What is the Gospel?

[Dressed.In.Red]

The deserts that inwardly debate and fail to shamelessly proclaim unconditional Love are in far worse danger Derf.

This in Unbelief will be set before Jesus upon r ssurection and I am certain they will have a chance...

Those that limit Jesus and claim Jesus are in horrific danger of proclaiming Lord, Lord... just as Pate warns.

I have no problem cussing, admitting error or telling someone who is a faith killer that they are abusing the gospel...

But to brothers and sisters that blaspheme the very thing they proclaim... I dare not speak of what I fear as I read scripture with open spiritual eyes!

I dare not wish any to destruction! I deserve destruction!

I beg God for grace to me and grace to all! When the only good ONE desires that all should be saved and none pariah... what else can I desire? I have only one choice and do wish and pray mercy for ALL!!!

To the Humble King of Kings will all consuming Love that is a fire... I give all glory forever and all judgment...

I’m just a broken sinner that was sainted by the murder of my deepest Love!

May our Father forgive you... for you know not what you do.

I cannot accept my name calling... though it was cathartic...

I apologize for calling you a name that is harsh... perhaps misdirected and rabid would have been more appropriate. I used to respect you, but your deceptive twisting of words to promote Limited Atonement turned me against your false doctrine.

I hope you find peace, that you clearly don’t have yet.

 

[Dressed.In.Red]

Liberal Victimology has claimed another lost soul.

[MENTION=12969]Sherman[/MENTION] ... I used to stand up for Glorydaz and I appreciate you burning me down... but Inassure you, left unchecked, this poster will do more damage than Serpentdove or Truster... because they think they can discern lost from Saved.

I would watch Glorydaz closely.. as they are doctrinly unstable and defending limited Atonement rabidlynwithout understanding what they are doing.

I mean this.

And please perma Ban EE. No person has the right to break ToL rules so frequently as I have and not be perma banned... sincerely...

All my best...

Philip

 

[musterion]

@Sherman ... I used to stand up for Glorydaz and I appreciate you burning me down... but Inassure you, left unchecked, this poster will do more damage than Serpentdove or Truster... because they think they can discern lost from Saved.

I would watch Glorydaz closely.. as they are doctrinly unstable and defending limited Atonement rabidlynwithout understanding what they are doing.

I mean this.

And please perma Ban EE. No person has the right to break ToL rules so frequently as I have and not be perma banned... sincerely...

All my best...

Philip

Dude.

Calm down.

If Glory believes in limited atonement the way consistent Calvinoids believe it, that's news to me.

I think you misread something.

 

[Dressed.In.Red]

Dude.

Calm down.

If Glory believes in limited atonement the way consistent Calvinoids believe it, that's news to me.

I think you misread something.

She denies Jesus died for all.

Even when it has been expressed by all here that recognize the full scope of Whosoever and 1 Timothy 4:10, while acknowledging that people can deny Christ’s death for them and thus not come to repentance... IE.. admission of need.. or whatever term one would like to apply.

She then accuses a person that says “God Died for all though not all accept His death in application to themselves”... of being Universalist and she has called that “Bad News”.

Musty...

You should have followed this one...

I’ve feigned leaving a bunch... but Que up American Pie.

I won’t abide in the deception that is growing here. It is heresy of the worst kind!

 

[Dressed.In.Red]

I’ve given my actual first name. Some may not understand, but that’s it for me, for real.

I gave my warming. People can ignore it, but I said something about it.

 

[Dressed.In.Red]

“Warning” not warning

 

[Dressed.In.Red]

A Calvinist is bad enough... but an open theist/ MAD that enforces the most critical petal of Tulip... that is super bad!

 

[Dressed.In.Red]

Dude.

Calm down.

If Glory believes in limited atonement the way consistent Calvinoids believe it, that's news to me.

I think you misread something.

For what it’s worth... you have helped my journey with your uncompromising expression of what you are convicted of.

Sonnet is a fantastic addition to ToL.

You should sincerely look deeper into this thread...

 

[musterion]

1. Please post a link to Glory saying what you claim. Sorry, I don't believe it, I think you must have misunderstood her.

2. Sonnet is just playing games.

 

[glorydaz]

You are refusing to believe in Paul's summation of the essential elements of the Gospel and you will not tell the world 'Christ died for our sins' as Paul did.

I believe Paul just fine.

Nope, I'm refusing to give credence to the preaching of an unbeliever.

Paul didn't tell the "world" any such thing...he was speaking to the saints in Corinth who had already believed. The word "OUR" actually does mean something. Paul doesn't use the term OUR when he is speaking to unbelievers.

Paul was sent by the Lord to preach the Gospel..."to open their eyes...that they may receive forgiveness of sins.." They receive forgiveness of sins when they believe. Not before.

Acts 26:15 And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. 16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; 17 Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, 18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.​

To the brethren and the churches....Who gave Himself for OUR SINS. Those who believe have REDEMPTION THROUGH HIS BLOOD....the forgiveness of sins.

Galatians 1:1-4
Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia: 3 Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ, 4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:​

Eph. 1:6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. 7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

Colossians 1:13-14
Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:​

That's just plain silly, and overly dramtic.

Your refusal to accept what has been so clearly stated is what needs to be dealt with. Christ shed his blood so that all could have access to God's Grace, and the Free Gift of eternal life. There is nothing difficult about that. Derf summed it up perfectly, and we all agree. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved.

None but a worker, like God's UNtruth, says otherwise, and that is the other Gospel Paul was talking about.

We can't earn God's Gift of Salvation. We need only believe to receive.

Dude.

Calm down.

If Glory believes in limited atonement the way consistent Calvinoids believe it, that's news to me.

I think you misread something.

This is where it started. Arguing with Sonnet over the word "our". And it started when I dared to scold EE for attacking AMR in such a ridiculous manner over something AMR was not even saying.

EE got his pride hurt and now he's crapping all over this thread, that he claims is so wonderful because of his interference. He's a liar and a fool. Nothing more.

 

[Lon]

What part wouldn't Arminians agree with? I'm not seeing it.

Arminians believe the blood of Jesus is shed for everyone, but don't see it as an intricate part of Salvation. They see God doing something that 'can' (does for them) apply to all and not save them. So the real disagreement between you and I and E.E. is if "God so loved" that "He shed" as part of 'gave.' I always have thought that a command to love our enemies and do good to them, is also God's actions toward all sinners too, even Pharaoh, whom He 'raised up for this purpose.' Some may think "raised up" and Romans 9 mean hell. I don't think that's the purpose God raised him up for, but RATHER that God raised Pharaoh up to show His glory and fulfill His plans. His plans are always for salvation but 'raised up' is not for damnation, if that makes sense and if I've explained well.

To me then, God never stops being loving, such that everyone who calls on the Name of the Lord, will be saved. The far reach of His love, for me, settles what may remain in contention, regarding the blood of His Son. In short, it doesn't matter but that I called upon the Name. His blood is sufficient and it didn't matter if God would not have died for me alone. It isn't, for me, any less loving. I'm grafted in and happy to be found in Christ alone. Only a believer will benefit from the blood of Jesus. It cannot benefit an unbeliever BUT in becoming a believer. For us: All the benefits of Christ.

 

[musterion]

This is where it started. Arguing with Sonnet over the word "our". And it started when I dared to scold EE for attacking AMR in such a ridiculous manner over something AMR was not even saying.

EE got his pride hurt and now he's crapping all over this thread, that he claims is so wonderful because of his interference. He's a liar and a fool. Nothing more.

So just to wrap it up even tighter...you do not believe in L.A. -- that there are those for whom there is ZERO hope of being saved because God limited the shed blood of Christ only for some but not for others? You do not believe that?

 

[Dressed.In.Red]

This is where it started. Arguing with Sonnet over the word "our". And it started when I dared to scold EE for attacking AMR in such a ridiculous manner over something AMR was not even saying.

EE got his pride hurt and now he's crapping all over this thread, that he claims is so wonderful because of his interference. He's a liar and a fool. Nothing more.

She denies Jesus died for all.

Even when it has been expressed by all here that recognize the full scope of Whosoever and 1 Timothy 4:10, while acknowledging that people can deny Christ’s death for them and thus not come to repentance... IE.. admission of need.. or whatever term one would like to apply.

She then accuses a person that says “God Died for all though not all accept His death in application to themselves”... of being Universalist and she has called that “Bad News”.

Musty...

You should have followed this one...

I’ve feigned leaving a bunch... but Que up American Pie.

I won’t abide in the deception that is growing here. It is heresy of the worst kind!

Did... Jesus... die... for... all, Though... not all accept His sacrifice?

Do you repent for Christmas flaring Mans Response to God with Gods Love for man?

I have publically apologized to you and Angel4truth here... and admitted pride, though I was actually pointing out pride...

You ask people to humble themselves daily and accuse them of error... do you practice what you preach?

 

[Dressed.In.Red]

Conflating... not Christmas flaring*

 

[Dressed.In.Red]

So just to wrap it up even tighter...you do not believe in L.A. -- that there are those for whom there is ZERO hope of being saved because God limited the shed blood of Christ only for some but not for others? You do not believe that?

To Deny Jesus died for All is LA.

You are asking if she teaches ... T

 

[musterion]

To Deny Jesus died for All is LA.

You are asking if she teaches ... T

Don't tell me what I'm asking, I was infected by Calvinism as a babe. I am asking specifically about Limited Atonement because what I asked her is exactly what L.A. means. She will answer for herself when she's ready, thanks much, now please cool your jets.

 

[Dressed.In.Red]

So just to wrap it up even tighter...you do not believe in L.A. -- that there are those for whom there is ZERO hope of being saved because God limited the shed blood of Christ only for some but not for others? You do not believe that?

https://carm.org/did-jesus-die-everyone-my-calvinist-friends-say-no

Carm ... explaining what LA is and exposing that GD has been deceived to teach it and is teaching it...

 

[Dressed.In.Red]

Don't tell me what I'm asking, I was infected by Calvinism as a babe. I am asking specifically about Limited Atonement because what I asked her is exactly what L.A. means. She will answer for herself when she's ready, thanks much, now please cool your jets.

I’ve flamed out for over 150 pages out of indignation for her duplicitous pride and deceit... she won’t admit error... but her post responses answer your question as well as the link I posted...

 

[Dressed.In.Red]

Musty...
Don’t show her an ounce of mercy until she declares 1 Timothy 4:10 correct in literal verbiage!

She is being a snake!

I’ll STFU now...

 

[musterion]

Actually, they don't answer it, that I can see.

She said Paul was speaking TO believers when he said "our."

She did NOT say (that I've read) that that means there are some who God excluded from salvation before they were ever born (which is what L.A. means).