Search results

So, what is James' salvation saved from?

So, if you survive the great tribulation, it means you will survive the great tribulation? Then James is talking about the salvation Paul talks about? Or is it a third type?

I figured that, but what does it mean? And does James mean the same thing, when he says "that kind of faith cannot save."

Certainly, since appeal to tradition is a subtype of appeal to authority. The argument supports a position by appealing to long-standing or traditional opinion, as if the past itself were a kind of authority.

Sorry, I never replied to this. I have no idea, that's why I keep asking. What do you think it means?

I just remembered another issue, kind of related. When I edit a previously posted post, the insert quotes feature is missing. Is there a way to add it?

Agreed. Her statement is only true if Europe clings to God, which it hasn't.

It wasn't THE premise, but it was A premise of RD's argument. And a fairly important premise. And, as you usually do, and as RD has done, when you start to lose an argument, you turn to ad hominem. By the way, I did do a search, and it confirmed my position. To say Jesus could have taught...

Not by itself, no, but you are arguing that it might be true because it is missing from scripture, right? There's another reason why I think Jesus didn't tell them how to appoint a replacement...because if they are specifically chosen by him ("you did not choose me, but I chose you"), then...

Except that most no-instruments churches (I have no experience with the CoC) also use the regulative principle of worship, where they feel that only those thing God specifically commanded for His worship may be included in His worship. I dont agree with them, but it is more than an argument from...

You're the best!

Why can't we edit the "conversations" posts? I don't type accurately enough not to.

@Clete The above is decidedly an argument from silence, don't you think? RD admits he doesn't know Jesus did something (gave His disciples instructions on how to replace Judas), then suggests a time frame when He might have done so, then claims it is reasonable to deduce (his terminology) that...

That's my point. if it doesn't contradict either position, then it can't be used to affirm one over the other. Careful. You're sounding like @Idolater. It is clearly saying that people considered him to be of the same office as the eleven. It doesn't say "God numbered him with the eleven...

Possibly, but you're justifying an argument from silence. "Apostle" isn't the problem. There were many apostles. But one of the 12 apostles handpicked by Jesus? Back at ya.

Funny, but not entirely true. From dictionary.com: hail · a shout or call to attract attention: hail · a shout or call to attract attention: Thus just getting her attention was a valid use of the phrase.

The same way you know that Jesus DID. Nevertheless, what I wrote is compatible with scripture. If you want to call scripture ridiculous, well, I would caution against it.

Not a plumber in your meme, but it reminds me that I saw a truck recently with the company name on it: "Half Moon Plumbing".

The scriptures describe the events, yes. The scriptures don't tell us that God made the choice. I quoted scripture, too, that supports my view. Are you suggesting that merely quoting scripture ascribes to it our personal meaning? Of course you don't believe that, but it seems like you do...

It does in context. It was in answer to this, from you: 'It isn't someone "deciding" anything'