Search results

Except Jesus talked about the glory He had with the Father before the world was created. Obviously Jesus was more than the man, and at least that much (the more part) was not created by the Holy Spirit. No. He didn't have a sin nature. Usually this is attributed to the virgin birth. What does...

how do you know that you weren't chosen before the foundation of the world to reject the faith later in life and die and go to hell?

Galatians 3:11 KJV — But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. No man before Christ was ever justified by the law (Paul quotes from the Old Testament). No man after the rapture will ever be justified by the law. It's always by...

[Act 2:38 KJV] Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. [Act 2:39 KJV] For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, [even] as...

Under occasionalism, if I understand what you wrote before, "Physics" isn't needed. It is all just God doing stuff. Sometimes (most of the time) God does the normal thing, but sometimes He does different things. Therefore, the only definition of "miracle" that works is where God is deciding to...

I am. I don't see that in scripture anywhere. That is something you read here on TOL. Please don't confuse TOL posts with scripture. Your premise being wrong leads you to wrong conclusions. The Gospel given to the Jews was that the kingdom of heaven was near. That kingdom requires God to be on...

Sure, but we don't need to include them in any serious discussions about truth, since they have no basis for their truth except science, which we've established is fallible, and their own opinions, which are even more so.

I didn't address you in the first place, so why did you "waste time with" me at all? Isn't it because your doctrine is weak and you feel threatened when I challenge it?

Your whole complaint is that some Christians should be able to believe that the Bible is fallible?

You mean that was when Peter recognized that both Jews and Gentiles could avail themselves of the grace of God? Sure. So now you're saying the same thing as I am, that Peter wasn't fully understanding the scope of the grace of God, until Paul shared with him what the Lord Jesus taught him...

No it doesn't. From BLB.org: The KJV translates Strong's G1484 in the following manner: Gentiles (93x), nation (64x), heathen (5x), people (2x). The contrast is between "heathen" and "circumcision". Unless you are suggesting that all of those Jews going to synagogues Paul preached at were...

But Peter did know about the grace of God in Acts: [Act 15:11 KJV] But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. Peter was talking about the gospel he had preached to Cornelius: [Act 15:9 KJV] And put no difference between us and them, purifying...

Then you're saying Paul backed out of the agreement, since he went to Ephesus. Just as Paul agreed to limit his ministry to the Gentiles. Now you're telling me he preached to a Jewish church? And Paul shared his gospel with those scattered twelve tribes. Either the agreement was binding on...

If they were preaching that Christ died and rose again, then they were preaching the gospel of the grace of God AND the gospel of the kingdom. The kingdom gospel required the death burial and resurrection of Christ, though it could be preached in a limited form prior to the DBR.

Paul never went to Ephesus? Are you serious?

At least part of Revelation was written to GENTILE churches. It certainly doesn't say "to the angel of the church of Jerusalem..." anywhere.

Same idea. Isn't it an honor to be accepted into the presence of a king, or of God? Plus, it's actually stated here (different translation, but that's the whole idea, that one word might substitute for the other): Psalm 15:4 NASB20 — A despicable person is despised in his eyes, But he honors...

But that passage, as has been pointed out before, doesn't talk of 2 different gospels, but two different people groups. Note that the second use of the word "gospel" is added by the translators for better readability. You can tell this is the case because of the use of italics in printed...

I didn't say it proved it. I said it is worthy of the assumption, remember? You jumped in on a conversation where it wasn't necessary to prove infallibility. We can talk about that aspect now, if you like. But first, let's establish together that we both agree that "science" is fallible. I'll go...

For one, it asserts it. like here: Psalm 119:160 KJV — Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. If it asserts that it is true, and it is false on any point, then the whole thing is worthless. You can't cherry-pick the passages you'd like...