Trying to Rip Up the Bible (Telegram)

[creationliberty]

Jan 20th, 2022 - TELEGRAM
WENDY ROGERS: Can’t we all just get along? Sure. Repent and be baptized and join America First.
It has been a VERY long time since I was able to say "Amen" to anything a state official has said. I can agree with this. I just hope that Wendy and everyone else here understands the real, Biblical meaning of repentance, and not the false, works-based definition that many corrupt preachers are teaching in church buildings.

If anyone does not understand it, go to creationliberty * com, type in 'million' in the search bar, and read Why Millions of Believers on Jesus Are Going to Hell. That'll get you the details on the true Gospel of Salvation.

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. MANY will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
-Mat 7:21-23
The following responses are from someone identifying himself as "Parker"
I appreciate what you are doing.  Important distinction- In Matthew 7, and in fact all of Matthew up until Chapter 26 verse 26, Jesus is addressing Israel.  The Sermon on the mount, while containing many good principles for righteous living, is not addressed to the Church.  The church didn’t exist yet.  The Kingdom was at hand still, meaning the offer to bring in the kingdom was active and on the table.  Jesus was preaching the kingdom to Israel in preparation of offering it to them (Matthew 21).  Its isn’t until AFTER Israel fails to recognize Him as their Messiah (Matthew 21:11) and He is rejected by the religious-political leadership (Matthew 21:15) that He began preaching the DELAY of the kingdom.

So, Jesus demonstrates Himself qualified to be King, fulfills all Kingly requirements, teaches about the Kingdom, and then formally offers Himself to Israel as King.

Israel rejects the offer, thereby preventing the Kingdom from coming (just as the prophecies foretold) and Jesus immediately begins teaching that the Kingdom will be coming after some time and will be given to a different generation.  And the mechanism through which it will be attained will be the eventual acceptance of the New Covenant.

But… still not talking about the church.  It’s a future generation of National Israel that will all be saved (Jeremiah 30:7, Romans 11:26) and receive the fulfillment of the kingdom covenant promised to Abraham (Deuteronomy 30:2-6) when they cry out to Jesus upon recognizing that He is their King (Matthew 23:38-39).

So, because the church and therefore Christians are not the context of Matthew 7, this is not a teaching about how to be saved.  Rather the context is how to recognize false teachers and false prophets.  Jesus was giving a criteria of how to distinguish the genuine thing from the imposters.  Prophesying, miracles and casting out demons are NOT necessarily indications that a person is a genuine teacher or prophet.

That’s said, there will certainly be many church-age believers who held to a works-based salvation which prevented them from truly accepting the gift of God through the sufficiency of Christ’s atoning work on the cross through faith ALONE.  But that can be demonstrated thoroughly with other passages in which salvation by grace alone through faith alone are the context.  Matthew 7 just isn’t one of those.
I know you think you understand what you are saying, but that is incorrect doctrine that someone has taught you along the way, and you're spreading that error, which is worse. For example, Hebrews was written to... you guessed it... the Hebrew people. However, that is where we get this verse:
Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
-Hebrews 10:25

Now, if you are going to be consistent in your belief, namely, "that which is preached to the Israel is not meant for the church," then you need to start telling people that the church does not need to assemble together. Of course, I know you won't do that because it won't look good on you, but that means you need to either confess the error of your words, or you will be found to be a hypocrite who says one thing and does another.

Furthermore, the entirety of the Gospels was preached to Israel. That means, if you were consistent in your teaching, you would have to throw out the Great Commandment because Jesus preached that to the Sadducees and Pharisees:
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
-Matthew 22:37-40

But we who study and understand the Scriptures know that the Gospel is to be preached first to the Jews, and then to the Gentiles:
And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
-Luke 24:47

So just in the first few sentences you wrote, you have preached AGAINST the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If you are of Christ, you should repent (i.e. have godly sorrow of wrongdoing), and sanctify yourself (i.e. depart from) those who taught you that error. If you will not listen, I hope that helps someone else who reads this. Have a great day.
Your basic assertion about the book of Hebrews is wrong. 

It was written to Hebrew CHRISTIANS.  So the context is for Jewish converts to Christianity to understand the implications of the New Covenant in light of their understanding of the law and prophets.  Since they are part of the “new man”, the body of Christ, they needed help in understanding how that is different than being of the law.

That’s actually a very basic error you are making, there.  Don’t you see how simple it is that Hebrews was written to the Hebrew Christian’s and therefore applies to… Christians?
Interesting. So I gave you two examples from different sections of the Bible (both before and after the founding of the church), and you chose to hone in on the one you thought would give you best way to save face. You should be ashamed of yourself. I could have given you MANY more examples than that, but I chose those couple to see what you would do, and you did that which was deceitful.

Just because you do not want to acknowledge the truth of repentance (i.e. grief and godly sorrow of one's sin), doesn't mean that others don't need to hear it, and I'm going to keep telling them the truth, whether you like it or not.
Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.
-1Ti 5:20

Have a great day.
Do you hear yourself?  You are making accusations against people based on your understanding of scripture, which I am showing you has some problems.  Calling names and being aggressive with people you don’t even know.  That’s not the biblically prescribed way for believers to behave at all.

I addressed the first passage you submitted, which is a very natural thing to do to address things sequentially.  Your view on Hebrews is so flawed that I didn’t think it necessary to address the other two passages.

I’m happy to discuss Matthew 22 and/or Luke 24.  Are you willing to acknowledge that you made an incorrect claim about the context of Hebrews, though?

Because dude, you are way off on that one.  So much so that it heavily strengthens my argument and weakens yours.  If you can’t see that, then it’s probably not going to be helpful to discuss the other two with you.  Though I’m still happy to do it.

But you need re-examine this ridiculous tactic of calling people hypocrites and false teachers and accusing people of being against Christ.  That’s not how the church is to act.  We to correct each other in love, and use scripture to guide one another into a better understanding.
Do you hear yourself? — Certainly. I can also read what another person is saying. It would be great if you could try that out because it would help this process go much smoother.

You are making accusations against people based on your understanding of scripture, which I am showing you has some problems. — No, you ignored the arguments I made. I am fully aware that the Hebrews in the book of Hebrews were the Christians in the church, but you will not admit your contradiction. There's not much more I can do for you to help you see it because this format isn't suitable for it.

I addressed the first passage you submitted, which is a very natural thing to do to address things sequentially.  Your view on Hebrews is so flawed that I didn’t think it necessary to address the other two passages. — I never claimed that the Hebrews being spoken to were not Christians. Maybe you should go back and read it again.

Calling names and being aggressive with people you don’t even know.  That’s not the biblically prescribed way for believers to behave at all. — Wow. According to your beliefs, it must have been unbiblical when Jesus called false teachers hypocrites, vipers, and whited tombs. It must have been unbiblical when he whipped the money changers and knocked over their tables. I thought I was being peaceful in comparison. You should let Christ know he's not acting very Christ-like.

I’m happy to discuss Matthew 22 and/or Luke 24.  Are you willing to acknowledge that you made an incorrect claim about the context of Hebrews, though? — What incorrect claim? Please try to read what people are writing to you. I NEVER claimed that the church was not being spoken to. I said the Hebrews were being spoken to, whether they were Christian or not. You made up strawman arguments, and refused to acknowledge your error. Again, you're wasting my time because you're not having a discussion with me because you will not acknowledge the things I am writing to you. I have other work to do, so if you don't want to acknowledge the points I made, then I'll bid you a good day, and be on my way.

So much so that it heavily strengthens my argument and weakens yours. — Self-promotion is not an argument. I really don't have time for that.

But you need re-examine this ridiculous tactic of calling people hypocrites and false teachers and accusing people of being against Christ.  That’s not how the church is to act. — Look, it didn't take long reading your posts to see that you care more about the tradition you have learned than you care about Scripture. It was very easy to see, and there's tons of reasons for that I don't have space for in this post. I will, however, try to help for sake of anyone else reading this:
For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. -Acts 20:29-31

I can't post links here, so I cannot give you more, otherwise I could show you full commentaries I've written on the books of Corinthians where, for example, Paul had to deal with false teachers and called them out. He did this a lot, and most of Jesus's preaching was about false converts. So please, go to God, and tell him all the problems you have with His Word, and that He does not handle matters according to your personal preferences. I need to get back to work. Have a great day, and I hope you depart in peace.

We to correct each other in love, and use scripture to guide one another into a better understanding. — There's nothing more loving than the truth, even if the person's feelings get hurt in the process. The truth is that your belief is an insurance policy for you, so when you find something in the New Testament you disagree with, you can say "that was for the Jews." I've been working in ministry for many years. This isn't my first interaction with people who reject repentance and talk like you do.
But you aren’t teaching the truth.  You are wrong.  You don’t understand something as fundamental as who the letter to the Hebrews was written to.  And instead of acknowledging that, you double down on accusing me of being against Christ.

You’re doing it wrong. 

Hebrews is written to the Church.  Yes or no?
I answered that in the last response I gave to you. Thus, you just proved to me that you're not reading my posts. I'm sorry, but I have a lot of work to do, and I cannot have you wasting my time because you don't want to read.

I pray the Lord Jesus Christ would bless you and your family with all your needs throughout the coming rough months, and I pray that He has as much mercy on you and your family as He has had on me and mine.
Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing.
-1Pe 3:9
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
-1Co 2:14
You did not address that.

Here is what you originally wrote:

“For example, Hebrews was written to... you guessed it... the Hebrew people. However, that is where we get this verse:
Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
-Hebrews 10:25

Now, if you are going to be consistent in your belief, namely, "that which is preached to the Israel is not meant for the church," then you need to start telling people that the church does not need to assemble together…”

There it is.  First you say Hebrews is written to the Hebrew people.  You stop short of saying “Hebrew CONVERTS to Christianity.”

You do this as a straw man, because you claim my argument is “that which is preached to Israel is not meant for the church.”  Which is not what I am saying.  What I am saying is that the program changed at the point the New Covenant was offered, and you are injecting a context to Mathew 7 that isn’t in the text.

The context of Mathew 7 is quite clearly how to distinguish between false teachers and prophets, and genuine ones.  It is not about the Church-age Christian assessing themselves on the authenticity of their faith.

So the implication you make is that I am wrong because my position would necessitate that I disregard the instruction to the Hebrew Christians as being for the church.  It’s a completely absurd claim on your part.  It in no way refutes the position I am putting forward and in fact it strengthens it.

“…Of course, I know you won't do that because it won't look good on you, but that means you need to either confess the error of your words, or you will be found to be a hypocrite who says one thing and does another.”

Here you seem to be implying that salvation comes by faith AND “having godly sorrow of wrongdoing and sanctifying oneself”.  Which sounds an awful lot like you’re making salvation CONDITIONAL on a particular emotional response to one’s sin. 

That’s unbiblical.  I think you are telling people if they don’t have a “godly sorrow” then they aren’t saved.  Kinda like how the hyper charismatics say if you don’t speak in tongues you’re not saved.

Dude, a person who genuinely believes on the Lord Jesus, that His atoning work on the cross was sufficient for the complete justification of sins, and accepts that gift is saved.  Period.  Some will have a deeply profound sense of remorse over their sin (as I have), while others will acknowledge their sin and need for Jesus without that.  But it is impossible to genuinely believe on Jesus without repenting, for to believe on Him for forgiveness means the acknowledgment that there is an offense needing to be forgiven.

Acts 16:30-33

“and after he brought them out, he said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house. And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household.”
Acts 16:30-33

John 5:24

““Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.”
John 5:24

I’m suspicious you might also interpret Matthew 25 as being to the Church. 

“Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?’ Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.””
Matthew 25:44-46

So if I don’t visit the “least of these” in prison, I will be cast into eternal punishment then?
END OF DISCUSSION
I'll comment more below. Comment as you see fit.

[creationliberty]

When someone begins their letter with "I appreciate what you're doing," that's immediate red flags for public relations garbage. This guy had me turned off to just about anything he was going to say next because of that, and it amazes me when people think they're somehow "peacefully" approaching a conversation when they start out with words that are obviously not true.

If what I was teaching were a false gospel, which is what he claims I am doing (a point that he didn't want to consider), then why would he "appreciate" me trying to preach a false message? That is nonsense. Thus, he starts off with PR, or in other words, he starts off with deceptive speech, and I know we're about to hear some sort of false version of the gospel.

Of course, he states the obvious, that Jesus was address Israel in Matthew 7. I am being facetious when I say, Thank God he was here to let us know that Jesus was not preaching in Indonesia. How else could we have known?

When he said...
The Sermon on the mount, while containing many good principles for righteous living, is not addressed to the Church.  The church didn’t exist yet.
... I knew this guy had been indoctrinated by some false preacher. That was clear as day because... literally take your pick of any book of the Bible... and we can use that to prove him wrong. Namely, I'll use these verses to back up what I'm saying:
Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand. Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents. Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer. Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
-1Co 10:6-11

The context here is that Paul was referring to all the things that happened to Jews throughout the Old Testament. There are a lot of things in those books that make us question why God allowed all this. I wondered that for many years after I was saved. Paul, through the Holy Ghost, answers that simply. It's for our admonition, which means reproof, counseling, direction, instruction, (in some cases) duties, and cautions. This means that the ENTIRE Bible was made for the church.

So immediately, all this comes to my mind, and I know this guy is going to present some leavened garbage.

Now, in the process of answering him, I gave him a couple of examples, one he wanted to harp on, and the other he wanted to ignore (but then tried to tell me that he was "happy" to answer it). If you read our interaction, you will notice that I NEVER said that Hebrews in the book of Hebrews were not Christians. My point was that HE was the one who was trying to make an excuse to ignore the Gospels books of Jesus Christ by claiming that it was just addressed to the Jews (i.e. to Israel).

If the Hebrew Christians are addressed in the book of Hebrews, then is it only for those Hebrews? No, it was for ALL the church, even though all the church did not receive that letter.

And he was purposefully avoiding my comment on the Great Commandment. Notice that even in his final remarks, which I would not continue to respond to because I really have a lot of other things to do (which is why I am writing this a bit faster than I normally do), he STILL did not respond to the comments about the Great Commandment, and would only claim he was "willing" to do so.

I want to add in one more thing before I let this go so you all can analyze this for yourself, I want you to notice that early on, I called him out on the repentance issue. Even though he was not technically addressing that. Why did I do that? Well, first of all, my comments in response to Wendy Rogers was about repentance, so that, in combination with the fact that he was trying to neutralize Christ's doctrine in Mat 7, told me that everything this guy was doing was warring against repentance.

Then, towards the end of the conversation, he said:
Here you seem to be implying that salvation comes by faith AND “having godly sorrow of wrongdoing and sanctifying oneself”.  Which sounds an awful lot like you’re making salvation CONDITIONAL on a particular emotional response to one’s sin.

He rejects the Gospel of Salvation, and I handled this man firmly, not because he was trying to deceive me, but because we were in a public chatroom, where he was trying to deceive others.

I hope this example will help raise the discernment of others, to see how they mock godly sorrow, hating anything having to do with the gift of God.
And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
-2Ti 2:24-25

I can only pray that some people might take the time to look up the Why Millions book.

[anvilhauler]

Just a minor point

re: It must have been unbiblical when he whipped the money changers and knocked over their tables.

It doesn't actually state that Jesus whipped the money changers.

John 2 King James Version
14 And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:

15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;

When I was a new Christian I heard that Jesus had physically assaulted people and that surprised me.  When I checked it out I was pleased to find that wasn't the case.

[creationliberty]

When I said that, I didn't mean he bent them over the tables and beating them. He fashioned a whip, and drove them out with it. That means, he was lashing it at them, and at the animals to drive them out. I will say whipped "at them" next time to avoid confusion.

[Rowan M.]

Another good verse that springs to mind in terms of the Bible being written for the church is this one:

For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. (Acts 20:27)

All the counsel of God means the entire Word of God. In one way or another, it is ALL for us.

If anything could legitimately be said to be for "Israel only" (and more specifically, ancient Israel only), it would be the civil and ceremonial aspects of the Old Testament Law. However, there are still things we can learn from those. For example, the civil law teaches us some principles of justice and provides some important Biblical definitions of things like rape and self-defence. And the ultimate purpose of the ceremonial law is to teach us about Jesus Christ - in particular, the blood sacrifices of animals foreshadowed His final sacrifice on the cross, and the duties of the high priest anticipate His role as our great High Priest in Heaven. The book of Hebrews actually brings a lot of this out.

While the Ten Commandments primarily deal with the moral law (which is why they are good to use in preaching the Law to the lost), there is one related to ceremonial law, and that's the Sabbath requirement. That too is only for ancient Israel, although it gets abused by many cults. But again, there are still things we can learn from it, such as how it foreshadows our eternal rest after we go to our heavenly home.

So even things that really are for Israel only still have some application for us, otherwise they wouldn't be included in the Bible. Not that we're required to do them nowadays, but there are still things we can learn from them. (In fact, the Jewish people are no longer required to do them either - they just have to repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation, same as everyone else.)

Interestingly, the passage in Matthew 7 that initially triggered this Parker guy directly deals with the futility of relying on works for salvation (because these lost people are coming up to Jesus and bragging about all their "many wonderful works". So it may not just be repentance that he's warring against, but the works salvation warning as well. On some level, he's probably trusting in his works, so that might be another reason why he's trying to claim, "Oh, that passage is just for Israel only". (I know he claims to believe in salvation by faith alone, but people can sometimes say that and still be trusting in works somehow - after all, believers in conditional security will claim they believe in salvation by faith alone, but they show they really don't when they think that works can have a bearing on whether they remain saved.)

Unsurprisingly, there is a prideful tone throughout his writing (particularly in his over-familiar use of the word "dude"). That in itself shows his lack of repentance, and if he is relying on works at all, that too would foster a prideful attitude. Pride tends to cause people to "kick against the pricks".

What he says about "correcting each other in love" reminds me of a similar statement by someone who left the church a month ago. It seems that many professing Christians, whether they are false converts or confused believers who have been leavened by false doctrine in church buildings, have this notion that we're supposed to be all "peace and love, man". Like, let's just be nice all the time, because we don't want to upset anyone by rebuking them over sin or false doctrine. Now, there are some preachers who are railers, and a common excuse made for them by their defenders is that they are "being bold" and "speaking the truth without fear" etc. Sometimes they might make a few good points, but their overall attitude is not good, and as often as not they hold to false doctrines themselves. So we do have to guard against railing. Nevertheless, there is absolutely a place for sharp rebuke and calling people out on hypocrisy or spreading false doctrine. As Chris rightly pointed out, Jesus wasn't very "loving" (by the churchianity definition) with some of the things He said. John the Baptist also called the Pharisees who came to him a "generation of vipers". Really, how insensitive! Paul called Elymas the sorcerer a "child of the devil" (Acts 13:10). Whatever was he thinking! Clearly, he was "doing it wrong". He was also less than diplomatic in some of his letters, and Peter and John didn't hold back at times either.

I think actually that when people protest about a need to be more "loving", it is because they are uncomfortable or angry with rebuke they are receiving. However, this guy is not particularly "loving" in what he says! Which is one thing that shows his hypocrisy. Anyway, those are a few thoughts I had.

[creationliberty]

Those are all very good points, and that's exactly why I was as firm with him as I was. He didn't even realize that I didn't call him any names. I simply explained to him that if he continued in his current beliefs, and would not repent of them, it would make him a hypocrite. Because he knew that he would not judge his own way of thinking (meaning that he was sold on stripping out sections of the Bible to justify himself and the beliefs he was taught from a corrupt preacher, who he seemed to be defending in all this without naming who it was), he knew that the result of my words would be that I viewed him as a hypocrite, and after he kept talking, that is true, I did view him as a hypocrite.

In such a corrupt view of Scripture, in which he does not apply to himself anything that was "said to Israel," it is no wonder that he does not understand the doctrine of repentance, and not just does he not understand it, but he seemed to HATE the idea and mock it. That's why he can't understand a verse like this:
The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit.
-Psa 34:18

If he were on a platform like this forum, I probably would have taken more time with him, but on Telegram, it is very difficult to have extra lengthy philosophical discussions about doctrine because it is limited to a certain amount of characters, it is not well organization for one-on-one discussion, and at any point, a user can "block" another person and delete ALL the messages they have written on both sides of the conversation. At least on this forum, the messages are all saved unless an admin deletes them. I have already had that happen a number of times from some cowards, and that's one of the reasons I haven't posted a bunch of them here.

And by the way, did you notice at the end how he quickly switched to assumptions to have an argument? He started saying things like, "you seem to be implying," and "I think you are telling people," because that's the only place he had left to go to justify himself.