# The church of the reformation was Sardis



## ReformedWretch (Jan 22, 2005)

Someone is actually saying this!

I don't get into trouble seeing 7 literal churches in Rev 2-3. I believe I belong to Philly!

The TROUBLE is with those who belong to Sardis and don't want to admit it. Now there is trouble! They have a name that lives yet are dead. That's TROUBLE. And that's what we call today a "coverup".

But look at the Reformed church. Still baptized into salvation and the church just like Rome. Had the Name alright, just thought that any born into their church were "elect" -- didn't need no stinkin' decision. Baptized whole towns just to get the "obvious" out of the way. Persecuted those who said baptizm follows true repentance unto salvation only -- called 'em "second baptizers." Why the audacity to think we don't know if our own are saved.

Ah, how the tradition lives on! Decisions, 2nd baptisms -- who needs 'em? We be elect!

Yup, there's trouble for you alright if you believe it or spread the untruth of Sardis.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 22, 2005)

> Still baptized into salvation and the church just like Rome.


The guy is _abysmally_ ignorant about the meaning and mode of baptism, from within Reformed theology. It's pathetic, really.


> just thought that any born into their church were "elect"


Riiiiiiiight. And NO ONE in your church--young or old, baptized or not--has EVER been wrong about their salvation. Sure.


> Baptized whole towns just to get the "obvious" out of the way


Perhaps he'd like to provide some documentation? From the 1500s and onward, please. Nothing earlier, please. Lacks relevance.


> Persecuted those who said baptizm follows true repentance unto salvation only -- called 'em "second baptizers."


Sooooo, did ALL reformed believers so "persecute"? (No) And were there violent, radical anabaptists? (Oh yes) So, if _we_ are guilty by association, doesn't that mean _they too_ are guilty by association? Or are we the only ones who have "heritage sins" to account for? Double standard.


> Ah, how the tradition lives on!


Hope he's more committed to the Scripture than *his own tradition...*


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 22, 2005)

Oh, by the way, Adam,
The quote really should be "linked" to the original statement.


----------



## SmokingFlax (Jan 22, 2005)

Sounds like another one of the hundreds of self contradicting "prophets" that are out there. This guy is totally arbitrary...and, as Bruce pointed out, really ignorant of a lot of info.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jan 23, 2005)

Well, I found this comment on the board I am having this debate on;



> It may would take me until next wednesday, to name them all here who will say they believe in Jesus, and will tell you that He isn't LORD (God).



Now ask my why dispensationalism makes me angry and sad.


----------



## turmeric (Jan 23, 2005)

Not the Lordship Salvation thing again!

BTW; I think the Reformed church is Ephesus! Trying to figure out how to do what Jesus said though. I think the Evanjellyfish church in the US is Laodicea!


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jan 23, 2005)

Not, not Lordship salvation, these people deny that Jesus is God.


----------



## Ivan (Jan 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> Not, not Lordship salvation, these people deny that Jesus is God.



Dispensationalists who deny Jesus is God?


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jan 23, 2005)

Apparently!


----------



## Ivan (Jan 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> Apparently!



It's been a long time since I've been around Dispensationalists. I was never very deep into it in the first place. I've never heard of such a thing. Not that I'm disputing you. 

I believe anything is possible these days.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jan 23, 2005)

Apparently these people claim to be Messianic Jews. Most seem to hold to dispensational theology but I am sure some don't. From my observation this has happened because Jews have been so catered to by the Dispensationalists at this site. But again, that's just how I see it.

Here is the thread;

http://www.levitt.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=002981


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jan 23, 2005)

Here's is how it is being explained to me right now.



> there are Non-Trinitarians who DO belive Jesus is God, and there are definitely non-Trinitarians who do NOT think Jesus was God...
> 
> this board has both types


----------



## turmeric (Jan 23, 2005)

These are Jews who are not converted yet! The Dispensationalists need to make the Gospel plain to them. Of course, then the Dispensationalists might discover what Paul meant by "the offense of the Cross" but oh, well! Ask them if they're interested in having an online study of the book of Galatians.


----------

