Search results

I'm not on X either, but I was able to watch the video.

Maybe the reason we left the topic is that the options for the topic have all been explored without any movement from any party towards the other(s). It goes back to presuppositions. If your presuppositions include the full dichotomy between two different salvation mechanisms, you support it...

To dig deeper, what does "proceeds from" mean? And is "begotten" a term that applies only to the incarnate Son, so is it an eternally-past applicable term? It informs our idea of the eternality of man. If he was made such that he could live forever, but wouldn't necessarily live forever (I...

Yes, those are good ones, too. Maybe better than my quote. It even delineates who is doing the destroying. But I still think it could include the idea that when Jesus is raised (given new life), that He, like Lazarus, was responsible for getting up and coming out if the tomb on His own power...

I don't think I'm an expert on exactly what the incarnation entailed for the second person of the Trinity, but if He really became a human being, then His death must have been much like a human's death, and not just a release of His soul back to God-ness. Here's all of the verses talking about...

For salvation? Or at all? Is Jesus the lord of someone who rejects any attempt to align his behavior to the lord's will? But James is saying "be motivated by duty and not by love"? Who is a higher authority. Simply? Then why did Paul have to keep telling people to love one another? If...

Yet I compared James to Paul, who also tells us how to behave in many instances, like here: Romans 12:16 KJV — Be of the same mind one toward another. Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits. Or Romans 13:8 KJV — Owe no man any thing, but to...

Sure, if you read the concept into it in the first place, like here: But God didn't say Adam would "die immediately" (please show me if I missed it). Nor did He say Adam would die within the next 24 hours, since the phrase "in the day" does not have to mean "on the day". And if Adam indeed died...

James wasn't trying to give us a way to inspect other's fruit. He was explaining how to inspect our own. And if our own faith is not producing works, it is a dead and useless faith. What would one do about that condition? How about start controlling one's tongue or stop being partial to rich...

You're not reading the verse. let's look at it again, and later let's include the following verse for a little confirmation: [Isa 46:10 KJV] Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times [the things] that are not [yet] done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my...

My point wasn't a slam dunk for open theism by any means. My point was that if one uses Is 46:10 to say that God knows all things exhaustively, you have to acknowledge that the verse also tells HOW God knows, and that it necessarily leads to God being the author of sin. Once that verse goes away...

It is helpful if you will hit the "Reply" link at the bottom of the post you are replying to, and it will include the other post in your post, while notifying the other person that you replied.

Looking forward to discussions with Crede3!

Again, your understanding of this verse says that everything that ever happens is what God has always wanted to happen. Every time a child is raped, every time a married couple gets divorced, every time 6 million Jews are killed, this is something God wanted, and has always wanted: "My counsel"...

Then he would not have learned that Abraham was faithful even to the point of sacrificing his own son. Genesis 22:12 KJV — And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son...

You're still thinking like a Calvinist. God made people to have a choice whether they sin or not, whether they love Him or not. He didn't know who would love or who would sin, but He made a provision for us that would sin, which turned out to be everyone.

Why is that a problem, especially if, when it begins to exist as a concept, it begins in His mind?

It supposedly causes the taker to see flashes of light that aren't there.

Don't you think the passage is referring to a special group of people--"those who are baptised for the dead"--that did not include all believers, nor Paul himself (since he didn't say "we")?

You didn't read carefully. He said he was a Clavinist, not Calvinist: