonsense that the Pharisees tried on the Lord to
try to justify thier non biblical traditions.
You simply will not admit to youself or anyone else that you set up
the question so as to make it so that no matter how I answered yes or
no you figured that you had me.
The illustration of the wife beating question was simply to
illustrate the presumed guilt nature of your dialoge.
I answered your question politely and accurately immediately after
you asked it.
I told you that the man was not saved but I am not the Judge of
where people wind up God is. I personally believe that he probably
will go to hell. That is not my call though. And it is not yours to
put him in heaven.
You see the thing you don't consider is that you may be telling
people who are going to hell that they are going to heaven.
If I am making a mistake in telling people who are going to heaven
that they are going to hell I haven't made much of a mistake.
However, if you are wrong and I am right you have made a very big
mistake.
And the sad thing is is that I am right.
Berry
Mike Williamson <NOonen...@gatorPLEASE.net> wrote in article
<35CBD405...@gatorPLEASE.net>...
>
> Hmm...Jesus had a human name...said to be the name above EVERY other.
Where
> does it say the Father is not known by the name of Jesus,
Where did you ever see the Father refered to by the name of Jesus. If the
Father's name was Jesus, we would have heard about it in the OT.
> and where does it
> say that it is disrespectful to call him by a human name?
It is simple common sense. You do not refer to the Father, who is above all
creation, by a mortal human name, especially since that's not His name in
the First place.
Todd
>
> You did not ask a simple yes or no question in a polite way.
Certainly did.
> You asked a set up question that had presupposed answers that you
> admitted that you had anticipated so as to deny what I believe.
That's right. It was a setup to show your theory for what it is.
Man-made false doctrine.
> This is the same nonsense that the Pharisees tried on the Lord to
> try to justify thier non biblical traditions.
But you aren't God. And trying to expose a false doctrine from a mere
man is hardly a comparison. But then again, with your arrogance you
would put yourself on the same level as the Lord.
> You simply will not admit to youself or anyone else that you set up
> the question so as to make it so that no matter how I answered yes or
> no you figured that you had me.
No. Not that I would have you. To show to you how your man made false
doctrine has you duped.
> The illustration of the wife beating question was simply to
> illustrate the presumed guilt nature of your dialoge.
That's nonsense and you know it. It was slimey. No other description
needed. I wasn't the only one who didn't understand that slimey tactic
either. But as I have said before, it seems fitting that the Oneness
people would know all about slimey tactics like that.
> I answered your question politely and accurately immediately after
> you asked it.
> I told you that the man was not saved but I am not the Judge of
> where people wind up God is. I personally believe that he probably
> will go to hell. That is not my call though. And it is not yours to
> put him in heaven.
Saying a man is not saved is saying he'll go to hell. No probably about
it. If you're going to engage in dialogoue, at least be honest. sheesh.
> You see the thing you don't consider is that you may be telling
> people who are going to hell that they are going to heaven.
Wrongo. My Biblical view of salvation does not rely on your man made
doctrine that the only way one can be saved is by a preacher "mouthing
the right words" over someone at baptism. This is not taught in the
Bible anywhere that salvation for anyone relies on the words or actions
of others. Sad you are so blinded by your cult teachings to see that.
> If I am making a mistake in telling people who are going to heaven
> that they are going to hell I haven't made much of a mistake.
Well, by saying for example that a person who was baptized and their
preacher didn't "mouth the right words" is not saved, you are needlessly
scaring people. And you will be judged for it.
> However, if you are wrong and I am right you have made a very big
> mistake.
>
> And the sad thing is is that I am right.
Wrongo. Go to the Bible with an open heart and mind, read scripture with
that open mind, and not by looking for verses to match what you have
been taught by the Oneness Church. You sir, are very wrong.
Mike Williamson
Berry wrote:
> Mike Williamson <NOonen...@gatorPLEASE.net> wrote in article
> <35CBD405...@gatorPLEASE.net>...
>
> >
> > Hmm...Jesus had a human name...said to be the name above EVERY other.
> Where
> > does it say the Father is not known by the name of Jesus,
>
> Where did you ever see the Father refered to by the name of Jesus. If the
> Father's name was Jesus, we would have heard about it in the OT.
The name wasn't given in the OT. We did hear inklings of it, though, in Isaiah
9
(Isa 9:6-7 KJV) For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the
government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful,
Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. {7} Of
the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne
of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment
and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts
will perform this.
>
>
> > and where does it
> > say that it is disrespectful to call him by a human name?
>
> It is simple common sense. You do not refer to the Father, who is above all
> creation, by a mortal human name, especially since that's not His name in
> the First place.
Ahh, but it is! You make an awfully big assumption in your statement here,
with no scriptural back up.
Kendo
(Exo 3:14 NASB) And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus
you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'"
(John 8:58 NASB) Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before
Abraham was born, I am."
Mike Williamson wrote in message <35CC780D...@gatorPLEASE.net>...
Gary McNees
<01bdc250$5ecb5cc0$bfe695d1@default>...
>
>
>Mark Bassett <mba...@iconn.net> wrote in article
><35ca67b7....@news.iconn.net>...
>
>> It's Matthew 28:19, and it was delivered to hearers who believed that
>> God is revealed as Father in creation, Son in redemption, and Spirit
>> emanating in the church, and as Peter demonstrated, believed that that
>> God is known by the name of Jesus.
>
>The Son is known by the name of Jesus, or more correctly Jesus Christ. The
>Father is NOT known by the name of Jesus and it is improper and
>disrespectful to refer to the Father by a human name
>
Scripture. The Father was never sent to this world to save us, never in
Scripture. The Father is said to have SENT HIS SON to this world to save us.
These fundamental facts are denied by the UPC and "oneness," believers.
It is beyond me how such anti-Scriptural trash can be entertained for even a
moment by anyone, much less one who claims to believe the Bible.
How in the world can you guys even read the Bible and continue to believe
such nonsense?
Gary McNees
as the JW's. They only read certain passages which they think support their
heresy. Should they ever actually READ the Bible they would immediately
leave the "oneness" cult and be converted and be saved.
Todd wrote in message <35CC23F5...@nospamrocketmail.com>...
Rev. Steve Winter
wrote to a reprobate from the oneness faith, Mike Williamson.
>It is simple common sense. You do not refer to the Father, who is above all
>creation, by a mortal human name, especially since that's not His name in
>the First place.
You polytheistic filth must teach a godhead as a "god squad" to justify your
polytheism.
John 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another
shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
You false christian scum will receive the antichrist because he will tell you
what you want to hear.
Those who really believe in only one God, have no problem with God being "one
God". The polytheistic filth trip all over themselves, though, regarding it.
The best defense against the polytheist's smoke screen deception is to simply
be armed with the truth, information and education. Please consider the
following.
Though we humans (created in God's image) have body, soul and spirit we are
not each "three separate persons". Though God manifested Himself as "Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost" he is not "three separate persons".
I offer the following basic points supported by scripture. I encourage all to
verify from the Bible that these verses are presented in a manner faithful to
their contextual intent.
1) God is a Spirit.
John 4:24 God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship
[him] in spirit and in truth.
2) God is holy.
I Samuel 2:2 [There is] none holy as the LORD: for [there is] none
beside thee: neither [is there] any rock like our God.
3) God is a "Holy Spirit".
4) Jesus is the "Spirit of truth"
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life:
no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
5) Jesus was "dwelling with them" and promised to be "in them".
John 14:17 [Even] the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive,
because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he
dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
6) The "comforter" is the "Spirit of Christ"
John 14:18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
7) The "Spirit of Christ" is the "Holy Spirit" is the "Spirit of Truth"
John 14:26 But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the
Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring
all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
8) The Spirit of God visited His creation robed in flesh as the "Son".
I Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God
was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached
unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
9) The fullness of God is in Jesus Christ
Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
Colossians 2:10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all
principality and power:
10) Jesus IS the "everlasting Father".
Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the
government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called
Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of
Peace.
11) Those who believe that Jesus is a "separate person" from the "Father"
don't really know Jesus at all.
John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and
yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the
Father; and how sayest thou [then], Shew us the Father?
Rev. Steve Winter
--
-={ PreRapture BBS 919-286-2100 33600bps / Telnet to PRIME.ORG }=-
http://www.prime.org Home of the PRIME Christian Network
Check the web site for info as 3 god cults embrace canine morals.
Berry
Gary McNees <g...@iag.net> wrote in article <6qi1qh$bg1$1...@news.iag.net>...
> The Father is never said to have died for us on the cross, never in
> Scripture. The Father was never sent to this world to save us, never in
> Scripture. The Father is said to have SENT HIS SON to this world to save
us.
> These fundamental facts are denied by the UPC and "oneness," believers.
>
> It is beyond me how such anti-Scriptural trash can be entertained for
even a
> moment by anyone, much less one who claims to believe the Bible.
>
> How in the world can you guys even read the Bible and continue to believe
> such nonsense?
I'm NOT Oneness and I agree with everything you just said.
Mike Williamson
the I AM! The God of the OT is the same God that was speaking in John. (this is
where some trinitarians have a problem understanding that Jesus at times spoke
as God, and at times spoke as man. He was God in a human body, and there is
found in scripture the expression of that God, through the man, and t here is
also found the expression of the man. As when Jesus prayed in the Garden, and
said "Not my will, but thine be done" Does the 2nd person in the Godhead have a
different will than the 1st person? No. Because they aren't persons. The man
was speaking, saying, "Not my human will, but your divine will, be done."
Understanding that He spoke at times as man, and at times as God, clears up many
things that appear confusing in the scripture.
Kendo wrote:
> Hate to but it but:
>
> (Exo 3:14 NASB) And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus
> you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'"
>
> (John 8:58 NASB) Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before
> Abraham was born, I am."
>
> Mike Williamson wrote in message <35CC780D...@gatorPLEASE.net>...
> >
> >
> >Berry wrote:
> >
> >> Mike Williamson <NOonen...@gatorPLEASE.net> wrote in article
> >> <35CBD405...@gatorPLEASE.net>...
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Hmm...Jesus had a human name...said to be the name above EVERY other.
> >> Where
> >> > does it say the Father is not known by the name of Jesus,
> >>
> >> Where did you ever see the Father refered to by the name of Jesus. If the
> >> Father's name was Jesus, we would have heard about it in the OT.
>
> >
> >The name wasn't given in the OT. We did hear inklings of it, though, in
> Isaiah
> >9
> >
> >(Isa 9:6-7 KJV) For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and
> the
> >government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called
> Wonderful,
> >Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
> {7} Of
> >the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the
> throne
> >of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with
> judgment
> >and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of
> hosts
> >will perform this.
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> > and where does it
> >> > say that it is disrespectful to call him by a human name?
> >>
> >> It is simple common sense. You do not refer to the Father, who is above
> all
> >> creation, by a mortal human name, especially since that's not His name in
> >> the First place.
> >
Mike Williamson
Gary McNees wrote:
> Berry<BE...@NASCAR-FAN.NET wrote in message
> <01bdc250$5ecb5cc0$bfe695d1@default>...
> >
> >
> >Mark Bassett <mba...@iconn.net> wrote in article
> ><35ca67b7....@news.iconn.net>...
> >
> >> It's Matthew 28:19, and it was delivered to hearers who believed that
> >> God is revealed as Father in creation, Son in redemption, and Spirit
> >> emanating in the church, and as Peter demonstrated, believed that that
> >> God is known by the name of Jesus.
> >
> >The Son is known by the name of Jesus, or more correctly Jesus Christ. The
> >Father is NOT known by the name of Jesus and it is improper and
> >disrespectful to refer to the Father by a human name
> >
> The Father is never said to have died for us on the cross, never in
> Scripture. The Father was never sent to this world to save us, never in
> Scripture. The Father is said to have SENT HIS SON to this world to save us.
> These fundamental facts are denied by the UPC and "oneness," believers..
Absolutely not. Those facts are not denied. What IS denied is that the son is
the 2nd person in the Godhead. Rather, the son was HUMAN. It was the Spirit
within Him that was God. God was IN Christ. Christ was not God.
No, the father was not sent, you are right. He came Himself, robed in the flesh
of His son. He indwelled His only begotten, much the same as He now indwells
his children now, though we do not receive the fullness of the Spirit, as Christ
had. We have only the earnest (the down payment) of our inheritance. There is
more to come. Jesus had the fulness of hte Godhead in him.
>
>
> It is beyond me how such anti-Scriptural trash can be entertained for even a
> moment by anyone, much less one who claims to believe the Bible.
If you would stop for a moment and try to understand, rather than spout off
about things you don't understand, you might learn something useful.
>
>
> How in the world can you guys even read the Bible and continue to believe
> such nonsense?
It is because we read the bible, and understand it, that we can forever believe
and know the truth.
Rev. Mike
>You polytheistic filth must teach a godhead as a "god squad" to justify
your
>polytheism.
>Rev. Steve Winter
>--
You know, it just stuck me how appropriate the title of this thread is. :o)
Fredericka
<snip>
> > The Father is never said to have died for us on the cross, never in
> > Scripture. The Father was never sent to this world to save us, never in
> > Scripture. The Father is said to have SENT HIS SON to this world to save us.
> > These fundamental facts are denied by the UPC and "oneness," believers..
>
> Absolutely not. Those facts are not denied. What IS denied is that the son is
> the 2nd person in the Godhead. Rather, the son was HUMAN. It was the Spirit
> within Him that was God. God was IN Christ. Christ was not God.
The Bible specifically calls the Son "God": "But unto the Son he saith,
Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is
the sceptre of thy kingdom." (Hebrews 1:8).
Fredericka
Rev. Steve Winter
>Deb, I don't think the problem with 'Oneness' Pentecostalism is simple
>semantics. They will tell you that there was no 'Son of God' prior to
>the incarnation. This is an idea which is provably wrong by scripture:
>"...having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like
>unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually." (Hebrews 7:3).
>That's why the Council at Nicaea anathematized the idea that there was a
>time when the Son of God was not.
Fred, you betray your polytheism again. What do you do with the verses where
Jehovah says things like "there is none beside me"?
Fred, have you ever actually visited a real monotheistic Christian Church just
to check it out?
I Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of
godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen
of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world,
received up into glory.
I John 3:16 Hereby perceive we the love [of God], because he laid down
his life for us: and we ought to lay down [our] lives for the brethren.
Who laid down His life, Fred? god #1, god #2 or god #3 ?
I Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of
godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen
of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world,
received up into glory.
Who was received up into glory, Fred? god #1, god #2 or god #3 ?
I Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter
times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits,
and doctrines of devils;
I Timothy 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared
with a hot iron;
II Timothy 4:4 And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and
shall be turned unto fables.
Jude 1:25 To the only wise God our Saviour, [be] glory and majesty,
dominion and power, both now and for ever. Amen.
Who is the only wise God and Saviour, Fred? god #1, god #2 or god #3 ?
Don't let a handful of obvious liars and reprobates keep you out of heaven,
Fred. You have no excuse, Fred.
Rev. Steve Winter PreRapture BBS 919-286-2100 300-33600bps
--
-={ PreRapture BBS 919-286-2100 33600bps / Telnet to PRIME.ORG }=-
http://www.prime.org Home of the PRIME Christian Network
Are the false christians pitching fits because I call them names,
or because I am proving my allegations from their own Bibles?
(Check the web site for info as 3 god cults embrace canine morals.)
Rev. Steve Winter
>There was a recent post titled, "8 Reasons Why I Can't Be United
>Pentecostal" or something along those lines. I think that 3 of the reasons
>that weren't listed are mentioned above.
>
>In Christ,
>
>Rev. Mike Bugal
Bugal, I have cursed you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ based on the
authority of Galatians 1:8. I ask all real Christians reading here to agree
with me in prayer that the Lord would reward Mike Bugal according to his works
and require of him all the blood on his hands from those he has deceived.
Rev. Steve Winter
Bennie A Darnell
You have been around and as I have noticed many respect your views,
I would like to have an answer for what is contained in this post. Please
qualify your stand with scripture from God's word (i.e. the Bible) as this
platform will provide you with every evidence you need for arguments.
:Now, here is something for you to consider in this indiscretion:
Exodus 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image...
:The graven image spoken of is a written image. And man was
:made in his image. In the Psalms David uses the word image
:once, and translated is "vain shew" in Psalm 39, a most peculiar way.
:Possibly a different translation might shed light, Selah.
Exodus 32:16 <...the tables were the work of God, and the writing was the
writing of God, graven upon the tables...>
:So, here is a question for you,
:"Who made the Sunday Observance of the Lord's Day?"
:Please now, again consider:
Exodus 20:11 God speaking, yes,
"For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that
in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed
the sabbath day, and HALLOWED it.
:Today is Sunday, yes, Your Lord's Day,
:Your Holy Father Pope John Paul II has
:the authority of this day, is this not correct,
:does he not give you power to work your miracles?
:Are you not then in truth a catholic albeit a heretic.
:Last night, and yesterday was God's Holy Hallowed Sabbath
:which was consistent with the full moon, yes or no?
:And further evidence of the Sabbath rest lives in Exodus 31:12-18
<...for it is a sign between me and you...> <...for a perpetual
covenant...>?
<...two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of
God.
<...They cannot be done away with...> Isaiah 1:13, 58:13, 66:23-24
:Even your Apostle from Rome, Paul/Saul, that Leviathan in the sea.
:says in Colosians 2:16 that it should not be changed, does he not?
Zechariah 4:6 <...but it is not by might, nor by power,
but by my spirit, saith the Lord of hosts...>
:And his Spirit is in truth the way of the Ten Commandments.
:Are you a man of words as your Father Pope John Paul II,
:or will you accept the anointing of the true Father and robe
:yourself with his Spirit, as laid down in Exodus 20:1-17.
:The Sabbath of God was also rejected
:by the Jews in the REAL Testament (Old)
:Refer Jeremiah 17 among many other passages
Arise, O Lord, into thy rest; thou,
and the ark of thy strength.
Let thy priests be clothed with righteousness;
and let thy saints shout for joy. Psalms 132
:Moses sings a song about our Rock
<...Is not this laid up in stone with me,
and sealed up among my treasures?
...Set your hearts unto all the words
which I testify among you this day,
which ye shall command your children
to observe to do, all the words of this law.
For it is not a vain thing for you;
because it is your life...>
refer Deuteronomy 32
:In the Garden of Eden the Law (Ten Commandments) were present
<...Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God;
every precious stone was thy covering,
the sardius, topaz, and the diamond...
Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth;
and I have set thee so:
thou wast upon the holy mountain of God;
thou hast walked up and down
in the midst of the stones of fire.
Thou was perfect in thy ways from
the day that thou wast created...>
refer Ezekiel 28
:Cloth of the Papal covering (Sunday Observance)
<...Woe to the rebellious children,
saith the Lord, that take counsel,
but not of me; and that cover with a covering,
but not of my spirit, that they may add sin to sin:
...Now go, write it before them in a table,
and note it in a book,
that it may be for the time to come FOR EVER AND EVER:
That this is a rebellious people,
lying children, children that will not hear the law of the Lord.
...And the Lord shall cause his glorious voice to be heard,
and shall shew the lighting down of his arm,
with the indignation of his anger,
and with the flame of a devouring fire,
with scattering, and tempest, and hailstones...>
refer Isaiah 30
:Jesus said...
Matthew 7:24-27 (the rock)
Luke 6:46-49 (the rock)
:The stone of stumbling
...Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples.
...should not a people seek unto their God?
for the living to the dead?
To the law and to the testimony:
if they speak not according to this word,
it is because there is no light in them.
...and they shall be driven to darkness.
refer Isaiah 8
:to the Law (ox) and the Testimony (ass)
Behold, a king shall reign in righteousness...
...And the work of righteousness shall be peace;
and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance FOR EVER.
and my people shall dwell in peaceable habitation,
and in sure dwellings, and in quiet resting places;
When it shall hail, coming down on the forest;
and the city shall be low in a low place.
Blessed are ye that sow beside all waters,
that send forth thither the feet of the ox and the ass.
refer Isaiah 32
Peace be with you through our Lord Jesus Christ
And to God Almighty the Glory
Remember the Sabbath of the lawgiver (Saturday)
Drink freely at the well of the lawgiver unto eternal life...
(refer Numbers 21:18 - Isaiah 33:22 - Matthew 10:42 - James 4:12)
Berry
Mike Williamson <NOonen...@gatorPLEASE.net> wrote in article
<35CCBA0F...@gatorPLEASE.net>...
> also found the expression of the man. As when Jesus prayed in the
Garden, and
> said "Not my will, but thine be done" Does the 2nd person in the Godhead
have a
> different will than the 1st person?
Of course Jesus had a different will than the Father, he was a different
being.
>No. Because they aren't persons. The man
> was speaking, saying, "Not my human will, but your divine will, be done."
> Understanding that He spoke at times as man, and at times as God, clears
up many
> things that appear confusing in the scripture.
All you did was try to muddy the waters so we can't see the truth.
Question: If Oneness doesn't believe in the existence of Jesus Christ, why
do they call themselves Christian?