Search results

He was saying you two type/think alike. It used to be a more common question when some of the posters on TOL had two or three aliases. In any sense that one poster posts like another, it heralds back to those days.

See? You are so caught up in the physical. It saddens me. You are missing it brother! I know emotional. It is no bad thing, but don't confuse emotion of a moment with what is Spiritual. "Feeling" closer isn't closer. You practice communion incredibly more spiritually (incredibly)...

With 20 prominent translations? Are you a conspiracy theorist for your preferred doctrines, mastered because of your preference? You make mistakes that everybody drinks the same Kool aid. We all project, because we assume another thinks like us. "One of these things is not like the...

Only because of assertion? I don't believe he could. He was master of his domain, not at all 'sharing' truth. God is more powerful yet. Rationally or God-forbid irrationally, God is the maker of all things possible. Only one possesses it in full. There are two good minds at work here...

Yes, but even if one knows all 'possible' outcomes it is still omnicompetence, even for an Open Theist. "All things knowable" is still 'everything.' There is nothing that 'can' exist without Him, no 'new' songs. No unexpected grapes. It doesn't add up rationally. Only if 'forced' to...

Settled in this case being exhaustively foreknown. Such does not, by any logical cohesion, necessitate that what He knows isn't chosen, etc. The link simply cannot be made in any clad sense. It is at best, and intimation: If God knows, we have no freewill. Reading scripture constantly...

Not the issue, but rather 'what is the scope of Total Depravity? AMR believed rather in "Total Inability." Would you think him no longer Calvinist for the qualification? We generally gravitate toward doctrines that espouse how we see and understand scriptures. Take for instance if I...

I think: respect. I didn't go to a Covenant seminary, but there were quite a few Calvinists in my life that had an impact on me. Talking with many of them, they have explained this acrostic wasn't stone. I think I remember AMR in an old thread saying he didn't espouse everything Calvin...

Am I a fruit inspector? While it is true, every man and woman saved, does good works according to the new nature, that is more about the Savior and His saved. The church (you and I) are interested in works for several reasons: 1) healthy body life 2) helping a brother or a sister walk...

First, technology has made leaps and bounds. I had to work very hard to get good grades, didn't even have a computer back then 0.o This would have streamlined me (makes me want to go back to college, the easy way :X ). Second. I always was a hold-out on this particular doctrine. Here...

True, but relating Paul and Barnabas' thoughts it'd seem to me. Again, without Paul there, the issue would be Judaized gentiles. It is fitting both Peter and James agreed. On the former, it is good to ask every question Mid Acts asks. With you, I don't agree with everything I've...

Again: 'same.' Rather, because Paul emphasizes it, what was the difference? Acts does a good job of spelling out differences, especially Acts 15:1-35 Acts 15: 4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God...

Needs more discussion. Works was always in tangent with grace and disobedience punished with the ground opening up, serpents, swords. Paul was very clear that the Law bound any Jewish believer. While Grace was involved, it was only in promise, unavailable but by future payment. When...

True but look at 'difference.' In all of these conversations, for me, it is best to keep in mind that one group emphasizes difference and the other 'same.' Because I'm analytical by nature, I'm always listening between the two. Mid Acts is right of course, there had to be difference or...

1) This is regular dispensationalism. Mid Acts disagrees, to a point. While certainly there are elements to differences in dispensationalism that tie together, Mid Acts separates. 2) Genesis 3 is absolutely a promise of Jesus and is the same in Mid Acts as far as the good news(s)...

Yes, just Israel 'and' gentiles who converted, at this venture. It was only through the Abrahamic Covenant that 'all nations would be blessed.' At the time, that meant conversion. Look how your mind works with the presupposition: You are stuck with a go-between authority. We are not at...

I have a N.T. all by itself. Word of God? Of course it is. I have a Catholic Bible. I have Greek with all variance listed. Internally, the Bible is consistent with itself and is its own authentication. Entertain for a moment Rstrats 'agrees' with Luther. Suddenly there is no problem...

You are deluding yourself, granted because the experience is significantly meaningful to you, but 1) Does the bread literally become human flesh before you swallow it? Of course not, but you'll argue it is 'real flesh' just the same. 2) The wine? Does it have a metallic salty taste to you...

The way I was instructed in seminary: They did it (right or wrong). Hence the question from Paul: "Why do it if there is no after-life?" Thus it meant they did it, not necessarily that it was of effect, just the idea of "Hey you guys, don't you realize you have a quirk in your ideas?"

Sadly, this looks really good! I didn't get the joke at all...well, other than the utter decadence! I mean, if you are gonna go for it...I'm all in!