The Gates of Hell?

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I believe that the original autographs written by the holy men of old were very much inspired by God and were infallible. Our translations are often nuanced, and some are outright in error. When it comes to the Bible, translations based on formal equivalency are most trustworthy. Versions based on dynamic equivalency are least trustworthy.

So the short answer is no.

Do you believe written historical records over the Bible?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

Upon what evidence are you basing this gap?

You're doing the very thing you accuse EB of doing -- arguing from silence.

You're actually, seriously making the claim that no one ... not one single person repented, was water baptized in Jesus name and received the HG for over 1,800 years?!?

You've posted some absurd things, but this, IMO, beats all.

smh

Ummmm Obviously you don't know what arguing "from" silence means. Lol

"There is no evidence..." is a factual statement, if there is no evidence.

"Just because there is no evidence doesn't mean there wasn't....", is an argument from silence.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

Upon what evidence are you basing this gap?

You're doing the very thing you accuse EB of doing -- arguing from silence.

You're actually, seriously making the claim that no one ... not one single person repented, was water baptized in Jesus name and received the HG for over 1,800 years?!?

You've posted some absurd things, but this, IMO, beats all.

smh

You'll also note, that I only pointed out the implication.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

So the short answer is no.

Do you believe written historical records over the Bible?

No. But I don't ignore them if I don't like what I see either.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

So the short answer is no.

Do you believe written historical records over the Bible?

There are problems in each of our translations that leave meaning up to debate. For example, Genesis 49:6, did they dig down a wall, or hamstring oxen?

Then there are scribal notations, like Romans 8:1 in the KJV..."who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit", is a notation referencing verse four to clarify verse one. It actually enhances the meaning. Interestingly, the received text of the KJV has a number of such notations, making it much like an ancient study Bible.

Then there are outright additions, like 1 John 5:7.

The Holy Spirit is absolutely essential when it comes to understanding Scripture.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Ummmm Obviously you don't know what arguing "from" silence means. Lol

"There is no evidence..." is a factual statement, if there is no evidence.

"Just because there is no evidence doesn't mean there wasn't....", is an argument from silence.

"LoL" I do though. You're making a statement (God failed, hell prevailed. No one repented, was baptized or received the HG in 1,800) based on zero evidence or proof. You're claiming that because EB may not be able to quote you historical records proving there were people who experienced the New Birth that somehow this means it didn't happen.

What is your proof that it didn't happen? Have you read every historical record? Have you traveled back in time? Did you fall into a trance whilst in contemplative prayer and see through 1,800 years in the past?

Here's my evidence: "For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call."

For there to be an 1,800 year gap means the Bible isn't true.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

You'll also note, that I only pointed out the implication.

You never answered the question. Upon what are you basing your claim that no one received the new birth over 1,800 years?

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

No. But I don't ignore them if I don't like what I see either.

And what historical records have you read which proves over 1,800 years no one received the new birth experience?

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I've never "prayed" for the dead with any expectation that said prayer would change the outcome of what God has decided. Nor do I believe the Bible supports such a notion.

So, your insistence that I do is indeed untrue, and an unnecessary assassination of character.

YOUR post:
"First, the Final Judgment hasn't happened yet.
Second, according to Scripture the dead are very much still alive and awaiting final judgment.
Thirdly, all prayers are given to a living God who can do anything He desires.
So, I don't see any harm in praying that God have mercy on anyone who has passed on."

It's interesting how you retract some statements you make. First you make the statement within a lengthy, rambling post in which nowhere is there any indication that you are merely hypothesizing or thinking out loud. You use authoritative words "I must remind you" to try and show how serious you really are. Many times you include a personal story of how you were the hero...or villain, it doesn't matter because it's about YOU!

Then I come along and point out the absurdity of your stated belief. In this case, because 1, 2 and 3, you don't see harm in praying.

Your response is typically "you don't understand me," or some variation of you're smarter than we are and we just can't fathom the depths of your incredible knowledge.

Sometimes your response is that you were just hypothesizing or playing devil's advocate. You don't really believe that. You were just brilliantly working a master plan to bait people into some kind of trap you and your genius mind created.

In this case, you claimed you only posted what you did to "entertain" the accusations it would bring -- and to see how big or small someone's God is.

Oh you shrewd, cunning man!

Depending how the first response plays out, it either ends or you play the victim. Poor, misunderstood you. The bad man is falsely accusing you. He's making baseless accusations and slanderous lies! He's assassinating your character...

Oh the humanity!

Rinse and repeat ad infinitum.



End note: in that original post and several posts following, you yourself said you pray for the deceased. And since you previously stated your belief in 1, 2 and 3, it is not baseless, nor is it slanderous or an assassination of character to 1) post your actual quote and 2) use what you've posted about praying for the deceased and conclude that you indeed believe you could pray for mercy for a deceased individual and God could answer it.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Aquila

A systematic approach to Act 2:38 Soteriology will bear out that justification by faith alone in repentance justifies the sinner,...

Originally Posted by Aquila

Sola Fide, by faith alone.
Sola Scriptura, by Scripture alone.
Solus Christus, through Christ alone.
Sola Gratia, by grace alone.
Soli Deo Gloria, glory to God alone.

I contend that none of this is Apostolic.

How can anyone take this guy seriously? Oh, wait, there's also this:

Originally Posted by Aquila

For example, playing the devil's advocate, I rejected the Solas to ensure that most supported them (because everyone was chanting "Sola Scriptura"). The reason being, the Solas lay the foundational case for justification by faith alone. Hence, biblically justifying God's acceptance of sincere faith on account of various historical believers down through history (including Billy Graham), even though they have not experienced the fullness of Acts 2:38 salvation. This is foundational to my understanding of sovereign grace.

There's just no way you can be taken as anything except an overly verbose forum troll. Nothing you say can be accepted as what you actually mean, or think, or believe.