I Am A Christian - A Christian Believer!

Contendah, my Friend,

So, "All Things" means "All Things" -- except when it does not mean "All Things."  OKAY!

I suppose in your cherry-picked theology that makes sense.

Bless you little heart!

Bill

I see you have no trouble with that kind of logic, Bill DHL™.  Nothing new here.

And, all Vic can do is jump around, spitting and fuming, spewing anger and childish names -- and never once making even a partially intelligent suggestion or Bible reference.

And billiee won't admit "faith alone" isn't biblical and has been proven many

times it isn't. The words "faith alone" appear only once in the Bible.

James 2: 24

Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?

Vic, my Friend,

In the Old Testament, Jesus Christ is not mentioned by name -- but He permeates all 39 books.

In the New Testament, the word "Trinity" is never mentioned -- yet it is taught throughout the entire 27 books.

And, by the same token, "by grace you are saved through faith" (Eph 2:8) -- ALONE (Eph 1:13, 2:8-9) -- is taught throughout the 27 books of the New Testament.

If Christ's sacrifice was not sufficient in itself, ALONE, to give salvation to all who will, by grace through faith, receive His precious gift -- then God is a liar.  Are you saying that God is a liar?

And, finally, in another post YOU questioned if God is real.   Do YOU still doubt that God is real and that He truly is God?  

If so, is that now a teaching of the Roman Catholic church?   Or have you finally admitted that YOU are not really a Roman Catholic, not a Christian believer?  Have you finally that you are not a Christian believer and confirmed what you once wrote in a post -- that you ONLY come to the Religion Forum to start arguments?

I look forward to your answers -- which I know will never happen.  All you will do is start fuming and fussing, jumping and spewing, anything to avoid a direct answer.  Not a problem for me -- for I KNOW the Truth.

God bless and have a very Merry Christmas,

Bill

The word Sociopath isn't in the Bible either, but there you are,

representative of the word Sociopath and the real reason the word liar

IS in the Bible.

I know you will start fuming and fussing, jumping and spewing, anything

to avoid a direct answer.  Not a problem for me -- for I KNOW the Truth.

And then you say "-- then God is a liar." billiee why do you think God is

a liar? If there is a God why would he lie?

If there is a Jesus, could you bake a cake? 2000 candles...........huh

Hi all,

Last night I received my January 2015 issue of the Institute for Creation Research's "Acts & Facts" magazine.   One article I read immediately brought my Friend, Vic, to mind.  The article is titled "Not Even Wrong" and it begins:

Physicist Wolfgang Pauli was once asked to review a technical paper and assess its accuracy. The content was so garbled, however, that Pauli is said to have remarked that not only was the paper not right, it was "not even wrong."  He meant the paper was so poorly written, so muddled in its reasoning, that it was impossible to evaluate in any fashion.  It was even worse than wrong -- it was incoherent.  The author would have to substantially improve the paper in order for it to even be assessed as wrong.

Until last night, I had no idea that Vic had ever written a technical paper to be assessed.  But, this man, Wolfgang Pauli, so well described Vic's writing (or what is supposed to be writings) -- that Mr. Pauli MUST have been speaking of my dear Friend, Vic.

Bless his incoherent little heart!

Bill

And yet, somehow, you think we should believe your sincerity when you wish us a Merry Christmas. 

Well the resident troll supposedly graduated high school, which means little and I doubt the school would admit he attended classes there... He writes much the same as my children did when they were first graders...

Contendah, my Friend,

In all that rambling rhetorical prose, you did NOT show us one single proof from Scripture which states that salvation is only gained through baptism.

Rhetorical Prose :  The author gives hard-hitting argument, intended not so much to persuade by sweet reasonableness as to hammer home a point. It is rhetorical tub-thumping : its keynote is a manly scorn.   (http://neoenglish.wordpress.co...2/17/types-of-prose/)

So, once more I will state:  "Baptism is NOT the cause of salvation -- it is the RESULT of salvation."

Can you prove Biblically that is wrong?

The Bible shows that Jesus Christ DID NOT baptize anyone:

John 4:1-3, "Therefore when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus Himself was not baptizing, but His disciples were), He left Judea and went away again into Galilee."

And the apostle Paul declared that he was glad Jesus Christ had not sent to baptize anyone:

1 Corinthians 1:14-16, "I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one would say you were baptized in my name.  Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other.  For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void."

Looking at this issue of baptismal regeneration, i.e., salvation through baptism -- isn't it logical to assume that since Jesus Christ was willing to die a cruel death on the cross to offer us salvation -- if baptism is a necessary part of that salvation -- WOULD JESUS have stopped short and not baptize anyone?  

Does that make sense -- that He would go all that way to the cross, and yet stop short beside the river without baptizing those He is saving?   It doesn't to make sense to me.   

And, the apostle Paul, an apostle specially chosen by the Crucified Christ to be His apostle to the Gentiles -- tells us that Jesus Christ DID NOT send him to baptize anyone.  Does that make sense if salvation is not possible without baptism?

Jesus died to offer us salvation.  Jesus sent Paul to bring the Gospel of Salvation to the Gentiles -- and then Jesus has Paul stop short of "baptismal regeneration" -- i.e., salvation?   It doesn't make sense to me.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Of course, what Paul referred to here was the ADMINISTRATION OF THE RITE OF BAPTISM, there being nothing here to the effect that Paul preached salvation without baptism. He like all the apostles had been commanded to "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them" (Matthew 28:19) .  In no way did he fail to follow that command. 

You forget one thing Contendah, Jesus said "it's finished". In billiee world

baptism was then devalued. Jesus probably meant I'm finished here before

they break my legs. To billiiee OSAS was now on the table

Watch this...............Lord, Lord..........I just saved my butt.............

Contendah and Vic, my Friends,

First, Contendah -- regardless of why Paul said he was happy he that Jesus Christ did not send him to baptize -- it still stands that he was NOT sent to baptize, only to preach the Gospel of salvation.

Now, why would Paul be sent to preach the Gospel of salvation -- and then not told to baptize folks -- IF their salvation depended upon them being baptized?  Paul would be teaching them about salvation and what they needed to do to attain salvation -- but, then he would stop short of leading them to full salvation.  Does that make sense?

That would be a lame thing to do -- to open the door of salvation to all the Gentiles -- and then slam the door in their faces by NOT baptizing them.  Doesn't make sense to me.

And, Vic, you tell us:

Jesus said "it's finished."  In billiee world baptism was then devalued.  Jesus probably meant I'm finished here before they break my legs.

My Friend, please try not to display such Biblical illiteracy.   Jesus Christ knew, from being God Incarnate - and from Scripture, that the Roman guards would never be allowed to break His legs (Psalm 34:20).  So, He was not concerned that "it be finished" before the Romans could break his legs.

In John 19:30 when Jesus declared, "It is finished! -- He meant that everything was finished that is required by God to make forgiveness and salvation available to all who will, by grace through faith, believe and receive his "paid if full" gift of eternal life.

b. It is finished! Jesus' final word (tetelestai in the ancient Greek) is the cry of a winner.  Jesus had finished the eternal purpose of the cross.  It stands today as a finished work, the foundation of all Christian peace and faith, paying in full the debt we righteously owe to God.

i. At some point before He died, before the veil was torn in two, before He cried out it is finished, an awesome spiritual transaction took place.  God the Father laid upon God the Son all the guilt and wrath our sin deserved, and He bore it in Himself perfectly, totally satisfying the wrath of God for us.   (http://www.blbclassic.org/comm...ohn&ar=Jhn_19_30)

To ascribe anything less to His finished work on the cross -- is to deny Jesus Christ as our Savior.  

Vic, is that what you are doing?  Are YOU saying that what Jesus Christ did on the cross was NOT sufficient to give eternal life to mankind?   Are you sure you really want to take that position?

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Bill,

You "response" is incredibly puerile and naive.  And just DEAD WRONG. You wrote this:

<<<That would be a lame thing to do -- to open the door of salvation to all the Gentiles -- and then slam the door in their faces by NOT baptizing them.  Doesn't make sense to me.>>>

Paul, who evangelized the Corinthians, most assuredly taught them that they were to be baptized.  He did, in fact, personally baptize several of them, as he explained in the passage at issue.  Others also were baptized, since it is Paul's purpose in writing to correct their understanding  of baptism, namely that he who administers baptism is not to be relied upon, but rather CHRIST is, for they were baptized not in the name of Paul or Apollos or Cephas, but in the name of Christ.  Thus he instructs them that instead of making the claim that they were "of Paul" or "of Apollos" or "of Cephas", as some of them were doing, they should identify themselves as belonging to the One in whose name they were BAPTIZED.

Can you or anyone read what Paul wrote about baptism in Romans 6: 1-11 and rationally conclude that Paul held a view of baptism as a nonessential thing?  Verse 3 of that chapter makes it clear that those who were baptized were "baptized into Jesus Christ."  Were they already in Christ--before being "baptized into Jesus Christ"??  The chapter begins with the subject of grace and its efficacy to remit sin.  Without so much as a literary stutter-step, it proceeds in the very next verse to the subject of baptism and then proceeds to enumerate in detail the blessings inherent in baptism. Paul obviously did not view baptism as a thing apart from the grace of God.

For the first 1400 years after the church began, it was uniformly held that the baptism instituted by Christ was for remission of sins.  Calvin, Zwingli, and other "Reformers", in their zeal to separate faith and works--driven largely by their hostility to the works salvation of Catholicism--wrongly identified baptism as a "work," which it decidedly is not, as I have explained to you over and over, Bill Gray   You are so caught up in the Cafeteria Calvinism that has you under its control that you can't see the false logic in the heresies of those "Reformers."

I am still waiting on your reply to the item below.  Here is another reminder:

"But isn't repentance a prerequisite for salvation? Besides all that, in reality faith/belief and repentance ARE physical acts. They both are acts that call upon metabolic energy to drive the cellular, physiological mechanisms by which the human brain operates to enable thought processes..  They consume energy in accomplishing a task, which is another way of saying that they produce WORK. Thus, insofar as salvation is concerned, Bill is making an irrelevant distinction between the WORK done by the mind (brain) in the firing of neurons and the WORK done by other parts of the body through the twitching of muscle fibers." 

"Works," when understood in the proper sense of that term, do not save us.  But faith, repentance, and baptism are not works of merit carried out to earn salvation.  All of those are responses by the sinner accepting God's grace in the manner which God, through His word, prescribes.

Contendah, my Friend,

If you want to believe that you were saved by "faith, repentance, and baptism" -- okay.  Not a problem!  If that makes you feel more saved, God bless you.

I am reminded of the time, about ten years ago, when I was one of three elders in our church.   In our church we had a number of  senior members.   And, one Sunday after our service three of those ladies asked for prayer.  Since there were three of the older ladies - and three elders, the pastor asked each of us to pray for one of the ladies.

I prayed for Maggie, an 80 year old Polish lady.  When I was praying for her, I knew she was also praying in a low voice - but, I could not hear her.  Afterwards, the pastor asked if I noticed Maggie praying in tongues.  I told him that I did - but saw nothing wrong with it.

Praying in tongues is Biblical, but is not for everyone.  And, the Bible does give guidelines on when, where, and how to pray in tongues.

As I told our pastor, "I personally don't ever feel called to pray in tongues.  And, even though it is Biblical, I see no reason for me, personally, to do so. The Bible allows its, but does not dictate it.  So, it becomes a personal thing.  Since God created all languages and understands all languages -- why is there a need to pray in some other tongue than what He gave us?"

My feelings about people praying in tongues is -- if it makes them feel closer to God, then, God bless them -- let them do it.  So, when Maggie prayed in tongues as I prayed for here, not a problem.

And, Contendah, since YOU believe you were saved through baptism -- not a problem.   The main question becomes -- are you saved -- with or without baptism.   If you say you are, then praise God.

Personally, I KNOW that I was saved before I was baptized -- and that my baptism was my act of obedience in following the ordinance left for us by Jesus Christ.

I pray that settles our difference over "baptismal regeneration."   YOU were saved through baptism.  And, I was saved "by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, alone."  

Either way, since we are both saved -- at the Rapture we will be going up together -- side by side.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

What an idiot.  An 80 year old Polish woman was most likely praying in Polish.  Since when did praying in your native language become "praying in tongues"?  

No, my Friend, she WAS praying in tongues, not in her Polish language.  Not even sure if she spoke the Polish language -- since she came from Chicago and had been married to an Italian man.  I knew that because she had an Italian last name.   

But, as I wrote in my earlier post:

Praying in tongues is Biblical, but is not for everyone.  And, the Bible does give guidelines on when, where, and how to pray in tongues.

As I told our pastor, "I personally don't ever feel called to pray in tongues.  And, even though it is Biblical, I see no reason for me, personally, to do so. The Bible allows its, but does not dictate it.  So, it becomes a personal thing.  Since God created all languages and understands all languages -- why is there a need to pray in some other tongue than what He gave us?"

My feelings about people praying in tongues is -- if it makes them feel closer to God, then, God bless them -- let them do it.  So, when Maggie prayed in tongues as I prayed for here, not a problem.

My Friend, I am happy you are reading my posts. It is like walking in the rain. Even though you have an umbrella -- some few drops might still get on you.

And, when reading my posts -- maybe a few little "golden nuggets" may find their way into your thought stream.   Who knows, many folks have become believers through less.   Just maybe one of those little "golden nuggets" might lodge in your brain and, if you are not careful -- you might find yourself becoming a real believer.   After all, He is a God of miracles!

Bless your heart!

Bill

Maybe williescott can lie in tongues just like billiiee lies........

Bill DHL™ makes this stuff up and expects us to believe him.  He is dangerously gullible at best, and a downright idiot at worst. 

Polish women speaking in tongues, hugging homeless angels, curing his own "skin cancer" through prayer.... might as well be talking to Oral Roberts.  It's no wonder old Johhny is a fundamentalist, he will believe anything he conjures up in that convoluted mind of his..

DHS, my dear Friend

Welcome back!  It has been a while since you have joined the "rock throwers" who disagree even when Bill Gray says, "Good morning." 

That aside, no, I could not hear the words, or sounds, that Maggie was speaking, but I could tell that she speaking in tongues.   And, afterwards our pastor confirmed that when he asked me, "Did you notice that Maggie was praying in tongues?"    

Once again, my Friend, welcome back.  I was afraid my "cheering section" was getting thin.  I really do not want to lose any of you -- for y'all (or all y'all) continue to give me great platforms from which to share His Gospel.   You and the rest of the "cheering section" team are great ministry partners.   Yes, sir, we serve an awesome God -- even when you and the team are throwing rocks.

Bless your cheering little hearts!

Bill

Crusty, my Friend,

When I wrote to DHS, "That aside, no, I could not hear the words, or sounds, that Maggie was speaking, but I could tell that she speaking in tongues" -- that is saying that I could not make out the words she was using -- but I have heard enough people supposedly speaking in tongues to recognize that.  No, I could not understand the exact sounds she was making, but knowing her I realized what she was doing.

And, why would our pastor want to be "sarcastic" about a person who is sincerely praying?  Maybe you feel that way because it has been so long since you have been in a church service -- that you cannot remember what a sincere pastor is like.   No, he was not being sarcastic.  He was merely asking to see if I had noticed.  He being the pastor and me being an elder -- we often discussed such things.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill 

You said you couldn't even hear the sounds.  Which post are you lying in?

If Bill DHL™ came to me, just like you have here, and said "I heard this Polish woman speaking in tongues", I would say "sure you did", and it would be very sarcastic.  Just like when you come here and say your "cancer" was cured by prayer.  I pretty much said "sure it was, not" (to use juvenile phrasing you can understand).

Ah, I guess discussing your delusions seems like "sniffing around" to you.  LOL!!!!