Alimantado

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).

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"?  

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Which office are you running for?

Well the definition of a "proof text" is a verse that is often used in isolation and/or out of context to support a particular position. So that might be a yes.

I recall believing in God at a very young age, but not 'intrinsically', for example by thinking that God must be real because He created the things all around me. Instead, my school (run by the Church of England, like most) told me that God was 'up there' and that good people went to heaven and bad people to hell, and like most children I accepted what I was taught.
I also remember I didn't really care one way or the other, since no-one ever talked about God—neither my parents nor my friends or their parents. At school, God only came up in hymns and the Lord's Prayer, which we had to do in assembly every day. I remember wondering what is this they make us say: something about tresspassing on private property and God having castles that can move (Thy Kingdom come).
so I just got on with school and doing things that boys do (including a lot of birdwatching). By the time I got to about 11, God was just another thing that I'd been reassured wasn't actually real, like Father Christmas and witches and vampires and ghosts. And since I only ever heard about God in songs and the occassional old story, why would I think any different?
I don't recall thinking or hearing about God at all through my teens, except one or twice in English lessons when we did Shakespeare. When I went to university, I was surprised to encounter folk in their late teens and twenties who apparently sincerely believed in God. I even heard that there was a well-attended Christian society on campus: that astonished me.
After I left uni, I went to work and an office colleague witnessed to me. I feel my 'journey' to Christ really started there—hand on my heart I don't recall experiencing a tug or a pang of conscience or a bout of 'congnitive dissonance' before that. And believe me it's tempting to rewrite my own history to include such, since so many Christians are adamant that atheists actually believe in God, providing verses that they say very plainly support this idea. Of course, if someone wants to pyschoanalyse and say that one can deceive oneself so thoroughly that they are no longer conscious of their own self-deception, I can't argue with that. But the above is just my 'atheist' history as I actually remember it, in case any are interested.

Gotta say, John, the last few weeks on here have felt like an eye-opener. Though the eschatology wars have been difficult to watch, there have always been eschatology debates/discussions on OB. But when it came to soteriology, I had always throught that folk on here--and IFBs in general--were united in believing that salvation is and always has been by grace through faith alone.
Multiple threads and posts proclaiming works salvation--be it for times past or times future--with relative silence from forum regulars who have traditionally been quick and rigorous in defending OB's stance on free will and end times doctrines is something I never expected to see. But it might just be because we are down to about a dozen regular posters.

Gotta say, John, the last few weeks on here have felt like an eye-opener. Though the eschatology wars have been difficult to watch, there have always been eschatology debates/discussions on OB. But when it came to soteriology, I had always throught that folk on here--and IFBs in general--were united in believing that salvation is and always has been by grace through faith alone.
Multiple threads and posts proclaiming works salvation--be it for times past or times future--with relative silence from forum regulars who have traditionally been quick and rigorous in defending OB's stance on free will and end times doctrines is something I never expected to see. But it might just be because we are down to about a dozen regular posters.

Gotta say, John, the last few weeks on here have felt like an eye-opener. Though the eschatology wars have been difficult to watch, there have always been eschatology debates/discussions on OB. But when it came to soteriology, I had always throught that folk on here--and IFBs in general--were united in believing that salvation is and always has been by grace through faith alone.
Multiple threads and posts proclaiming works salvation--be it for times past or times future--with relative silence from forum regulars who have traditionally been quick and rigorous in defending OB's stance on free will and end times doctrines is something I never expected to see. But it might just be because we are down to about a dozen regular posters.

Gotta say, John, the last few weeks on here have felt like an eye-opener. Though the eschatology wars have been difficult to watch, there have always been eschatology debates/discussions on OB. But when it came to soteriology, I had always throught that folk on here--and IFBs in general--were united in believing that salvation is and always has been by grace through faith alone.
Multiple threads and posts proclaiming works salvation--be it for times past or times future--with relative silence from forum regulars who have traditionally been quick and rigorous in defending OB's stance on free will and end times doctrines is something I never expected to see. But it might just be because we are down to about a dozen regular posters.

The most dangerous heresy is the promotion of false gospels. There was, is and will only ever be one means of salvation for all people and to teach otherwise is the greater heresy.

Considering there are those here promoting false gospels on many different threads it's little wonder there is also confusion with regards to the Holy Ghost.
Scripture is clear upon the matter of salvation as well as the Holy Ghost and yet false and heretical promotion of different means of salvation are put forth at will. When confronted some decide to try and divert attention by bringing up the idea of the saved being able to lose their salvation. In this they attempt to tie their false gospel into their views on the Holy Ghost and their belief that all or some born again folks can lose their salvation. Exceedingly dangerous heresy.

There are some who confuse the Tribulation and Great Tribulation which also causes problems.
I'm curious why it seems some get more riled up over differing views of the end times than they do the constant promotion of false gospels. In Scripture we see a great emphasis upon exposing false gospels, naming those who promote false gospels and clear separations being made from the promoters of false gospels.
If people get salvation wrong then hell awaits them along with all those they lead astray.
Even if a person says they believe in a pre-trib rapture yet if they don't believe the one and only means of salvation for all time they are lost and leading others away from Christ by their false gospels.

Brother "Beameup,"
In response to my original article, you presented the following question:
Although at the time I had little time to respond, I was courteous enough to give the following answer:
In response to that answer, you presented the following accusation:
Therefore, I was compelled to present the following defense against that accusation:
In addition, you also presented the following argument:
Therefore, I was compelled to present the following response:
I was wondering, Brother "Beameup," if you were going to be as courteous in providing me with an answer to my question, as I was in answering your question.

Since some here seem assured they are not in agreement with the fundamentals of IFB will they now be moving on or will they continue to spew forth their false gospel presentations while denying the truth of Scripture?

You know, I thought you were gonna say "...so I had lots of time to stand around and discuss theology."

Person A: "This entrance to this building here--is it the only way in?"
Person B: "Yes, it is the only entrance to the building."
Person A: "Oh, so the building has just one entrance."
Person B: "Yes, this one and the entrance to the side."
Person A: "So this isn't the only entrance?"
Person B: "No, no. This is the one and only entrance. But in addition to this one and only entrance, there is an entrance to the side."
Person A: "But if there is an entrance to the side, how can this be the one and only entrance??"
Person B: "Because it is the one and only entrance. It's just that there is also an entrance to the side." Etc. etc.