Kingsley Dickson✍🏾

I know one thing. Concerning this Reformed vs. Pentecostals argument. I just know that if your theology is sound, it will humble you before anything else.

How well do you know your Bible as a Christian? 📖 I was chosen to replace another. Lots were cast to select me. Yet after my selection, I was never mentioned again. Who am I?

Seyi Tinubu at Black Coffee Live Lagos 🇳🇬

The objection assumes the flood was supposed to be a permanent "hard drive wipe" for sin, or that God arbitrarily chose mass destruction instead of instantly sending Jesus. The Bible paints a different picture of justice, mercy, patience, and a step-by-step redemptive plan.First, the pre-flood world wasn't normal sin — it was total corruption: “every intention of the thoughts of [man’s] heart was only evil continually” (Gen 6:5), with violence filling the earth and corrupting creation itself (Gen 6:11-13). God acted not in spite but in grief (Gen 6:6). Noah preached righteousness for 120 years (2 Pet 2:5), and Christ Himself preached through him to the disobedient (1 Pet 3:19-20). Everyone had ample warning. No one outside Noah’s family repented. The rejection was willful.On “innocents” (babies, children, pregnant women, animals): The culture was so deeply corrupted that it likely permeated families — systemic violence, possibly Nephilim-related evils. God, as sovereign giver and taker of life, judged a corrupted creation. For the young, many theologians point to an age of accountability: those unable to knowingly rebel aren’t punished the same way. Their deaths can be seen as mercy — spared from growing up in that hellish society. Animals were included because the judgment was on the whole corrupted order (a “de-creation”). Letting evil multiply longer would have meant even more suffering for the vulnerable.The flood was never meant to eradicate sin’s root. Right afterward, God says: “even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood” (Gen 8:21). The problem is internal, in the fallen heart — not fixed by external catastrophe. The flood was targeted judgment on that era’s extreme evil, a merciful restraint, a covenant reset with a preserved remnant, and a forward-pointing picture. Noah (righteous one providing refuge in the ark) foreshadows Christ. The flood warns of coming judgment (by fire next time) and shows salvation through one figure.Why not send Jesus earlier? God’s plan unfolded in “the fullness of time” (Gal 4:4). An immediate Messiah would have skipped the necessary historical revelation: covenants with Abraham, the law exposing sin, prophets, priesthood, kingship, and Israel as light to the nations. These gave the categories (sacrifice, atonement, Messiah) so people could recognize and receive the incarnate Son. The flood and Old Testament events are types and warnings preparing the way — not replacements for the cross. Judgment and salvation aren’t opposites; the cross is both.The fact that sin continued afterward (and over 98% of humans still faced it) isn’t a bug — it’s the point. External resets fail. Real change requires heart-level redemption through Christ’s atonement, offered to all who trust God’s promise (including pre-Christ believers).This isn’t “genocide.” It’s holy justice against rampant evil, paired with patient mercy (long warning, remnant saved, rainbow covenant) and a wise long-term plan that culminates in the cross. Scripture acknowledges the emotional weight — God grieves — but it fits His character: hating evil while loving creation enough to preserve and ultimately redeem it.The flood shows sin’s seriousness and our need for the true Ark: Jesus.

The brand of Christianity that makes people get angry when you hold them to the actual standard of Christianity is a cancer. The kind of Christianity that parades with the title but shuns a life of holiness is a cancer. If you will pose as a Christian, people have the right to hold you to the standards of Christianity.

Intellectual honesty demands I concede that I overstated Calvin's position. You are right that Calvin rejected the Catholic understanding of Real Presence and used sharp language against it. The quote you cite is genuine and of course shows Calvin's hostility... But notice sometn

My chief, you misrepresented the truth when you said Calvin believed the Eucharist is a means of grace. Let me quote what he said in Book IV about the Catholics' idea of the nature of the Eucharist: "I now come to the hyperbolical mixtures which superstition has introduced. Here Satan has employed all his wiles, withdrawing the minds of men from heaven, and imbuing them with the perverse error that Christ is annexed to the element of bread. And, first, we are not to dream of such a presence of Christ in the sacrament as the artificers of the Romish court have imagined, as if the body of Christ, locally present, were to be taken into the hand, and chewed by the teeth, and swallowed by the throat." Calvin directly calls the Catholic view of the Eucharist Satanic. He found it Satanic to believe Christ's body is present in the bread and wine. What he did believe, according to the book you cited, is that the bread and wine are indeed symbols of an inner union with the Spirit in us: "Therefore, it is not the principal part of a sacrament simply to hold forth the body of Christ to us without any higher consideration, but rather to seal and confirm that promise by which he testifies that his flesh is meat indeed, and his blood drink indeed, nourishing us unto life eternal, and by which he affirms that he is the bread of life, of which whosoever shall eat, shall live for ever." So, it wasn't a means of grace to Calvin. To Calvin, what Jesus did at the cross was enough. You tried to appeal to the authority of the Reformers. They weren't unanimous. Luther held on to consubstantiation. He believed we receive the body and blood of Christ through the bread and wine. Calvin didn't. And Zwingli did not either. In fact, he held on to the most symbolic view of the Eucharist. I am saying appealing to the authority of the Reformation leaders is no argument at all. They all held differing views on its nature. Secondly, you said the seven sacraments have always been present in Scripture individually. Many things are present in Scripture. I can pick charity that James says marks the true religion and declare it a sacrament. But the seven summation is the issue. Jesus didn't list seven sacraments. The early church didn't list seven sacraments. No church father listed seven sacraments. Therefore, the doctrine of the seven sacraments necessary for salvation isn't like the Trinity that was retrieved from scripture. The trinity is explicit in scripture. Jesus said the Father is God. Jesus said He was God. Jesus said He would send the Spirit of God. From the Old to the New, the Trinity is everywhere. Furthermore, the early church fathers easily found the Trinity in scripture in less than a 2nd century AD. Why didn't they find the seven sacraments necessary for salvation? Why did it take 1,200 years before it was invented? As Ludwig Ott says, Jesus didn't command it. The early church didn't believe it. The church fathers didn't affirm it. It is an invention that has no scriptural basis. On taking Jesus' words literally: You said the audience reacted to Him saying they must eat His flesh and Him saying, 'My flesh is food indeed,' confirms its literalness. That's not true. The answer to your apparent misinterpretation rests in verse 35 of the same John 26: "And Jesus said to them, 'I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst." Jesus mentioned bread, and He didn't follow it with eating. He did with 'coming to Him,' and then he who believes in Him will never thirst. Jesus was not referring to the physical ingestion of material substance, but rather belief through faith. Verse 54 drives the point of Jesus home. He was talking about eternal life: 54 "Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." And we know that we have eternal life not by drinking the communion but by believing in His atoning sacrifice: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” John 3:16 Finally, your appeal to Reformers and John 26 to prove the seven sacraments and transubstantiation does not work. I will wait for the next argument.

I am not disputing that. I am only saying that it creates an echo chamber. It is like saying you only discuss Christianity with Christians. That would negate what Acts of the Apostles 17:17 shows, that Paul reasoned daily, even with philosophers in the Areopagus. You say I may never understand it. If your doctrine is too complex for a moderately educated Christian like myself, then that is a problem. Christian doctrine should, by its very nature, be clear enough to be grasped. Paul himself emphasized clarity and openness in how truth is communicated. And he also said that what he wrote was not beyond their understanding: “For we are not writing any other things to you than what you read or understand.” 2 Corinthians 1:13 Now, let us even assume that I am too dull to understand Catholic doctrine, you could have shared it with other thoughtful people on the TL. I am sure one or two people would have benefited from it. But you didn’t. Instead, I challenged your claim of calling Protestants heretics on the basis that your seven-sacrament doctrine has no clear biblical, patristic, or ante-Nicene foundation. Calling other Christians heretics is effectively damning them, and for such a strong claim, there should be a strong argument. That is what I challenged, by quoting your own catechism and your own scholar. And you had no response.

Mr Lekan, I will never bring myself down to debate Catholic doctrines with you. Never! Not with you, not with anyone who is not a practising Catholic. We can debate on anything else. But if you are not a practising Catholic, you will never catch me dead or alive debate Catholic doctrines that have been in existence for a long with a protestant. This is my last time on this topic with you.

The line of succession has been broken a number of times through the schism with the EO and when 3 popes anthemized themselves. Lol Bro you like to use find faith alone and exact word fallacy now show me where Peter was pronounced POPE you can't lol. Trust me bro nain u dey do