Google for Cornelius R Stam or Les Feldick
Didn't Feldick teach that people don't have to repent to be saved?
Google for Cornelius R Stam or Les Feldick
Didn't Feldick teach that people don't have to repent to be saved?
Not that I am aware of, but I have already posted on what repentance really meant in the context of Jesus's first coming to Israel here.
https://christianchat.com/threads/some-things-about-the-law-that-need-explaining.196401/post-4451727
For us, we need to believe in Jesus's death burial and resurrection for our sins (1 Cor 15:1-4). If there is repentance, it more to repent of our works to get right with God, and rest in Jesus's finished works.
Sounds like you also believe repentance of sin is also not needed.
Good dayAlright then.
I could have also called you stubborn but then again, as I said, we are always the protagonist in our own minds so there is really no point in doing so, cheers.
That seems to happen a lot in here. People come in preaching things no one has ever heard before. You wonder where they come fromWhat denomination do you belong to? I have never heard anyone say these types of things.
Amen, like someone saying the new covenant which restors man king to life with Christ has nothing to do with the crossFor someone to say they believe the gospel but never repented is an oxymoron. Also for someone to say they truly repented but do not believe the gospel is also an oxymoron.
Amen, like someone saying the new covenant which restors man king to life with Christ has nothing to do with the cross
Which is doing exactly what I said.Don’t misquote me, what I objected was your doctrine that the cross equals the new covenant
Which is doing exactly what I said.
the new covenant is what restores man king to God
you claim it is not the cross. When the cross is the very root and foundation of the new covenant
The new covenant is for everyone while yes it is new to Isreal it is offered to allIt is thru the cross that God could cut a new covenant with Israel, when they repent and believe in Christ as their Messiah.
Because Israel rejected the Holy Spirit in Acts 7 when they stoned Stephen, the cross also became the way in which all of us gentiles can be saved thru their fall (1 Cor 15:1-4, Romans 11:11).
But the cross is not equivalent to the new covenant. We in the Body of Christ are saved thru the cross, but God did not cut any covenant with us, old nor new.
The new covenant is for everyone while yes it is new to Isreal it is offered to all
your not saved apart from the new covenant.
Read my post concerning the new vs old covenantThat is where we disagree. We are saved thru the cross, after Israel's fall (Romans 11:11)
Just as the old covenant was made with Israel, the new covenant will also be made with them (Hebrews 8:8)
Read my post concerning the new vs old covenant
ninevah Was saved through the cross. They did not have to wait for Israel to fall. Where do you come up with this stuff? It’s dangerous
I have provided all the scripture references in my posts.
Scripture did not say Ninevah was saved, only that they repented, and no cross was mentioned anywhere in that account.
While Nineveh did repent after hearing Jonah’s preaching, the city, centuries later, returned to heathenism and was eventually overrun by its enemies (prophesied in the book of Nahum). I don't understand why people want to use them as an example of gentile salvation.
So because ninevah returned to heat he is, those who were saved at the preaching of jonah are not saved?I have provided all the scripture references in my posts.
Scripture did not say Ninevah was saved, only that they repented, and no cross was mentioned anywhere in that account.
While Nineveh did repent after hearing Jonah’s preaching, the city, centuries later, returned to heathenism and was eventually overrun by its enemies (prophesied in the book of Nahum). I don't understand why people want to use them as an example of gentile salvation.
So because ninevah returned to heat he is, those who were saved at the preaching of jonah are not saved?
really man, you need to listen to yourself,
The Almighty doesn't deliver promises to a people without covenanting with them first. He's a God of relationships.
1) A covenant is established and promises are made.
2) That covenant is then cut with blood, where the sacrifice is killed and the blood is sprinkled onto the people receiving the covenant.
3) And then at a later time that covenant is confirmed with a full receipt of the promise(s) made.
OT Covenant: Book of the law; blood of bulls sprinkled on the people; the kingdom of Israel established later on.
NT Covenant: Law written on hearts & sins forgiven; blood of Messiah shed on cross and covers the recipients; kingdom of God to be established in future.
----
The only covenant recorded and referenced in all the pages of the NT, with all of the features of forgiveness of sins, Messiah's blood from cross sprinkled, spiritual gifts, writing law on hearts, etc) is the one made with Israel & Judah (Heb 8:8).
So this means one of three things:
A) either gentiles have replaced Israel & Judah (replacement theology, which we both agree is false)
B) or gentiles gain access to become part of Israel & Judah proper to partake in the promises (that being the great secret revealed to Peter in his dream before meeting Cornelius)
C) or the Almighty is a liar and - just like a man - will change His word if He is wronged (......but we know The Living "God is not a man that He should like nor a son of man that he should change his mind") (Num 23:19).
...see what I mean?