Why I am not a Arminian (Anymore)

Second scripture is the word of God no matter how much you try to denigrate it and it is revelation
You think you and Mormon's and Jehovah Witnesses have true revelation from God.

Just how ignorant can one person be.

You like the Mormon's and Jehovah Witnesses are deceived. You have only your own interpretation of scripture and then you teach these false ideas, and lead others astray.
 
You think you and Mormon's and Jehovah Witnesses have true revelation from God.

Just how ignorant can one person be.

You like the Mormon's and Jehovah Witnesses are deceived. You have only your own interpretation of scripture and then you teach these false ideas, and lead others astray.
Sorry you are fabricating

My position has nothing to do with Mormonism or Jehovah's witnesses

You are simply flailing about wildly
 
You think you and Mormon's and Jehovah Witnesses have true revelation from God.

Just how ignorant can one person be.

You like the Mormon's and Jehovah Witnesses are deceived. You have only your own interpretation of scripture and then you teach these false ideas, and lead others astray.
He cannot see nor can he admit his faux pas here. His argument is silly, and hasn't been thought through, which is what happens when one is preaching anothers false gospel, namely, Leighton Flowers. They assume whatever they are taught to be true.
 
Question for you @fltom,

Say a man is on a beach, and a piece of paper is found with these words "He that believes on me has eternal life." So, he says "OK, I believe."*

Does that mean he was saved then?

(*I borrowed this illustration from another person)
 
Nope, he nailed you, but you cannot accept that.
sorry but yoiur imagination has gotten the best of you

I am neither Mormon or Jehovah witness and his effort to link me to them is nothing more

than a false attempt at guilt by association tactics and a mad effort to deny scripture is revelation
 
Last edited:
Question for you @fltom,

Say a man is on a beach, and a piece of paper is found with these words "He that believes on me has eternal life." So, he says "OK, I believe."*

Does that mean he was saved then?

(*I borrowed this illustration from another person)
The Roman Roads have more curves in it than that...
 
LOL!!! You've just proven you do NOT get what he said, at all!
What he stated was a mad effort to deny scripture is revelation

what he failed to understand neither gets their theology from scripture but secondary sources

and that does nothing to show that scripture is not revelation
 
What he stated was a mad effort to deny scripture is revelation
Nope, you're misrepresenting his point, and him.
what he failed to understand neither gets their theology from scripture but secondary sources
Nope, they got it from wresting Scripture. Their leaders got their ideas from Scripture and handed it down to them. This is how you got yours from Leighton. He twisted Scripture and handed it down to you.
and that does nothing to show that scripture is not revelation
Your premise is false and is a denial of Spirit illumination. I see you skipped over the Ehtiopian example, which refutes your verse-ology. There are many other passages which refute your errant misusage of the clarity of Scripture which you most likely adopted in your Leightonism studies.
 
Nope, you're misrepresenting his point, and him.

Nope, they got it from wresting Scripture. Their leaders got their ideas from Scripture and handed it down to them. This is how you got yours from Leighton. He twisted Scripture and handed it down to you.

Which they are spoon fed from secondary sources

No i am not misrepresenting hi, rather was misrepresenting me by speaking of those cultic groups
Your premise is false and is a denial of Spirit illumination. I see you skipped over the Ehtiopian example, which refutes your verse-ology. There are many other passages which refute your errant misusage of the clarity of Scripture which you most likely adopted in your Leightonism studies.
You have done nothing to prove my view false and in fact you ignored many verses showing the opposite

BTW the Ehtiopian example was cited here along with other verses you ignored

Acts 17:11 —KJV

“These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”



This shows one can judge spiritual truth by the scriptures which must be understood to do so



Acts 18:28 —KJV



“For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.”



Presupposes spiritual truth explained can be understood



John 1:7 —KJV


“The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.”



Again presupposes spiritual truth explained can be understood




Ephesians 3:4 (KJV)
4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)



Presupposes reading sufficient to know spiritual truth



When God wanted Cornelius to receive the gospel he sent a preacher



Acts 11:13-14 (KJV)
13 And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and

call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;
14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.



The spirit sent Philip to preach the gospel to the Ethiopian Eunuch



Acts 8:27-35 (KJV)

27 And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,
28 Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.
29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.
30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:
33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.
34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

seems your claims lack veracity
 
@fltom,

Um, Acts 17:11 is post regeneration and conversion, they have the Spirit. It doesn't prove your false teachings. Nor does Ephesians 3:4, it is to the converted, they have the Spirit.

You've therefore, not surprisingly, misused the texts so stop pretending YOU can't be addressed or refuted. Admit you misused them and that they do not prove your point.

God sending Cornelius A PREACHER shows a mere written text doesn't have magic power. Are you really this blind that you cannot see these prove you incorrect??????

Note the Ehtiopian example, that Scripture was NOT CLEAR until the Spirit showed and illuminated the truth to him via Phillip.

All these texts do is prove that you are in error. It is remarkable that this is right there and that you cannot see it nor can you accept that you are incorrect!

Check it out @ReverendRV @Manfred @Reformedguy @SovereignGrace @Johnnybgood @civic and others...
 
Last edited:
@fltom,

Um, Acts 17:11 is post regeneration and conversion, they have the Spirit. It doesn't prove your false teachings. Nor does Ephesians 3:4, it is to the converted, they have the Spirit.

You've therefore, not surprisingly, misused the texts so stop pretending YOU can't be addressed or refuted. Admit you misused them and that they do not prove your point.

God sending Cornelius A PREACHER shows a mere written text doesn't have magic power. Are you really this blind that you cannot see these prove you incorrect??????

Note the Ehtiopian example, that Scripture was NOT CLEAR until the Spirit showed and illuminated the truth to him via Phillip.

All these texts do is prove that you are in error. It is remarkable that this is right there and that you cannot see it nor can you accept that you are incorrect!

Check it out @ReverendRV @Manfred @Reformedguy @SovereignGrace @Johnnybgood @civic and others...
Lets see I posted

Acts 17:11 —KJV

“These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”



This shows one can judge spiritual truth by the scriptures which must be understood to do so

Now where have you shown scripture is insuficient revelation

and as for the actual states of the bereans

Acts 17:10-12 (KJV)
10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

it can be sen many believed after checking the scriptures to see if what Paul stated was true

Hello

your view is contradicted here





Acts 18:28 —KJV



“For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.”



Presupposes spiritual truth explained can be understood

here you absurdly state

God sending Cornelius A PREACHER shows a mere written text doesn't have magic power. Are you really this blind that you cannot see these prove you incorrect??????

first you ignore the fact it speaks of preaching not the written text

and you want to talk about being blind

The fact is these jews were convinced of truth by what Paul stated

Hello

second you demonstrate a profound disrespect for the written word of God calling it a mere written text





John 1:7 —KJV

“The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.”



Again presupposes spiritual truth explained can be understood




Ephesians 3:4 (KJV)
4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)



Presupposes reading sufficient to know spiritual truth



When God wanted Cornelius to receive the gospel he sent a preacher



Acts 11:13-14 (KJV)
13 And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and

call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;
14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.



The spirit sent Philip to preach the gospel to the Ethiopian Eunuch



Acts 8:27-35 (KJV)

27 And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,
28 Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.
29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.
30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:
33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.
34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

now you state

Note the Ehtiopian example, that Scripture was NOT CLEAR until the Spirit showed and illuminated the truth to him via Phillip.

all you are proving it that revelation can come from an inspired preacher

and does not require a personal revelation from the spirit

The fact is the spirit uses means

whether written or orally preached the spirit's means are sufficient

John 20:31 (KJV)
31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

2 Timothy 3:15 (KJV)
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

if anything you refute yourself

Check it out @ReverendRV @Manfred @Reformedguy @SovereignGrace @Johnnybgood @civic and others...
 
Last edited:
In your first paragraph you start out Biblical and good. God came in the flesh. This is a sure sign that someone is in the Spirit when they agree , I agree. God came thru Mary and was born in the flesh.
As far as the flesh being permanent, we do not have any scriptures stating that, and a few that teach the contrary. many of your experts are claiming that the verses imply or emphasize or some other verb, but none claim that the verses state that He remains in the flesh. So far what I see is educated assumptions. One source even says that 1John 4:2 is reference to a historical fact that He came
You did not do what was asked of you or requested seth, I wonder why ?

I made the distinction just like John did with the " DIFFERENCE " between the 2 words used in 1 John 4:2 and 2 John 1:7.

My focus is on 2 John 1:7 PARTICIPLE which you RAN AWAY FROM. You also left out the spirit of truth and the spirit of error which I also addressed in the passage. I wonder why ?

So lets try this again and SUPPORT your answer from 2 John 1:7 from lexical sources and Theologians/ Greek Scholars like I have done below which support your conclusion like I have demonstrated seth that support my BIBLICAL VIEW of the passage.

The number one test to distinguish truth for error and the Spirit of God from that of the spirit of antichrist is the confession of our divine Lord Jesus Christ. Every spirit that confesses Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God. There is one thing the spirit of antichrist will deny and that is they will deny the deity of Jesus Christ. They will deny God in human flesh. They will always deny the Incarnation which was permanent. When a person affirms that Jesus Christ is God in flesh that equates to divine truth. Every spirit that confesses meaning to continually confess or agrees with saying the same thing as John declares in his writings is from God. This is the person who is taught by the Spirit of God according to John. The first test that you want to have for any teacher is their Christology, check out what they say about Christ. This becomes a litmus test that is very easy to spot among the false teachers. If you have somebody who denies the deity of Christ you have a clear indication they are of the spirit of antichrist.

If we go back to the beginning of 1 John, we read that which we he beheld, and actually touched concerning the Word of life. That is a term expressing the very deity of Christ. Christ emanates from God as His living Word. He was with the Father in the beginning in 1:2. Jesus was One with the Father sharing the same essence with the Father in heaven with Him before the foundation of the world. John says He was manifested to us. John's language then starts out with the fact that Jesus Christ emanates from God as the very living Word of God. Jesus is the living Word of God,the One John says that was from the beginning that we heard, we saw and we touched. Jesus the Word of life was the eternal One who was with the Father prior to His Incarnation and was then manifested to us in the flesh that we could see and hear and touch according to John.

Therefore, we can clearly see Jesus is the very Word of God Incarnate. He is the eternal life who became flesh. The Word who was with God, the Word who was God, was the One who John says was manifested to us. This is how we can tell the spirit of truth from the spirit of antichrist. Can you confess Jesus is God Incarnate?


2 John 7
For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.

All these Greek Scholars support me and refute your false teaching @Sethproton

Erchomenon ( coming)the present participle in 2 John 7


Alford- the present tense is timeless(pg 274 RNTC on 2 John)

Brooke- the Incarnation is not only an event in history, it is an abiding truth(pg 274 RNTC on 2 John)

Stott- the two natures manhood and Godhood were united already at His birth, never to be divided. In 1 John 4:2 and here in 2 John 7 emphasizes this permanent union of the natures in the One Person ( TNTC pages 209-210) He who denies the Incarnation is not just a deceiver and an antichrist but “the deceiver and the antichrist”. There is in this heresy a double affront: it opposes Christ and deceives men.(stott TNCT page 210)

Marshall- the use of the present and perfect tenses becomes significant if the point is that Jesus Christ had come and still existed “in flesh”. For him(John) it was axiomatic that there had been a true Incarnation, that the word became flesh and remained flesh. It is a point that receives much stress in 1 John 2:18-28;4:1-6;5:5-8. (NICNT pages 70-71)

Smalley- the present tense emphasizes the permanent union of the human and Divine natures in Jesus. Gods self disclosure in Jesus took place at a particular moment in history , but it has continuing effects in the present and into the future(Word Biblical Commentary page 317)

Nicoll- the continuous manifestation of the Incarnate Christ(Expositors Greek Testament Volume 5 page 202)

Akin- Much has been made of the fact that John uses the present tense in this Christological confession. Literally the verse reads, “Jesus Christ coming in flesh.” “Coming” is a present active participle. This stands out in remarkable contrast to the affirmation of 1 John 4:2, where the text states that “Jesus Christ has [emphasis mine] come in the flesh.” There the perfect active participle is used. The key, it seems, is to discover what John is affirming. Here in 2 John the emphasis falls on the abiding reality of the incarnation. First John 4:2 teaches that the Christ, the Father’s Son (v. 3), has come in the flesh. Second John affirms that the wedding of deity and humanity has an abiding reality (cf. 1 Tim 2:5). The ontological and essential nature of the incarnation that would receive eloquent expression one thousand years later in the writing of St. Anselm (1033–1109) in his classic Cur Deus Homo is already present in seed form in the tiny and neglected letter of 2 John.

Lenski- In 1 John 4:2 we have ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα, the perfect participle, “as having come in flesh” (incarnate, John 1:14); here we have ἐρχόμενον ἐν σαρκί, “as coming in flesh,” although the participle is present in form it is really timeless.of Christ as "still being manifested." See the note at 1 John 3:5. In 1 John 4:2 we have the manifestation treated as a past fact by the perfect tense, ‎eleeluthota ‎"has come

Robertson- That Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh ‎Ieesoun ‎‎Christon ‎‎erchomenon ‎‎en ‎‎sarki‎. "Jesus Christ coming in the flesh." Present middle participle of ‎erchomai ‎treating the Incarnation as a continuing fact which the Docetic Gnostics flatly denied. In 1 John 4:2 we have ‎eleeluthota ‎(perfect active participle) in this same construction with ‎homologeoo‎, because there the reference is to the definite historical fact of the Incarnation.

Vincent- Is come ‎erchomenon‎. Wrong. The verb is in the present participle, "coming," which describes the manhood

hope this helps !!!
 
In your first paragraph you start out Biblical and good. God came in the flesh. This is a sure sign that someone is in the Spirit when they agree , I agree. God came thru Mary and was born in the flesh.
As far as the flesh being permanent, we do not have any scriptures stating that, and a few that teach the contrary. many of your experts are claiming that the verses imply or emphasize or some other verb, but none claim that the verses state that He remains in the flesh. So far what I see is educated assumptions. One source even says that 1John 4:2 is reference to a historical fact that He came
1 Timothy 2:5 (KJV)
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

many years after the resurrection
 
1 Timothy 2:5 (KJV)
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

many years after the resurrection
Amen.

He likes to bait n switch the passage and focus on Mediator. But what he doesn't realize is the syllogism/parallels Paul makes in the passage.

1- There is One God - not there was One God

AND

2- There is One Mediator- not was One Mediator

between God and man, the man Christ Jesus.

His false teaching denies that there IS ONE GOD NOW, since he denies there is now One Mediator.

@Sethproton you are up a creek without a paddle with your false god and mediatir who no longer exist.

hope this helps !!!
 
Amen.

He likes to bait n switch the passage and focus on Mediator. But what he doesn't realize is the syllogism/parallels Paul makes in the passage.

1- There is One God - not there was One God

AND

2- There is One Mediator- not was One Mediator

between God and man, the man Christ Jesus.

His false teaching denies that there IS ONE GOD NOW, since he denies there is now One Mediator.

@Sethproton you are up a creek without a paddle with your false god and mediatir who no longer exist.

hope this helps !!!
Also


Revelation 1:13 (KJV)
13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.




Revelation 14:14 (KJV)
14 And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.
 
Also


Revelation 1:13 (KJV)
13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.




Revelation 14:14 (KJV)
14 And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.
Indeed the son of man by definition means He is still human.

I will bet he will deny Daniels prophecy about the son of man being human.

Amen !
 
You think I am attacking Jesus by saying He is God? I find that pretty strange.
And you know that you have dodged the questions about why God would still need to be a man after He won our salvation and resurrected.

This is why you have so many false doctrines, seth...
You ask the wrong questions.

The question is NOT, "Is there a reason fro God to still be a man?"
The question is, "What does SCRIPTURE teach?"

When you "build" or "invent" a theology bay asking hypothetical and philosophical questions, like "Why would need to do this?", or "Does God need to continue doing that?", you end up relying on your own imagination, rather than building theology from SCRIPTURE.

I will again put it out to the thread, why does jesus need to be a man now?

Again, the question is NOT, "Does Jesus need to be ...?"
The question is, "What does SCRIPTURE teach?"

You will ALWAYS end up with false doctrine searching for it using your method.

What purpose does it serve? What would change if He simply returned to be God without humanity?

Those are questions only God can answer.
And you AREN'T GOd.
So you need to ask, "What does SCRIPTURE teach?"

I have asked 4 times now, and even if you readers have no answer, it is worth asking yourself why the need to keep Him a man?

No, it is WORTHLESS asking such questions, unless God has answered them in SCRIPTURE, which He hasn't.
 
Back
Top