401
News:
If you are a new member, don't forget to post in the "Introduce Yourself"
section of the forum, as it is a requirement for new members! 
NOTE: If you have trouble logging in, click the
"Login" link above the username/password boxes.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
403
What's New @ CLE / (WEEKLY TEACHING) 501c3: The Devil's Church (2019) p1
« on: August 19, 2019, 02:57:22 PM »404
What's New @ CLE / (ARTICLE) The Book of Romans: My Notes on Chapters 11-16
« on: August 10, 2019, 06:45:40 PM »
405
What's New @ CLE / (WEEKLY TEACHING) The Christian Work Ethic (2019) p6
« on: August 05, 2019, 03:21:44 PM »406
Bible Discussion / Noah Webster is Not Always Right
« on: July 31, 2019, 07:28:34 PM »
I've mentioned this before in some of the teachings I've done, and as I was studying things today, I found something on Webster's definition of repentance that should somewhat demonstrate what I mean. Here's the fully text under 'repentance':
REPENT'ANCE, noun
1. Sorrow for any thing done or said; the pain or grief which a person experiences in consequence of the injury or inconvenience produced by his own conduct.
2. In theology, the pain, regret or affliction which a person feels on account of his past conduct, because it exposes him to punishment. This sorrow proceeding merely from the fear of punishment, is called legal repentance as being excited by the terrors of legal penalties, and it may exist without an amendment of life.
3. Real penitence; sorrow or deep contrition for sin, as an offense and dishonor to God, a violation of his holy law, and the basest ingratitude towards a Being of infinite benevolence. This is called evangelical repentance and is accompanied and followed by amendment of life.
The problem with this is that Webster made this specific to men. He did not include the general definition, which is sorrow or grief for anything done or said, whether by one's own conduct or another's. There are numerous instances of the grief of repentance when the actions of another have affected man or God, where one man does wrong and brings others to grief. So I would agree with the specific definitions he gives for mankind, but it's not generalized. (He does generalize it a bit more with the word 'repent' rather than 'repentance', but nonetheless, they share the same terminology, just "ance" is a suffix that changes an adj or verb into a noun.)
Webster continues:
Repentance is a change of mind, or a conversion from sin to God.
Godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation. 2 Corinthians 7:9. Matthew 3:8.
Repentance is the relinquishment of any practice, from conviction that it has offended God.
Here's where he changes definitions. Don't misunderstand, he didn't even offer this as a point #4, but rather, he completely changes the definition at the end. He claims that repentance is now conversion, but that is not the case. I agree that repentance is followed by "an amendment of life," working to do better and clean out oneself, but that does not mean that the amendment of life itself is repentance.
He says "godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation," which is from 2Co 7:10, but he references to 2Co 7:9. The problem is that 7:9 is part of what defines 7:10...
For though I made you sorry with a letter, I do not repent, though I did repent: for I perceive that the same epistle hath made you sorry, though it were but for a season. Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance: for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing.
-2Co 7:8-9
Paul is pointing out that he had grief by sending the letter, not only because they were doing wrong and that was painful, but also having to send it, and knowing that they grieved, he grieved with them.
Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep.
-Rom 12:15
However, he did not grieve in the sense that it was wrong to send that letter. It was the right thing to do.
Next, Paul also points out the difference between worldly sorrow and godly sorrow, and defined that repentance is being "made sorry after a godly manner." Thereafter, Paul continues:
For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death. For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter.
-2Co 7:10-11
If repentance meant a change of life, then that would require works for salvation. That's incorrect. Therefore, Paul is defining the phrase "repentance to salvation" as "godly sorrow" and that godly sorrow produces in us the humility of grief to which we receive justification. It's not of ourselves, and once we believe, then Christ converts and heals us.
Also, Webster offers Mat 3:8 as part of his evidence that repentance is turning and changing:
Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:
-Mat 3:8
If repentance was turning and changing from sin, then repentance are the fruits. Therefore, this should read, "Bring forth therefore fruits meet for fruits." That's nonsensical. Rather, we ought to bring forth fruits worthy of a heart that has been humbled in godly sorrow before the Lord Jesus Christ.
I'm not saying that Webster's dictionary is not a useful tool; it certainly is, and his definitions are correct in most instances. However, every now and again, you'll find errors like this, and so Webster should not be your final authority for all matters of faith; stick to the King James Bible, and if Webster and the Bible disagree, then the KJB is what you should choose to believe.
REPENT'ANCE, noun
1. Sorrow for any thing done or said; the pain or grief which a person experiences in consequence of the injury or inconvenience produced by his own conduct.
2. In theology, the pain, regret or affliction which a person feels on account of his past conduct, because it exposes him to punishment. This sorrow proceeding merely from the fear of punishment, is called legal repentance as being excited by the terrors of legal penalties, and it may exist without an amendment of life.
3. Real penitence; sorrow or deep contrition for sin, as an offense and dishonor to God, a violation of his holy law, and the basest ingratitude towards a Being of infinite benevolence. This is called evangelical repentance and is accompanied and followed by amendment of life.
The problem with this is that Webster made this specific to men. He did not include the general definition, which is sorrow or grief for anything done or said, whether by one's own conduct or another's. There are numerous instances of the grief of repentance when the actions of another have affected man or God, where one man does wrong and brings others to grief. So I would agree with the specific definitions he gives for mankind, but it's not generalized. (He does generalize it a bit more with the word 'repent' rather than 'repentance', but nonetheless, they share the same terminology, just "ance" is a suffix that changes an adj or verb into a noun.)
Webster continues:
Repentance is a change of mind, or a conversion from sin to God.
Godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation. 2 Corinthians 7:9. Matthew 3:8.
Repentance is the relinquishment of any practice, from conviction that it has offended God.
Here's where he changes definitions. Don't misunderstand, he didn't even offer this as a point #4, but rather, he completely changes the definition at the end. He claims that repentance is now conversion, but that is not the case. I agree that repentance is followed by "an amendment of life," working to do better and clean out oneself, but that does not mean that the amendment of life itself is repentance.
He says "godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation," which is from 2Co 7:10, but he references to 2Co 7:9. The problem is that 7:9 is part of what defines 7:10...
For though I made you sorry with a letter, I do not repent, though I did repent: for I perceive that the same epistle hath made you sorry, though it were but for a season. Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance: for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing.
-2Co 7:8-9
Paul is pointing out that he had grief by sending the letter, not only because they were doing wrong and that was painful, but also having to send it, and knowing that they grieved, he grieved with them.
Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep.
-Rom 12:15
However, he did not grieve in the sense that it was wrong to send that letter. It was the right thing to do.
Next, Paul also points out the difference between worldly sorrow and godly sorrow, and defined that repentance is being "made sorry after a godly manner." Thereafter, Paul continues:
For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death. For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter.
-2Co 7:10-11
If repentance meant a change of life, then that would require works for salvation. That's incorrect. Therefore, Paul is defining the phrase "repentance to salvation" as "godly sorrow" and that godly sorrow produces in us the humility of grief to which we receive justification. It's not of ourselves, and once we believe, then Christ converts and heals us.
Also, Webster offers Mat 3:8 as part of his evidence that repentance is turning and changing:
Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:
-Mat 3:8
If repentance was turning and changing from sin, then repentance are the fruits. Therefore, this should read, "Bring forth therefore fruits meet for fruits." That's nonsensical. Rather, we ought to bring forth fruits worthy of a heart that has been humbled in godly sorrow before the Lord Jesus Christ.
I'm not saying that Webster's dictionary is not a useful tool; it certainly is, and his definitions are correct in most instances. However, every now and again, you'll find errors like this, and so Webster should not be your final authority for all matters of faith; stick to the King James Bible, and if Webster and the Bible disagree, then the KJB is what you should choose to believe.
407
Wild Emails @ CLE / If You Read Carefully, Liars Expose Themselves
« on: July 31, 2019, 06:55:55 PM »NICK FROM TENNESSEE:
Chris, (all-caps for emphasis)
I just read your study on Predestination VS Free Will. I'm right there with you on the whole "Churchianity" issue, and "Christian New Age" topics. I was a part of that churchy world for most of my life until about 6 years ago, when the Lord caused me to seek only His word. Anyhoo, it's a long testimony, let me get to the questions I want to ask you...
Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
This part... "Him who worketh all things" is what I want to bring to our attention. And then God says...
Phil 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
No, it's correct to say "also, God says" -- what you're trying to do is continue the thought as if Eph 1:11 was followed up directly by Phil 2:13. What you're doing is attempting to discern a doctrine "here a little and there a little" (Isa 28:10), which is fine, but I have to make such notes and disclaimers with men who write me the way you are writing me. What I mean is that you have written this letter to me in contention (i.e. you didn't come here to learn from me or to discuss anything together). I haven't read the rest of your letter yet, but your spirit is fairly clear so far, even though you are not stating your intentions clearly, so I need to be cautious of you moving forward.
God works all things, including our wills, both to will and to do... of His good pleasure.
You didn't give any scripture that shows that God gives us a free will in time, but predestines us out of time? I looked in scripture, but didn't see that stated anywhere in scripture.
I'm wondering how to approach this because you didn't write me to learn anything. That's really obvious now, especially since I did give Scripture for that, but you ignored it. (i.e. It's not that you couldn't find it, but you didn't want to see it.) You're trying to justify a doctrine you believe, and really, I don't like people who beat around the bush and are not straight-forward with their intentions. I just have a hard time helping someone who thinks that putting a question mark at the end of his sentence means that he wants an answer.
Without even going to the Scripture; I'll just apply a simple reason of the Scriptures themselves. The existence of commandments in Scripture makes no sense unless we're given choice. Even the existence of reward for good works, makes no sense unless we've given a choice. I'll be frank, if you can't understand that; I don't think I can help you because, again, you didn't write me to learn anything.
The choices that he places before us "life and death", "blue t-shirt or red t-shirt" etc. are all worked by Him and for Him. We have a will, but it is NOT FREE from His will.
Then go believe whatever you want, and I hope you have a great day.
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
1 Sam 16:14 But the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him.
Amos 3:6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?
Isaiah 63:17 O Lord, why hast thou made us to err from thy ways, and hardened our heart from thy fear? Return for thy servants' sake, the tribes of thine inheritance.
Romans 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
Jeremiah 18:6 O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the Lord. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.
Acts 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
We can't even love Him without Him loving us first...
1 John 4:19 We love him, because he first loved us.
Scripture says that God works all things after the council of His own will, even our very own wills to will and to do. I've never seen scripture that says... "Inside time, you have a choice. Outside time, you are predestined." This idea came from somewhere, do you have scripture on this?
Yes, I do, and I presented it in the article, which means I now do not believe that you actually read and/or listened to that teaching I did, and I don't appreciate when people lie to me. (i.e. "I just read your study on Predestination VS Free Will." - That was a lie; you may have skimmed it, but you didn't read it.)
I have work to do, and I need to get back to it. Again, I hope you depart in peace, and that your family would remain in good health with all their needs met.
We have the ability to make thousands of choices a day, but they are not free. Having the ability to choose or make choices doesn't mean we have a will that is free from His.
Thanks for listening. I hope this has been beneficial for us both in some way.
Sadly, it was just a waste of my time. Again, I need to get back to work. Have a great day.
END OF EXCHANGE
The first word of his letter showed me that he had no intention of talking with me or learning anything. How could I possibly discern that from the word 'Chris'? The problem is not someone calling me "Chris," as almost everyone who knows me calls me that. However, that's not how most people write me. When someone who does not know me writes me respectfully, they write "Christopher" because that's the name attached to all my teachings. I would do the same thing on someone else's website; I would address them by the name they used. Without reading anything else, and because this guy had never contacted me before, I knew he was not going to listen to a word I had to say, and that it was a complete waste of time.
Furthermore, someone had shared this teaching somewhere in which some controversy arose because I had a group of emails sent to me all in one afternoon about this very topic. What was amazing about it is that not one of them who wrote me about that subject had actually read the article. I even had one guy openly admit it in a response to me. I'm guessing what happened is this: Someone posted this link somewhere with a generalized explanation or specific quotes from my article, they read the summary, went to the website, and immediately wrote me to complain without checking out what I taught and the Scriptures I provided. To that, I can only say one thing:
He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.
-Pro 18:13
The way I've always approached this is that if I was going to go to someone else's website or ministry and try to teach them a doctrine, I didn't just kick down the front door and demand they adhere to everything I say. That's what most people do. (While, at the same time, they call me the prideful one.) I might give them someone I wrote and just ask them if they would provide analysis of it, or I ask them a question about their beliefs on a particular subject, but these folks are just people trying to act like they have understanding when they don't, and I have one thing I'm really trying to figure out:
Why are they so hell-bent on the doctrine that mankind does not have a choice?
The only answer I've been able to come up with so far is that it justifies them to be lazy, meaning that they don't have to do any evangelism. Outside of that, I haven't yet been able to figure out their reason for hating the truth of God's Word so much, and why they push so hard to do inconvenient mental gymnastics to try and the get Bible to say something they want it to say.
408
Bible Discussion / Sam Gipp Mocks True Repentance
« on: July 30, 2019, 12:13:16 PM »
I want to believe that Sam Gipp is saved, and I currently do. I am not 100% certain, but I currently do believe that he has come to grief and godly sorrow of his sin and he just does not understand it. However, he's starting to make me suspicious because he mocks the doctrine, and instead teaches that 'repent' means "to turn." The following link will take you to the time in which he talks about it:
https://youtu.be/lQTrp6YMHWA?t=485
What I found fascinating is not his mocking of godly sorrow, but that Sam Gipp is most well-known for his stance on the King James Bible. Listen carefully to what he's teaching because he says that 'repentance' is simply "remorse," but the problem is that the word 'remorse' is what is used by new-age bible versions, and as far as I know, that word is never used in the KJB.
https://youtu.be/lQTrp6YMHWA?t=485
What I found fascinating is not his mocking of godly sorrow, but that Sam Gipp is most well-known for his stance on the King James Bible. Listen carefully to what he's teaching because he says that 'repentance' is simply "remorse," but the problem is that the word 'remorse' is what is used by new-age bible versions, and as far as I know, that word is never used in the KJB.
409
What's New @ CLE / (WEEKLY TEACHING) The Christian Work Ethic (2019) p5
« on: July 29, 2019, 03:07:54 PM »410
What's New @ CLE / (UPDATE) FAQ "Can I copy and share your materials?"
« on: July 29, 2019, 01:42:32 PM »
http://creationliberty.com/faq.php#copyshare
As some of you saw, recently, a scoffer posing as a "Christian" was murmuring an accusation against me as if I do not make my materials free for anyone to copy and share. That has never been the case. I realized I never put anything on the website about it, so I added it to the FAQ, here's what it says:
Since I started ministry back in 2009, I have always told people they are free to copy and share my materials at their discretion. There are only two ways someone can violate this:
1. If they attempt cut and paste my words in a way in attempt to deceive people in which they try make it appear that I said something I didn't say or make an argument I didn't make. That falls under the definition of slander and/or libel, and there are already laws which prohibit such things.
2. If they attempt to resell any of my materials for financial gain. There are basic Creative Commons protections that prohibit commercial use on our materials. For example, if someone reshared one of my audio teachings on Youtube and monetized their video, that would be a violation of Creative Commons copyright licensing.
As long as you don't intend to turn a financial profit on my teachings (i.e. you give them away for free), and as long as you present it as I wrote or said it, you are free to share and use our materials as you need for whatever purpose you have in mind.
As some of you saw, recently, a scoffer posing as a "Christian" was murmuring an accusation against me as if I do not make my materials free for anyone to copy and share. That has never been the case. I realized I never put anything on the website about it, so I added it to the FAQ, here's what it says:
Since I started ministry back in 2009, I have always told people they are free to copy and share my materials at their discretion. There are only two ways someone can violate this:
1. If they attempt cut and paste my words in a way in attempt to deceive people in which they try make it appear that I said something I didn't say or make an argument I didn't make. That falls under the definition of slander and/or libel, and there are already laws which prohibit such things.
2. If they attempt to resell any of my materials for financial gain. There are basic Creative Commons protections that prohibit commercial use on our materials. For example, if someone reshared one of my audio teachings on Youtube and monetized their video, that would be a violation of Creative Commons copyright licensing.
As long as you don't intend to turn a financial profit on my teachings (i.e. you give them away for free), and as long as you present it as I wrote or said it, you are free to share and use our materials as you need for whatever purpose you have in mind.
411
What's New @ CLE / (ARTICLE) The Biblical Understanding of Pride
« on: July 23, 2019, 01:56:41 PM »
I think I had forgotten to make an official discussion thread for this teaching, so here it is:
The Biblical Understanding of Pride
The Biblical Understanding of Pride
412
General Discussion / For Those of You Who Read These Posts, but Hate Our Ministry
« on: July 23, 2019, 11:18:43 AM »
This is a great message for you:
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=776421362567238
Call the Police. Because something may be wrong. You could be the victim of abuse.
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=776421362567238
Call the Police. Because something may be wrong. You could be the victim of abuse.
413
What's New @ CLE / (WEEKLY TEACHING) The Christian Work Ethic (2019) p4
« on: July 22, 2019, 12:50:59 PM »414
General Discussion / Addictive Place to Share Teachings and Doctrine
« on: July 21, 2019, 09:54:42 AM »
Ever since reading about Paul's opportunity to preach in certain places that had open public discourse and those willing to hear, I always wished there was something like that we still had. Generally, everything is privatized, and for very good reason. However, I found that reddit has a couple of places for that, and I'll have to be careful about spending too much time there responding to the public because I'll lose track of time and my work.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/ (This is a more general place where you can find all sorts of false cults and false converts who call themselves "Christians.")
https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueChristian/ (This is more specific to "true" believers, or rather, protestants who also falsely claim to be of Christ in most instances.)
I spent this morning sharing Scripture and posting links to my teachings on false converts and repentance; wow, that can get addictive. It's basically the places of public discourse for the internet.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/ (This is a more general place where you can find all sorts of false cults and false converts who call themselves "Christians.")
https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueChristian/ (This is more specific to "true" believers, or rather, protestants who also falsely claim to be of Christ in most instances.)
I spent this morning sharing Scripture and posting links to my teachings on false converts and repentance; wow, that can get addictive. It's basically the places of public discourse for the internet.
415
Wild Emails @ CLE / Discerning Scoffers Before They Make An Argument
« on: July 20, 2019, 03:15:11 PM »DANIEL FROM SOUTH CAROLINA:
I don't usually give out my personal email on websites, but I figured I would do it this time.
I'm reading a lot of your articles online, I'm finding them to be great material...
I'd love to have a discussion with you / exchange...
...not in the spirit of debate, argument, pulling swords out, etc... but in sincere and genuine brotherly love of Christ indwelling in us...
Please feel free to email me when you have a chance.
Okay. That seems a tad foreshadowing. I'm here. What would you like to discuss?
Easy brother, easy hehe...
Thank you for your reply.
I'll admit I haven't read your article that addresses free will and God's sovereignty, as all of your articles are pretty long, which isn't a bad thing... but I like that you use a lot of references and verses... like you, I've done a massive amount of reading (not trying to impress you) to find out more about the LORD Jehovah and His Son Jesus Christ...
I just finished reading your About Me section... I wanted to ask more clarification on your stance that all one has to do is repent for salvation... you confuse me a bit because you say God grants repentence, but then shortly after, you state that man can ask for repentence... how can man in a state of being dead, realize he has to ask for repentence?
No, I'm not an Andersonite or whatever his name is, to put your mind at rest...
However, here is a brief portion of my question(s)... you used the verses about the jailer in Acts, when he asks what he must to do be saved.
In what context is he referring to, as asking for salvation?
I'm sure you are aware that save and salvation can refer to different things, and every time the word salvation is used in the Bible, doesn't necessarily denote that it's speaking about eternal salvation... right?
Sorry, meant to add this...
You also used the verses about God not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentence...
Who is the all, referring to, in the context of the verse?
You don't have to answer tonight.
Daniel, let me clarify a few things because I don't want to waste your time.
I have teachings that answers all of those questions, one in particular for what you're asking:
Here's the article: Is Repentance Part of Salvation? (which is linked on the "About page)
Here's the audio playlist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEI_H3QUb7Q&list=PLbY08k2vP8_nXQtC1izDN_p7lutKuX9OI&index=2&t=0s
(At least listen to part 1.)
The reason I wrote an article and made an audio teaching, is for the express purpose that if someone on the internet wants to know more about the matter, they can go over those as many times as they would like. It also gives them more clarity as to what I believe and teach, otherwise, I have to end up copying and pasting what I've already written and recorded to each individual person, and that just takes up far too much of my time, as well as yours. Therefore, if you take the time to go over those first, and then come back and say, "Okay, let's discuss a few things in that teaching," it makes a lot more sense because the context of your questions is about what I teach and believe, and that will save both of us a lot of time and hassle.
Now, there is the possibility that you have been over those, and you are in disagreement with me about something in particular that you're trying to argue. If that is not the case, then ignore this paragraph. If that is the case, then there's no need to beat around the bush; you can simply present your argument in full, and I can answer it.
That all being said, I should end by saying there are some strange things about your writing that did not make sense when I read it. I'll demonstrate what I mean:
I'll admit I haven't read your article that addresses free will and God's sovereignty
I cannot figure out how that thought connects to anything else you wrote, yet, you started your second letter with that context. That leaves me confused. What does that have to do with anything you asked?
Also, this:
I wanted to ask more clarification on your stance that all one has to do is repent for salvation
I have never made that statement, and that's not what I teach. In fact, let me go check my "About" page... yeah, I double checked it just now, and I did not make that statement. So, in the end, that's a loaded question; meaning that I can't answer it because I never made that claim. This is confusing and strange to me, which leads me to believe that something else is going on. I can't tell if it's just that you don't understand or if you're doing this on purpose; I don't know enough yet to discern that. Normally, I wouldn't suspect something else is going on, but you are so oddly repeating yourself to say that nothing else is going on, it's making me more suspicious because people normally don't do that.
The suspicion increases even further when you say you've done a "massive amount of reading" to learn more about God, but you didn't read over the teaching I did on repentance before asking me questions about it? Or listen to it at least? I just don't have enough information to figure it out yet.
So I think before going forward, it would be best to do two things:
1. Go over the teaching I did on repentance, that way you understand what I teach and can ask the right questions.
2. State clearly the reasons you originally wrote me.
No need to beat around the bush with me; I like straight-forward folks.
The next letter was very confusing in the way he set it up with quoting me quoting him and responding to those, so I'll publish my next letter, which has his responses in it.
Daniel, let me clarify a few things because I don't want to waste your time. * I think that's your polite way of saying, "Daniel, don't waste my time." Right?
Wrong.
Just wanted to politely say / ask... I have read many of your articles online, and in turn, I would ask that you take the time to read my similarly-lengthy response to your email / articles. My responses will be in red, while excerpts from your "About Me" and other articles will be in blue...
I'm sighing to myself now because what you just said is actually the thing that's going to be wasting my time. If you want to accuse me of lying to you (which is what you just accused me of, whether you knew it or not) or putting on a false pretense, then just say so. When I said you would be wasting YOUR time, its because I didn't just want to send you a link to the repentance teaching and move on without saying anything else because you would not have considered that to be "polite." For you to keep writing me letters about questions which I've answered in the teachings, only to have me respond with a link, would, in fact, waste your time, not mine, as it would take me mere seconds to copy/paste a link, but the fact that I have to explain that to you is now wasting MY time, especially since I've been working all evening, up until about 9:00pm, and now I have to deal with winky faces from someone who believes he's deduced some special secret that doesn't exist.
I have teachings that answers all of those questions, one in particular for what you're asking:
Here's the article: Is Repentance Part of Salvation? (which is linked on the "About" page)
*I completed reading it a few days ago...
Here's the audio playlist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEI_H3QUb7Q&list=PLbY08k2vP8_nXQtC1izDN_p7lutKuX9OI&index=2&t=0s
(At least listen to part 1.)
since I read, I don't know if I will listen. I may, in the car, on the road this evening.
If you read it, that's fine; you don't have to listen. Most people listen instead of read, so I tend to suggest both just in case. If you completed reading it, did that answer your questions?
The reason I wrote an article and made an audio teaching, is for the express purpose that if someone on the internet wants to know more about the matter, they can go over those as many times as they would like. *Yes, I'm very well aware =) It also gives them more clarity as to what I believe and teach, otherwise, I have to end up copying and pasting what I've already written and recorded to each individual person, and that just takes up far too much of my time, as well as yours. *Right, I totally understand. Perhaps my (I can admit it) mistake was that I had not read those first, as I had only recently come across your website ... but a few questioning "Hmmmm's..." went off in my head as I read your "About Me" section... Therefore, if you take the time to go over those first, *I did do that... and then come back and say, "Okay, let's discuss a few things in that teaching," *Yes, let's discuss... it makes a lot more sense because the context of your questions is about what I teach and believe, and that will save both of us a lot of time and hassle. *Agreed =)
Okay.
Now, there is the possibility that you have been over those, and you are in disagreement with me about something in particular that you're trying to argue. If that is not the case, then ignore this paragraph. If that is the case, then there's no need to beat around the bush; you can simply present your argument in full, and I can answer it. That all being said, I should end by saying there are some strange things *There's nothing strange about my writing / questions, Chris... about your writing that did not make sense when I read it. I'll demonstrate what I mean:
That actually demonstrates my point. Before addressing my arguments about what was strange, you came to the conclusion that there was nothing strange. That means you drew conclusions before looking at the facts. Yeah... that's strange; namely that someone with that type of mentality writes me questions--it shows me that you are not truly interested in the answers, so much as you are only interested in answers that are satisfying to you. My suspicious grows. So, I'll approach the rest of your letter with an above average amount of caution.
I'll admit I haven't read your article that addresses free will and God's sovereignty
I cannot figure out how that thought connects to anything else you wrote, *Up above, I simply stated that I hadn't read your article on that subject yet, to determine which direction you were going, as I was reading through your "About Me". It connects with the thought that I read HOW you believe you came to Christ, without having read your article on repentance, and free will and God's sovereignty... yet, you started your second letter with that context. That leaves me confused. What does that have to do with anything you asked? *It has to do with, "Is Chris unclear about what the Bible says, as in, is he promoting the fact that man has to do something before he can be saved? Where does the author, Chris, stand on election, and predestination, regeneration, conversion, being born again, etc.?"
Also, this:
I wanted to ask more clarification on your stance that all one has to do is repent for salvation
I have never made that statement, and that's not what I teach. *You kind of do, actually =) You repeat that necessity several times...
"SALVATION: Salvation is only gained through repentance and faith on the Lord Jesus Christ alone."
"...in September of 2002, I had an afternoon of repentance towards God. To this day, I don't know what happened inside me, but I knew suddenly I was guilty of breaking the laws of God and that I had gone down a dark path, and could do nothing but cry for three straight hours, and though I tried to speak words when I looked up, I could say nothing but "I'm sorry for what I am." Finally knowing what it meant to "repent in dust and ashes," I sought the Lord Jesus Christ for forgiveness, and that was the day I was born-again,..."
"This will teach you the basics of the Gospel of repentance, and you'll see how it was the first thing that Jesus taught, the first thing His disciples taught, and the first thing the early church taught. It will help you understand how people are saved,..."
Okay, I'm going to walk you through this slowly, show you your false accusation, and then if you continue to do this again in your letter, I won't continue reading your letter any further. I don't have a problem discussing something, but I do have a problem continuing conversation with a false accuser who is not repentant of his wrongdoing.
Your statement: "I wanted to ask more clarification on your stance that all one has to do is repent for salvation"
I have never taught that all one has to do is repent for salvation. I teach that one must come to repentance and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation. Specifically, as indicated in MANY teachings I give, one must be given grief and godly sorrow of wrongdoing in their heart, as God gives men repentance (2Ti 2:25), and that they should believe that Jesus Christ paid for the sins of mankind with His blood, that He died and rose from the dead and is at the right hand of the Father. You accused me of taking a stance of only HALF of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and I will say to you once more Daniel: I'm not going to answer a loaded question.
In addition, all this information is included in the About page, not just in statements of faith, but also in the section that says "How to Be Saved."
Now let's look at your examples, and demonstrate that, once again, you falsely accused me. You said:
"I wanted to ask more clarification on your stance that all one has to do is repent for salvation"
"SALVATION: Salvation is only gained through repentance and faith on the Lord Jesus Christ alone."
You said I teach that all one has to do is repent, and when you quoted me, it says repentance and faith are necessary.
Finally knowing what it meant to "repent in dust and ashes," I sought the Lord Jesus Christ for forgiveness, and that was the day I was born-again,..."
I sought the Lord Jesus Christ; that's belief on Jesus.
"This will teach you the basics of the Gospel of repentance, and you'll see how it was the first thing that Jesus taught, the first thing His disciples taught, and the first thing the early church taught. It will help you understand how people are saved,..."
That is prefacing the teaching, to help people understand how they are saved. Nowhere did I say that repentance alone is salvation without faith.
So for the last time: If you ask an unloaded question, perhaps I can answer it for you. I can continue with your letter, so long as you don't keep doing that, but if you start deceiving, falsely accusing, and/or murmuring, then I'm done. Let's continue...
In fact, let me go check my "About" page... yeah, I double checked it just now, and I did not make that statement. So, in the end, that's a loaded question; meaning that I can't answer it because I never made that claim. This is confusing and strange to me, which leads me to believe that something else is going on. *No, not really. Don't overthink it. I am simply trying to determine what stance you / your website holds to, in regards to eternal salvation, etc...
I'll give you a pass on that one because it contextually had to do with the last paragraph.
I can't tell if it's just that you don't understand or if you're doing this on purpose; I don't know enough yet to discern that. Normally, I wouldn't suspect something else is going on, but you are so oddly repeating yourself to say that nothing else is going on, it's making me more suspicious because people normally don't do that. *Don't over think it =) The suspicion *What suspicion? =) increases even further when you say you've done a "massive amount of reading" to learn more about God, but you didn't read over the teaching *I simply said, "I hadn't read it yet." =) I did on repentance before asking me questions about it? *LOL I have recently come across your website, and read a few things I liked (for example, topics on marriage; rock music (which I absolutely hate, loathe, abhor, etc.; Christmas (sad to see that so many women (and men) can't let go of this pagan holiday, and the reason that so many courtships / discussions with women, have come to an end); Biblical understanding of prayer...). I just hadn't gotten to reading your "About Me" until a little later, after reading those articles... Currently reading through articles on Steve Anderson, Kent Hovind, and I might read some more articles... There should be nothing "suspicious" about me reading a massive amount of material to understand the Bible more
Or listen to it at least? I just don't have enough information to figure it out yet.Well, first of all, we're not buddies. I don't know if you're of Christ yet or not. Loads of people contact me and claim they're of Christ, but I find evidence to the contrary later down the road. Just because someone writes me a letter and calls me "brother," doesn't mean I automatically trust them. I'm glad you're open to reading, but again, I've met many people who are open to reading, but then curse me to hell as soon as they run into a doctrine they don't like. I'll be straight-forward with you, I'm still going into this letter very cautious, and I'm still quite suspicious, not having read anything yet that makes me believe otherwise. (We'll see.)
So I think before going forward, it would be best to do two things:
1. Go over the teaching I did on repentance, *Check that way you understand what I teach and can ask the right questions.
2. State clearly the reasons you originally wrote me. *Frankly, I wanted to ask more about the tenants you hold to, and at the same time, Biblically inform you that you err in several places.
No need to beat around the bush with me; I like straight-forward folks. *Hopefully the statement up above was straight-forward. =)
"A thorough knowledge of the Bible is worth more than a college education."
-Theodore Roosevelt
*Love the quote up above.
Yet, Theodore Roosevelt was not of Christ. He didn't even believe in miracles. So when you're putting your best foot forward by quoting the wisdom of unbelieving men, it's not helping your case.
And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
-1Co 2:4-5
In most cases, it's someone's first education that gets in the way of wisdom and understanding.
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy [a way of thinking] and vain deceit [lies], after the tradition of men, after the rudiments [first teachings] of the world, and not after Christ.
-Colossians 2:8
Quoting Roosevelt didn't impress me; it made me more suspicious.
*To begin, I wanted to state that I appreciate your website, your holding to the KJV, you being humble by some of the statements you've made in your "About Me" section, etc. Like you, I have no "cemetery" degree; just a simple, fool, saved by God's unmerited grace. There should be nothing "suspicious" about me having read a massive amount of material (just like you) to better understand the Bible, understand questions from all different sides, the LORD, Jesus Christ, salvation, etc. The reason I have read a massive amount, just like you, is to have a ready answer for the reason as to why I believe what I do, am I the one of the few who believes what true believers believe?, etc.
Okay, that makes sense.
Since you have written a lot, in your "About Me" (which is appreciated), and I have read several LONG articles on your website, again, I would hope you would extend me the same courtesy in reading my replies to you, regarding some of your material. I am repeating myself here, because I want to drive the point home.
That's fair, so long as the questions aren't loaded.
The first thing that I would like to address (and I will do this in piece-by-piece fashion) is your "About Me" section
1. Teach the Gospel.
You used this verse: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:
-Matthew 28:19-20
It's a great verse, nothing wrong with it... And like I've already mentioned before, your website is great, to teach more truth about God's law to mankind. But which mankind?... because there is a spiritual, and there is a natural mankind? One can understand spiritual things, and the other can't. Natural, carnal mankind doesn't even care about the Bible, so what good would the website be to them?
I'll answer you the same way Jesus answered the lawyer who tried to justify himself by questioning who specifically was his "neighbor." (i.e. The lawyer was attempting to redefine 'neighbor' to mean something else so he could skirt the issue at hand and give himself an excuse for his selfishness.)
And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee. Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves? And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.
-Luke 10:30-37
The fact that you asked the question shows that you don't understand what Jesus sent us to do. Whether they understand or not, whether they hate me or not, as long as they are listening and can be reasoned with in conversation, then I should...
Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart. But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.
-2Ti 2:22-26
However, forgive me, not trying to be ungracious or rude or argumentative, but you did not include the text prior to the ones before the verses above.
I cannot give a full lesson on every chapter with every verse I quote. For that, you'd have to listen to the audio teachings on the website, where we walk through Scripture verse by verse. Or for reading:
http://creationliberty.com/articles.php#Commentary
When you use the verses above, you are implicitly referring to a manmade term, "The Great Commission."
I don't believe I have ever used that term anywhere on my site. So to say that I am referring to that is called an "assumption," not evidence. You're starting to push the borders of a loaded question.
I believe in evangelism, but I do not believe that any single man, preacher, online website author, etc., can "save" any man's soul. You will notice I just used the word "save." In what context did I use that word? "Save eternally" or "save temporally"?
I don't care what context you used the word 'save'. Evangelism is, by definition, the furtherance of a gospel, and in Christianity, it is the furtherance of the doctrine of saving grace, which is the subject of this discussion. Therefore, I would say: Correct, only the Holy Spirit of God can save a man's soul. However, God appoints men to do His good will.
How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
-Roman 10:14-17
Therefore, we are sent to bring the people His Word, just as the prophets before us. (Mat 5:11-12)
I also asked your thoughts on the words "save" and "salvation" in another email, which you may have decided not to reply to, but that's okay. We'll get to it somewhere in this reply.
'Save' means different things in different contexts. Context is the key, and with all that reading you've done, you should know that by now. I've taught on that before, but I'll just let you make your points.
So, back to the verse you used up above. You apply it to Christian believers as if it is a NECESSITY for them to go out into all the world, into tribal civilizations never touched by mankind, in dark caves / holes of Africa, etc. Chris, I believe you have an incorrect application. Here are some thoughts about them, and the man-made term, "The Great Commission."
I don't care about your thoughts on a "Great Commission," but I can start to see the excuses you're making for yourself, thereby proving the point I originally was suspicious about; namely that you have an express purpose in writing me that you're not stating clearly. (And I don't appreciate that.)
What is commonly known as "The Great Commission" is the command that Jesus gave to his disciples just before He ascended up into heaven: "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15).
Many today believe that this command of our Lord's still awaits fulfillment. It is widely taught that this command was given to all believers, and that all Christians are responsible to carry the gospel to every man, woman, and child in the world.
But the Bible does not teach this false application of Jesus' words at all!
First, notice that Jesus gave this command only to the eleven disciples (v.14). (See also Matthew 28:16-20; Acts 1:1-8.) Nowhere in the Bible are New Testament believers taught that they must go into all the world and preach the gospel to every person.
Alright Daniel, I'm stopping your letter right here, and I'll tell you why: Unless you are the owner of LetGodBeTrue.com (which I can't tell because they have their name hidden behind PERFECT PRIVACY, LLC), then all you're doing is copying/pasting someone else's website to make your argument. (It was really easy to the see the discrepancy between writing styles.) That's why your letter is so long. I don't appreciate having my time wasted by someone who acts like he has enough Biblical understanding to make his own argument (by giving a false outward appearance in email), when in reality, he doesn't understand doctrine enough to be able to quote more than unbeliever Thomas Roosevelt.
Without the Spirit of God in you, you won't have your understanding opened to see these things, but, not knowing the state of your soul, I'll quote it anyway, because that's what we're commanded to do. I'll make this real easy:
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day [faith in Christ]: And that repentance [grief and godly sorrow of wrongdoing] and remission [forgiveness/pardoning] of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
-Luke 24:44-47
I'm not here to give you an expose on someone else's article, and that's deceitful because you pasted it right into that email as if you wrote it yourself. If you repent (i.e. have grief and sorrow) of all this nonsense (i.e. deceit and loaded questions and false accusations), then perhaps we can continue, but if not, I'm not going to waste my time. (Col 4:5) I've got other emails to answer before bed tonight, so I'm going to get back to work. Have a great day.
THE NEXT DAY:
You're kind of really bitter, Chris. It seeps through your writings.
Did I curse you to hell? You're very bitter...
When you write me deception and false accusation, did you think everything was going to be sunshine and rainbows? You're kind of really childish, Daniel. It seeps through your writings.
Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.
-1Co 14:20
You didn't curse me to hell; I was giving you an example to show you that things are not always what they appear on the surface, and you demonstrated that by writing me back to justify yourself instead of repent of your wrongdoing, and that indicates to me that our conversation is going to come to a close soon.
And if I quoted a GREAT quote by Theodore Roosevelt, what does it matter, if the words were true? If you quoted the devil in the Bible, would that make you unchristian? LOL
No, it wouldn't "make" me unchristian, but rather, if I quoted the Devil and called it a "GREAT quote" of wisdom, that would provide a piece of evidence that I was not of Christ. The reason is because I follow Jesus Christ, not the Devil, and Christ said:
And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.
-John 10:4-5
You haven't acknowledged hardly anything of what I've tried to show you from Scripture, and I'm starting to realize it's because you don't understand it, even though it's being explained. (i.e. That's why you turn to Roosevelt instead of God.) They didn't understand Jesus either, as it says in the next verse:
This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them.
-John 10:6
You haven't written anything to me yet that has indicated to me that you're of Christ. I don't think you even realize it.
But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.
-Mat 13:23
You're reference to the parable of the neighbor... didn't make any sense in the context of replying to my question about the difference in spiritual mankind vs. natural, carnal mankind. Sorry.
I know, and I figured you wouldn't understand it when I wrote it. You don't see that you're looking for the same excuse the lawyer was looking for, but I gave it my best shot anyway, as we Christians are instructed to do in 2Ti 2, which I quoted in the last letter.
Yeah, reading further on, you make even less sense...
You're not listening, either; you are merely replying:
If I'm not listening to you, then move on. You won't be able to make sense of what I'm saying without the Holy Spirit of God regenerating you and opening your understanding:
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
-1Co 2:14
When you use the verses above, you are implicitly referring to a manmade term, "The Great Commission."
I don't believe I have ever used that term anywhere on my site. So to say that I am referring to that is called an "assumption," not evidence. You're starting to push the borders of a loaded question.When you use the verses above, you are implicitly referring to a manmade term, "The Great Commission."
I don't believe I have ever used that term anywhere on my site. So to say that I am referring to that is called an "assumption," not evidence. You're starting to push the borders of a loaded question.
Up above, I didn't state you used the term the Great Commission. What did I say? I said you are implicitly referring to...
Implicit = implied though not plainly expressed.
Can you not see how that makes it worse? You are attempting to say, "You are not directly using the manmade term "Great Commission," and I know I haven't defined it at all in this conversation, but I know that's what you're referring to." That's called an "assumption," which I've already explained to you, and it's called "reading into" things, and even though that's not a single word, Merriam-Webster defines it:
read into (phrasal verb): to think of as having a meaning or importance that does not seem likely or reasonable
You could have just started out saying, "Chris, I want to talk about something called the 'Great Commission,' here's a definition of what I mean, and let's discuss that in Scripture." No, instead, you started reading into things I didn't say, and then implied that I said them, because the word "implicit" was partially formed out of the root word "imply."
imply (v): to involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary consequence rather than by direct statement
That's what I was talking about when I said you had another agenda when you started writing me, and you were not making it clear. Let me be clear with you: the phrase "Great Commission" was never on my mind when I wrote those things on the "About" page. Does that help you? I'm getting worn out trying to explain these things to a man who cannot understand, so this is my last shot. On the "About" page, I said:
"This ministry exists to preach the truth of God's Law to all of mankind so they can know their guilt before the Holy God, repent (i.e. having grief and godly sorrow) of their sin, and seek the Lord Jesus Christ for Salvation by His grace through faith."
Men are converted by the hearing of the law. Paul wrote:
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
-Gal 3:24
What does that mean? Go to "How to Be Saved" on the "About" page, and you can read the explanation for yourself. If you cannot understand that, then it's more likely the case that you've never come to repentance, and I say that taking you at your word, that you have studied a lot. It's very suspicious that a man who has studied that much for that long would not understand the basics of the Gospel of Christ:
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
-Mat 7:21-23
False Converts vs Eternal Security
However, I cannot tell with you yet because, though you may not realize it, you haven't said enough about what it is you believe for me to draw any conclusions because I don't have enough evidence yet. (People often do that on purpose because they want to hide in darkness, rather than come to the light. John 3:19) On the other hand, I do have enough evidence to know that you follow the wisdom of the world over Scripture, which is evidenced by the fact that you don't use Scripture much in your speech (because you don't understand it), and that you love more the wisdom of men; that alone gives me strong evidence, but the true test is when a man attempts to use Scripture to support his speech, which you don't do, as someone who studies the Word of God would normally attempt to do.
For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
-1Co 1:17
Hmmm... didn't even have the guts to finish reading the email, regardless if parts were used (and no, I'm not the owner of the website) But there is DEFINITELY a lot more truth on that website than there is on yours.
I gave you a condition; you deceived me. I am not baited into discussion by men full of strife, which is what you're trying to do.
strife: exertion or contention for superiority; contest of emulation, either by intellectual or physical efforts
Cast out the scorner, and contention shall go out; yea, strife and reproach shall cease.
-Pro 22:10
You won't confess your false accusations and your deceit, you try to bait me in by falsely accusing me of being a coward when you're trying to waste my time, and then say there's a lot more truth on that other site... Then go follow that other site and leave us be.
http://www.letgodbetrue.com/pdf/repentance.pdf
Sighh... found another one without much desire for truth and wisdom.
Much success to you "and your home church."
That's a lie, because you and I both know you don't really want us to be "successful" (whatever that's supposed to mean), and then you mock our church. That's what the Bible calls "flattering lips" and a "double heart."
Help, LORD; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men. They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak.
-Psalm 12:1-2
This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
-Mat 15:8
And that's because you're what the Bible calls a scoffer and a railer.
But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
-1Co 5:11-13
Yet, I pray the Lord Jesus Christ would bless you are your family with all your needs throughout the coming week, and that He would show you mercy, as He has shown our family mercy.
Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing.
-1Pe 3:9
You can read and study all you want, but until you have been born again, you will never understand.
Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
-2Ti 3:7
If you were paying close attention, you will notice there was a point where he claimed that I was teaching that we had to "do something" to earn our salvation, which I do not teach. He goes on to say that the other website he was copying/pasting from had far better materials than what I had, and I very subtly added in a link to that site, which you may have noticed. That link is to that sight's teaching on repentance, in which they teach that repentance means grief and godly sorrow of wrongdoing, and Daniel is blind to this, and I could see a bit of evidence of his flattering lips and double heart from the first letter he sent me, but he refuses to see or acknowledge that I could have seen through him that quickly because he is ignorant of God's doctrine.
416
What's New @ CLE / (WEEKLY TEACHING) The Christian Work Ethic (2019) p3
« on: July 15, 2019, 03:05:12 PM »417
Bible Discussion / What is a Cult?
« on: July 13, 2019, 12:21:53 PM »
I may need to make an entire article about this one day because after doing a bit of investigation, I'm going to try to remove the word 'cult' from my vocabulary because, if you do some research, you'll find out that it actually means nothing.
After being accused of being a cultist so many times, I finally asked myself: What is a cultist? As I thought about it, I realized that there was almost no way to answer that. Try it: Ask yourself how to define what a cultist is before you go looking for any definitions, and see if you can come up with a comprehensive definition.
When I looked it up in Webster's 1828, it wasn't there. The reason for that is because the word didn't start appearing until the 17th century, and it wasn't in much use back in the 1800s. Here's a definition from dictionary.com:
1. a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies
2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers
That was extremely fascinating to read because I realized that, according to those definitions, everyone in the world is a cultist. Ever heard of "cult movies?" It's people who have great veneration of a thing. Even atheists are cultists, as they admire evolution and worship the creature.
In Webster's 1828 dictionary, this falls along the lines of what the Bible calls a "sect:"
a body or number of persons united in tenets, chiefly in philosophy or religion, but constituting a distinct party by holding sentiments different from those of other men
Everyone belongs to a "sect." The question is: What sect are you referring to?
That now leads me to a desire to ask the next person who calls me a cultist: "Would you define what you mean by 'cult'?" It's interesting that, very often, the name "Jim Jones" comes up. If that's the case, then I would respond: "Are you accusing me of being a suicidal murderer?" Of course, in their hearts, that's what they believe; they're not really accusing me of any religious belief, they're really just hypocritical railing liars, who accuse me of being a "kool-aid drinker."
See the deception? As soon as I will address them with the Scripture against what they say and believe, they will accuse me of being a suicidal murderer, but they won't say it in that way because it makes them look like an irrational, crazy person. They try to avoid looking like that in their outward appearance, but in their hearts, they are wicked and corrupt.
This is why Romans 1 describes such wickedness in the hearts of those who are reprobates:
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
-Romans 1:28-32
After being accused of being a cultist so many times, I finally asked myself: What is a cultist? As I thought about it, I realized that there was almost no way to answer that. Try it: Ask yourself how to define what a cultist is before you go looking for any definitions, and see if you can come up with a comprehensive definition.
When I looked it up in Webster's 1828, it wasn't there. The reason for that is because the word didn't start appearing until the 17th century, and it wasn't in much use back in the 1800s. Here's a definition from dictionary.com:
1. a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies
2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers
That was extremely fascinating to read because I realized that, according to those definitions, everyone in the world is a cultist. Ever heard of "cult movies?" It's people who have great veneration of a thing. Even atheists are cultists, as they admire evolution and worship the creature.
In Webster's 1828 dictionary, this falls along the lines of what the Bible calls a "sect:"
a body or number of persons united in tenets, chiefly in philosophy or religion, but constituting a distinct party by holding sentiments different from those of other men
Everyone belongs to a "sect." The question is: What sect are you referring to?
That now leads me to a desire to ask the next person who calls me a cultist: "Would you define what you mean by 'cult'?" It's interesting that, very often, the name "Jim Jones" comes up. If that's the case, then I would respond: "Are you accusing me of being a suicidal murderer?" Of course, in their hearts, that's what they believe; they're not really accusing me of any religious belief, they're really just hypocritical railing liars, who accuse me of being a "kool-aid drinker."
See the deception? As soon as I will address them with the Scripture against what they say and believe, they will accuse me of being a suicidal murderer, but they won't say it in that way because it makes them look like an irrational, crazy person. They try to avoid looking like that in their outward appearance, but in their hearts, they are wicked and corrupt.
This is why Romans 1 describes such wickedness in the hearts of those who are reprobates:
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
-Romans 1:28-32
418
Wild Emails @ CLE / Joop (Former Member of our Forum) Trying To Start Up Drama Again
« on: July 12, 2019, 05:10:03 PM »JOOP FROM NETHERLANDS:
Chris, I am writing this because I very much want to share some things with you.
Please take the time needed to read this all.
We'll see. It depends on what you say.
About a year ago I joined CLE. I wrote something about myself and the responses were nice and cordial. At the first of July I decided to leave as you know. I was troubled by a lot of things. I will try to explain myself and make things more clear.
First, I made use of the discussion-forums because I like to discuss and sharing thoughts and also learning from other comments. First question I am asking: what is a (healthy) discussion? According to Webster's Dictionary 1828 - Online Edition: a discussion is (capitals added):
Debate; DISQUISITION; the agitation of a point or subject with a view to elicit truth; the TREATING OF A SUBJECT BY ARGUMENT, to clear it of difficulties, and SEPARATE TRUTH FROM FALSEHOOD
Exactly. You, see Chris that was just that what I was doing. Making comments, trying to make some things clear. Trying to separate truth from falsehood. However: it turned out that what should be a discussion forum, it is, in fact, a minefield!
And that's where I'm going to stop reading your letter until you address your lies and false accusations, of which I have proof.
Neither can they prove the things whereof they now accuse me.
-Acts 24:13
You are the one who will not listen, and I can prove that from the forum posts you made in relation to Tim. Whereas, you cannot prove your false accusations against me, and against everyone else on our forum for that matter, I can prove what I'm saying against you in three points, so if you refuse to hear this, then we have nothing more to discuss, so you should be on your way and I pray blessings upon your and your family for all your needs throughout the coming week. However, if you choose to hear the truth, then pay close attention because this is how you make an argument:
Tim's post: http://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=732.msg6050#msg6050
In this post, Tim went into the books of 1 John, Romans, and 1 Timothy to show you your error. You then posted this:
http://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=732.msg6054#msg6054
Your only response to those Scriptures was the following:
What is being taught here is VERY new to me. That said, I readily admit, this is not an argument.
First, you admitted that you had never heard this doctrine. That's why you said it's "VERY new to me." Therefore, right after you heard this new doctrine, before even considering the matter and discussing it with us, you left. That alone is enough to demonstrate your hypocrisy of calling this a "minefield" when you are so cowardly that you run away the moment you don't have an answer. That shows us that you did not really come here to learn anything (as you claimed you did); you stayed as long as your personal opinions were satisfied, and the first time questions arose, you left immediately.
Second, I should not be surprised at this point when people write me the most absurd things, but when I read things like this, I still marvel: You stated in your post the admission that, "this is not an argument," meaning that you knew you were not presenting a proper argument to the doctrine being taught, but then you have the audacity to turn around and write me to complain about not being able to make arguments on our forum, and that you had made a clear argument? Normally, I would ask if you were joking, but sadly, I know you're not. You made NOTHING clear; it might be something you believed in your own mind, but if you look at your posts objectively, they were very confusing and irrational, and I guarantee everyone else thought the same thing. We pointed out your assumptions and your ignorance of Scripture, but you ignored us. The contradiction and hypocrisy is almost unrivaled by about anything I've ever received in email because you IGNORED Tim's arguments, and Tim even pointed that out to you, but you ignored him on that too:
http://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=732.msg6056#msg6056
You lied to him with your flattering lips (and everyone else on the way out), you used majority opinion (unbiblical logical fallacy - as in, "Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil" in Exd 23:2) as a response to the Scripture he gave you, and then you ran away, which show that, truly in your heart, you have little to no respect for the Scripture. Joop, you can make any excuse for yourself to make yourself feel better, but the evidence is clear, and God will judge matter.
And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.
-Luke 16:15
They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak.
-Psa 12:2
Third, the only reason you wrote me this letter today was to help make YOU feel better about yourself. After reading your testimony, I've not yet been convinced you're born again in Christ, and it's NOT because you don't agree with us about God in Three Persons; that has nothing to do with it. It's the fact that, when I looked closely enough at your conversation from the beginning, I noticed that there was NO testimony of Jesus Christ, sin, guilt, repentance, remission; nothing. Here are your posts:
http://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=232.msg1427#msg1427
http://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=232.msg1428#msg1428
http://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=232.msg1433#msg1433
http://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=232.msg1486#msg1486
I'm not saying for sure that you're not of Christ, I just haven't seen the evidence in your conversation yet. Read your own testimony carefully. You act as if you have been converted and saved from day one, all throughout the Catholic Church and the Pentecostals. Salvation is not "selecting the 'right' ministry." I'm not even certain enough to know if you know enough about Scripture to understand that is not where saving grace comes from; it's not like we get to say, "I'm saved because I came out of the Pentecostals and RCC." That is not what saves men. The Gospel of Christ should reflect in your testimony, but it was nowhere to be found, and there's a reason for that Joop:
But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
-Mat 15:18
If you had ever actually come to repentance and been converted, that would have been front and center in your testimony. In our church, most of us know that because we have come to repentance and been converted, so we know what it means to us, and therefore, we know the difference when hearing/reading the words of someone else has never gone through it. If you expected everyone to believe that you had the Holy Spirit of God living inside of you while you sat through decades of the RCC and decades more in the Pentecostals, you're only fooling yourself.
I always had suspicions about you because of your posts; I just never said anything about it because I was trying to exercise patience, hoping that you might learn some things over time (which is why you said you joined our forum in the first place), but after you left, I let everyone know about my suspicions with plenty of evidence:
http://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=733.msg6061#msg6061
Most of your conversation is not "What does the Bible say on this matter," nor do most of your posts demonstrate that interactive "debate" you were so zealously writing me about in this letter. Rather, your posts are "Here's my opinion," "Here's my thoughts" "Here's what I feel" -- not about the truth of a matter. Your opinions and feelings sit on the throne of your heart, and that is evidenced by your words.
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
-Jer 17:9
He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered.
-Pro 28:26
I normally would not have to be this firm with someone, but after you've been with us this long, you lied and ran, and then returned to me to continue lying and falsely accusing, so it's time for some of that "open rebuke" you told us on the forum that you desired.
Correction is grievous unto him that forsaketh the way: and he that hateth reproof shall die.
-Pro 15:10
Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.
-1Ti 5:20
Now, if you give me a reasonable response to all that, and are willing to confess the truth, I can continue reading your letter, but proof speaks louder than your lying tongue. If you don't want to hear the truth and confess your wrongdoing, then just say so, that way, we don't waste each other's time. I've got work to do and I'm going to get back to it. Have a great day.
"And that's where I'm going to stop reading your letter until you address your lies and false accusations, of which I have proof."
...meaning that you knew you were not presenting a proper argument to the doctrine being taught
You are right. I didn't present a proper argument.
That is one reason I wrote this all. But if you refuse to read it, what else can I do?
This will be the last mail to you.
You also have a great day.
Okay, so you won't state clearly that you refuse to hear the matter, and you won't confess your sin (which is expected since you've never testified coming to repentance of sin in the first place), but I can tell that's the case, so I don't need you to confirm it. I just wish you would have been honest and straight-forward. I never said I refused to read your letter, so you're falsely accusing me again. You just like to lie to justify yourself. I told you that there was a condition of confession of your wrongdoing, and you rejected that. I'm not going to let you waste my time while you lie Joop; find somewhere else where they put up with that and leave us in peace.
Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
-Pro 26:5
As you can see, he confessed that he didn't make a proper argument, which means he left in a huff of emotion, rather than addressing the facts. Therefore, his letter should have started with an apology of treating us poorly, and reacting unbiblically to the situation, but that's not how he started his letter. He started out trying to justify himself, and accusing us of the deceit that one would normally see in a minefield. If anyone requests it, I'll post the rest of his letter below; I understand if one of you wants to read it and look closer at his argument, but I haven't bothered to read it because until he comes to repentance, nothing he said in that letter will matter.
By the way, it should be noted that Joop said in his exit post:
"I have decided to leave CLE" (He meant the forum in that context)
Yet, he logged back in today. So much for keeping his word. I'm questioning whether or not to ban him because, for those of you who have been here a long time, you know what typically happens next, and it always involves contentious drama we don't want here.
419
Bible Discussion / Anderson's Hypocrisy Once Again
« on: July 11, 2019, 10:17:36 AM »
This popped up in one of my searches today.
https://youtu.be/5tHqqoum0_g
It's interesting that, in other teachings we have seen, Anderson screams "BELIEVE BELIEVE BELIEVE!" because he emphasizes that all a man needs to do is believe on Christ to be saved. I covered those in my expose on Anderson. And yet, he believe Billy Graham went to hell. Hmm.
The video is short, it's only two minutes, but in the middle of it, he points out things that I've pointed out in my teaching on Billy Graham, namely, that Graham was trying to please all religions. But he believed on Jesus. Therefore, Anderson teaches works doctrine because now, according to his own doctrine, he believes that belief is not enough.
https://youtu.be/5tHqqoum0_g
It's interesting that, in other teachings we have seen, Anderson screams "BELIEVE BELIEVE BELIEVE!" because he emphasizes that all a man needs to do is believe on Christ to be saved. I covered those in my expose on Anderson. And yet, he believe Billy Graham went to hell. Hmm.
The video is short, it's only two minutes, but in the middle of it, he points out things that I've pointed out in my teaching on Billy Graham, namely, that Graham was trying to please all religions. But he believed on Jesus. Therefore, Anderson teaches works doctrine because now, according to his own doctrine, he believes that belief is not enough.
420
What's New @ CLE / (ARTICLE) The Christian Work Ethic (Rewritten 2019)
« on: July 09, 2019, 03:01:44 PM »
The Christian Work Ethic
This article has been completely rewritten, and it's FAR superior to the old one I used to have on the site. I think the last teaching was really pathetic compared to this. I am thankful that God has been merciful to me and shown me a much deeper understanding than I had of this matter years ago.
This article has been completely rewritten, and it's FAR superior to the old one I used to have on the site. I think the last teaching was really pathetic compared to this. I am thankful that God has been merciful to me and shown me a much deeper understanding than I had of this matter years ago.