Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

LindaR

Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Posts

    2,027
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    12

Reputation Activity

  1. Thanks
    LindaR got a reaction from Pastor Scott Markle in Does God allow alcohol?   
    If you had read the article from the link I posted you would have your answer.

    4. The making of alcoholic beverages is not a strictly natural process. Years ago I took for granted that if you took the juice of a grape and let it alone, not refrigerating it, it would automatically, in time, turn into alcoholic wine. There are several reasons why this is not true. It takes more than time to make wine. Sometimes people try to defend its use by saying that it must be good because God made it. But, the fact is, God did not make it. Man has learned how to make alcoholic liquors through processes that he has invented. Wine-makers know that one must have the correct amount of water, sugar, and temperature to make wine. Keeping grape juice in a refrigerator would prevent it from fermenting, because the temperature is not right. Likewise, hot, tropical temperature would prevent fermentation.

    In ancient days, before we had refrigeration and vacuum-sealing ability, people learned to preserve the juice of the grape without turning it into alcoholic wine. Many people boiled it down into thick syrup. By doing so, they could preserve it for long periods of time. When they got ready to drink it, they would simply add the water to the consistency desired, in much the same way that we take frozen concentrates and add water. In Bible days, contrary to what many believe, it was not necessary for everyone to drink alcoholic wine as a table beverage.

    I recommend the book entitled Bible Wines and the Laws of Fermentation by William Patton (Challenge Press, Emmaus, PA). More than a hundred years ago, this preacher was the only one in his town who believed in total abstinence. He saw that it was necessary to make an extensive study to see what scripture taught. This book is the result of that labor and is the very best thing I have read on the subject.

    [Editor: Natural processes alone will produce fermentation under certain conditions, but these natural processes, if unaided by man, rapidly move to a vinegar state. The alcoholic beverages industry is very much a man-made thing.]
    http://www.wayoflife.org/database/did_jesus_make_alcoholic_wine.html

    Ron and I tried making our own non-alcoholic wine from fresh seedless red grapes in 2007.  We squeezed the grapes in a juicer and then boiled them.  We then filtered out the "lees" and sealed them in a couple of gallon-sized "seal a meal" bags so they were air tight.  We then froze what we made.  Since alcohol does not freeze, we left those 2 gallon-sized in the freezer for 2 years.  They froze solid which means there was NO alcohol in those freshly squeezed grapes.  When thawed after 2 years, that concentrate was extremely sweet....but there was not a trace of "ferment"/alcohol in either bag.
  2. Thanks
    LindaR reacted to Standing Firm In Christ in Does God allow alcohol?   
    Wine IS a mocker
    Strong drink IS raging
    whosoever IS deceived
    THEREBY (the wine)
    IS NOT wise.
    No long, drawn-out, exhaustive explanation necessary.  The verse speaks for itself.  
     
    Regardless, NN is correct with his expository of Proverbs 20:1, exhaustive, or not. 
  3. Thanks
    LindaR got a reaction from Standing Firm In Christ in Does God allow alcohol?   
    If you had read the article from the link I posted you would have your answer.

    4. The making of alcoholic beverages is not a strictly natural process. Years ago I took for granted that if you took the juice of a grape and let it alone, not refrigerating it, it would automatically, in time, turn into alcoholic wine. There are several reasons why this is not true. It takes more than time to make wine. Sometimes people try to defend its use by saying that it must be good because God made it. But, the fact is, God did not make it. Man has learned how to make alcoholic liquors through processes that he has invented. Wine-makers know that one must have the correct amount of water, sugar, and temperature to make wine. Keeping grape juice in a refrigerator would prevent it from fermenting, because the temperature is not right. Likewise, hot, tropical temperature would prevent fermentation.

    In ancient days, before we had refrigeration and vacuum-sealing ability, people learned to preserve the juice of the grape without turning it into alcoholic wine. Many people boiled it down into thick syrup. By doing so, they could preserve it for long periods of time. When they got ready to drink it, they would simply add the water to the consistency desired, in much the same way that we take frozen concentrates and add water. In Bible days, contrary to what many believe, it was not necessary for everyone to drink alcoholic wine as a table beverage.

    I recommend the book entitled Bible Wines and the Laws of Fermentation by William Patton (Challenge Press, Emmaus, PA). More than a hundred years ago, this preacher was the only one in his town who believed in total abstinence. He saw that it was necessary to make an extensive study to see what scripture taught. This book is the result of that labor and is the very best thing I have read on the subject.

    [Editor: Natural processes alone will produce fermentation under certain conditions, but these natural processes, if unaided by man, rapidly move to a vinegar state. The alcoholic beverages industry is very much a man-made thing.]
    http://www.wayoflife.org/database/did_jesus_make_alcoholic_wine.html

    Ron and I tried making our own non-alcoholic wine from fresh seedless red grapes in 2007.  We squeezed the grapes in a juicer and then boiled them.  We then filtered out the "lees" and sealed them in a couple of gallon-sized "seal a meal" bags so they were air tight.  We then froze what we made.  Since alcohol does not freeze, we left those 2 gallon-sized in the freezer for 2 years.  They froze solid which means there was NO alcohol in those freshly squeezed grapes.  When thawed after 2 years, that concentrate was extremely sweet....but there was not a trace of "ferment"/alcohol in either bag.
  4. Thanks
    LindaR reacted to Ronda in Does God allow alcohol?   
    Okay, this might look like I am trying to appease both sides of the fence... but most of you know (by now) I'm outspoken. So here's my 2 cents:
    Yes, I use (multiple) Greek lexicons for the NT and Hebrew lexicons for the OT (when further clarity is desired).
    (sorry, "Wretched, I still love you, in Christ, but I don't think they are "guessicons", they are "helpicons", lol)
    In this case the word for "wine" in John 2 is "oinos" (Greek) and the definition means "wine" (English).
    The same word for "wine" in 1 Tim. 5:23 is "oinos" (Greek) and the definition means "wine"(English).
    BUT BUT BUT.... before anyone gets all excited and think that means alcoholicor non-alcoholic, let me also state what many Greek lexicons also denote on the word "oinos/wine"
    "designate the juice of the grape in all its stages"
    This makes sense when you think about it. For example... if I were to say to my favortie home health aide: "Please get me something to drink", she would know that I was referring to a weak decaf iced tea which I drink often, which looks more like colored water and has zero alcoholic content.
    However, in the home of someone who drinks alcohol, a husband may come home after work and ask his wife to "Please get me something to drink", and she would likely understand that to mean whatever aloholic drink the man partakes of regularly.
    BTW, I do not drink alcohol, I am certainly NOT saying "it's okay"  by any stretch...I have seen how it can ruin lives, etc. And there certainly ARE Bible verses which denote the evil associated with drinking/drunkeness.
    But to say definitively that the word "wine" (oinos) means either one or the other in ALL cases would be incorrect.
    Some cases it's clearly speaking of alcoholic wine, and other cases it denotes non-alcoholic wine.
    So we are really right back where we started from... I do agree with a few people who stated you need to "take it in context".
    I am not going to give my opinion on which verses denote alcohol and which verses do not. (and trust me you all know I DO have some opinions) But that would just be throwing gasoline on the fire, and we could argue 'til the cows come home and it wouldn't change one thing, nor one person's opinion.
    My advice:  if a person REALLY can't tell the difference in a particular verse (in context with the subject matter) on whether or not it denotes alcohol or not, then that person needs to (individually) take it to the Lord and ask for the Holy Spirit's guidance in this. (Not to rely upon our own opinions which are tainted by fleshy-sin-nature, even when we sometimes come to the right conclusions).
    Trust the Lord above all others (His "opinion" is the only one which truly "counts"), and He will lead you in the right way if you truly allow the Holy Spirit to guide.
    That is assuming that the person has accepted Christ. For an unsaved person my advice would just flat out be "don't drink alcohol at all", it can (and likely will) wreck your life and wreck the lives of those around you. My advice to the unsaved person would also be... if you were considering alcohol to "escape" your problems, to fill a "void"in your heart and life...it really won't help, it will only add to your problems... my advice is to accept Jesus and He will fill that empty void, no need for alcohol at all!
     
  5. Thanks
    LindaR reacted to No Nicolaitans in Does God allow alcohol?   
    Wretched, can you honestly say that Proverbs 20:1 doesn't show that there's something inherently sinful with wine in and of itself? Look at the verse again...
    Proverbs 20:1
    Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.
    What is a mocker?
    Is it those who drink wine? No. Is it those who drink enough wine to get drunk? No. Is it those who can't control themselves with wine? No. What is a mocker according to that verse? Wine. Wine itself is a mocker.
    Is mocking sin? Seems like I recall some kids who mocked Elisha, and some two she-bears killed 42 of them because of their mocking. What does the word "mock" mean? Another word for mock is to scorn. Look through the Bible and see how it talks about scorners...
    Wine IS a mocker.
    ______________________________________________
    Strong drink is raging.
    What is raging?
    Is it those who drink strong drink? No. Is it those who drink enough strong drink to get drunk? No. Is it those who can't control themselves with strong drink? No. What is raging according to that verse? Strong drink. Strong drink itself is raging.
    Is rage a sin? Seems like I recall the Bible saying, "Why do the heathen rage?" Raging is associated with being tumultuous, fighting, commotions, moaning, being loud, and acting without a level head. Look through the Bible and see how it talks about rage.
    Strong drink IS raging.
    _____________________________________________
    and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.
    Deceived by what?
    Wine and strong drink.
    Is deception sinful?
    Yes; it's lying.
    Does wine and strong drink deceive? Yes.
  6. Thanks
    LindaR reacted to No Nicolaitans in Does God allow alcohol?   
    Proverbs 20:1
    Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.
  7. Thanks
    LindaR got a reaction from Jim_Alaska in Does God allow alcohol?   

     It is quite obvious that the wine which was used in Bible times was totally different than the wine which is manufactured today.  Things that are different (Bible wine/today’s wine) are not the same. 
    What about CONTEXT???    In your zeal to interpret every instance of the word wine in Scripture as fermented, it is apparent that you are overlooking CONTEXT and the modern usage of the word wine.
    BTW, I am not using any "Greek (or Hebrew) guessicons". 

    SOME INTRODUCTORY BIBLE FACTS ABOUT WINE:

    1. The word wine in the Bible is a generic term; sometimes it means grape juice; sometimes it means alcoholic beverages. The following verses prove that the word “wine” can mean fresh grape juice, the fruit of the vine: De. 11:14; 2 Ch. 31:5; Ne. 13:15; Pr. 3:10; Is. 16:10; 65:8; 1 Ti. 5:23.

    2. The context will always show when “wine” refers to alcoholic beverages. In such cases, God discusses the bad effects of it and warns against it. An example would be Gen. 9, Noah’s experience after the Flood. Verse 21, “and he drank of the wine, and was drunken,” clearly refers to alcoholic beverage. Prov. 20:1 speaks of the same thing when it warns us, “Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging; and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.” Alcoholic wine is deceptive; but how? In the very way that people are advocating today, by saying that drinking a little bit will not hurt. Everyone admits that drinking too much is bad; even the liquor companies tell us not to drive and drink, but they insist that a small amount is all right. However, that is the very thing that is deceptive. Who knows how little to drink? Experts tell us that each person is different. It takes an ounce to affect one, while more is necessary for another. The same person will react to alcohol differently, depending on the amount of food he has had, among other things. So, the idea that “a little bit won’t hurt” is deceptive, and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise!

    Prov. 23:30-31 refers to alcoholic wine, because it tells us in the previous verse that those who drink it have woe, sorrow, contentions, babbling, wounds without cause, and redness of eyes. What a graphic description of those who “tarry long” at alcoholism. Verses 32-35 continue the same description; context always makes it clear when alcohol is meant.  (From the link I posted)
     
     
  8. Thanks
    LindaR reacted to Standing Firm In Christ in Does God allow alcohol?   
    Timothy has a stomach ailment.
    Doctors do not prescribe alcohol for stomach ailments.  Alcohol would further damage the stomach.
     
    That which Paul prescribed was not alcoholic.
  9. Thanks
    LindaR reacted to swathdiver in Does God allow alcohol?   
    Wow!  How foolish of you Wretched!  Until roughly the 1940s, wine always had dual meanings and context was key to understanding which was being spoken of.  Like the bible itself teaches, we are not to change the bible to fit with the times but to learn what and how the words were used when the bible was written.  
    God provides for two curses on those who drink booze, it is never ok to drink and always shameful.  To say that Christ made booze at the wedding makes Jesus a sinner man!  Wise up!   
  10. Thanks
    LindaR got a reaction from Standing Firm In Christ in Does God allow alcohol?   
    Did Jesus Make Alcoholic Wine?
  11. Thanks
    LindaR got a reaction from AdamL in The King James Only Controversy by James White   
     
     
  12. Thanks
    LindaR reacted to wretched in Were old testament believers indwelt?   
    Sorry friend, but your proof here is none at all. I have already explained the difference in another posting. Of course with some the Spirit did "come on" in the OT but there is zero evidence of regeneration, indwelling and sealing. Each time that the Spirit did come on anyone in the OT it was described that way. Were there regeneration as in the NT, then it would not have been described when it occurred. When God needed a man or a woman, that is how He used them. It was incidental to God's plan and episodic. Even Saul had a time when this occurred, do you really think it permanent? Does the Spirit come over us at certain times and not at others? I don't think so.
    Don't you see the differences? Whom do you know that God comes to physically to speak with? Whom do you know that has witnessed the blinding lights and verbal instructions from the Lord? Who do you know that heals the sick. The Lord is dealing with us in this age vastly different than the OT faithful all the up until Pentecost after Christ's ascension. Now we can be born again, regenerated and sealed until the day of redemption. NOT BY SIGHT but by real faith. There is zero evidence of this ever occurring prior. AND to add to this evidence, there is zero evidence of God's showing anyone signs, wonders, visions, miracles, etc. in this age apart from the liars and mentally retarded.
    This ain't rocket surgery  
    I know you want your preacher to be right friend, but he isn't. On the bright side however, it hardly matters for us so don't get so defensive over it. Your salvation can still be secure and sealed regardless of whether or not OT believers were. IT matters zero to our mission here on earth so I am trying to stop correcting it but have to say that this blending all the Bible together ignoring the plain text as written for the sake of easy preaching is a mix of both laziness or ignorance and gets very annoying. It is what the reformers do, everything needs to be easy for them, it is satan's way and where replacement and calvinism spawned from - the flesh.
    And folks, don't claim for a second that your pastors who teach this same same nonsense are not influenced by reformed theology. They absolutely are and may not even realize it.
  13. Thanks
    LindaR reacted to Standing Firm In Christ in Were old testament believers indwelt?   
    How does one reconcile Exodus 31:3 with John 7:39?
     
    Exodus 31 does say one was filled with the Spirit of God, while John, written more than 1500 years later, states that the Holy Ghost was not yet given.
     
    Based on Exodus 31:3, I believe one could be indwelt by the Holy Ghost.  Albeit, it was only a 'temporary' indwelling.  It was not the 'permanent' indwelling that Believers post-cross would experience.  The Spirit came and went.  It was not yet given.
     
    The Spirit is only given to those who put their faith in Jesus Christ and have been cleansed by His blood.
  14. Thanks
    LindaR reacted to wretched in Were old testament believers indwelt?   
     
     
     
    Gents, although well intentioned, you are wrong on this. Had the Gospel of regeneration existed prior to Christ's death, then our Lord died in vain. And this is exactly what you folks are claiming.
    Your view is factually a false Gospel.
    Only heart felt faith has ever pleased God but that faith always produced works for God in the OT. In the OT, that faith was initiated and continued by sight. In the NT, that faith is rewarded by the regenerating, renewing, indwelling and securing of the Spirit. Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed.
    No matter who tells you the verses quoted in this thread mean indwelling of the Spirit and eternal security by being sealed until the day of redemption, they are wrong in literal verbiage and in context and miss the major difference in how God dealt with man from the OT to the NT.
    Call people heretics all you want but the fact is you are making yourselves one by continuing this insistence of doctrine that does not exist except in the itching ears of lazy preachers.
  15. Thanks
    LindaR reacted to No Nicolaitans in The Audio/Visual King James Bible Website   
    I've put a very simple, basic, and small website together that offers people the chance to listen to the Bible. There's also a bible that you can read on the site too. I've kept it basic so the focus would be the Bible.
    I realize there are probably countless sites that already offer this service, and I realize that people (like me) already have an audio bible...but I wanted to do it anyway.
    One thing that sets this one apart is the narrator. I know Alexander Scourby is probably the most widely known and used (I have it myself), but you have to get permission to use his narration publicly...as you do with all others that I looked into when I made this audio bible. However, I found one that you could freely use. He's a retired minister from California, and he sounds (as I put it)...like a sweet ol' grandpa. I actually prefer to listen to him now.
    I substituted the flash player audio bible that I made with one from Archive.org, because it's a HTML5 player...and people are starting to move away from flash players...especially on mobile devices. The audio bible works great on mobile devices, but the visual bible hasn't been optimized to work on mobiles. Anyway, I hope some people will get some use from it. If you like it, you'll need to bookmark it on your computer. Weebly has changed, and I don't think they offer search engine optimization for free websites anymore...so, I don't think you'd find it by searching for it.
    Anyway, for anyone interested, for anyone who may not already have an audio bible, for anyone looking for a different narrator, or for anyone else for whatever reason...
    Here's the link --> The Audio/Visual King James Bible
  16. Thanks
    LindaR reacted to No Nicolaitans in For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles   
    Yes, Paul was the apostle of the Gentiles. Near the end of his life, he said this...
    Acts 20:17-26
    17   And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.
    18   And when they were come to him, he said unto them, Ye know, from the first day that I came into Asia, after what manner I have been with you at all seasons,
    19   Serving the Lord with all humility of mind, and with many tears, and temptations, which befell me by the lying in wait of the Jews:
    20   And how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publickly, and from house to house,
    21   Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.
    22   And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there:
    23   Save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me.
    24   But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.
    25   And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more.
    26   Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men.
     
  17. Thanks
    LindaR reacted to John81 in Has anyone seen the movie "WAR ROOM"?:   
    Yes, the movie had some problems but I'm glad the Lord was able to use it to bring me to Christ. We have the whole series. While I know of many others who have come to Christ through these movies, no one I've personally shared it with has.
    At the time I saw that movie I had never heard of the end times, never heard anything about Jesus returning, never heard about the actual Gospel of salvation (I learned in Methodist Sunday school we had to be good to get to heaven...no explanation of just what that meant either), never heard of what hell is really like, so I much of that movie was a shock to me and really got my attention.
    I still don't understand why any Christian would want to see this movie.
  18. Thanks
    LindaR reacted to No Nicolaitans in Why Did Paul Say to Follow Him?   
    I absolutely agree with you; however, from what I've gathered from here and elsewhere...the answer as to why Paul said to follow him is...because he's the apostle to the Gentiles.
    My point in asking why Paul said to follow him was to hopefully encourage people to take the time to actually read why he said it in each individual case. Too often we read along in God's word, and we lose focus, don't pay attention, or skim through until we get to what I refer to as a "knockout verse"...a verse that is used alone to prove a point, doctrine, or personal preference...a verse that "knocks out" everything around it.
    As an interesting side-note...in those 3 verses that are used to prove we are to follow Paul's teachings alone, only the first one excludes everyone but Paul. The second one includes the Lord, and the third one includes "us". 
    As an interesting side-side-note...there are several other verses where Paul says to follow "us". 
  19. Thanks
    LindaR reacted to John81 in Why Did Paul Say to Follow Him?   
    Indeed there are actually a number of folks out there who proclaim only the writings of Paul are for Christians today. Some go so far as to say we shouldn't even read most other books of the Bible.
    The teaching that Paul's Gospel is any different than the one true Gospel and his books are to be set apart in some manner for our special attention, whether in a soft or hardcore manner is unscriptural dangerous false teaching that shouldn't be tolerated.
    Along with these are those who call themselves "red letter Christians", with some going to the point of disregarding most everything in the Bible except what has been printed in red in their Bible.
    Dangerous teachings that have no basis in truth and should be separated from.
  20. Thanks
    LindaR got a reaction from Ronda in Has anyone seen the movie "WAR ROOM"?:   
    I haven't seen the movie...but after reading some of the reviews, I seriously doubt whether I want to see it at all.

    Here is a review that one of my FB friends posted : War Room: A Review of the Movie and the Industry Surrounding It
    Concerning Elements
    There are several concerning elements of the film that one may or may not notice if he is watching he movie uncritically:
    In one scene a man attempts to mug Clara and Elizabeth at knifepoint. Clara rebukes the man “in the name of Jesus”.  This kind of word of faith proclamation may work in the movies (and sometimes even in real life depending on a mugger’s background or God’s provision), however, a young person emboldened by the prayer theme of the movie may very well end up being stabbed if she imitates Clara’s example in real life.  This type of subtle word faith proclamation may be lost on conservative Southern Baptist audiences but it will certainly be noticed by Pentecostals who go to see the movie. In another scene, Elizabeth is praying over the scriptures while Tony is on a business trip and out to dinner with a temptress. Elizabeth prays from the scriptures the phrase “resist the devil and he will flee”.  She repeats this line of scripture a few times.  In real life, Shirer is a proponent of contemplative prayer, a practice in which the prayer focuses on clearing her mind a repeating a specific phrase (similar to a mantra).  Those who are not aware of the practice of contemplative prayer will probably not notice that this scene touches the borderline of that practice. Priscilla Shirer and Beth Moore are in this movie.  Both are advocates of contemplative prayer.

    My advice---pray and use much discernment!
  21. Thanks
    LindaR reacted to No Nicolaitans in Why Did Paul Say to Follow Him?   
    Much has been said lately...well...let me say it this way instead...it has been said often lately, that we should follow only Paul...that only his epistles are for today's church. Here are the single-verse proof texts used...
    1 Corinthians 4:16
    Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.
    1 Corinthians 11:1
    Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
    Philippians 3:17
    Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample.
    So...now I ask the following question.
    According ONLY to the contexts of each of the above single proof-verses and according ONLY to preceding and/or succeeding verses (which gives the context), why did Paul say this?
    In other words, why did Paul say what he said where he said it?
  22. Thanks
    LindaR reacted to Pastor Scott Markle in Conclusion to my post on other thread   
    Sister Ronda,
    Although I do not believe that my position on the doctrine of future events has any relevancy to the controversy over "two separate gospels" versus one and only one gospel ever for all peoples in any place at any time, I shall provide my answer to your above questions.
    #0:   What role do you believe YOU will play in the millennial kingdom?  I believe that I will be in resurrected form to rule with Christ at whatever level of "rulership" He rewards me in accord with my faithfulness unto Him during this life time of service.
    #1: Do you believe that the millennial kingdom is a period of 1000 years?  Yes, literally.
    #2: The millennial kingdom will be on earth?  Yes, physically.
    #3: The people who have gone through the time of Jacob's trouble (in human bodies, I am NOT including the tribulation martyrs/saints nor anyone killed during that time in this question... just those remaining alive in human bodies at the end of the Daniel's 70th week) and have NOT worshiped the beast, have NOT worshiped his image, have NOT taken his mark, nor the number of his name, but who HAVE accepted Jesus as their Messiah (whom they will look upon Him who've they've pierced and mourn)... these people left in human form at the end of the tribulation (with the qualifiers I gave) will be entering the millennial kingdom?  Yes, absolutely.
    #4:  Will they then also be the ones who re-populate the earth (via procreation)?  Yes.
    #5: Or, do you believe some OTHER people group will re-populate the earth (via procreation)?  No.
    #6: And one more question in particular, do you think glorified bodies (which we will receive during the rapture) will be capable of procreating?  No, certainly not.
  23. Thanks
    LindaR reacted to Pastor Scott Markle in Conclusion to my post on other thread   
    Contradictions, contradictions.  I am quite certain that God the Holy Spirit is NOT the Source for these contradictions.
    First, you indicated that there is "the ONE and only gospel," which the apostle Paul taught ("of grace by faith in Jesus Christ"), and that the other apostles taught "the same One and only gospel" ("of grace by faith in Jesus Christ").  Yet then you further indicated that the other apostles "ADDED to the one true gospel . . . with baptism and other works."  This IS a Biblical contradiction.  In his teachings on the doctrine of the gospel, the apostle Paul placed great emphasis upon the truth that the gospel of grace does NOT include any human works whatsoever at all (See Romans 3:20, 28-30; 4:1-8; 9:30-33; 11:5-6; Galatians 2:15-16; 3:10-14; Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:4-7).  Indeed, in Romans 11:6 the apostle Paul under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit clearly revealed that it is spiritually IMPOSSIBLE before God to mix grace and works in the same gospel, saying, "And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace.  But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work."  Even so, if the apostle Peter or any other apostle ADDED ANY works to the gospel, then that apostle did NOT teach the SAME gospel as the apostle Paul; and then that apostle taught a gospel that was NOT at all a gospel of God's grace.
    Furthermore, with the conclusion of your statement above, you proceeded to indicate that "the Bible itself" called the gospel which Peter taught "a different gospel" than the gospel which Paul taught.  Indeed, you indicated that "the Bible calls them 2 separate things."  This IS a doctrinal contradiction within your own position of doctrine.  First, you claim that they all taught "the same ONE and only gospel;" but then you claim that "the Bible itself calls them 2 separate things."  Either they were "the same ONE," or they were "2 separate things."  However, it is self-contradictory to claim that they were both.  Now, if "the Bible itself" really does call them "2 separate things," then it is a doctrinal falsehood (even for you) to claim that they were "the same ONE."
    Now then, from all that you have presented throughout your postings, it appears that you really do believe that Paul and Peter taught "two separate gospels," even as you originally presented in your original article as follows:
    Furthermore, it appears that you have attempted to use "one and only one" and "one and the same" language with regard the gospel that Paul and Peter taught respectively, in order to appease the controversy that you have stirred up with the majority of the membership on the forum.
    _____________________________________________
    Early within the discussion of this thread, I presented the following:
    I believe that the answer to my question above has now been clearly revealed, especially considering that you have remained unwilling even to acknowledge the direct contradiction in your own claim that Paul and Peter taught "the same ONE and only gospel," yet also "two separate gospels."
  24. Thanks
    LindaR reacted to No Nicolaitans in Conclusion to my post on other thread   
    I certainly appreciate your attitude towards me despite our differences. Thank you
    Sis. Ronda, Galatians 2:14 is another one of the verses that you adhere to as proof that Peter taught a different gospel (faith + works). However, this contradicts your previous belief statement; in which, it wasn't a gospel of faith + "the works of the law". You indicated that it was a gospel of faith + good works. Here, you say that Peter was teaching them to obey the Old Testament "rules" which would be faith + the works of the law rather than faith + good works.
    If you read the preceding verses of Galatians 2, you will see the words "dissembled" and "dissimulation".
    This means that Peter acted hypocritically. What is a hypocrite?
    a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
    It wasn't that he was teaching "another gospel", he gave in to peer-pressure and was being a hypocrite...pretending to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he didn't actually possess, and those actions belied Peter's his beliefs.
    Was Peter wrong? YES! Was Peter teaching another gospel? NO! Peter was a hypocrite. Does that verse say that Peter was telling them to obey the law to be saved? NO...NO...NO. He was telling the Gentiles to live like Jews. Sadly, that still happens in many churches today. "If you're a Christian, you ought to do this, you shouldn't do that." Commands that often are based upon Old Testament law...and no...I'm not a hyper-grace believer...that Christians can live any way THEY choose because we live under grace. Just wanted to make that clear.
    Did Paul ever do anything similar? Yes...
    Acts 21:18-26
    18   And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.
    19   And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.
    20   And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
    21   And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.
    22   What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.
    23   Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;
    24   Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.
    25   As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.
    26   Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.
     
    Paul gave in to that peer-pressure...
    You also mention Peter had to be told three times (in his dream) that the Gentiles were to be considered clean. It was only one vision. In the vision, the Lord never revealed the actual message behind the vision. In that one vision, the Lord repeated it three times...without revealing the actual purpose of the vision. Peter had to discover it himself. Right afterwards, he was presented with the opportunity to lead Gentiles to the Lord, and he quickly and rightly applied the meaning of the vision to that opportunity. Sounds like very intelligent reasoning by someone open to the Lord's leading rather than someone who "didn't get it".
    One vision.
    How many times did Paul have to receive his revelations? We don't know, but what we do know is that he spent three years in the desert receiving those revelations. Did the Lord ever have to repeat any of them during those three years? We don't know. Perhaps he did; perhaps he didn't. A lot can happen in three years though.
    I think Peter should be commended for his quick and rightful interpretation of a vision; in which, the Lord didn't reveal its true meaning...rather than condemning him. Especially when we have no idea if Paul's revelations had to be repeated to him or not.
  25. Thanks
    LindaR reacted to Pastor Scott Markle in Conclusion to my post on other thread   
    So then, Sister Ronda,
    1.  Are you prepared to acknowledge that in YOUR OWN original article YOU YOURSELF said the following:
    2.  Are you also prepared to acknowledge that the claim that "Peter and Paul preached TWO SEPARATE gospels" is directly contradictory to the doctrinal truth that "salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ is the gospel, THE ONE AND THE ONLY gospel"?
    3.  Are you prepared to acknowledge that since the claim that "Peter and Paul preached TWO SEPARATE gospels" is directly contradictory to the doctrinal truth that there is ONE and ONLY ONE gospel, then the claim that "Peter and Paul preached TWO SEPARATE gospels" is a faulty claim?
    4.  Are you prepared to acknowledge that since YOU YOURSELF made the faulty claim that "Peter and Paul preached TWO SEPARATE gospels," then you did indeed "mess" with the doctrine of the gospel that there is ONE and ONLY ONE gospel specifically by making that faulty claim concerning "TWO SEPARATE gospels"?
×
×
  • Create New...