K B Napier (BTM)

K B Napier (BTM)

74p

485 comments posted · 271 followers · following 0

1 week ago @ Christian Doctrine - John MacArthur:- &ldqu... · 0 replies · +1 points

First, check the theology of John 3:16, where God refers to the elect and not to ‘everyone’!
'The world' is 'all nations' as per Isaiah.
And also check scripture, which clearly speaks of predestination.

6 weeks ago @ Christian Doctrine - Are Prayer Meetings Va... · 0 replies · +1 points

Thank you for your comments.
This article took many intense months to get written because of constant checking and amendment. I do not believe I have contradicted myself.
Yes, many fall to counterfeits, but all genuine believers KNOW when God and not Satan is telling them something. There is no formula.
However, prompted prayer is always consistent with scripture and is appropriate to the moment/issue.
I did not condemn anyone, but is a fact. A man who has never seen or felt the sun cannot envisage what it is like. It is a simple fact of logic.
Yes we are called always – but this does NOT mean praying non-stop every moment of every day. Rather, it means to be ready to pray whenever God prompts!
The genuine believer will speak to and with God VERY often throughout the day and sometimes the night, because he or she is close to God. The closer we are, the more often we pray.
As for the Lord’s prayer (which is an example and not a format), it does not teach corporate prayer. It uses plurals simply because it applies to us all. The instance of prayer by a group is shown very rarely in the New Testament, and when it occurs the reasons for it are very specific and urgent. This does NOT apply to scheduled prayer meetings such as those held in every church in the world! Such scheduled prayers contradict and reject what Jesus commanded – that we each enter a private room and prayer alone!!

10 weeks ago @ Christian Doctrine - http://localhost/btm_2... · 0 replies · +1 points

Typically, a critic does not explain what his or her criticism is!
Let me repeat, however – we are NOT Calvinists!! We simply agree with whatever he taught that was consistent with scripture.

13 weeks ago @ Christian Doctrine - http://localhost/btm_2... · 0 replies · +1 points

I can see why you chose the NIV! It contains two vital errors – that we may choose salvation (an offer) and ALL people literally have this offer. How different from the KJAV, which accurately says:

“For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,”

THIS says that salvation has appeared to all men. It does NOT say all men receive an offer to be saved!
The difference is that the KJAV is an actual translation, whereas the NIV is a paraphrase using different (corrupt) sources from those of the KJAV. A paraphrase consists of people mulling over what scripture says, and if those people do not have a true belief in God, their paraphrase will reflect this. Also note that in context the verse you chose goes on to speak of what believers should be like in their lives. Therefore, the verse is NOT about being saved but about the life we must lead AFTER salvation. Even the
corrupt NIV says the same thing. So maybe you need a different ‘proof text’!

15 weeks ago @ Christian Doctrine - John Stott – Her... · 0 replies · +1 points

Not quite.
What you describe IS works.
The necessary part of salvation is God’s election of souls in eternity.
What this means is we can do nothing to earn it, whether by repentance or ‘making Jesus Lord of our life”. Jesus is Lord of EVERY life, whether saved or unsaved. But He is not our Saviour until we are saved. We cannot ‘make’ Him our Lord. He already is our Lord.

22 weeks ago @ Christian Doctrine - Know What comes Next? ... · 0 replies · +1 points

Today I watched BBC news – the first topic was the murders.
But, Christians are murdered EVERY DAY, sometimes in greater numbers –
But the same BBC does not report on them. They are hypocrites.

22 weeks ago @ Christian Doctrine - God Chooses Who Will b... · 0 replies · +1 points

In the Old Testament people were saved from earthly destruction.
That was the main meaning at that time.
A similar meaning can be applied to some New Testament texts, though most know of salvation of the person spiritually.
The examples you give have the first meaning – to be saved from an earthly enemy. But note that they were rescued thus because they obeyed God’s command. Their obedience was prompted by an intense personal burden from the Lord, which assured them. Other than that all in that era who were spiritually accepted by God were accepted on the strength of their righteousness “through faith” (see Hebrews 11 etc). Faith is a gift of God, given to those who are justified before the Lord, Who chooses or elects men to salvation.
You do not identify the exceptions you claim exist in the Greek, so I cannot comment on that. But, I can assert without doubt that God chooses people to salvation, and that their spirits are dead… as God says, no-one seeks after Him in such a dead state.

25 weeks ago @ Christian Doctrine - Examples of Conditiona... · 0 replies · +1 points

Thank you.
But I don’t know which part is ‘Calvinistic’.
I only accept from Calvin what agrees with scripture.

27 weeks ago @ Christian Doctrine - BBC\'s latest Academic... · 0 replies · +1 points

Hmmm. What do I say? After all, I am only a delusional little religious person.
(Please excuse my smile… but the remark is like that of a smug school teacher inexperienced in life who enters teaching straight from the sixth form and college!).
Yes, the issues raised in the programme are already well-known. But, NOT to ordinary viewers! Hence the need to speak against it. What the young lady said was capable of several alternative meanings… but these were not given.
That so many academics believe as she does is very sad. And that you appear to have deliberately looked at a Christian website just to argue is, well, a bit indicative of a bully’s agenda. It is also a sign that you feel threatened, and so you lash out… better than doing real research. Unfortunately you hit out at the wrong person…
I loathe bullies and I scorn the idea of consensus in ANY science. My theology is based NOT on this humanly contrived consensus based on biblically-invalid arguments, but on genuine research into what scripture says. If secular or non-biblical sources disagree, well,
that’s not my problem.
Nor do their views mean a jot. As for believing in fairies, don’t you know that each time you openly say they don’t exist, a poor fairy dies? (joke1)
Shame on you! And that you say you belong to the consensus-bearers is sad… I prefer truly academic minds that question and do not sit back
and say science is now closed… this is scientism, not true science!
Genuine textual analysis arises from scripture itself. Everything outside this is secondary and non-authoritative… like the meaningless drivel arising not from scripture but from the minds of the German schools such as Higher and Lower criticism, whose words belong in a book on fairies (sorry to invoke your friends) and are so obviously nuanced in a very amateurish way.

27 weeks ago @ Christian Doctrine - Easter... or Passover?... · 0 replies · +1 points

Amongst scholars the author of Acts is unknown or anonymous.
It is my view that Paul was the author but Luke was the scribe.
However, you or I may or may not be right!