John I know nothing is a simple yes or no with you, but I'll try to humor you and say no.
Basically they were preaching the same thing John the Baptist was.
ECT glorydaz says that Romans is Written to Unbelievers
- Thread starter Jerry Shugart
- Start date
John I know nothing is a simple yes or no with you, but I'll try to humor you and say no.
Basically they were preaching the same thing John the Baptist was.
In Romans 4 Paul makes it clear re: the promise, that there were two kinds of offspring from Abraham:
(Rom 4:16) Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who have the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all.
The Romans were Abraham's offspring "according to the flesh", and therefore, heirs to the promise.
However, both Jesus and Paul make it clear that being a child of Abraham "according to the flesh" was meaningless without faith:
(Gal 3:7) Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham.
(Matt 3:9) And do not think you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.
Dispensationalism falls apart when we see who the Romans were, especially Mid-Acts-Dispensationalism.
(Rom 4:16) Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who have the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all.
The Romans were Abraham's offspring "according to the flesh", and therefore, heirs to the promise.
However, both Jesus and Paul make it clear that being a child of Abraham "according to the flesh" was meaningless without faith:
(Gal 3:7) Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham.
(Matt 3:9) And do not think you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.
Dispensationalism falls apart when we see who the Romans were, especially Mid-Acts-Dispensationalism.
Why would he remind saved people of what salvation is? YOU my friend are reaching, as you typically do. He states what he states, in the ACTIVE voice, IF you know your Greek, which means the YOU and YOUR in these verse are the people who WILL confess Jesus, not those who have. As this is also in the SUBJUNCTIVE mood, it also conveys possibility and potentiality that may or may not occur, depending upon circumstances of those hearing it.
It doesn't say they MUST, it says IF they will. It is conditional, but of course only if ALL those people CAN speak. For mutes, it would be a different matter, hence the SUBJUNCTIVE mood of the Greek.
Well as you wantonly want to pull everything out of context, I can only tell you that v14 & 15 refer back to v5-7, but you have to know grammar and language to actually see that.
I deal with what YOU write Jerry and as I know you will vacillate and move the goal posts, I wait for you to put your foot in it first.
How do you justify Rom 1:7 to be ONLY for believers? It states;
"To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be his holy people"
Do you purport that God ONLY loves and calls BELIEVERS to be his holy people? :nono:
You mean the Romans as to those in Rome who this letter was directed at, or the Romans as in army?
Rom 4:16 is distinguishing between the physical SEED of Abraham and the spiritual seed of faith.
Once again, wimpy Craigie is afraid to answer the questions, and spams his "Once again, Johnny is afraid to answer the question" girlie "man" spam.
Just tell us, you fragile, crying wimp:
-Who these infallible teachers are that taught you, as you claim
-Why you lie habitually, specifically here:
"There was no such thing as Dispensationalism before Darby invented it in the mid 1800's."-you,spammed for the 1000th time
Vs.
"I have never said that dispensationalism was "wrong" because of how old it was. I specifically said that no one taught about Christ coming back twice before Darby did."--habitual liar Wimpy Tet.
“I never said it was wrong for how old it is.”-Tet.
vs.
"My argument is that if there is not one single trace of something for 1,800+ years by anyone, then it was invented.”-Tet.
Explain the above lie, you wimp.
-Why you satanically assert that your saint Judas preached the good news of 1 Cor. 15:1-4 KJV
-I deny that the NC is in place right now. I asked:
Am I lost?
Tet: I can't answer that, because I have no spine, and......
-Who this "everyone" is, that saw this invisible, fake "Jesus" of Preterism, return in 70 AD ?
“And that is what happened. The Lord came in a way that everyone could see Him. However, He never touched planet earth, and when this event was over, He then sat on the throne in Heaven NOT on planet earth.”-Tet.
Surely one of your infallible, as you claim, Preterist leaders has told you who this "everyone" was.
Name, them, wimpy Craigie.
-Why you lied about the above, here:
"Tet is a preterist that believes Christ already returned in 70 AD via the Roman Army."-Tambora, on another TOL thread
"Correct, and thanks for making it clear that it was the Roman army that was His return."-stupid Craigie
"The Roman army destroyed Jerusalem in 70AD. That is what Jesus meant when He said He will return."-Gomer Tet.
-Why did you lie, here, sweetie:
"Tet: "The LORD Jesus Christ returned in the form of a Roman Army." "-STP
"Never said that."-Tet.
Vs.
"Tet is a preterist that believes Christ already returned in 70 AD via the Roman Army."-Tambora, on another TOL thread
"Correct, and thanks for making it clear that it was the Roman army that was His return."-stupid Craigie
.
"The Roman army destroyed Jerusalem in 70AD. That is what Jesus meant when He said He will return."-Gomer Tet.
-Why you assert that everyone is saved
Was David's tent "man made," sweetie? Was the cross "man made," engager in satanic sophistry?
-Why you refuse to identify anyone, who taught what you taught, before you. Name them.
"My argument is that if there is not one single trace of something for 1,800+ years by anyone, then it was invented"-you
Name those that taught, what you now teach, 1800+ years ago.
Let's go, you trembling punk, wimp.
You won't, as you've punted these questions of mine for years, and then you swoop in, posing as a tough "guy, " trying to boost your fragile ego, with "Once again, Johnny is afraid to answer the question," which you spam to almost everyone that is of the dispensational persuasion, then, fly out, and let the wolves "get off."
You obsessed slug, having no purpose on TOL. You've even admitted that.
Last edited:
The wimp continues think he is being so "cool" with his "Er, no" sweetie pie quip.
"because you know you don't have an answer"
Impressive, Craigie.
Answer my questions, sweetie.
John you need to grow UP and stop acting like a child. Use God's Word if you don't know how to be civil.
TWO wrongs don't make a right, which you should have learned a LONG time ago, after you were saved.
No, that is not how it works her, son. Pay attention. You made an assertion:
"Peter and Paul preached the SAME gospel. 2 Peter 3:15 (NIV)"-you
Therefore, I asked you, twice, in defense of this assertion, to defend it, i.e., provide argument-"reasons for a conclusion:"
Did Judas preach this "the SAME gospel?"
It's a yes/no, simple question.
And stuff your "I'll try to humor you and say no," and answer "yes," or "no," in defense of your "argument," not to craftily(Gen. 3) dismiss my challenge to your argument. That is how an honest person, on debating issues, acts.
If it is "no," then you must agree that there is more than one piece of good news/gospel in the book, and this "the SAME gospel" is a farce, or, you are clueless as to the meaning of the word "gospel."
Which is it?
And lay out the content of the gospel Judas preached-specifics, chapter/verse-not generalities.
I can see you're gonna go on my ignore list real quick with that infantile reply.
I answered you, so you can deal with the answer or you can stuff it.
:loser:
I need no instruction from you, son. Listen. I'm one of the teachers, directors, here. You are a dancer, a student, now relegated to the back row, since you prefer emotional blubberings, and won't call out this Tet. charlatan, who lies, engages in satanic sophistry, and satanic accusations. No, you agree with him, so you kiss his...........
Address your own "argument, or sit down, until I call on you again, and stuff your "grow UP and stop acting like a child. Use God's Word if you don't know how to be civil.TWO wrongs don't make a right," cliché, as we've seen it before, and us soldiers have no time for your Girl Scout routine. We are all busy men/women.
Dig? Good.
Craigie, the obsessed, habitual liar of TOL:
“And that is what happened. The Lord came in a way that everyone could see Him. However, He never touched planet earth, and when this event was over, He then sat on the throne in Heaven NOT on planet earth.”-Tet.
Vs.
"Tet is a preterist that believes Christ already returned in 70 AD via the Roman Army."-Tambora, on another TOL thread
"Correct, and thanks for making it clear that it was the Roman army that was His return."-stupid Craigie
"The Roman army destroyed Jerusalem in 70AD. That is what Jesus meant when He said He will return."-Gomer Tet.
Vs.
"Tet: "The LORD Jesus Christ returned in the form of a Roman Army." "-STP
"Never said that."-Tet. on this thread
“And that is what happened. The Lord came in a way that everyone could see Him. However, He never touched planet earth, and when this event was over, He then sat on the throne in Heaven NOT on planet earth.”-Tet.
Vs.
"Tet is a preterist that believes Christ already returned in 70 AD via the Roman Army."-Tambora, on another TOL thread
"Correct, and thanks for making it clear that it was the Roman army that was His return."-stupid Craigie
"The Roman army destroyed Jerusalem in 70AD. That is what Jesus meant when He said He will return."-Gomer Tet.
Vs.
"Tet: "The LORD Jesus Christ returned in the form of a Roman Army." "-STP
"Never said that."-Tet. on this thread
As far as I can tell you're nothing but a big mouth, with a serious case of SELF. Take a pill.
Ignore ON.
That's your best shot, another cliché, emotional outburst:"you're nothing but a big mouth, with a serious case of SELF. Take a pill.?"
Stunning....
No, son, I have clout on this board. You are on the PUDF list:
Publically Unable to Debate and Folds list.
You folded on your "argument," another wannabee challenger to the great, humble, spiritual, saint John W, who is left bloodied, slumped, on the mat.
Stay on the mat.
The great, humble, spiritual, saint John W's page:
This page has had 15,430 visits
I do not want to embarrass you.
heir
TOL Subscriber
If the Romans were not yet stablished by "my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery which was kept secret since the world began, but now was made manifest,..." what is it they were under (Romans 3:19 KJV)? It certainly was not the "but now" where "the righteousness of God without the law is manifested,..." (Romans 3:21-22 KJV). That's the very preaching of the gospel that would stablish them as the righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel of Christ (Romans 1:16-17 KJV) which according to the letter to the Romans, is the very reason Paul longed to see them to impart it (the "some spiritual gift" Romans 1:11 KJV), to "preach" (Romans 1:15 KJV) it to them! And since God foreknew them (Romans 11:1-5 KJV), I am sure that they are in the Body of Christ now! That's what matters concerning the Romans!
heir
TOL Subscriber
They were up the crick without a paddle unless they continued in the goodness of God!
Romans 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
Romans 11:2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,
Romans 11:3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
Romans 11:4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
Romans 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
Romans 11:7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded
Romans 11:8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear
unto this day. Romans 11:9 And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them:
Romans 11:10 Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.
Romans 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
Romans 11:12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?
Romans 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
Romans 11:14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.
Romans 11:15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?
Romans 11:16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.
Romans 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
Romans 11:18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
Romans 11:19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
Romans 11:20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
Romans 11:21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
Romans 11:22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
That's what I'm asking you.
I'm not the one who puts first century believers into two groups of people ("kingdom" or "Body") like you do.
Which of your groups were they in before "Paul's, my gospel"?
The only choices you allow yourself is your "kingdom" group, or you could claim they were unbelievers.
Ok, but why can't you see the problem this causes your "two gospel" theory?
You have believers in your "kingdom" program leaving, and going into your "Body" program.
Your buddy STP has made numerous posts in the past about how "kingdom" believers sat side by side with "Body" believers in the same church, and how "kingdom" churches and "Body" churches stood together in the same cities.
Now, you're suggesting the Roman believers left the "kingdom" program, and became members of the "Body" program.
If so, why wouldn't every "kingdom" believer of the first century leave and join the much better "Body" program?
Maybe they had previously heard "Paul's, our gospel"?
(2 Thess 2:14 KJV) Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
No she isn't. At the time the letter was written, the Romans were in neither.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Why would Paul say that those in Rome he is addressing are "called to be saints"? He called them saints many times. The words "to be" are not in the Greek manuscripts. Here is the correct translation:
"to all that are in Rome, beloved of God, called saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and [our] Lord Jesus Christ. First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is proclaimed in the whole world" (Ro.1:7-8; DBY).
First of all, the word "all" in verse seven does not mean all who are in Rome but instead all that are in Rome and who are beloved of God and are called saints.
Besides that, the next verse makes it plain that the "all" spoken of in verse seven is referring to those whose faith "is proclaimed in the whole world." If you think that is describing unbelievers then you are even more dense than I first thought.
All you prove is that your understanding of what is said in the Bible is very, very limited. I have discussed things with you previously and can see that your spiritual I.Q. is practically non-existent.
So I will waste no more of my time talking to someone who cannot understand the most simple things revealed in the Bible.