Jump to content
Online Baptist

Paul Christian

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Paul Christian

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location:
    Roseburg, Oregon
  • Denomination
  • IFB?

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I personally do not like the language of "personal relationship". The reason is because of how false Christianity uses it, and how prolific it is. It's along the lines of "invite Jesus into your heart". It is very difficult to find a clear gospel in the messages given by the people who use these terms, and they usually have a works based gospel at that. That "personal relationship" or "inviting Jesus into your heart" essentially equates to "a changed life" gospel. Jesus told saved people that if they loved Him, they should keep His commandments. By bible standards, there can be people who are
  2. It seems like the preachers of old brought a lot of people to making a decision by peaching it. It certainly is a warning. The problem today seems to be the ecumenical trend toward Billy Graham doctrine. While the IFBs were preaching hard against the sexual revolution, which included sodomites being rejected of God, Billy Graham was including everyone. “Reprobate”, as defined by the first bible usage, just means rejected of God. (Jeremiah 6:30). We put names on doctrine that, hopefully, represent our doctrine well. Whether we call it the unpardonable sin doctrine, the reprobate doctrine, o
  3. I’m not plugging Anderson, but clearly he has a lot of people on the defensive concerning doctrine, and anyone that believes the same as he does on certain doctrine will be labeled a “follower” of his. All I seem to be getting is general statements rather than scriptural refutations on the doctrine. When I mention that God gave them up, God gave them over, and God gave them up, all I seem to get in return is “that doesn’t mean what it says”, or “the Pauline epistles generally refute that”, when Paul was the one who wrote it. I can post the respected preachers of old using those verses t
  4. I don't think that you understand the reprobate doctrine. It is summed up by saying that there is a line that people cross with God that they can no longer be saved. These preachers of old used the same chapters and verses to teach it. There is no difference between "unpardonable sins" and the "reprobate doctrine" other than the labels themselves. The only difference between Jack Hyles using all of those verses in Romans 1 and Steven Anderson using them, is that Jack Hyles didn't live in a day where baptist preachers exclude the very people being described in detail in Romans 1. Hyles had no n
  5. Now you are calling John R Rice, Glen Schunk,, and Jack Hyles reprobates. They all taught crossing a line with God, and not being able to be saved, using the same verses that I did.
  6. Anderson may be a good teacher, but he is not the Word of God. God’s words speak for themselves, and one reason that I respect the man is for defending the word of God and pointing out continually the right gospel. 1 John 2:27 tells us that because we have the Holy Spirit to teach us, we don’t need a man to teach us. Anderson was the man who pointed me to that. The reality is that when a person casts down the presuppositions of past teaching by men, and reads the Bible for themselves, they will find many things that contradict popular doctrine, and that is what people really don’t like,
  7. I think you might want to read my post again. I said they “taught” the reprobate doctrine, sir.
  8. When you talk about wresting the scriptures, I don't think it is wrong to compare scripture with scripture. There is no context deficiency between the verses mentioned in Romans 1, Hebrews 6, Mathew 11, 2 Peter 2, Revelation 22, or the example I mentioned concerning Pharaoh and Moses. Exodus 8:32 And Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also, neither would he let the people go. Exodus 9:12 And the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he hearkened not unto them; as the Lord had spoken unto Moses. The same thing is happening in Romans 1. First God makes Himself known to the
  9. I don't believe that the fruit of the Spirit is relevant to God rejecting and giving up on people, outside of the Spirit first drawing them. Fruit is what is produced by something. While Jesus was talking about false prophets, he talks about trees that produce good or bad fruit, in Mathew 7. He said that you will know false prophets by their fruit, not saved people. Unsaved people can do all of the things listed as being the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5. Why would we think that God keeps drawing them after God has given them over to a rejected mind, vile affections, and to do those
  10. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Whatever you may think these verses say, the verbage is clear that God did something to them. The references are proactive on God's part. It is quite clea
  11. If you read 1 Corinthians 6, the "unrighteous" in verse 9 is referring to not being saved. All of these sins can be done by saved people. Some of these people committed some of those sins. How is it that they could no longer commit any of those sins? 1 John 3:9 says that whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin, for his seed remaineth in him, and he cannot sin... yet "if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. When the people who committed some of those sins got saved, those sins were no longer accounted unto them, yet they could continue in the flesh
  12. What I was trying to convey was not just a quiet voice, but a soft mushy lovey dovvy voice that comes out when they are trying to be “Christ like”. There is a difference between loud and angry, which is good in its place, and just authoritative. The effeminate is neither. We should teach as Jesus tought, as one having authority, and not as the scribes.
  13. Acts 7:18 talks about Moses being in the wilderness with the church. A church is a congregation. A biblical church congregates somewhere.
  14. A church only has authority over what happens in church, but screwed up people tend to get better when the church does it's job. I disagree with marriage counselling in the church, because everybody has a bible, and it doesn't take long to point out the verses that should be sounded from the pulpit. They will either obey the bible or not. I have seen many defeated men in churches over the years. Their wives like to say that they had to take control because their husbands won't. The reality was that the woman would end the marriage if the husband stepped up. I've seen the women leave as well. W
  • Create New...