Jump to content


Royal Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5,078 Excellent


About Cobalt1959

  • Rank
    Royal Member
  • Birthday 10/31/1959

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    St. Joseph, MO.
  • Interests
    Christ, Family, Church, and computers, in that order.

Recent Profile Visitors

8,179 profile views
  1. Legalism

    Red Flag Alert! No one here is attempting to judge your faith. Just as bad company corrupts good character, bad dogma corrupts sound doctrine. Who you defend as a "sound" teacher marks you. You openly defend people preaching false doctrine, but then want to go on a Christian Internet forum and castigate people who call that false doctrine exactly what it is. That in itself means you have no credibility when it comes to discernment. A person with sound discernment would not be defending someone like N. T. Wright who questions the very core of how and why God saves people and sent Jesus to do so. I don't think you have a clear concept of what that statement means when you are on the wrong side of it.
  2. You should have just started and ended your post with that sentence because you torpedoed your own defense. Lets try your above sentence with just two words changed: Change those two words and your prohibition of women wearing "pants" evaporates. As with most legalists, it seems you fail to apply forethought and logic to the subject before chastising others with weak arguments. We could follow this argument into almost any garment today and I could make a cogent argument for a clear delineation for what would constitute "masculine" and what could constitute "feminine" while you cling to the broader label of the type of clothing to confine your legalist concept of who can and cannot wear it. Help me out here. Explain to me what examples would be masculine or feminine in the following forms of clothing: T shirts. Shirts. Suits. Skirts. Coats. Socks. Underwear. Every single one of these clothing categories have clearly-delineated dividing lines as to what is both masculine and what is feminine, so I anxiously await you explaining to us how someone wearing the wrong socks can detrimentally affect their salvation if they do not subcribe to your legalistic terms.
  3. Legalism

    I've been a member here since 2006. We have had a token person adamant that we must "keep" the Sabbath here off and on, but here in the last 6 months or so there is suddenly a seemingly endless stream of them here, some of them a migration from Grace-Centered Forum to here, which I do not understand since they have their own child board there which they run as their own personal fiefdom. I will make no judgment as to their strength as believers. Some of them know their doctrine is wrong, or has no actual biblical support, which is why they are repeatedly reticent to answer certain questions. Others are simply following what they have been taught and sincerely believe they are right, although they are sincerely wrong. None of them will come right out and say that those not going to church on Saturday are not saved because to do so would clearly violate the TOS here. But they will hint at it covertly, and they do it often when they constantly classify people that do not obey their own interpretation of doctrine as "disobedient." I'm not here to "battle" with them. I am here to illustrate why their beliefs are false and to let they themselves display it is false since they never have a cogent or succinct defense for their doctrine, biblically and they repeatedly dodge pointed questions. That illustrates to others that their doctrine clearly has a problem better than they understand .
  4. Legalism

    They are not actually keeping the Sabbath anyway. They are going to church on Saturday instead of Sunday. That's why none of them will explain, in clear terms, how they actually are "keeping" the Sabbath. That is one of the biggest tip-offs to the entire scam.
  5. Legalism

    Truth is, we all know the answer to that question. Yahweh looks into the heart of the believer - I do hope He is not disappointed. why are we so adverse to obedience? If “ we all know the answer to that” please let me know the answer. I do not know how I can make it any clearer. I believe I said in my previous post that obedience and striving to keep the law were great things.How on earth does somebody misconstrue this to mean “odious”? Please explain. He is implying that those who are not "obedient," in his personal skewed, legalistic definition of the term are disobedient, all based on a really poor understanding of what being obedient actually is , spiritually. He thinks works = obedience.
  6. Ah, Legalism. The gift that keeps on giving all year long. First off, since pants did not even exist when Deuteronomy 22:5 was written, it doesn't really apply here, and there is no way that you can state, emphatically that it is part of the moral law. Pants are a class of clothes that have certain lines which are definitely feminine and other lines which are definitely masculine, so the blanket phrase of "women cannot wear pants" is both stupid and uneducated at the same time. It is also patently false. I think it would be ill-advised for any woman to wear a pair of bib overalls, but if you are going to be consistent in your damnation of any woman who wears pants, you'd better also be openly condemning Hipster men wearing skinny Girl jeans, otherwise, you are a hypocrite. Pants are not automatically men's clothing just because they are pants.
  7. Looking for some opinions

    Hebrews 11:5 By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death; he could not be found, because God had taken him away. For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God. God took Enoch away and Enoch did not die. So where, exactly, did God take him? No where does it say that Enoch died. Hebrews states very clearly that Enoch did not die. Where did he go?
  8. NT Wright Exposed

    I detect a crudely-disguised back-handed swipe there. Odd, since you are denigrating MacArthur, on the one hand, and defending Wright on the other. So you have internal values which are not consistent. What you are actually saying is, "Don't talk about the people I like, but I can disparage people I don't like." That is not the way objectivity works. Both Wright and MacArthur have some doctrinal problems. But Wright's doctrines are much worse because they attack the very concept of salvation. Wright does what most every Liberal "theologian" does. Dismisses the concept of being an actual changed individual after salvation and just boiling Jesus and salvation down to a simple and erroneous formula of just "loving" every one. Wright's insights are nothing new. They are not forward-thinking or ground-breaking. They are just one of the same lies that have been forwarded by the enemy for 1000's of years, just done up in new wrapping so it looks prettier. Wright's is the Lazy Hippie concept of salvation. No changes are necessary, no one needs to see anyone different standing where an unsaved individual once stood. You can just keep living your life anyway you want as long as you invoke the name of Jesus and tell everyone you are full of love. No pesky and annoying spiritual growth is required. It's come-as-you-are-and-stay-that-way salvation. I also find it amusing that some of the most prominent purveyors of false doctrine on this board are always the first ones to invoke the " Don't touch God's annointed" clause when it comes to someone like Wright. Don't speak out against people that are teaching false doctrine. I find that both ironic, and enlightening. When Peter was running off the rails once, Paul was not exactly silent about it. The New Testament prototype is that people, especially teachers that were caught in false doctrine were always pointed out, they were admonished to correct their doctrine and others are warned about taking what they say to heart. The option for a Christian to just ignore false doctrine and false teachers does not exist.
  9. There are a lot of eye witnesses to the 757 flying into the Pentagon. They are never talked about by 911 conspiracy buffs. You had people dead-stopped on the freeway watching it take out light poles. There is film of it flying into the Pentagon. They won't talk about that either. 911 being an "inside" job is one of the dumbest conspiracy theories out there because it is the easiest one to debunk, but it's purveyors continually dismiss facts and embrace rumors and conjecture instead.
  10. If that were true, he wouldn't need to lie, and I have seen him lie about things on his show, more than once. He is a Gloom & Doom Conspiracy theorist and nothing more. Once you lie, you have no more credibility, no matter what you are saying. No one should be taking Alex Jones seriously. About anything.
  11. NT Wright Exposed

    You can attempt to take the conversation off in many differing directions, Scooby, but what you cannot do is alter what N.T. Wright has done when it it comes to his jacked-up concept of Christ's plenary sacrifice. Wright basically throws Jesus sacrifice in the trash. I hate to break it to you, but if we buy into Wright's messed-up view of salvation, none of us are saved. Without Jesus' plenary sacrifice, no one is saved. So your N.T. Wright actually tosses orthodox salvation doctrine in the trash and replaces it with . . . nothing.
  12. Church and abusive marriages

    When someone cannot defend their posts, this is the tactic they fall back on. "I didn't say that." It is always amusing to see someone brand another poster as aggressive while they double down on aggression themselves. It is a porcupine response meant to frighten the opposing force into backing down. People with a secure belief base do not need to resort to that rational. People with secure beliefs do not resort to labeling others ad hock when their beliefs are challenged. They simply defend their beliefs with facts, scripture and explanation. Bristling when your beliefs are challenged does absolutely nothing to make them appear more concrete.
  13. Church and abusive marriages

    You talk about being aggressive and then you call him a pantheist. Really? He is not a pantheist. You scold him for being "aggressive," but your entire post above is aggressive and confrontational. At this point, you have no idea what his theology is. You might want to step back and take a breather.
  14. Looking for some opinions

    You are bearing false witness. Nothing he said was a personal attack. He was simply stating fact. He states that you are propagating false doctrine on this board which is exactly what you are doing. You teach Sabbath-keeping. You teach soul sleep. Those two doctrines are not found in the Bible. They are a product of the teachings of Ellen G. White and they are unable to be supported without using her writings as the basis for those doctrines. I'm sure you do not like having that repeated over and over, but that is the unvarnished truth. You doctrines cannot be biblically supported.
  15. The Sin Exchange?

    Love is a result of one's salvation. It does not bring salvation about. Ephesians 2:8-9 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. Nothing in that verse about love. I find it rather odd when people are pushing a doctrine that does not agree with the Bible and then accuses people who disagree of "Not studying the Bible." Like the person espousing a false doctrine is somehow more knowledgeable than anyone else around them. Not when you are supporting something that is biblically false.