From old England

[Alimantado]

58 minutes ago, Alan said:

Covenanter, Ian Day, besides his agreeing with the "Westminster Confession of Faith," uses the NIV in his church and the KJV on OnLine Baptist. Is that the mark of a JKV only individual? For your information, if you ckeck out the Presbryterian / Reformed Baptist forum you will discover that the KJV is derided and scorned by some. Ian Day is worse than the current crop of 'salvation by faith and works,' heretical teachings.

 

Covenanter is a folllower of the NIV, Presbryterian / Reformed Baptist crowd. By reason of his close (Covenanter is a regular, highly thought of, contributor), association with the Reformed Baptist / Presbyterian forum, his loyalty is with them and the Westminster Confession of Faith.

Brethren, you need to read that Presbyterian, Calvanistic heretical document. Instead of two church ordinances they practice two 'sacraments." Is baptism a sacrament?  Is the Lord's Supper a sacrament?

Quite frankly, compared to Covenanter (Ian Day), our current crop of 'salvation by faith by works' proponants are mild.

Alan

I don't think Covenantor should be trying to come back on this forum if he's been banned, unless the ban has expired or been forgiven by the mods. And I think Covenantor and GP's relentless, non-stop efforts over many years to push a particular viewpoint on a web forum where it's obvious almost no-one on the forum agrees with them represents a severe case of someone's-wrong-on-the-internet syndrome, to say nothing of the spiritual aspects.

But I do think some of your comments there highlight a difference between us, Alan. You say the belief that baptism is necessary for salvation (since that's the main 'work' being promoted here) is "mild" compared to the belief that baptism is a sacrament, whereas I'd say adding baptism to saving faith is the more dangerous view. Likewise I don't think using a NIV is worse per se than believing in salvation by works, or that holding a particular eschatological view is worse than teaching that there are 2, 3, 4 or even 5 gospels. Calvinism's getting closer but even there I'm tempted to say that reformed beliefs aren't as bad as believing in works for salvation.

I don't believe you support or enable any of these false beliefs, Alan. But I have noticed on this forum a general tendency for folk to contend more earnestly for the true end times view, or the true view of atonement, than the true Gospel. And I'm not the first to say that.

[Alimantado]

And I should have said--contending earnestly for any true belief is still good and the rest of us are blessed by those like you who do it, Alan.

[John81]

The most dangerous thing here in some time has been the constant promoting of false gospels. Salvation, the one true Gospel is foundational, the most fundamental of the fundamentals, yet countless threads are now filled with promotion of and defense of there being multiple means of salvation.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

Over the past few years, I have firmly contended against various positions wherein I believed that Biblical truth was being mishandled.  Even so, I have been grieved by and have been moved to contend firmly against what I believe is the false prophetic views of Brother Day, Brother Pittman (Genevanpreacher), and Brother David (Invicta).  Indeed, I believe that they would bear testimony to the firmness of my engagements against them.  HOWEVER, I have become multiplied-times more grieved by and am multiplied-times more motivated to contend against the "multiple gospel - gospel by faith and works" doctrine that has recently been spread throughout this forum.  On the other hand, the toleration of this doctrine on the forum has moved me to question significantly my continued membership in the forum.  Obviously, I have NOT chosen to depart yet; but the consideration of the matter has also not been put to rest.  (My "leadership" responsibility for the 2 & 3 John Bible Study thread, unto which I fully believe that I was guided by the Lord, is one of the strong reasons why I yet remain.)

Edited March 2, 2016 by Pastor Scott Markle

[WellWithMySoul]

I haven't been a member of this forum for all that long, but in the time that I have been here I've been filled with consternation at the several "strange doctrines" being promoted here.  I usually do not participate in "contending" or trying to reason with the fellas about doctrinal matters because I do not feel that the Lord is leading me as a lady to do so.  However, I do hope that Mr. Markle will continue his membership here, as well as many of the other fine and doctrinally sound people, because whether they see it or not they truly are a blessing and an encouragement to me.  Praise God that I am quite sound in my faith and fully persuaded in doctrinal matters, but it isn't me that I'm concerned about, but rather the "babes" that come to this forum and become confused about scripture.  It is quite easy to observe and to discern with those that are promoting that which is false, that they're not about bringing glory to our precious God as much as to trying to promote what they think or believe.  They talk about scripture, the interpretations of it, and put forth all kinds of "knowledgeable" things....but if I wasn't saved or was just a babe in Christ, I would NOT be drawn to the Lord because of the very (con)textual attitude of most of those promoting falsities.

There are so very many "religious" people out there that know a great deal about the Bible, can even quote it, and they can talk all about and around God...but so can the devil.  The evil one knows more about scripture than he's given credit for, and he will use little bits and pieces of it to craftily, subtly, and cunningly deceive people as he has from the beginning.  As I said in another thread anyone can have knowledge, lots of it, and readily spew it out, but that doesn't mean that they truly KNOW the precious God and Author of the Word. Is God impressed with our knowledge?  He has told us to seek knowledge, but also with it, He has told us to seek understanding and wisdom and to apply them in our lives.  There are a lot of very insecure folks out there that are needy to appear "spiritual", but in the end they become as "sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal".  One that is truly being progressively transformed into our dear Saviour's likeness -living, walking, and breathing with a hunger and thirst for righteousness and becoming obviously more and more recognizable as a child of God with Jesus' light being manifested outwardly - then the truths of the Word are very, very sweet, and things that are false are easy to spot and are sour and bitter.  There's a huge difference between a true sweet spirit of meekness and a proud demanding and selfish spirit.

"Though hand join in hand", "...And such were some of you"; are we all so very careful to examine ourselves before the Lord to prevent that "...Thou art the man"?  

[Pastor Scott Markle]

48 minutes ago, WellWithMySoul said:

However, I do hope that Mr. Markle will continue his membership here, as well as many of the other fine and doctrinally sound people, because whether they see it or not they truly are a blessing and an encouragement to me. 

Sister "WellWithMySoul,"

I do thank you for this word of encouragement.  I shall definitely factor it into the consideration of my decision, for I believe that it was presented through the direction of the Lord (at least in relation to me and my matter of decision).

[HappyChristian]

Ian Day has been banned. Going around a ban by starting a new account with a new name is unethical at best. 

I apologize for it taking a few days, but I needed to make sure that no moderators had given permission to return. For all members, please know that had permission been given, the  old account would have been reopened. It was not. It will not be.

[Ronda]

On 3/2/2016 at 2:58 AM, Alimantado said:

Alan, and yet while they've been away, their particular profusion of 'interesting arguments' has been more than replaced in volume and frequency by another profusion of arguments, about there being multiple gospels and about how salvation isn't always by grace through faith alone. And this latter profusion appears to have been more widely tolerated on OB than the former.

Interesting you mention that... because here is what I found on a VERY QUICK once-over the reformed site brother Alan stated that these men regularly post on:

on this page: http://www.reformedtheologyinstitute.com/
I found this statement: "In general, the covenant of works was made with Adam, and in him with all his seed. The covenant of grace was made with Christ, and in Him with all the elect."

Oh, they do not call it a different gospel.they call it a different COVENANT over on the reformed site. Maybe you would consider that "the pot calling the kettle black", but probably won't take into consideration that I do not ascribe to replacement theology. Romans 9-11 makes it clear that God has NOT cast away His people (Israel) 

Romans 11:1 "I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid..."

Romans 11:25 " For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in."

But, of course that doesn't "mean what it says" unless a person takes the words of the Bible LITERALLY. If one allegorizes scripture, they can twist it to mean anything they please. Israel no longer means Israel, elect no longer means elect, so on and so forth. 2 witnesses mean 2 out7 churches and on and on. That's not dangerous? 

I can't claim to know it all or anywhere close... but if I do err it's truly because I take the words of the Bible as literally and as reverently and as with as much respect as I can. So when erring, I may err on being TOO literal!!! Maybe it should be called hyper-literal! But yet I am labelled as MUCH MORE "DANGEROUS" when I (or others) bring up verses such as Gal 2:7 "But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter" and I am told NO, it doesn't mean what it says! How dare I even bring it up? No such thing as two different gospels, even though the Bible verse itself states "gospel of the uncircumcision" and "gospel of the circumcision".  But I am (supposedly) in error for believing in the literal words. And to say I PROMOTE 2 gospels is also false. I only PROMOTE the gospel of grace by faith and belief in Christ alone for salvation, because it is the only gospel which is relevant for this dispensation. I do NOT attempt to tie baptism or works in ANY WAY when I give the gospel to the unsaved. Yes, I did state that the Bible itself notes 2 different gospels in Gal. 2:7, but believing that there were more than one gospel being taught (according to Gal. 2:7), and believing that the gospel of the circumcision was being taught by Peter, is much different than PROMOTING that gospel. Again, I only promote that there is ONE gospel which is relevant for the age of grace. And that is found in Paul's writings, as the mystery of the gospel of grace unto the gentiles was first given to him. Romans 16:25 "Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began". And Gal. 1:11 "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.". Showing that Paul received the gospel of grace by Jesus Himself and was as bold as to call it "my gospel" in numerous verses, showing that it was not the same thing the 12 had been teaching. Yet I got responses like: "So what? It's my gospel too" Well, first of all I should hope so, and second of all that wasn't the point.

When I bring out that Paul gave Peter a verbal smack-down about how Peter was NOT walking "uprightly according to the gospel" in Gal 2:14 "But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews"  And I am told, it's basically no big deal.  Or bring up that "soul" means "soul" no, I'm told, it doesn't really. Or if I bring up the differences between multiple verses pertaining to Paul's ministry of the gospel of grace compared to what Peter or James taught. I am told they mean the exact same thing... even though they literally say the opposite! Or bring up that 2 witnesses mean 2 persons (and not multiple people from 2 out of 7 churches). 

I could go on... but it's DANGEROUS ground for me to even state what the Bible itself states because I am told again and over again that no, it doesn't really mean what it says. Better yet when I am told that yes, the words mean what they say, but I just don't understand them. Even though the words are clear. I am not a rocket scientist, by far, and not the most brilliant person... but I can comprehend the words literally (especially with the help of the Holy Spirit). The words of the Bible say what they means and mean what they say.

Yes... beware of the "hyper-dispensationalist" who actually reveres the word of God enough to believe the words for their literal meaning... without any "explaining away: needed. 

Now I do not claim I agree with ALL the things any other person on this forum believes, whether they be labelled a "hyper-dispensationalist" or not. I can only speak for myself.  And I do not claim I know more or better than anyone else. But I DO claim this: I DO love the Lord with all my heart. I DO study prayerfully and seriously, it's not a passing fad or just something to talk/argue about. I believe that God's word is precious and He Himself put VERY HUGE importance and significance upon His word. Psalm 138:2 ..."hast magnified thy word above all thy name". So much significance that He Himself magnified His word above His very name! The word of God is Holy and no light thing to be twisted about to suit a theory or desire. I am saved by grace by faith and belief in the Lord Jesus Christ and He alone.I claim no other way of salvation is relevant for us today. I do not claim to replace Israel (neither her blessings nor her curses, nor her special place as the apple of God's eye). There are others that do. Yet I am told I am not considered to "be a sister" to some. 

I've sat back and participated less than before... I've let multiple stabs go past. But after so many times of poking a bear with a stick it finally gets peeved enough to growl back. Again... if you want to fault me, go right ahead. But if I err, it's because I take the words of God as literally as possible, with as much reverence as possible, and do not ever attempt to say that "no, it doesn't really mean what it says". Fault me all you want, but at least concede the truth... I do my best to take His word literal. 

[No Nicolaitans]

Gen 12:5 And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran; and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they came.

Did Abram take literal souls with him?

[Salyan]

On 3/2/2016 at 5:54 PM, Alimantado said:

Welcome back, Covenanter! Do you know, it so happens your forum companion GenevanPreacher has just returned to the forum as well? Life is full of little coincidences.

Trust you to figure him out, Alimantado!   

[Ronda]

54 minutes ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Gen 12:5 And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran; and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they came.

Did Abram take literal souls with him?

My Answer: Certainly Abram did take literal souls with him... the souls resided in the bodies of those who went with him to Canaan. Do you suppose that the physical life/death (as one said "soul" meant instead of literal "soul") was grieved for the misery of Israel in Judges 10:16? Read that: ... "his soul physical life/death was grieved for the misery of Israel"??? 

Judges 10:16 "And they put away the strange gods from among them, and served the Lord: and his soul was grieved for the misery of Israel."

Job 30:35 " Did not I weep for him that was in trouble? was not my soul grieved for the poor?"

Job 33:13 " He keepeth back his soul from the pit, and his life from perishing by the sword."

Revelation 6:9 " And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:"

Revelation 18:14 " And the fruits that thy soul lusted after are departed from thee, and all things which were dainty and goodly are departed from thee, and thou shalt find them no more at all."

Revelation 20:4 " And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years."

Romans 2:9 " Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile"

 

 

 

[No Nicolaitans]

But it doesn't say the souls that resided in the people; it just says that he took the souls. 

The point is, the context in which souls is used will define what is meant by souls...whether it's speaking of man or the soul of man. 

In regard to the soul that sins will die of Ezekiel 18, the context shows that it's speaking of man...not the soul of man. A soul doesn't die, but a man does. Read the whole chapter, and the context is obvious.

You say that you use Greek and Hebrew lexicons...look up what soul means. 

[Pastor Scott Markle]

31 minutes ago, Ronda said:

Do you suppose that the physical life/death (as one said "soul" meant instead of literal "soul") was grieved for the misery of Israel in Judges 10:16? Read that: ... "his soul physical life/death was grieved for the misery of Israel"???  (emboldening added by Pastor Scott Markle)

Sister Ronda,

Now I AM calling you out on a falsehood against me.

In the other thread, you said the following (here):

. . . And I also believe that if it were just the death of a body (physical death) it would not have said "soul". 

What I actually said with my response to you in the other thread was as follows (here):

Which is the reason that you have a problem with these verses, because you lack a correct understanding concerning the meaning of the word "soul" as used throughout God's Holy Word and within the immediate context of Ezekiel 18.

To which you responded with the following set of questions as follows (here):

Pastor Markle, You are saying that in Ezekiel 18:27, the word "soul" doesn't really mean "soul" but means "physical life/physical death"? Wonder why the Holy Spirit inspired word given is "soul" and not just "life" as in other verses? 

Now, it should be noticed that I am NOT the one who said that the word "soul" means "physical life/physical death."  In fact, those were your words of interpretation concerning what I said, presented as a question concerning what I meant.  In response to that question, I then gave answer as follows (here):

No.  I was not attempting to indicate that "soul" does not mean "soul," but that it means "physical life/death" in this passage.  In this passage, just as every where else in Scripture, the word "soul" means the word "soul."  Rather, what I was attempting to indicate is that you have a misunderstanding concerning the meaning of the word "soul" itself, as used everywhere throughout the Holy Scriptures.  The word "soul" in Scripture does not necessarily mean "eternal soul" as we so commonly use the phrase.  In fact, the phrase "eternal soul" is never found in Scripture.  Rather, the word "soul" in Scripture means "essential personhood."  As such, it can at times refer to that part of us (the "who we essentially are" part) that departs from the body at physical death and goes into the eternal life to come.  However, it also can (and very often does) refer to our present personhood (physical life) in this present life.  As such, the use of the word "soul" in relation to the idea of "death" is commonly employed throughout the Old Testament simply for physical death.

Herein it should be noticed that what I actually gave for the definition of the word "soul" is the meaning "essential personhood."  Then I indicated that this "essential personhood" can be used in contexts that refer to our eternal existence in the life to come.  Yet I also indicated that this "essential personhood" is often used in contexts that refer to the individual in this present life, such that the use of the word "soul" in relation to the idea of "death" is commonly employed simply for physical death (that is -- for the death of the person/soul).

________________________________________

Concerning the rest of your complaint, the problem is NOT that you take the very words of God's Holy Word too literally.  Rather, the problem is that you take those words and phrases OUT OF their immediate contexts.

[Ronda]

Pastor Markle...  I AM calling you out as well. I do not enjoy this, but I will uphold my earlier statement. I do not like to be falsely accused.

Under "Saw this link by beameup and I dont understand it" originally started by 2T3:16

Posted Tuesday at 10:04 Pastor Markle said:

Sister Ronda,

No.  I was not attempting to indicate that "soul" does not mean "soul," but that it means "physical life/death" in this passage.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

6 minutes ago, Ronda said:

Pastor Markle...  I AM calling you out as well. I do not enjoy this, but I will uphold my earlier statement. I do not like to be falsely accused.

Under "Saw this link by beameup and I dont understand it" originally started by 2T3:16

Posted Tuesday at 10:04 Pastor Markle said:

Sister Ronda,

No.  I was not attempting to indicate that "soul" does not mean "soul," but that it means "physical life/death" in this passage.

Sister Ronda,

Follow the grammar of my sentence.  It appears that you took my above statement as if it read the following -- I was NOT attempting to indicate that "soul" does not mean "soul," but [I WAS attempting to indicate] that it means "physical life/death" in this passage.  However, such is NOT what I actually said.  Grammatically, in my actual statement both "that" phrases are modifiers for the infinitive "to indicate," wherein they serve as a compound direct object for the verbal "to indicate."  Grammatically, in my actual statement the infinitive "to indicate" initiates an infinitive phrase, in which is included the entire rest of the sentence, and which serves as the direct object for the main verb of my statement "was attempting."  Grammatically, in my actual statement that main verb of my statement "was attempting" is negated by the adverb "not."

Main statement -- I was NOT attempting to indicate . . .

That which I was NOT attempting to indicate -- That "soul" does not mean "soul," but that it means "physical life/death" in this passage.

EVERYTHING that I presented following the word "that" is what I was denying as my attempted indication. Therefore,

1.  I was NOT attempting to indicate -- that "soul" does not mean "soul."

And

2.  I was NOT attempting to indicate -- that "soul" means "physical life/death" in this passage.