Hi

[AVoice]

I have been a believer in Jesus since 1973. I received the Holy Spirit in 1973.
I only use the KJV.
I am zealous about the seriousness of marriage; no divorce is allowed in the NT for a God-joined couple. See Mark 10:2-12. The exception clause of Matt 5:31,32; 19:9 has NOTHING to do with adultery.
I believe the earth is flat. It is part of creation; it is important. Satan is that real; to have deceived the world about this; he has reasons.
Jesus comes to destroy, not reign on this present earth 2 Pet 3.
Eternal Security is one of the worse plagues to ever afflict Christianity. Salvation is on condition of abiding in the vine.
Baptism in Jesus' name for remission of sins.
The great mystery of the Godhead is not correctly explained by the common "Trinity" explanation. God said he was going to have a Son and so about 2019 years ago he literally begat a Son. The Son came in the flesh. He became a person at conception like the rest of us. A great mystery. God was manifest in the flesh.

[creationliberty]

Hi Larry. I'm glad you were straightforward with us. I don't believe you're a Christian because you don't believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and I doubt you'll get along with hardly anyone here, which leaves me wondering why you joined in the first place. Thanks for being forthcoming; it saves us a lot of time.

[Timothy]

I went ahead and banned him since he said he wanted to leave.

https://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=512.msg5693#msg5693

He said he believes in Jesus, but I question what his faith is actually in. It sounds like, based on what he stated, it's in his own works that he puts his faith in saying you need to be baptized to be saved. To him, Salvation has nothing to do with repentance and faith. Instead, it's all about your works of baptism and abiding in the vine.

This is what I think he was referring to when he said to abide in the vine. This is all I could find based on that reference, at least.

John 15:1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.
2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.
3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

Jesus says here that those who do not bear fruit are cast away because they do not abide in him. And those that do bring fruit do abide in him. Larry is trying to say that you can lose your salvation if you don't bring fruit. But he doesn't understand that bearing fruit is not a condition for salvation. It's the result of salvation. Larry believes in works salvation. He said he believes in Jesus, but with what he believes I'm left asking myself "Where is his faith in Jesus?" Because if he really believed in Jesus, he wouldn't put so much emphasis on doing works to be saved or to keep your salvation.

And there's not even a hint of repentance that I can see.

[creationliberty]

I'll try not to spend too much time on this because I've got a lot of writing and Bible study to do today. First, I'll say Tim is correct on everything he said. Second, the notice at the top of the "Introduce Yourself" board suggests to tell us (and this is in big bold print):
"writing a bit about yourself, your beliefs, how you found this site, why you joined, etc"
I'm glad he wrote out his beliefs, and yeah, it saved us a lot of time, but the "why he joined" aspect is what he remained silent about because he actually came here to pick a fight. He wouldn't confess that openly because it would make him look bad.

If the man was stated that he was an unbeliever, I would have had a lot more patience with him, but he claimed he was brethren, and it didn't take but a few sentences before I knew that wasn't true. When someone comes in here feigning to be brethren in Christ, they're here to cause trouble; nothing more.
Cast out the scorner, and contention shall go out; yea, strife and reproach shall cease.
-Pro 22:10

I have been a believer in Jesus since 1973. I received the Holy Spirit in 1973.
This already starts throwing up warning flags. When someone comes to faith in Christ, they receive the Holy Spirit at the same time, and I prove that from the Scripture in my teaching:
The Biblical Understanding of Baptism
Thus, since he separates the two events of faith and the Holy Spirit of God, he's believed some strange doctrine. So now I continue to read Larry's words with caution.

I only use the KJV.
No problems there, but again, using a KJB is not indicative of salvation, as there are many who are false converts that use a KJB. Therefore, this is not adding any positive notes onto his statements of faith; I'm still cautious because of his first point.

I am zealous about the seriousness of marriage; no divorce is allowed in the NT for a God-joined couple. See Mark 10:2-12. The exception clause of Matt 5:31,32; 19:9 has NOTHING to do with adultery.
This forum is a good place for new Christians to start exercising discernment. The more you do it, the better you'll get at it.
But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
-Heb 5:14
The main problem with this is that, if I were to put Larry's points into a successive sentence, upon meeting Larry for the first time, he says to you, "I believe on Jesus, I use a KJB, and there is NO divorce allowed in the NT!" Now, if someone came up to you and said that, you would probably be on your heels and thinking, "What is wrong with this guy?" Well then, I have a question for you: Why wouldn't you think the same thing on the internet?
When any of you came onto this forum, and anyone else who isn't a member can go back to past introduction posts and read them, did any of you start out introducing yourself that way? I can affirm: No. Why not? Because you came to us with a different spirit than Larry because Larry has come to us with a contentious spirit of strife, not a spirit of fellowship and truth, and that's the first point where I knew this guy was going to be a problem.
I would also remind everyone that this forum is paid for; it's on the server that the website is on, and as I stated in the rules of the forum, this is like going into someone else's house. Larry doesn't pay for this place; this isn't Larry's playhouse. So if Larry came and knocked on your door, walked in, and started making these statements, you might be a little bit on guard, and reasonably so; therefore, I hope you all will start to think this way with peoples' words on the internet and this forum as well. (i.e. If they act this way online, no matter how they are offline, they have that same corruption in their heart--they only act differently offline because people can actually see their faces [or in other words, they're brave only because they're behind a computer screen].)

Larry went immediately from this post, to posting this:
http://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=512.msg5689#msg5689
He went a thread that's been dead for months now because we had to end up banning the guy who started it. We then had to ban another guy who tried to reopen it. And lo and behold... the thread is about whether or not God allows divorce. See how basic deductive reasoning works out?
By the way, it should be noted that his post on the other thread had a lot of complex terms and phrases in it; stuff he probably doesn't even understand. The point I want to make about that is that I copy and pasted some of his lines to a google search engine, and all he's doing is copying phrases and verse references out of typical church-ianity websites. As I said in the other thread, I believe he's a product of church-ianity preachers, but does not have understanding.
I also address those concerns in my book on marriage, which again, is free to read here:
Marriage: What Christians Should Know -- Chapter #4

I believe the earth is flat.
I have yet to meet any flat-earther, whether they claim to be of Christ or not, that did not write me or come on this forum with a heart of debate, contention, and strife. I've also not met one yet who has actually been willing to hear me out on anything concerning that matter. In the years I've encountered those folks, I had 0% success in talking to them. (Case in point.) The warning flags about Larry were already piling up in my mind, and I've barely read a third of his introduction.

It is part of creation; it is important.
*sigh* How do I even address this? When someone comes onto the forum and says "the earth is important," how... that doesn't say anything. It's saying nothing. If someone has to make the statement that the earth is part of the creation, we are in baby land; meaning that this is the education we give to babies and toddlers.

Satan is that real; to have deceived the world about this; he has reasons.
This is how flat-earthers try to give importance to a topic that is not have Biblical backing. I know, of course they claim that it does, but I've done other teachings that demonstrate that they have no understanding of the Scripture they're using; Dederick has even led Saturday night chats, back when we used to do them, talking about this very issue, and that what the Scripture they claim proves a "flat earth," has no contextual meaning the shape of the earth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnI3K_mv8DM
Years ago, I went through a lot of verses they use, and they are as guilty as any other corrupt organization that uses keyword searching as a basis for a "Bible study."

Jesus comes to destroy, not reign on this present earth 2 Pet 3.
I don't know why Larry thought that was relevant for us to know about him, and he doesn't explain himself either.

Eternal Security is one of the worse plagues to ever afflict Christianity. Salvation is on condition of abiding in the vine.
This is actually where I stopped reading his post and wrote my response. I didn't bother to read any of the rest of it, and I think I'll stop here too because I don't want to dedicate too much time to this, as I said, I've got work to do today. Tim's post will help give a bit more understanding to this, but the first thing we need to understand is that this forum is connected to creationliberty.com. It is obvious this guy did not check out anything that I teach, which obviously, the majority of us are going to be in agreement on doctrine; thus, he doesn't care to find out what we teach and believe. However, he did look over some posts on this forum, and he knew we disagreed with him, but did you see anywhere in which he stated that he was going to disagree with us on somethings and he was here to have some friendly discussion on those topics? I never saw him post any such thing; and thus, he's here to pick a fight because he loves to fight. He never came here to learn anything, nor to be corrected on anything.

The reason he doesn't understand Christ's doctrine on eternal security is because he doesn't understand what it means to be born again in addition to his lack of understanding about false converts. (i.e. Often, false converts do not understand--and have a willing ignorance of--the doctrine on false converts; go figure.) But that's why I made this teaching, and called it:
False Converts vs Eternal Security
And by the way, he won't understand this, but it also means he doesn't understand the doctrine of repentance (i.e. grief and godly sorrow) either.
Is Repentance Part of Salvation?

Tim's analysis of "abiding on the vine" was good. I'm always very cautious of those who use such phrases, but don't explain them, which forced Tim to have to go searching for what he was talking about contextually. When someone ignores context in their own words, you can almost guarantee they ignore context when reading God's words as well.
In short, Larry believes in his works. And that's why I said I don't believe he's saved, he doesn't believe in the Gospel of Christ, and he won't get along with us. I genuinely thanked him for being forthcoming about his beliefs, because it does save us a lot of time, and my suspicions of why he joined seemed to be correct based on his spammed posts of accusation on his way out, and you'll notice, I am once again the sole target of his railing accusations, as he said:

"Wow, how filthily judgmental. So this is not a place to seriously discuss Biblical doctrine. It is a place to get banned for willing to discuss."
By the way, no one banned him at this point, and he didn't even understand why the other guys got banned. They didn't get banned for wanting to discuss a matter. The first guy got banned because of his constant murmuring (complaints half-suppressed), in which was trying to take cheap shots at insulting and disrespecting people here because we were correcting him on the Scripture. The second guy got banned for spam and railing accusation because of his rage; it should be noted that he was banned twice because we allowed him back in again and got fooled a few days later.
No one was banned for wanting to have discussion, but I suppose it is typical that a flat-earth, works-based false convert would profess that in order to give himself an excuse.
If anyone thinks my judgment of Larry was "filthy," then speak up and explain your argument. Again, this is just a excuse for Larry so he'll feel better about himself on the way out.

Larry continues to say:
"I pray that the Lord will chastise that child for his extreme filthiness. Such behavior is disgusting."
He left immediately. So, why do you guys think he didn't instead say, "Oh no, I must have given you guys the wrong impression when I first came here. What did you have a problem with in particular? Let me know and we'll discuss those things." Why didn't he say that? After all, I thought he was here to "discuss Biblical doctrine?" Apparently he wasn't, or he wouldn't have left the moment someone disagreed with him. He wasn't here to discuss anything; he was here to teach false doctrines, and try to draw away disciples into his cult. Just so we're all clear: I'm not interested in discussions with people like Larry because he will not hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Consider this for a moment: Do any of you believe, after seeing how Larry reacted, that he would have listened to me if I had explained all this first? Again, he didn't come here to listen and learn; he came here to pick a fight.
Only by pride cometh contention: but with the well advised is wisdom.
-Pro 13:10

[strangersmind]

I do not think he is going to listen one way or a nether. I have never met a flat earther who has. That is there gospel the flat earth. 

[Laura]

Chris,
I got the same first impression that you did. Larry and his intentions were easy to discern. I see what you mean by the difference in introductions of people who are genuinely looking for fellowship and learning versus those who are here to teach and cause strife and contention. While he did share a lot of his beliefs, he did not share much about himself. Thank you for your responses; they are helpful for people like me. I was literally laughing out loud when you said:

we are in baby land

That is so true. My 19 month old daughter is learning that earth was part of creation from her toddler Bible. LOL! It makes me sad to see so many people come and go so quickly, but it is not surprising.

Luke‬ 10:2-3‬ KJB
Therefore said he unto them, The harvest truly is great, but the labourers are few: pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he would send forth labourers into his harvest. Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves.

[creationliberty]

Exactly; that's primarily what I was thinking of: children's books. That's like joining this forum and saying, "Hear me o' brethren: Thus saith the Lord, The cow goes moo." I'm not saying "the cow goes moo" is not education per se, but it's education that Laura's 19-month old daughter learns in her current education, which is not something we would typically think was an important point of contention for someone who claims to have been saved for almost 50 years.

[Laura]

Perhaps we misunderstood what he meant there, but if that is the case, his point was not clearly stated.

[anvilhauler]

It is good to see him gone so fast.

Something is definitely wrong when he hasn't learned some basics since 1973.

[Zoologistkid]

Yeah, I knew something was wrong when I read his testimony last night. When I was in my conspiracy days, I believed that the flat earth was the best destroyer of evolution. But I left that in 2015 when I found out about CLE. Looking back on it, I researched it and found that the majority of Flat Earthers are evolutionists! "Good For Creation" my foot!