The baptism in Fire

[Curtis]

How do you know what the 5 virgins thought? Surely you weren’t there.

Simply, Jesus tells us in the Bible.

Jesus said.....

Mat 25:11 Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us.
Mat 25:12 But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not.

 

[Butch5]

Simply, Jesus tells us in the Bible.

Jesus said.....

Mat 25:11 Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us.
Mat 25:12 But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not.

Where does Jesus say they weren't real believer?

But, that wasn't my question. My question was how do you know what the 5 virgins thought?

 

[Butch5]

Not if you are not a child of God.

Ok, so which group are the real Christians? Is it the Baptists? The Methodists? The Calvinists? Or any one of the other groups. Who are the real Christians?

 

[Butch5]

If you had read all of my post, doubtful, you would have seen that I also have proof through the Holy Spirit.

That proof involves faith, and a willingness to to work with God.

When the pot boils down, it's blind faith. There is nothing you can hold in your hand and say, "look Atheists, here it is, the facts you require and must see, here it is.

If you evidence the proper faith in God, and prove that faith by turning at His reproof, that is when God will settle it all in your heart.

The fears, the doubts, the agony of it all is taken away. You're left with peace no matter what's going on with others.

You say you have the Holy Spirit. Do the atheists believe you? I'm not doubting you, but I'll bet they do. So how do witness to them when you say faith is blind?

Paul's faith wasn't blind. As I pointed out, he had evidence.

Let me ask you this. If God expected people to believe based on blind faith why did He give the apostles the ability to perform miracles? The miracles were proof, evidence, that the message the apostles were preaching was indeed from God because no man could do those things. God alone can raise the dead. God did t expect people to just blindly believe what the apostles said. He made it clear, through the miracles, that they were speaking for Him.

Be careful my friend. Many people have been misledwith blind faith.

 

[Curtis]

Where does Jesus say they weren't real believer?

But, that wasn't my question. My question was how do you know what the 5 virgins thought?

Jesus knows the names of all his sheep, and he calls them all by name. ( John 10: 3 )What if Jesus says, "I don't know you" What do you think that means?

 

[Butch5]

Jesus knows the names of all his sheep, and he calls them all by name. ( John 10: 3 )What if Jesus says, "I don't know you" What do you think that means?

Ok, you believe Jesus is God, right? God knows all things, right? Is it possible then that Jesus didn't know them?

 

[Curtis]

Ok, so which group are the real Christians? Is it the Baptists? The Methodists? The Calvinists? Or any one of the other groups. Who are the real Christians?

The "Body of Christ" is the only name God uses for his Church, not any man-made organizations.

 

[Curtis]

Ok, you believe Jesus is God, right? God knows all things, right? Is it possible then that Jesus didn't know them?

Jesus knew all who belonged to him.

 

[Curtis]

@BUTCH All the questions you ask is something you should have learned many years ago. I know you have been on this forum for a long time, why don't you know these things?

 

[Charlie24]

You say you have the Holy Spirit. Do the atheists believe you? I'm not doubting you, but I'll bet they do. So how do witness to them when you say faith is blind?

Paul's faith wasn't blind. As I pointed out, he had evidence.

Let me ask you this. If God expected people to believe based on blind faith why did He give the apostles the ability to perform miracles? The miracles were proof, evidence, that the message the apostles were preaching was indeed from God because no man could do those things. God alone can raise the dead. God did t expect people to just blindly believe what the apostles said. He made it clear, through the miracles, that they were speaking for Him.

Be careful my friend. Many people have been misledwith blind faith.

All the proof lies in the heart of man, placed there by the Spirit of God through faith.

God chose faith as the channel that leads to everlasting life, and His peace of heart.

Whether you see it as blind faith or not, it's all you have in this world that gives the peace of God.

Rom. 5:1-2

"Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God."

I pray you find that peace, Butch.

 

[Butch5]

The "Body of Christ" is the only name God uses for his Church, not any man-made organizations.

I know that. But you didn't answer the question. Which group has the correct understanding of Scripture?

 

[Butch5]

All the proof lies in the heart of man, placed there by the Spirit of God through faith.

God chose faith as the channel that leads to everlasting life, and His peace of heart.

Whether you see it as blind faith or not, it's all you have in this world that gives the peace of God.

Rom. 5:1-2

"Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God."

I pray you find that peace, Butch.

It's not, much friend. As I've pointed out. Paul had evidence. God gave the apostles evidence.

Muslims have faith too. Are they the people of God?

 

[Charlie24]

It's not, much friend. As I've pointed out. Paul had evidence. God gave the apostles evidence.

Muslims have faith too. Are they the people of God?

I don't doubt you're saved, washed in the Blood. But one can be saved and not have peace.

We have to take it to God, reassure our faith in Christ, and ask for His peace.

You're troubled over so many things, it doesn't have to be this way.

 

[Butch5]

I don't doubt you're saved, washed in the Blood. But one can be saved and not have peace.

We have to take it to God, reassure our faith in Christ, and ask for His peace.

You're troubled over so many things, it doesn't have to be this way.

Actually, what I'm troubled over is the state of modern Christianity and Christians refusal to look at their faith to see if what they've been taught is correct.

Instead of being like the Bereans and going to the Scriputres to see if these things are true,

Acts 17:10–12 (NKJV): 10 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed, and also not a few of the Greeks, prominent women as well as men.

they immediately launch into a defense of whatever position they hold. It should be obvious from the multitude of beliefs today that many have it wrong. If so many have it wrong, maybe we too, have it wrong. The problem is that everyone thinks what they beleive is correct even though there is a multitude of passages of Scriputre that say otherwise. But, we just ignore those passages or claim they say something than what they say. I mean look at this thread. Pretty much everyone has simply ignored the fact that Penal Atonement doesn't show up in church history until the 1500s with the Reformers. That fact isn't convenient to popular doctrine so let's just ignore it rather than investigate and see if maybe this doctrine that we've been taught is wrong.

 

[Charlie24]

Actually, what I'm troubled over is the state of modern Christianity and Christians refusal to look at their faith to see if what they've been taught is correct.

Instead of being like the Bereans and going to the Scriputres to see if these things are true,

Acts 17:10–12 (NKJV): 10 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed, and also not a few of the Greeks, prominent women as well as men.

they immediately launch into a defense of whatever position they hold. It should be obvious from the multitude of beliefs today that many have it wrong. If so many have it wrong, maybe we too, have it wrong. The problem is that everyone thinks what they beleive is correct even though there is a multitude of passages of Scriputre that say otherwise. But, we just ignore those passages or claim they say something than what they say. I mean look at this thread. Pretty much everyone has simply ignored the fact that Penal Atonement doesn't show up in church history until the 1500s with the Reformers. That fact isn't convenient to popular doctrine so let's just ignore it rather than investigate and see if maybe this doctrine that we've been taught is wrong.

The hard facts are that the majority disagrees with you.

Read this to find out why, if you haven't already.

What are the various theories on the atonement? | GotQuestions.org

What are the various theories on the atonement? Was the atonement a ransom to Satan? Was the atonement a penal substitution?

www.gotquestions.org

 

[Butch5]

The hard facts are that the majority disagrees with you.

Read this to find out why, if you haven't already.

What are the various theories on the atonement? | GotQuestions.org

What are the various theories on the atonement? Was the atonement a ransom to Satan? Was the atonement a penal substitution?

www.gotquestions.org

Of course the majority disagrees with me. The majority has bought into the modern errors. Modern Christianity has become an echo chamber. Everyone just parrots what they hear.

Please don't insult my intelligence by asking me to read something from Got Questions. That may be the most error filled Christian site on the internet. Besides, there's no reason to read their opinion when I can read it from the source, the early Christians. Primary sources my friend. That's how you get to the truth.

Back to the point. Yet again you've ignored the fact that Penal Atonement doesn't appear until the 1500s. Why do you and others continue to ignore this fact? The doctrine is only 500 years old. Christianity is 2000 years old. That means there was 1500 years of Christianity that didn't know anything about the doctrine of Penal Atonement. That's a fact. No matter what you say, that's a fact. If the early Christians didn't know it, it didn't come from the apostles. If it didn't come from the apostles it's not a Biblical doctrine.

 

[Charlie24]

Of course the majority disagrees with me. The majority has bought into the modern errors. Modern Christianity has become an echo chamber. Everyone just parrots what they hear.

Please don't insult my intelligence by asking me to read something from Got Questions. That may be the most error filled Christian site on the internet. Besides, there's no reason to read their opinion when I can read it from the source, the early Christians. Primary sources my friend. That's how you get to the truth.

Back to the point. Yet again you've ignored the fact that Penal Atonement doesn't appear until the 1500s. Why do you and others continue to ignore this fact? The doctrine is only 500 years old. Christianity is 2000 years old. That means there was 1500 years of Christianity that didn't know anything about the doctrine of Penal Atonement. That's a fact. No matter what you say, that's a fact. If the early Christians didn't know it, it didn't come from the apostles. If it didn't come from the apostles it's not a Biblical doctrine.

The Reformers believed the CC was no longer teaching the truth. The atonement was one of those areas.

It's not that the penal substitution belief came into existence after the Reformers nailed it down, but it had been lost through the CC.

The theme of Scripture screams out penal substitution. Sorry we disagree on this, but it is what it is.

 

[complete]

Hi Chris,

I didn't say it wasn't a sacrificial offer in our place. My argument is that it is not a payment to God.

Scripture speaks if Christ being a ransom for us. People don't pay a ransom to themselves. If Christ is a ransom and the payment is to God, then God is paying Himself. That doesn't make any sense.

The first theory of the Atonement was known as the Ransom theory. When man sinned He chose to listen to Satan rather than God. God said don't eat of the tree. Satan said go ahead, eat of the tree. Man listened to Satan and ate. Because he ate he fell under Satan's rule. Or, he was in the kingdom of darkness. Man was sentenced to death with no hope. However, God would, buy back or ransom what was His. Christ was that ransom. Christ would die in our place. Not at the Father's behest, but rather, at Satan's behest. Christ died in our place so that we could be freed from the power of Satan and reconciled back to God.

There's plenty of Scriptures to support this. However, at the moment I'm working and typing this on my phone. Later when I'm at the computer I can give you the Scriptures.

Thank you, @Butch5.

I would be interested to have the Scriptures.

In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[Butch5]

Thank you, @Butch5.

I would be interested to have the Scriptures.

In Christ Jesus
Chris

Sure Chris! I've been busy the last few days, but I'll get it to you.

 

[Butch5]

@BUTCH All the questions you ask is something you should have learned many years ago. I know you have been on this forum for a long time, why don't you know these things?

I do know them Curtis. The reason I ask is for someone to prove it from Scripture. My hope is that when people realize they can't prove these things from Scripture they'll start to think on them and begin to investigate. My hope is that they'll be like the Bereans and see if these things are true.