Full Agreement With My Friend, Peede!

Bill Gray tutors the forum thusly:

<<<When we can have discussions which are civil, even if we disagree, we can all learn from the discussions.  But, when posts sink to the level of personal defamation and name calling -- absolutely nothing is accomplished, nothing is learned.

Let me close by sharing this confession.  Many times I have been angered by what someone has written.  Many times I have wanted to respond in anger -- just put it all out there.  Many times I have impulsively written an angry response. 

But, praise God, because I have the Great Convicter, the Holy Spirit, living within me -- and because I do pray as I am writing (not always, but most of the time) -- by the time I have vented my feelings through writing that response, I can delete it and not post what I have written in anger.   That works for me. 

 me. >>>

____________________________________________________________ 

Someone pass the barf bag, PLEASE!

If I really believed you, Bill, I would expect you to stop the lying, hostile accusations you knowingly lodge against me (as well as against others). 

You have repeatedly accused me of Armstrongism, a totally ludicrous accusation and  dis-proven beyond doubt  by my long history on this forum.  

You have, within a single post, called me both a liberal and a legalist, when it is not possible to be both, as I have shown you. 

In the last day or so, you have called me an "ardent anti-Christian," which is about as false and defamatory a smear as you could possibly have posted. 

I could cite additional examples that fly in the face of your spurious claim to be led by the Holy Spirit. It is all too obvious that all too many of those "angry" posts you compose do not fall prey to the "delete" key.

And all those little cutesy, insulting  "Bless your little_____heart"  verbal farts you post are anything but sincere and anything but gracious and anything but the product of being Spirit-led.

The "best forum to be found anywhere" is not to be had when a member as active as you are is chronically given to that kind of childish, smart-alecky sign-off.

You are one wretched, self-deluded hypocrite, Bill! That is not name-calling; it is taxonomy!

Hi Peede,

Well, it appears that Contendah is one Forum Friend who does not want to join "all of us to read her comments and jointly work to make our Forum a more pleasant community in which we can share ideas -- and even agree to disagree when appropriate -- without attacks, name calling, or inappropriate comments."

Although I am not surprised.  I am sure there will be a small handful of other Forum Friends who will join with our Friend, Contendah, in insisting upon keeping the Religion Forum always operating in the "Attack Mode."  

I can see why more conservative Christian believers choose to just read -- and do not take the chance of posting here.  Who wants to be attacked by non-believers and those Christian believers whose church is the ONLY way to heaven?

No, I do not make that claim.  There are great Baptist churches -- and there are bad ones.  Jesus Christ is the ONLY Way to heaven -- and we are taught that in His Written Word, the Bible.  "For by grace you are saved through faith" -- PLUS nothing else (Ephesians 2:8-9).   That is faith in Jesus Christ -- and not in ANY church organization.

This forum will never achieve what it could -- as long as this small handful of ballistic members insist upon keeping it in full battlefield garb.  

But, praise God, I know there are other Christian believers and others who are beginning to seek God -- who come here and read.  And that is why I will usually walk away from a discussion which has been hijacked and turned into a pie throwing contest.

Bless their hearts!  I guess they just do not know how to have a civil discussion.

But, thank you, Contendah, my Friend -- for jumping into the water first.  Now that it is muddy, I am sure you will have a few Cabal Friends join us.

Bill

Bill (Certified All-American Weasel) Gray posted this irrelevant drivel:

"And that is why I will usually walk away from a discussion which has been hijacked and turned into a pie throwing contest."

TRANSLATION:  "I will  slink away from any discussion where I am pinned to the wall and shown to be in error, and I will blithely ignore comments that, though true, document my demonstrated performance as a hypocrite or prove I am in error about anything."

The overwhelming majority--over 95%--of the comment I posted  above, and which Bill falsely purports to be responding to, consisted of the following: 

<<<<"If I really believed you, Bill, I would expect you to stop the lying, hostile accusations you knowingly lodge against me (as well as against others). 

You have repeatedly accused me of Armstrongism, a totally ludicrous accusation and  dis-proven beyond doubt  by my long history on this forum.  

You have, within a single post, called me both a liberal and a legalist, when it is not possible to be both, as I have shown you. 

In the last day or so, you have called me an "ardent anti-Christian," which is about as false and defamatory a smear as you could possibly have posted. 

I could cite additional examples that fly in the face of your spurious claim to be led by the Holy Spirit. It is all too obvious that all too many of those "angry" posts you compose do not fall prey to the "delete" key.

And all those little cutesy, insulting  "Bless your little_____heart"  verbal farts you post are anything but sincere and anything but gracious and anything but the product of being Spirit-led.

The "best forum to be found anywhere" is not to be had when a member as active as you are is chronically given to that kind of childish, smart-alecky sign-off.">>>>

Note that Bill did not attempt to refute any of the above, because he knows that the written record proves that what I posted is correct.  Instead, he deflects to an accusation that I do not want to join some kind of program toward a kinder, gentler forum--the kind of forum that is decidedly not promoted by  Bill's continued narcissistic, smart-alecky, know-it-all participation.

Typical cowardly, polemically incompetent Bill Gray evasiveness!

 The Books of Matt. through John: Jesus was sent only to Israel in His earthly ministry. 

See Matt. 10: 5-6, 15:24 & Rom. 15:8. What He was preaching was to prepare the nation for His earthly Kingdom.

During that time we Gentiles (all nations except Israel) were counted as dogs, Matt.15:22-27, 

Mark 7:26-27.

It was not for lack of love for the gentiles but Jesus recognized the divine plan of covenant and prophecy to send salvation to the Gentiles through redeemed Israel. As far as the "revealed"

program was concerned Israel must first be saved before salvation could be sent to the Gentiles.

But we all know what happened, they rejected and crucified their promised Messiah.

Thank God for a secret God kept hid in himself and revealed only after saving Saul of Tarsus (Paul) and made him THE Apostle of the Gentiles, Rom.11:13.

Read the Book of Ephesians...how rich in the "mystery" or secret of God.

Read Galatians 2:1-10 when Paul went up to Jerusalem to tell  Israel's Apostles what God was doing through him, how the gospel was committed to him for the Gentiles and the gospel for the circumcision (Israel) was committed to them.

Paul preached the "gospel of the grace of God" and the 12 Apostles for Israel preached the "Gospel 

of the coming Kingdom". Things that are different can't be the same. A wise saying by a friend.

Hi Nana,

I agree with all you have written - but, with a shade of variance.   I jump forward to 2 Peter 3:9 where we are told by Peter that God's wish was for all people to come to salvation, yet knowing that many would use His gift of "free will" to reject that priceless gift of salvation purchased by the blood of Christ.

I view His Plan Of Salvation as the perfect omnisciently written four act drama.  

Act One:  God chooses the people Israel as His chosen people, through whom He will send a Savior, the Perfect Lamb of God, to make salvation available to all people, through the people Israel.

Act Two:  Israel has rejected her Savior, her Messiah.  God temporarily stands Israel at stage right while He brings the Gentiles to center stage.

Act Three:  God brings all His people -- the Old Testament saints, the church (the Bride of Christ), the Tribulation saints, and His remnant of Israel -- together in His Millennial Kingdom on earth where Jesus Christ, the Son, will rule in the perfect theocracy from the throne of David in Jerusalem for 1000 years.

Act Four:  Jesus Christ takes all those Act Three believers into the New Heaven, New Earth, and New Jerusalem (Revelation 21) He has created -- where we will live eternally in the glorious presence of God.

I agree that Peter and the other apostles were sent to the Jews, while Paul with his missionary associates were sent to the Gentiles.  Yet, Acts 10 and 11 tell us of God sending Peter to the Gentile centurion, Cornelius, where he preached the Gospel to them -- and all in the household of Cornelius were converted and baptized.

And, our goal, the goal of all Christian believers -- should be to help bring as many folks as possible into the Family of God, by sharing God's Word and the Gospel of Jesus Christ with all the world (Matthew 28:19-20, Acts 1:8, Mark 16:15). 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Bill Gray,

You say you are basically in full agreement with Nana.  Nana holds to the notion that there were two different gospels preached in the time of the apostles.  That she believes this is obvious in her observation that:

"Paul preached the "gospel of the grace of God" and the 12 Apostles for Israel preached the "Gospel 

of the coming Kingdom". Things that are different can't be the same."

Got that, Bill?  Nana says that the gospel preached to the Jews and the gospel preached to the Gentiles are "different."  Have you bought into that old discredited dual gospel heresy? There were a couple of bozos on this forum a few years back who could scarcely post on anything else.  They had their plows cleaned here and have not been back since.  Maybe Nana is one of their deluded disciples/ Maybe you are too.

Contendah, my Friend,

As you and I both know, there is only one Gospel (Good News) of Jesus Christ.  And that Good News covers His virgin birth as the Incarnate God come to make salvation available to all people -- all the way to His Second Coming, His Millennial Kingdom, and eternity in the presence of God.

Peter and the first apostles focused on the Jewish Messiah, that by the grace of God, through faith in their Messiah -- they could have the eternal joy God had promised them from the time of Abraham. Although Peter did take a side trip and led the Gentile Roman centurion, Cornelius, and his family to faith in Jesus Christ.  The Jews were looking for the kingdom of God -- and Peter, et al, pointed them toward their Messiah, Jesus Christ.

Paul, the final twelfth apostle, on the other hand, focused on the full ministry of grace brought to us by Jesus Christ -- teaching about His death to offer us salvation.  And teaching all the way through the Rapture, the Tribulation, the Millennial Kingdom, to the New Heaven, New Earth, New Jerusalem and into eternity with God.

Same message, just different focus.   If you and I were to describe the Alabama-Miss State football game today -- you might focus of Mississippi State's relatively poor play for much of the game -- while I might focus on the total dominance of the BAMA team.  Same game, just different focus.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

http://www.sonofman.org/paul1.htm

http://www.answering-christian...us_the_disciples.htm

I note that Nana has not returned to clarify what she meant.  Perhaps if she would do so, we could determine how deeply she is involved in this un-Biblical dual gospel claptrap

Paul has been called an apostle by many people, but he was never one of

the twelve or thirteenth. No matter how long you cry about it, lie about it,

it's just a matter of facts you can't come to grips with like a whining four year

old. I myself consider Paul an Apostle, honorary title only. 

_______________________________________________________________

When Paul wrote the Galatian letter, he began this way:

"1Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead—2and all the brothers and sisters with me,"

In the first verses of each of these books, Paul similarly identified himself as an apostle:

Romans, I Corinthians, 2 Corinthians,  Ephesians, Colossians, I Timothey, 2 Timothy, and Titus.

Check this out for yourself and then come back here and tell us whether you think he considered himself merely some kind of "honorable" apostle.  As you formulate your attempted answer, keep in mind that in the Galatians 1:1 verse, he says that he is an apostle "sent not from men, but by Jesus Christ and God...."  And as you work through that task, take note that apostolos, the Greek word for "apostle," is defined as"one sent forth", according to Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary.  Thayer, the preeminent Greek-English lexicographer, defines it as "a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders." Neither of these respected authorities reports any instance of the term being used in an honorary" sense.

Get your act together.

Vic, my Friend,

It matters little how YOU view the apostle Paul.  All that matters is how God views him -- and as Contendah has pointed out, in many of the epistles, inspired by God -- Paul is declared an apostle. Not an honorary apostle -- but an apostle.

We all know from the Bible that Jesus Christ chose the original twelve apostles.  And, yes, He chose Judas - for Judas was to fulfill Scripture through his disbelief and deceit.

So, Jesus chose the twelve, who became eleven.  Since Jesus chose the twelve -- does it not seem appropriate that He would choose Paul as the twelfth to replace Judas?

God chose the twelve and God chose the one to replace Judas, the new twelfth.

Peter, being his typical impetuous self -- decided to go ahead without God and himself choose the new twelfth apostle.   And, how did he do it?   He did it through a game of chance -- Las Vegas style.

Keep in mind that this "game of chance" happened BEFORE the Holy Spirit came upon the 120 disciples waiting in the Upper Room.  So, without the indwelling and guidance of the Holy Spirit -- Peter struck out on his own -- and chose Matthias Las Vegas style:

Acts 1:21-26, "Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us -- beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us -- one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection. So they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus), and Matthias.  And they prayed and said, 'You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You have chosen to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.'   And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles."

This is the same Peter who had denied Christ three times.  This is not the same Peter who was later empowered by the indwelling Holy Spirit.  Just as he denied Christ three times -- he chose to elect a new apostle without waiting for God to do it.

Yet, we all know that on the road to Damascus -- Jesus Christ Himself personally appeared to Paul and chose him as the new twelfth apostle.

And, after Acts 1:26 -- Matthias was never again mentioned in the Bible.  Why?  Because he was not an apostle chosen by Jesus Christ, as were all the others.  He was chosen by the action of men. The original twelve -- and Paul were chosen by Jesus Christ.   I believe we can see the difference.

After Acts 1:26 -- the only place we can find the name of Matthias -- is in Vatican written documents; never in the Bible.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Contendah, my Friend,

You tell me:

You are still missing the point, Bill. Nana is saying that the gospel preached by Paul and the gospel preached by Peter were DIFFERENT GOSPELS.  She made a clear distinction between them. Otherwise, what could she have meant by her concluding sentence: 

Nana says this:  <<<Paul preached the "gospel of the grace of God" and the 12 Apostles for Israel preached the "Gospel of the coming Kingdom".>>>

So, once again, if you say that Mississippi State lost because they played poorly -- and I say that Alabama won because they played a dominant game -- are we speaking of different games -- just because we speak of it from different views?  Of course not.

And, I am sure that Nana knows that there is only one Gospel of Jesus Christ.  But, she chose to first call it the Gospel shared with the Jews -- and then the Gospel shared with the Gentiles.

Same Gospel, just different audiences.

Where's the problem?

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

____

The problem is this, you denser-than-depleted-uranium blithering irrelevancy.  I have cited to you the FACT that Nana herself says that there were two DIFFERENT gospels, not two different focuses or two different perspectives or two different audiences, but TWO DIFFERENT GOSPELS.  And I have shown you that there is a known cultic belief system that holds that there are TWO DIFFERENT GOSPELS.  I have cautioned you to be discreet about endorsing Nana's views, because there is the probability that she is allied with one of these heretical groups. Your irrelevant and pitiful response gins up a football-based, attempted analogy that makes no point that is germane to the discussion.

And where is your colleague, Nana? She could put much of this issue to rest if she would come forward and advise that she has nothing to do with the heretical dual gospel concept that I have documented.

If you wish to intelligently continue this forum topic, I suggest that you actually address the actual points I made instead of burping up useless, puerile eructations that amount to nothing of any value relative to the topic being discussed.

Happy Holidays and Season's Greetings to you and your whining theocratic friends.

Contendah, what I was referring to was this statement from billiee.

Paul, the final twelfth apostle, (said billiee)

Have you started thinking like billiee now..??

Vic, my Friend,

What I posted was:

Paul, the final twelfth apostle, on the other hand, focused on the full ministry of grace brought to us by Jesus Christ -- teaching about His death to offer us salvation.  And teaching all the way through the Rapture, the Tribulation, the Millennial Kingdom, to the New Heaven, New Earth, New Jerusalem and into eternity with God.

Where do you find a problem with that statement?   Numerous times in the Bible Paul is called an apostle.  Since God the Holy Spirit inspired what was written in the Bible -- that is God calling Paul an apostle.   Will YOU argue with God?  Will YOU tell God that He is wrong?

Paul is also the most prolific writer in the Bible.  Would such a person be only an "honorary" apostle?

I really do not see your problem with that statement.  But, if you do, I look forward to your well thought out explanation.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Vic, my Friend,

Are YOU such an infantile child that you just keep posting the same thing over and over?  Are YOU throwing a tantrum?

Where do you find a problem with this statement?

Paul, the final twelfth apostle, on the other hand, focused on the full ministry of grace brought to us by Jesus Christ -- teaching about His death to offer us salvation.  And teaching all the way through the Rapture, the Tribulation, the Millennial Kingdom, to the New Heaven, New Earth, New Jerusalem and into eternity with God.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Bill Gray,

You must be spending too much of your study time trying to rationalize  your disordered multiple-judgment, once-saved-always-saved, triburapturist premillennialism and too little getting acquainted with the basic Biblical facts of the early apostolic period.

You wrote:

"So, Jesus chose the twelve, who became eleven.  Since Jesus chose the twelve -- does it not seem appropriate that He would choose Paul as the twelfth to replace Judas?"

HORRORS!! I am gasted in the flabber region, Bill, to find that you somehow have missed the scriptural account of the replacement of Judas.  Here is what the Bible says on this subject:

Acts 1

23 And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show of these two the one whom thou hast chosen,

25 to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas fell away, that he might go to his own place.

26 And they gave lots for them; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

Little kiddies who sing this song about the apostles  in Sunday school are better informed on this topic than you are, Bill:

Jesus called them one by one,
Peter, Andrew, James and John,
Next, came Philip, Thomas too,
Matthew and Bartholomew.

Chorus-
Yes, Jesus called them,
Yes, Jesus called them,
Yes, Jesus called them,
He called them one by one.

James the one they called the less,
Simon, also Thaddeus,
Twelfth apostle Judas made,
Jesus was by him betrayed.

Repeat Chorus.

Matthias then took Judas' place,
To preach to men of every race,
Paul three preaching trips did make,
And went to Rome for Jesus' sake.

Repeat Chorus.

Contendah, my Friend,

Are you now agreeing with Vic that Matthias was the twelfth apostle -- and that Paul was only an honorary apostle?  That is what you seem to be saying.

And, your proof text is a childrens' song written by some well meaning Sunday School teacher? Since when did Sunday School songs or hymns become the new Word of God?

Here is what I wrote to Vic.  Tell me where it is wrong:

Vic, my Friend,

It matters little how YOU view the apostle Paul.  All that matters is how God views him -- and as Contendah has pointed out, in many of the epistles,inspired by God -- Paul is declared an apostle. Not an honorary apostle -- but an apostle.

We all know from the Bible that Jesus Christ chose the original twelve apostles.  And, yes, He chose Judas - for Judas was to fulfill Scripture through his disbelief and deceit.

So, Jesus chose the twelve, who became eleven.  Since Jesus chose the twelve -- does it not seem appropriate that He would choose Paul as the twelfth to replace Judas?

God chose the twelve and God chose the one to replace Judas, the new twelfth.

Peter, being his typical impetuous self -- decided to go ahead without God and himself choose the new twelfth apostle.   And, how did he do it?   He did it through a game of chance -- Las Vegas style.

Keep in mind that this "game of chance" happened BEFORE the Holy Spirit came upon the 120 disciples waiting in the Upper Room.  So, without the indwelling and guidance of the Holy Spirit -- Peter struck out on his own -- and chose Matthias Las Vegas style: 

Acts 1:21-26, "Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us -- beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us -- one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection. So they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus), and Matthias.  And they prayed and said, 'You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You have chosen to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.'   And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles."

This is the same Peter who had denied Christ three times.  This is not the same Peter who was later empowered by the indwelling Holy Spirit.  Just as he denied Christ three times -- he chose to elect a new apostle without waiting for God to do it.

Yet, we all know that on the road to Damascus -- Jesus Christ Himself personally appeared to Paul and chose him as the new twelfth apostle.

And, after Acts 1:26 -- Matthias was never again mentioned in the Bible.  Why?  Because he was not an apostle chosen by Jesus Christ, as were all the others.  He was chosen by the action of men. The original twelve -- and Paul were chosen by Jesus Christ.   I believe we can see the difference.

After Acts 1:26 -- the only place we can find the name of Matthias -- is in Vatican written documents; never in the Bible.

Contendah, where do you find error in that post?  

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Well Bill, I feel I must clear up some things.

When I said I thought a persons religious beliefs were personal I meant just that, that no one gets to tell me what to believe just as I wouldn't presume to tell some one what to believe or that they have to believe what I do. Some people believe in god, some don't. Some people are Christians, many aren't.

I am not a Christian. I am a good person, a productive member of society. I don't need to believe what you believe. God told me that.

I have no idea where in the bible it says what I was told. A very dear friend became a "Jesus freak" which was fine with me. I was happy that they seemed so happy with their religious beliefs. Our friendship was severed though when I was told I was going to hell because I didn't share her beliefs. I would never presume to tell someone that they had to believe what I did or they were going to hell! I was heart broken that their religion had made their minds snap shut. When I tried to discuss my views with her she quoted something from the bible that meant "if you don't believe the bible then you are wrong."

I disagree with your quote that no one comes to the father except through Jesus. Many people aren't Christians.

So Bill, once again, although we have differing beliefs we can agree that everyone should be civil. Your beliefs are right for you because god told you. My beliefs are right for me because god told me. Are you right? Yes, for you yourself. Am I right? Yes, for me. I am secure in my beliefs, irreguardless if you think I am wrong just as I know you are secure in your convictions. I know you will not be in full agreement with these views but that is the way it is.

I belong to a civic organization that has many good Christian members. They belong to different churches so there are differences in beliefs. I have the utmost respect for the ones that don't just talk the talk but walk it too with no fanfare or calling attention to themselves. They would be more than happy to discuss their biblical beliefs with you but they do not try to push what they believe on others. They try to make the world a better place. 

I hope you also have a blessed day. [you know how people say "Have a good day!"? I always think 'don't just HAVE a good day', MAKE it a good day.]

billiee, you said this very same thing about this same subject about three

yrs. ago. It's still not right. Contendah isn't agreeing with me, he never has

nor he ever will, he's agreeing with the Bible, something you never have nor

never will.

Case closed......I don't want to see another word about it and had better

never will.......huh

.

Hi all,

Well, I guess that settles it!   My two Friends have given very definitive responses to my earlier posts:

Contendah:

I find that post to be absolutely RIDDLED with error, Bill.   That chaotic, Biblically-ignorant drivel is about the most ludicrous thing you have posted on this forum, Bill.  I could easily eat your lunch on this matter, Bill, but you are just not worth the time or trouble today. I have more important things to do. 

Vic:  

billiee, you said this very same thing about this same subject about three yrs. ago.  It's still not right.   Case closed......I don't want to see another word about it and had better never will.......huh

"had better never will" --- ?

And, there we have it from the experts.   "You are wrong and I could tell you why you are wrong.  But, I don't have time."  

Can you imagine studying history, or any subject, and the expert telling us in his/her book, "What you have read before is wrong.  I could tell you why it is wrong, but I don't have the time."

Okay, Mr. Historian, that really explains a lot!   DUH!

So, moving on to greener fields, I bid my two expert Friends a fond adieu, adios, and bye y'all!  All these expert opinions have me a wee bit dizzy, so I think I will get a cup of coffee and let all this great knowledge and wisdom imparted from these dear Friends ferment for a while.

Bless their little hearts!

Bill

See the resident troll run... And for once he admits it... He does, however, couch it in terms designed to make it look as if he is the sensible one... Since we all know that his tactic is to run and hide or start a new thread when he is caught wrong, he'll be unsuccessful in fooling regular readers of the forum...

Dove, my Friend,

Attempting to discuss the Christian faith with you -- is rather like trying to discuss freedom with a person who has been locked in prison all his life.  How can one know about freedom -- if one has never experienced freedom?

And, how can one know about the Christian faith -- who has never truly experienced the Christian faith.

Bless his little heart!

Bill

Contendah, my Friend,

As usual, you join forces with your fellow Legalistic Theology Forum Friend, Dove, to declare me and all who do not follow your legalistic religion, to be nuts.  Okay!

By the way, it was nice briefly meeting Dove on Facebook recently.  But, as soon as I acknowledged him as a Forum Friend -- he deleted his post and ran for cover. 

But, all that aside -- do I disagree with Pastor David Guzik on his interpretation of Matthias being the twelfth apostle?   Yes.  

If you recall, I have stated many times that I will not agree with a person just because he is a pastor or teacher -- and that I have never yet met a pastor with whom I agree 100% on the interpretation of God's Word.  If a pastor were perfect, then he would be God.  But, since we know that could never be -- then no pastor is perfect.

And, that is why the true apostle Paul (which, Contendah, you pointed out very well to Vic) tells us to always test the teacher and the teaching against Scripture (Acts 17:11).   And, that is what I do -- I listen to or read the teaching, examine other teachings on the same subject, study what Scripture tells us -- and, with prayer, I let the Holy Spirit guide me in understanding what Scripture is telling me.

Am I always right?  Of course not!   Otherwise, I would be God -- and that is as far from the truth as one can get.

So, once again, I still believe that Peter jumped the gun in rolling dice, (Las Vegas style) and choosing a new apostle -- instead of waiting for Jesus Christ to do what only He could do -- name the new apostle.   Jesus Christ clearly, as shown in Scripture, chose Paul.

And, from that, we have much of the New Testament which the Holy Spirit wrote through the ministry of Paul.    Works for me!  

But, then, my motives are just to share the Gospel to the best of my ability, knowledge, and wisdom -- not to prove you or anyone else wrong.   If you post a false teaching, I will refute it -- just as I refute Vic's posts on Roman Catholicism.  I refute the false teaching -- not the person.

I pray that I have satisfied your curiosity about where I stand with David Guzik and all pastors/teachers.   I respect them, I often quote them when I feel they are right -- and I challenge them when I feel they are wrong.  Works for me!   What works for you?

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

The old troll further proves his rapid mental decline...

1) He calls me his "Friend" which most certainly I am not... I have repeatedly told him that I am not his Friend... I suppose he has such a need for real friendship he grasps at any chance to call anyone Friend..

2) He refers to me as Contendah's, "Legalistic Theology Forum Friend" when he hasn't the slightest idea of my theological tenets.... More verbal garbage mixed with the sewerage from under his resident bridge...

3) He claims I visited his Facebook page and posted there and deleted my posting when he confronted me! In truth, I have never been to his Facebook page, have no idea why I would want to, and I avoid any contact with known trolls if at all possible... But what should one expect from someone who has repeatedly been shown to be prone to falsehood...

S-A-D.... 

Of course it was all a part of his efforts to avoid owning up to his mistaken theology...

Labeling people is just another one of Bill DHL™'s passive-aggressive attempts to demean everyone else.  It's typical of his Jesus Loves Me, But Hates Your Guts theology. 

Dove, my Friend,

You say that I have no idea about your theological beliefs.  From all I have seen you write in your garbled posts -- it is easy to draw the conclusion that you follow a Legalistic Theology.

But, if I am wrong -- what theology do you follow?  Or will you be like Contendah and be ashamed of your beliefs and your church flavor?

NO, I did not say that you visited my Facebook page.   I said that I met you on Facebook -- and I did -- in another Friend's post.  We were discussing SEC football -- and you popped in calling me the TimesDaily Religion Forum troll.   Totally out of context with the rest of the discussion.   But, then hijacking a discussion is nothing new for you.

How did I know it was you?  All of us have a sort of signature in our writing styles.  And, yours jump out like a big red flag.

But, not to worry, my Friend.   I will not reveal your real name which you used on Facebook.  I have been Friends with a few Religion Forum Friends on Facebook, where they use their real names -- and I have never, and would never, reveal their names.  The only one who insists upon using his pseudonym on Facebook is Crustty.   But, even if I knew his real name, I would not reveal it -- just as I have respected the privacy of the others who have become my Facebook Friends.

Yet, I could see that it made you run -- real fast.   Let me assure you, your real name is safe with me.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill