Sorry - NOW - - Pelosi is GONE!!!!!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by notofworks

Good grief. Every time I see this argument, I am amazed. That anyone would go to these lengths to dismiss something they don't agree with and at the same time, attempt to reinforce their own beliefs, I end up just shaking my head in disbelief.

"Oh, that verse doesn't count. It doesn't mean what it sounds like it's saying." How can anyone do that with scripture? It's a serious offense.

Paul is writing to a body of believers who are largely Gentile. Rome was largely a Gentile city. He wants to address them in order to teach them a sure foundation against false doctrine so that they can defend the truth.

He addresses our need of God's righteousness (Romans 1-3), the means of receiving His righteousness (Romans 5:21- that verse alone covers the death, burial and resurrection), our life we live resulting in receiving that righteousness (Romans 6). He also goes into detail as to why Israel did not follow the doctrine of salvation (Romans 9).

These things would have been misunderstood by any group that had not already received salvation. To take it as a book aside from and not confirming the beginning of the church age as Peter preached on the Day of Pentecost is clearly an erroneous view.

I totally reject the idea of justification by faith alone, which I think is your view. You can correct me if I am wrong. I could be getting you mixed up with 100 other people.

Justification is faith that is obedient:

"For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed," Romans 15:18

"But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:" Romans 16:26

[Pressing-On]

I have no idea what this has to do with Nancy Pelosi!

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by sandie

May I ask you what you think about Acts 2:38? Does it not mean what it says?
I'm only asking because I don't know if you believe Acts 2:38 is the plan of salvation, a part of a salvation process, isn't necessary?

Acts 2:38 works in perfect harmony with Romans 10. Perfectly. If one puts even an ounce of effort into proper exegesis, rather than forcing John 3 to say something it doesn't, it's actually incredibly simple.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Paul is writing to a body of believers who are largely Gentile. Rome was largely a Gentile city. He wants to address them in order to teach them a sure foundation against false doctrine so that they can defend the truth.

He addresses our need of God's righteousness (Romans 1-3), the means of receiving His righteousness (Romans 5:21- that verse alone covers the death, burial and resurrection), our life we live resulting in receiving that righteousness (Romans 6). He also goes into detail as to why Israel did not follow the doctrine of salvation (Romans 9).

These things would have been misunderstood by any group that had not already received salvation. To take it as a book aside from and not confirming the beginning of the church age as Peter preached on the Day of Pentecost is clearly an erroneous view.

I totally reject the idea of justification by faith alone, which I think is your view. You can correct me if I am wrong. I could be getting you mixed up with 100 other people.

Justification is faith that is obedient:

"For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed," Romans 15:18

"But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:" Romans 16:26

The fact that Paul was writing to people who were not a part of the Jewish culture, writing to a later extension of the spreading of the early New Testament faith, is even MORE reason that he would reinforce the principles of salvation.

To try to discount Romans 10 with, "Well, he was writing to Christians" is comical! So you're saying that he would write to already-established believers and say something that was less than complete, ASSUMING they just knew the "rest"? Completely ridiculous.

I absolutely cannot understand why you folks work SO hard to explain something away. Very sad and EXTREMELY irresponsible.

Legalism at its best.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by notofworks

The fact that Paul was writing to people who were not a part of the Jewish culture, writing to a later extension of the spreading of the early New Testament faith, is even MORE reason that he would reinforce the principles of salvation.

To try to discount Romans 10 with, "Well, he was writing to Christians" is comical! So you're saying that he would write to already-established believers and say something that was less than complete, ASSUMING they just knew the "rest"? Completely ridiculous.

I absolutely cannot understand why you folks work SO hard to explain something away. Very sad and EXTREMELY irresponsible.

Legalism at its best.

Why is it comical to say that he was writing to Christians? I kind of got that impression when I read:

Romans 1:5-7

5By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:

6Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ:

7To 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.

That was kind of how I found out who he was talking to. Notice verse five says, "obedience to the faith..."

Verses one and two pretty well, also, cover the death, burial and resurrection - "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)"

Only someone that had experienced this would understand what he was talking about. It's a no-brainer.

So, that is why he doesn't repeat repentance, baptism and Holy Ghost infilling. When he says, "obedience to the faith", they know what that entails.

[coadie]

This thread is about Pelosi
Her agenda is to rob Peter to Pay Paul.
Now we have a sermon about Paul.

Actually Pelosi knows Paul never complained when we robbed Peter to pay him.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by notofworks

Good grief. Every time I see this argument, I am amazed. That anyone would go to these lengths to dismiss something they don't agree with and at the same time, attempt to reinforce their own beliefs, I end up just shaking my head in disbelief.

"Oh, that verse doesn't count. It doesn't mean what it sounds like it's saying." How can anyone do that with scripture? It's a serious offense.

That lesson was taught, re-taught, emphasized and re-emphasized heavily in Bro. S.G. Norris' doctrine class for first year students at ABI in the 1956/1957 year.

[Sam]

Acts 2:38 is two commands and one promise
Command no. 1 is: turn to God and be saved
Command no 2 is: follow up your salvation experience with mikveh/baptism
Promise no. 1 is: God has promised you an experience called the HGB (Holy Ghost Baptism)

see below:

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Why is it comical to say that he was writing to Christians? I kind of got that impression when I read:


That was kind of how I found out who he was talking to. Notice verse five says, "obedience to the faith..."

••It's comical to be dismissive of this as salvation instruction by using that logic, Ms. Giggle-pants. To have fallen for the irresponsible and negligent lie of "Oh, it doesn't really mean that" is irrevocably sad. How in creation could you discount the most beautiful salvation instruction in the bible with lazy and irresponsible exegesis? The twisting of John 3 I can, at least, understand a little. But this????? To be dismissible of Romans 10 simply because of the audience, is horrific.

Verses one and two pretty well, also, cover the death, burial and resurrection - "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)"

Only someone that had experienced this would understand what he was talking about. It's a no-brainer.

••It certainly IS a no-brainer. No brains are being used for this explanation, just regurgitated irresponsible, and mind-numbed oneness pentecostal dogma.

So, that is why he doesn't repeat repentance, baptism and Holy Ghost infilling. When he says, "obedience to the faith", they know what that entails.

••Now this last question you ask is exactly what I should be asking you!!! He didn't repeat baptism and the "Holy Ghost infilling" (as you describe it, anyway) BECAUSE IT ISN'T PART OF THE SALVATION PROCESS!!!!

The ONLY way you can stay true to the dogma you've fallen for is to conclude that Paul did NOT tell the church at Rome the truth.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Sam

That lesson was taught, re-taught, emphasized and re-emphasized heavily in Bro. S.G. Norris' doctrine class for first year students at ABI in the 1956/1957 year.

Through the connection of relatives, I know this is true. Seriously, I'm not kidding, I think this is the worst exegesis I've ever heard. I saw a cartoon once where a fellow was holding a bible and yelling, "In English it may say YES, but in the Greek, it means NO!!" This is basically what these folks do with this....since it doesn't match their Articles of Faith, they have to find a way to make it work. "Ah ha!!! I know how we'll explain it......". I can almost see them exclaiming it at a board meeting where they're trying to figure out what to do.

Ridiculous.