THE TRAGEDY OF MODERN EVANGELISM

Yes that was good but then have you been saved from sin or not? when you put yourself under the restraint of the law it PROVES you are not saved. You make the cross of no account, you count the blood of Christ as common ... you make amock of the cross.

Yes, keeping the commandments DOES enhance your life

"He that keepeth the law, HAPPY is he".

"The way of the transgressor (YOU) is HARD."

"Great PEACE have they which love Thy law, and nothing shall offend."

No, the LAW shows you that, if you're breaking it, you still have sin. (1 John 2:3-4 KJV)

When we resist Jesus' words that we are to obey His law, we show ourselves to be servants of Satan:

"Know ye not to whom you yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants you are to whom you obey, whether sin unto death or obedience unto righteousness". - Romans 6:16

"I can do ALL THINGS through Christ which strengthens me".

The reason OSAS survives is because the adherents to it either refuse to believe or ignore plain texts like this one.

You don't know a thing about me, so how can you make such a statement?

However, by your OWN admission, you are a sinner and a slave to sin and a staunch opponent to the Ten Commandments, therefore, by your own words you are condemned.

'endure in works'?

I made a mistake. I always get my Centuries wrong. I think it was 1800-1825 ? Is that the 19th Century? I am told that is partially why Mormonism got started.

it is a purely human gospel that says salvation is through works and will and effort. see Romans 9:16.
however the gospel given by God is in this: "the just shall live by faith" and "believe in the name of the LORD Jesus Christ"

Hi Katia, yes, the 1800's are also called the 19th Century. You are also correct about the founding of the Mormon Church at that time (1830 AD), but I'm still wondering what it was about that period in history that caused it to be referred to as the "Burned Out Period".

Any clue

Thanks!

~Deut

Why should I bother explaining what I mean, when you have already invented your own explanation, to which you will doubtless continue to believe regardless of my response?

This is just my opinion here. The "Mormon" side of this is that Joseph Smith as a late teen tried several churches and found them lacking. Remember that in those days printed Bibles were rather scarce and apparently lots of folk were translating the ones available into something that suited them more. For a time, the Mormons used the Translation that Joseph Smith is said to have done. Some time in the 20th Century they reverted back to the original KJV. They also practiced Polygamy until around 1900, when the Federal Government told their President to stop or he was going to Jail.

In my opinion, the Christian Church is a severe mess again, though the Hutterites may be better.

It is really fruitless to attack the practices of others. We can only do our best to manage our own lives.

You never speak about the new birth, you never speak about being born again. Talking about the new birth Jesus said "the wind bloweth where he listeth and ye hear the sound thereof ... "

I hear no sound thereof from you so I conclude that you are not born again, perhaps today you will be born again, why not?

As for me I came to God a sinner and He pardoned me, He put all my sins upon Jesus, by a miracle of forgiveness. He made me holy.

I walk in holiness before Him, my Father with a heart full of gratitude for His wonderous grace.

... for 45 years.

Amen

America was still very young, and then they had the war of 1812, Napoleon was seeking power... I am not well read on that period of history. Sorry.

Which is why they have been so easily deceived by the conservative movement, which claims to be of Christ, but other than abortion turn away from His teachings.

Where does the "true and pure Gospel of God" come from? I think that the KJV of the Bible is the best, despite knowing that it is full of what many would consider errors. I think that the books after the 4 Gospels probably have the most repulsive doctrine. AND, there seems to be so much chaos there that many ignore it.

Taking a single point is head covering. Here in America, women in main stream society seldom do it. Yet it is often assumed in the OT. In the later part of the NT, it seems assumed, especially when a woman is praying. Thankfully, I live in an area where I can cover, or not, at will, leaving me to devoutly seek God's will for me.

I know of places where saying that Jesus is the Son of God will cause you to lose your head. Yet, Christians believe it. Most don't know that to Muslims, Jesus (ISA PBUH) is the best prophet of Allah SWT. Their reasoning is that if God is the most supreme, he can not possibly have a son. To me, that is rather convoluted thought, so I don't bother to quarrel with them. I like my head.

I have been yelled at over the idea that God is one or three persons. I think the Bible is clear on that but do not think it to be worth it to quarrel over it.

Everyone's preaching "Christ", but they're not all Biblical Christs

My words appear to have been lost on you.

All you seem to preach is condemnation for believers, a God who is unable to save, and a so-called-faith which is nothing more than perpetual doubt. Self reliance.

Why not simply speak of Christ?
If you really believe that trusting in Him adds all these things to us, why don't you ever preach trusting in Him?
Instead you really give the appearance that you hate trusting in Him, and despise all who do.
You want us to doubt His power, and to put all our faith in our own willpower to endure in our own works.

All your conversations are about trying to convince believers that they aren't saved.