The REAL Reason CONS have left or rarely post

[Brother Price]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

You are missing the point. You made an assertion about being baptized in Jesus name to St Matt that assumes BILLIONS went to hell for not being baptized in Jesus name, yet you claim that many of them COULD have been saved by faith despite being in a works based religion but you can't PROVE it.

So then if I were to take you argument in reverse your soteriological view, using the premise you made earlier, damns BILLIONS to hell also

I respectfully disagree. To be able to do so would imply that god was without a witness during that entire time, in which he was not. God had a witness during that time, and it was evident through the events which took place of the Inquisition. Because He had a witness, we cannot assume that all were lost. Nor can we assume all received the revelation of Jesus name baptism.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Brother Price

I respectfully disagree. To be able to do so would imply that god was without a witness during that entire time, in which he was not. God had a witness during that time, and it was evident through the events which took place of the Inquisition. Because He had a witness, we cannot assume that all were lost. Nor can we assume all received the revelation of Jesus name baptism.

You are still missing the point then. Your argument goes "baptism is not salvational because if it was for 1600 years with out baptism in jesus name billios went to hell"

Because you are asserting there was no baptism in jesus name when you just can NOT prove that.

yet when I use your argument for grace alone by faith alone which no church taught until Luther your argument is there has to have been some (which is a far cry from billions) because God had to have a witness.

But YOUR witness argument is exactly the same argument many OPs use to declare there must have been a Jesus name Pentecostal church all those years even though history does not record it all that time.

In other words the God's witness theory makes your intial assertion inconsistant

[Brother Price]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

You are still missing the point then. Your argument goes "baptism is not salvational because if it was for 1600 years with out baptism in jesus name billios went to hell"

Because you are asserting there was no baptism in jesus name when you just can NOT prove that.

yet when I use your argument for grace alone by faith alone which no church taught until Luther your argument is there has to have been some (which is a far cry from billions) because God had to have a witness.

But YOUR witness argument is exactly the same argument many OPs use to declare there must have been a Jesus name Pentecostal church all those years even though history does not record it all that time.

In other words the God's witness theory makes your intial assertion inconsistant

Prax, we will have to continue this tomorrow. Hopefully, I will be feeling better to do this. Just pray for me.