₦airaland Forum

Is he 'popular'?

Sure, why not?
He says so and I obey without question

Buhari will lose,cry foul over electile dysfunction,riots in his strongholds, petition,negotiations, life goes on

May the Lord increase brother Nosa

Both

cirmuell:
the power of pen(cil) or F you?

Son of perdition, repent or perish

sonOfLucifer:
The Bible and the Quran aren't about you. No amount of belief can change that. They are not your stories and the writers never had you in mind when writing those stories. The baboon doesn't learn how to climb a tree from a fish.
Research your history. Remove the blindfolds. Face the light.

- a good bye message from sonoflucifer.

This is not Calvin but John Darby and his erstwhile student Scoffield. Scoffield made notes as he studied scriptures and thenhe INSERTED the same in a bible. The product was Scoffield Reference Bible. In it he propagates Dispensationalism.

It is 150 years young. Am extremely cautious of NEW beliefs and teachings that were virtually nonexistent for over 1800years of Christendom. This is no difference from Catholicism and their 'traditions'-progressive revelation

In some quarters, test of orthodoxy includes believing in Scoffield Bible.

Shdemidemi and others would do well to apply their brains to looking outside Scoffield. He did well but he is as fallible as vooks. You know you got it bad if inside EVERY scripture you quote, it has to. Be 'aligned' with Dispensationalism/Scoffield.

I was shocked when I quoted the 2Peter where Peter says Paul......and shdemidemi instinctively quoted Romans a particular verse in Scoffield marginal notes never mind the fact that it was totally irrelevant to the discussion

Dispensationalism is indoctrination and it's conclusions are ones you would NEVER arrive at unless you were specifically looking to scriptures to validate your existing beliefs. And even then, you'd need to suspend logic and adopt the. Strangest hermeneutics under the sun

Ubenedictus:
this is a funny gospel, i don't think calvin went this far, the basis calvinism was a misunderstanding of original sin and a presumption on predestination, calvin didn't separate scriptures into 7 despensation.

A truth seeker be me

davien:
I'm just curious....you hang around topics like these.

Why do you care?

davien:
RikoduoSennin and vooks are you two creationists?

You are looking for arguments why is this?
How far has he gotten? Been there since jan last year

plaetton:
I didn't see an argument, just a knee-jerk reaction intended to prevent you from contemplating the obvious implications of this development.

What happens at death?
If man CEASES to exist, then God the Son ceased to exist for three days
But we know at death the spirit is separated from the body. So Jesus lived in the spirit beyond crucifixion

Please begin another thread on what happens after death

CANTICLES:
:::: If the trinity doctrine is true and the 3 are one , what happen to the Father and holyspirit when the son died for three days ?? If the 3 are truly one, why didnt the father and holyspirit also dead ?

What do you think?

plaetton:
Is this an argument, or just sulking?

When I call Dispensationalism BS you now understand what I mean
Subscribing to this means DEFENDING 'eternal security' by irrelevancies, illogic and plain obtuseness

Any portion that contradicts this doctrine MUST at all costs be pushed into the Grace-less futiristic age called Millenium.

If you look at this discussion, it started with the assertion that Romans 9-11 are not written for Christians. Why so? Because Romans 11 specifically warns believers of being cut off, something the Dispensationalist rabidly rejects

Earlier on, Revelation which talks of 'not remove their names from the book of life' came up. Initially, the argument was Jesus WILL not remove names, sovereignty bla de bla. When this was proven faulty reasoning, Revelation is quickly discarded as being un-Church age

Hebrews 6 was quickly dismissed as Jewish. I sought to understand how the epistles audience/addressee' race overturns this logic. We were first told that they were not 'fully saved'. Semantics and word play were thrown in; TASTING was aid to imply 'temporal' given the context. Next, I sought to know whether one can receive the Holy Spirit temporarily. OT examples were given. When I insisted on NT, the argument changed. We agreed Holy Spirit baptism is not temporary.

2 Peter is Jewish. But pray let me ask. What gospel did first century Jews received? We agree it was the same as Gentiles. This means regardless of whether the epistle was written for Jews,Gentiles or both, the gospel was the same. Unless you argue that beside Paul, the other Inspired authors propagated a distorted gospel

Matthew example came in of miracle workers who are cast to hell. This attracted two dumb excuses. The first was it referred to pre-resurrection UNJUSTIFIED believers. This is nonsensical because there were FEW miracle workers before resurrection and in any case, we can presume that immediately after resurrection they were automatically justified ( I have a problem with this). SO the many that Jesus spoke of would have to be the pre-resurrection miracle workers who died BEFORE his resurrection.
Next we heard that these were miracle workers during the so called 'Grace-less Dispensation aka Millenium. But if you notice, the many also cast out demons. How do demons possess people when Satan is bound?

And finally come to Acts, when evidence of similarity between Paul and Peter is adduced, it is dismissed since 'revelation was progressive'. Peter preached faith long before Paul and Paul preached works to his death. This from the same person who quoted Peter's 'repent and be baptized' vs paul's 'believe'

The whole theological circus hinges on Eternal Security. Every scripture debunking this MUST be resisted, ignored,doubted and wished away. Dispensationalism BTW is a ruse for watering down scriptures. They know they cant beat you in Greek. So they hive off huge works Holy Spirit painstakingly inspired and push it into a utopia called Millenium

So you have first century Jews receiving the gospel of Jesus Christ which is relevant for Jews living under Moses thousands of years away

John Darby must be happy with his disciples

ayoku777:
Obviously this discussion is going no where.

You've given "grafted" your own definition to include every gentile including unbelievers.

That is pretty shocking to me, to say the entire gentile world has been grafted into Christ or set apart and sanctified unto God, which would imply they all now share the life and holiness of the root even as unbelievers.

How you drew that conclusion is far-fetched to me.

I don't think I can help much further than this for now.

Look closely at Paul the ideal Jew and you will get your answer
It breaks my heart to hear Dispensationalism reintroducing the Law in the millenium. There will be animal sacrifices, circumcision and so forth, the very same things that Paul was fleeing from and which Jesus Christ delivered him from


About John the Baptist, he came to prepare the way for the lamb of God

Philippians 3:5-9 King James Version (KJV)

5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;

6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.

8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,

9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

shdemidemi:
If they were truly Holy before they rejected Christ, why did Christ come?

Why was John preahing repentance and Holiness to a Holy people?

shdemidemi:
It is not enough to say 'well, he also said ...'. The man was clear with those he was addresing, wasn't he?

What ayoku777 is saying is, it is clear as daylight Paul HIMSELF identifies his subjects as 'standing in faith' meaning they were believers,believing Gentiles. Is any of that in doubt

I also think the most miused word in christendom is the word- 'Faith'.

But I have never run across the Holy Spirit inspired apostle to the Gentiles misusing it. He meant exactly what he said and said what he meant. What do you think he means by 'thou standest by faith'? Could he be referring to anything else other than a believer?

If you get to this chapter to say christians can be cut off from God, that means Romans 8 which explains the work of the Holy Spirit in us is completely wrong.

When Holy Spirit by the hand of his apostle tells you to take heed lest you be cut off, you better believe it bro. May Dispensationalism,eternal security and other man made garbage bow in Jesus name! But I know too well the crisi of conscience, the feeling that you may be wrong despite all these years

Is Paul saying if we boast to the Jews then we lose our salvation as christians.. Is that what the passage is saying?

No . It is the Holy Spirit saying so. Note though that nowhere is Paul saying if we boast we lose our salvation. He is cautioning against overconfidence in being grafted (sounds like eternal security) seeing the natural branches were cut off.
Romans 11:20-21 (KJV)
Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: 21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee

Excellent submission ayoku777

Shdemidemi,
Please give one reason why you insist Romans 9-11 were not addressed to or 'talking about' Christians especially in the light of Rom 11 verses as pointed out by italo and myself

shdemidemi:
If you don't understand the setting, look closer. Paul stopped speaking about Christians in chapter 8, he poke about Israele through chapter 9, 10 and 11 and returned to the church at 12.

Look closer, you might just see.

ayoku777:
Because the entire gentile world are not grafted into Christ, only gentiles who believe in Christ -the same way it is for the jews now.

The idea of being cut off only addresses believing gentiles. Unless you believe both believing and unbelieving gentiles have been grafted into Christ

Thank you Ayoku777
I tend to agree with you on most points
Romans 11:17-21 King James Version (KJV)
17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

I believe this verse shows that Israel as a nation was not cut off but SOME meaning those who rejected God's plan of salvation in Christ.


Romans 11:1King James Version (KJV)
11 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
I believe this is the thrust of verse 1; evidence of few Jewish believers means Israel was not cut off entirely

ayoku777:
shdemidemi ; vooks ; italo

I talked of puny brains and used the fewest words

Walk me through your logic. Is it written anywhere that Christ appeared before himself?
Is it implied or suggested that Christ appeared before himself?

CANTICLES:
Goodmorning ..... FLASHBACK: the op ask, " did christ appear to himself" and you answered " Yes He Did" !!! Or uv forgotten ?

How comes this Darbynite can't answer such a simple question?


Romans 11:17-21 King James Version (KJV)
17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.
20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

If the addressee of Romans 11 are not the Christians in Rome, who are they?
Who from verse17 was grafted and partakes of the root and fatness?
Who is being charged in verse 18 against boasting?
Whose conclusion is Paul preempting in v19?
Who in verse 20 'standeth by faith'?
And who is being warned in verse 21 lest God cuts him off?

The Holy Ghost has ready answers to these questions;

Romans 1:7 King James Version (KJV)
7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

He was writing to the church in Rome but a deranged Dispensationalist mind resists the Holy Ghost and claims otherwise

cc ayoku777,esere826,shdemidemi

italo:
In Rom11:20, Paul said: "They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand only through faith.." Those are not unbelievers, but Christians.

You're lying shamelessly.

shdemidemi:
If you don't understand the setting, look closer. Paul stopped speaking about Christians in chapter 8, he poke about Israele through chapter 9, 10 and 11 and returned to the church at 12.

Look closer, you might just see.

Is there anybody who said that Christ appeared to himself?
How do you jump from Christ appeared before God to Christ appearing before himself?

CANTICLES:
!
Did christ appear to himself ??

Pure garbage...how much of it is testable?
That's why scientific community has given the NERDethal a wide berth

For how long are you going to wallow in that garbage of mutilating scriptures?
Was 2 Peter written for Jews or Gentiles?

shdemidemi:
Is John the Apostle God appointed to me, me being a Gentile?

Italo,
Come watch indoctrination in action.

Was Peter directing his subjects to some salvation formula elsewhere on Pauline epistle or was he AFFIRMING that he was preaching the SAME GOSPEL as Paul?

Yet some mumu would have you believe that one was preaching 'repentance by the gospel/word of God' while the other preached 'repentance by remorse'

shdemidemi:
Of course they are applicable to us because we can learn off them. But Peter mentioned where to turn for the Word/gospel of salvation-
2 Pet 3
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;


Where is your definition of darkness from?

Bro,
This is what you get when you arm spiritual neanderthals with scriptures

1.X,Y and Z are church/Grace-age jargon.
2. X,Y,Z are not found in A,B,C books
3. A,B,C books are not for church-age

The same minds who swear Antichrist a totally ALIEN name in Revelation is the MAIN bad guy there.

And here is the worst bit; they are as dishonest as hell; they will argue from silence when it serves them and cling to 'literal' interpretation of Revelation and Prophecy ONLY when it advances their Dispensationalism BS

My broda, with these you dont even have time to define foolishness, you'd waste a lot of time doing so. Instead, just watch Foolishnes Incarnate

italo:
And Jesus never laughed...cos the Bible never said so.



How do we define foolishness?

shdemidemi:
If we are saying the gospel of salvation by grace came with Paul's gospel, how does that apply to Judas?

WHO said the gospel of salvation by Grace came through Paul? What other gospel was there? You are presumptuous

Please give one example of anyone who heard Paul's gospel and yet suffered condemnation.

Negro please!
Give me one example of anyone who heard Philip the evangelist's gospel and yet suffered condemnation

There are typical Dispensationalists mindless arguments from silence....'because it is NOT written,it is NOT there' since we have no record of any apostle save James dying, does that mean the rest never died? And we have no record of any of the apostles being born...they was never born

This is m0ronic mind
It basically is arguing from silence.
Let's test it

1. Who/what determines what Grace/Church age jargon is?

2. There is NO resurrection in either Peter,John or James. Is resurrection an irrelevant theme during BOTH the tribulation and the 1000 years?

3. There is NO mention of spiritual gifts save James teaching on praying for the sick. Since Peter was primarily writing to Jews, where were they supposed to take instructions on these?

There is not a single reference to God or LORD in Ruth. What does that tell you?

Bible interpretation is NOT based on word count,and you should not attempt to determine applicability of scripture or portions of it on the basis of Grace/church jargon which you arbitrarily picked

shdemidemi:
I am not. How do we come to a common understanding if the meanings behind the words we are talking about is different?



John isn't saying the condition for salvation is when you love your brother, is he? He is only saying you can't be saying you love God and not produce the fruit. If you say you love God, it shows in your attitude..vooks being a perfect example.

Like you have rightly pointed out you cannot find one word of Church or what we call Church – the Age of Grace – language in epistles of John Peter and James. In other words, there’s no reference to the Body of Christ. There’s no reference to the working and the controlling of the Holy Spirit - as over against the keeping of the Law - it’s ‘legal.’ It’s not that the Spirit is going to control us, but that they have to go by what James is telling them. There is no Grace-Age language in there either. You also won’t find the plan of salvation in these Jewish epistles.

I won't tire drilling wisdom into your head, a living dog is better than a dead lion

All garbage MUST Bow to the light of the glorious gospel

shdemidemi:
My dear friend, I am done with your folly- I have laughed enough for a day, save your jokes for another time.

I believe it should be edited seeing peabrains can't comprehend it's simplicity

shdemidemi:


So, the bible that says - 'When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth' should be edited, right?

When Adam died, what did he lose?