Search results

I can live with that. Please understand that it was not my intention to "tag you with believing Calvinist doctrine", as you put it. I was merely presenting the rational behind the two separate natures doctrine. I would never suggest that you agreed with that rational, quite the opposite, which...

All kidding aside, I think speculating about the layout and functionality of Heaven is a perfectly fine thing to do, but I'm always reminded of I Corinthians 2:9 I Corinthians 2:9 But as it is written: “Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, Nor have entered into the heart of man The things which God...

Well, perhaps. I can't put my finger on it, but, intuitively (and I'm the opposite of a strong intuitive), there's something about the notion that Jesus was weak and subject to corruption that doesn't sit well in my brain.

October 2nd. Sam Adam's birthday and "Make up your own doctrine out of whole clothe!" day. Who knew?!

I can detect no difference between what you are arguing and the Calvinist hypostatic union doctrine. I have no problem at all believing that you reject the Calvinist rational for this doctrine, which is the reason I brought it up. The point being that if you reject the rational for the doctrine...

You guys are arguing in favor of a Calvinist doctrine called the Hypostatic Union. I assure you there is no need for the doctrine! Their reasoning for the doctrine is based on the same notions that I deal with in the opening post. Calvinists (and other Augustinians) argue that if Jesus’...

You're reading too much into those three words. Acts13:33 God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm: ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.’ 34 And that He raised Him from the dead, no more to return to...

Yes. I didn't expect that you would disagree with my comment. I was just being technical and precise.

No one would be stupid enough to say it but that isn't the point. It is what this idea implies. A singular person has a singular nature. A person's nature is the person. You are what you are. God is what God is. Jesus is what Jesus is. Jesus isn't two bifurcated things, He's one unified thing...

Two. The first Adam and the last Adam. The first started "very good" but became weak and corrupted because sin overcame him and killed him. The last was never weak nor subject to corruption and defeated both sin and death.

If Jesus was not both, we are all fools and Christianity is false. If you do not believe that Jesus was both, you will die in your sin.

It may be a semantic difference but I think it an important one. God's divine nature was not overlaid with a separate human nature but He, while remaining divine, CHANGED into a human being. He became flesh. Not fallen flesh, but flesh nonetheless. He was a divine human. He is a divine human...

We are to "recon" this to be true, by faith. The former is true of us positionally and we are to live by this spiritual truth by faith. The later is the reality that we are currently dealing with while we wait for the fulfillment of our hope which is Christ. If this were not the case then no...

It is not two natures! I keep coming across people who say this but they never seem to actually think it through. Jesus is NOT two people. He is ONE person. There was a time before He became a human being but when He became a human, that change was a real change. It was not some sort of costume...

I was not making any attempt to rank the "bigness", if you'll allow the term, of one change over another. Whenever I discuss the issue of God changing in various ways, I try to focus on the incarnation, suffering and resurrection of Christ because there is no one who can call themselves a...

I've been doing some reading and studying lately. Much of which is in response to some rather wacky arguments that I've been confronted with concerning the issue of divine immutability. I had someone actually attempt to argument that the doctrine of divine immutability logically required the...

It should be made clear that I do not mean to say the 90+ percent of molested children become homosexuals. That is definitely and thankfully not true. What is true, however, is the converse of that. Nearly all homosexual males are victims of childhood sexual abuse. Their first sexual experiences...

@Idolater, I did some looking into what I have saved on my own computer and it turns out that I had two books confused. The book, "What to Do Until the Psychiatrist Comes" is indeed a good source of information about this topic but it was not the book that had various lists of how to raise...

I was actually able to find an online article that both quotes from and links to some of the genetic studies that really do prove that a person is not born gay.... The ‘Born Gay’ Myth: When Ideology Masquerades as Science Not quite the citation you asked me for but its a step in the right...

Citing this information would be very nearly impossible to do today. It's too politically incorrect to have such truths published any longer. In the 90s it was common knowledge that homosexuality is a psychosis brought on by prolonged sexual contact between a child between the ages of 5-8 years...