Some people “read” the Bible by watching a video of some half-baked preacher who himself doesn’t believe what he is reading.
Not only that, they are unable to discern the difference between salvation and edification.
Some people gather unto themselves preachers who agree with their erroneous point of view / opinion – not preachers who challenge their heretical point of view. Some people just aren’t open to the truth period.
Would you believe a self-proclaimed preacher who believes that believers (those that are saved) aren’t sanctified (in the spirit) and still need to work for that part of their salvation? I wouldn’t – but there are some who do and don’t see anything wrong with it. It’s called WORKING FOR YOUR SALVATION.
What would be the difference between such a preacher and a Methodist preacher who basically believes the same thing?
If you struggle believing the gospel of 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, I wouldn’t classify it as something to be proud of and the fact that some brag about it……. what can I say?
In fact, the more people you turn away from the gospel, and the more you deny it, the more you are showing your true colours.
Question is : Did you initially believe the gospel?
If the Apostle Paul proclaimed this (and he did) :
Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel: 2 Timothy 2:8
Then why (according to some hereticks out there) is the Kingdom gospel virtually the same as Paul’s grace gospel?
Where do any of the 12 Apostles state that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to their gospel?
Then how come some out there state that in times to come that the Kingdom gospel is belief in Christ’s death for their sins, burial and resurrection + doing good works?
If you can show me scripture that states that that is what the Kingdom Gospel specifies in order to be saved in times to come – then I will believe it, but until then, try not to be too egotistical and base your theory on hearsay, half-cooked videos of questionable mid-acts preachers or your very own half-baked theory.
Convince me with SCRIPTURE.
The other point that stands out for me concerning the beliefs of these people is the fact that they themselves, including their preacher state that one only has to believe in the blood of Christ in order to be saved – whereas the Apostle Paul is specific in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 that if one believes in (a) Christ’s death for one’s sins, (b) His burial, and (c) His resurrection on the 3rd day – one IS saved. Saved by an “abridged version” of the gospel? Some people can really be dense and it makes one wonder which part of verses 3 and 4 they just don’t get. I know I joke and say they can’t understand English, but the truth of the matter is that they actually don’t believe what they are reading – that’s actually the crux of the matter.
Can anyone else see the duplicity in their belief system? What do they actually believe? Is it the blood that saves or is it Christ’s death for sins, His burial and resurrection on the 3rd day? Since they don’t believe that 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 has the power to save – one has to wonder which gospel they actually believe, because Romans 3:25 sure as heck doesn’t apply to anyone in this current dispensation. “…… for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;”
The remission of sins that are past? Seriously? Are our past sins as members of the body of Christ currently in remission? What about our current and future sins? Or do we have to now repent of those? Isn’t that what modern-day institutionalised Christianity in fact does?
Just like the Corinthians of old, these modern-day Corinthians basically don’t believe Christ’s resurrection (is part of the good news) because they believe the blood is sufficient.
The whole dang this is sordid and shocking, but inevitably that’s what one will encounter. Unbelief is always rife – even among those who once believed – or did they?
It makes one wonder.
Some erroneously believe that if the Apostle Paul said it, they must apply it to themselves, irrespective of the fact that in some instances he did encounter Jews in the flesh, unbelievers, the fact that he explained certain situations, referred to the Prophets of the Old Covenant. Hence the reason some will apply Romans 9, 10 & 11 to themselves today and make Romans 10:9 the gospel – the end result being that although they call themselves Right Dividers, they will one day split hell wide open.
And that’s me being honest – there is no way I can say that in a more “civilised”, politically correct way for the bunny huggers who read this blog.