BEWARE OF FALSE GOSPELS

Dorothy Mae · Dec 1, 2019

Guojing said:
yes king David envied that about all of us, having lived in a time after Jesus, as Romans stated

Doubt he was envious but yes we have the chance to know more.

Dorothy Mae · Dec 1, 2019

Guojing said:
us gentiles were never promised a king but you are free to believe otherwise

Depends upon if one understands the promise to all nations means Gentiles.

Guojing · Dec 1, 2019

Dorothy Mae said:
Doubt he was envious but yes we have the chance to know more.

Romans 4:6-9

6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.

8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

Dorothy Mae · Dec 1, 2019

Guojing said:
Romans 4:6-9

6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.

8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

Why do you think saying that certain ones are blessed means you are jealous. Jesus said many times "blessed are those" and it does not follow that he was envious of such.

Skidder · Dec 1, 2019

Saint Steven said:
I would be more concerned about the gift inside than the wrapper. Not to say that you don't have a point, but I have encountered many different denominations that don't do things as I would prefer, but who reach a specific people group with the real gospel.

I don't dismiss someone simply because they come from a denomination I don't care for. In fact, I have never met a Seventh Day Adventist that I thought wasn't actually saved. Even though I have all sorts of issues with the denomination. And WORKS is one of them.

I get your point. I know some Catholics that really love the Lord, but the strongholds of their religion keep many of the them from experiencing and proclaiming the freedom that set them free.

Having said that, there are some religions that call themselves Christians but go as far as removing the deity of Christ. These are the ones I believe fall into the category of "antichrists".

Phil W · Dec 1, 2019

Guojing said:
That is only true "on hindsight". Your theology in bold is a popular one and I understand the appeal of it, but it requires too much reading into the scripture.

What is the "appeal" of it?
Frankly, it is fact.

A lot of things only make sense on hindsight but it does not mean those OT saints had that understanding before it happened.

Of course not, but they did expect a Savior to reign in David's throne.
They did expect freedom from oppression.

There is nothing in the scripture that stated that when the Jews were offering the animal sacrifice in the OT time, for example, they were "looking forward to the day where the Son of God would be the true sacrifice for sins".
They simply obeyed God and offered the animal sacrifice in faith, not understanding exactly how their sins would be covered with that sacrifice, and God accepted that by his grace.

They may not have understood it in that context, but they did understand that a Savior was expected who would free them from subjugation.
Unfortunately, the oppressor they sought freedom from was Rome, and not the worst oppressor of all...sin.

hedrick · Dec 1, 2019

AlexDTX said:
When I look over the various replies, it seems to me that many examples of a "false gospel" have the basic salvation message but focus on different details of the benefits of salvation and in truth are not different gospels at all. Too many split hairs on minor issues they major on instead of keeping their eyes on the major issue that most share.

Yup. It’s particularly ironic, because Paul’s point is that his Gospel says all that matters is that we have faith in Christ, and adding any more requirements results in a false a Gospel.

Guojing · Dec 1, 2019

Phil W said:
What is the "appeal" of it?
Frankly, it is fact.

Of course not, but they did expect a Savior to reign in David's throne.
They did expect freedom from oppression.

They may not have understood it in that context, but they did understand that a Savior was expected who would free them from subjugation.
Unfortunately, the oppressor they sought freedom from was Rome, and not the worst oppressor of all...sin.

They were expecting a King to rule over them. If that is your point, then we are in agreement.

They were not expecting their King to be crucified on the cross, and raise from the dead as a means of justifying them in the eyes of God. That revelation was only revealed by Paul much later.

Guojing · Dec 1, 2019

Dorothy Mae said:
Why do you think saying that certain ones are blessed means you are jealous. Jesus said many times "blessed are those" and it does not follow that he was envious of such.

Read your OT.

David had his first son put to death for his adultery, his sin was imputed to him

David was worried that God will take the Holy Spirit away from him. Psalms 51:11 Because of Christ now, the Holy Spirit will never leave us ever.

Thus in that Romans passage, he cannot be talking about himself but he foresaw all of us who are living during the Gospel of Grace, and he calls us blessed.

Phil W · Dec 1, 2019

Guojing said:
They were expecting a King to rule over them. If that is your point, then we are in agreement.

OK.

They were not expecting their King to be crucified on the cross, and raise from the dead as a means of justifying them in the eyes of God. That revelation was only revealed by Paul much later.

You are right there.
Sometimes prophesy isn't even known as a prophesy till it happens.

Dorothy Mae · Dec 1, 2019

hedrick said:
Yup. It’s particularly ironic, because Paul’s point is that his Gospel says all that matters is that we have faith in Christ, and adding any more requirements results in a false a Gospel.

Paul lived that way too. He did nothing whatsoever for Christ. Just lived out comfortable days secure that he was going to Heaven. When he wrote that he’d fought the good fight he meant never ever gave in to the temptation to obey the Holy Spirit in real action but restricted himself to merely the mental faith of believing. He fought the good fight against what Jesus described as the deeds of the sheep.

Dorothy Mae · Dec 1, 2019

Guojing said:
Read your OT.

I did and better then judging by your next sentence.

David had his first son put to death for his adultery, his sin was imputed to him

David didn’t “have his son put to death” but begged God for mercy.

David was worried that God will take the Holy Spirit away from him. Psalms 51:11 Because of Christ now, the Holy Spirit will never leave us ever.

Ah no, we can quench the Holy Spirit which means the fire of the HS within us is out. That is, gone. God certainly takes his HS away from some. There no promise He never will no matter how one lives.

Thus in that Romans passage, he cannot be talking about himself but he foresaw all of us who are living during the Gospel of Grace, and he calls us blessed.

Well take a look around and see if the “Age of Grace” believers demonstrate a life of walking with God superior to David. Do we write and sing songs superior to the Psalms? Are there believers who talk face to face with God like a man talks to his friend? I’m a scientist and test theories.

Guojing · Dec 1, 2019

Dorothy Mae said:
I did and better then judging by your next sentence.
David didn’t “have his son put to death” but begged God for mercy.
Ah no, we can quench the Holy Spirit which means the fire of the HS within us us out. That is, gone. God certainly takes his HS away from some. There no promise He never will no matter how one lives.

Well take a look around and see if the “Age of Grace” believers demonstrate a life of walking with God superior to David. Do we write and sing songs superior to the Psalms? Are there believers who talk face to face with God like a man talks to his friend? I’m a scientist and test theories.

What I meant was God put David's first son to death because of David's adultery 2 Samuel 12:14. Obviously I was aware that David pleaded with God for that son's life.

As for the rest of your points, I can see you don't really understand the Gospel of Grace that was revealed to Paul.

Okay, we will agree to disagree there.

Dorothy Mae · Dec 1, 2019

Guojing said:
What I meant was God put David's first son to death because of David's adultery 2 Samuel 12:14.

You had really better be careful being cheeky and telling me to read the OT when you haven’t. The baby was not his first son.

Obviously I was aware that David pleaded with God for that son's life.

Wasn’t obvious to me.

As for the rest of your points, I can see you don't really understand the Gospel of Grace that was revealed to Paul.

Actually I likely understand it better than you.
Have you walked like Paul really lived obeying His instructions in real life yet? Until you do, you won’t understand what he knew.

Okay, we will agree to disagree there.

I encourage you to read the whole Bible, not just listen to favorite sermon topics with the usual isolated verses. And yes we disagree.

Phil W · Dec 2, 2019

Dorothy Mae said:
Paul lived that way too. He did nothing whatsoever for Christ. Just lived out comfortable days secure that he was going to Heaven. When he wrote that he’d fought the good fight he meant never ever gave in to the temptation to obey the Holy Spirit in real action but restricted himself to merely the mental faith of believing. He fought the good fight against what Jesus described as the deeds of the sheep.

Yikes!
That should have come with a "sarcasm alert".

Phil W · Dec 2, 2019

Guojing said:
What I meant was God put David's first son to death because of David's adultery 2 Samuel 12:14. Obviously I was aware that David pleaded with God for that son's life.

As for the rest of your points, I can see you don't really understand the Gospel of Grace that was revealed to Paul.

Okay, we will agree to disagree there.

Guojing...
Does the gospel according to grace eliminate the requirement for repentance from sin?
Does it eliminate the requirement for baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of past sins?
Does it eliminate the requirement to maintain your faith unto death?

If it does, it is the false gospel we are to avoid.

Neogaia777 · Dec 2, 2019

Phil W said:
Guojing...
Does the gospel according to grace eliminate the requirement for repentance from sin?

Does anyone, besides Jesus, ever become 100% completely free from all sin in this life ever, or ever like that ever "after a certain point ever" "this side of life ever", etc...?

Does that ever truly ever really happen ever, etc...?

And I suppose now, your going to start trying to make some kinds of sins or sin, less or more important, or less or more detrimental than others, right...?

And why is this...? Is is so you can judge others, or make yourself somehow better or more saved than others who are not in your own eye's with the way you have categorized sin, to let you off the hook, but not them or not some others, etc...?

Do you know every single smallest detail of every single one and each specific individual life...? Have you actually ever fully lived another person's life or been in their shoes "literally" ever...? Or were you born as them and with their own unique being or personality or who they are, were or have you had or ever been born with/as there own very own unique individual personality and/or outlook on life...? Had all their history and experienced every single event in their life just exactly as they had it specifically...?

Cause if you have not, or your answer is "no" to these questions, then you are not God and have no right to judge or pass judgment, ever, etc...

Phil W said:
Does it eliminate the requirement for baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of past sins?

Does water baptism save...?

Phil W said:
Does it eliminate the requirement to maintain your faith unto death?

In your own strength, yes, but in His strength, no...

Phil W said:
If it does, it is the false gospel we are to avoid.

It's just not quite as easy or simple as your trying to make it now, is it...?

God Bless!

Dorothy Mae · Dec 2, 2019

Phil W said:
Yikes!
That should have come with a "sarcasm alert".

You’re probably right, but you got the message. I get really tired of the grace means i don’t have to
do anything including love God bunch.

Neogaia777 · Dec 2, 2019

Dorothy Mae said:
You’re probably right, but you got the message. I get really tired of the grace means i don’t have to
do anything including love God bunch.

Why don't you just try not judging for a change...

That would be enough to satisfy me...

God Bless!

Guojing · Dec 2, 2019

Phil W said:
Guojing...
Does the gospel according to grace eliminate the requirement for repentance from sin?
Does it eliminate the requirement for baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of past sins?
Does it eliminate the requirement to maintain your faith unto death?

If it does, it is the false gospel we are to avoid.

Water baptism was a requirement under the Gospel of the Kingdom, not the Gospel of Grace.

Under GOK, Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38 stressed that it was necessary for salvation.
But under GOG, 1 Corinthians 1:17 dropped that as a requirement.

If you insist on water baptism now for the Gentiles, you are actually preaching a false gospel, and you will be subjected to the double curse that Paul gave in Galatians 1:8-9

BEWARE OF FALSE GOSPELS

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Old Soul

Well-Known Member

Old Soul

Well-Known Member

Similar threads