Search results

The passage limits the scope of "all things" to what is defined in context. To try to argue that it means anything more than that is to go beyond what the text says. Thank you for conceding the entire discussion, and for admitting Let's stick to what Scripture says. Not what we want it to...

The problem is that, as with any language, including ancient Hebrew and KOINE Greek, any given word has a sphere of meaning. It cannot mean something that it does not mean. When strung together to form sentences, those sentences can only be translated a limited number of ways. And when...

I won't deny the possibility of some demonic activity. But I think what Bob Enyart always said holds more water than demonic activity: Stupid doesn't make you sin, but sin makes you stupid. And these people are sinners wallowing in their sin, in need of a Savior but rejecting Him.

Oh, and this is called "begging the question."

False. There is no passage in scripture, nor collection of passages as a whole, that communicates to us that God knows literally everything. In order to arrive at that conclusion, you must intentionally read "omniscience" into the text. Right, because what we're caveating is a pagan concept...

The definition of a miracle (from Oxford Languages, through a quick Google search): "a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency." In other words, you will never understand through the study...

We agree on this. No, sorry, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. You can't just apply your reasoning to one passage and not another. If the context is what tells us what "all things" is referring to in one passage, then the context is what tells us what "all things" refers to...

I was mostly referring to the rank and file leftists. They simply don't have the brain capacity for it. The elite, however, are dangerously smart.

Original sin is false because of what the Bible says. Go read Ezekiel 18. Yes, the whole chapter. It puts the entire idea of "original sin" to rest, PERMANENTLY.

Answered by others here, but quite frankly, it's not what someONE determines, but what is allowed by the context. This is simply false. The Bible was written in such a way that it is extremely hard to mistranslate it. It was written as a story, a narrative that follows God and His chosen...

I was being generous.

Leftists don't think more than one step ahead, do they?

I really hope she's among the first 10 people Trump fires.

Throwing a tantrum isn't going to refute my argument. She was already worshipping God. Hearing the gospel allowed her to believe the gospel. Just like hearing a multiple choice question enables you to answer said question. :blabla: Stomping your foot and saying "the debate is over!"...

Paul's speaking came first, then her heart was opened by God. Her heart wasn't opened before Paul spoke. She was worshipping God before Paul arrived. All three of these things refute your beliefs, no matter how you try to spin it. The Lord opened her heart through the preaching of the...

No worries. And I think it would be, even if we didn't have a way to remove an evil king. I'll explain why below. Alright, so, I think I have an answer to the whole conundrum of having a means of removing an evil king. There's a saying that I heard within the last year, most prominently on...

... Through the preaching of Paul. He didn't open her heart until she heard the words from Paul spoken. It wasn't some effectual work on God's part. Her heart was opened through the gospel which Paul preached. The means of her heart being opened was the preaching of the gospel. We attribute...

Anyone can cite or quote a few Bible verses and make them say what they want them to say. Doesn't mean what is being said is rational, or good. Hence...: Matthew 27:5; Luke 10:37, as an extreme example of what NOT to do.

Which, of course, is entire the point @Clete was making.