Search results

That's nice. What he said he teaches from the Bible. I don't agree with everything he says either, but here he's dead-on correct, and he shows logically how your position cannot be true. The article completely destroys your position. And I'm not exaggerating when I say that.

You apparently don't know the meaning of the word "context." The context of something cannot be itself. "if you yank a verse out of context it is nothing more than a pretext." LN: immediately does just that. Do you see the problem yet? I've addressed Malachi 3:6 already. It has nothing to...

No one is saying that quoting scripture is a logical fallacy. We're saying that you are begging the question, because you are, in fact, begging the question. And Clete has addressed those verses multiple times in this thread, and not once did you even recognize it.

Again, no one said the Father died. Wrong. Which do not mean "immutable." Wrong. He "declares" the end from the beginning. Not "knows." Wrong.

Jesus the Son was separated from the Father. No. We're not saying the Father died. We're saying the Son died.

After an action on their part? No. John Piper disagrees: https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/is-faith-meritorious

Jesus died both physically (He was separated from His physical body) and spiritually (He was separated from the Father as per Matthew 27:46). You seem to think that we're arguing that death means something other than separation. So please, if you would, define what you mean by "die," and if...

So they should be put to death?

So what should the punishment be for them?

Because slaughtering tens of millions of innocent babies in the womb isn't enough.

Continuing from my previous post: In other words, there's nothing wrong with experimenting with definitions to see what is most consistent, for truth is consistent with itself. As you fully admit, there are very few, if any, inconsistencies in our position if death means separation. In my...

The problem is that even with this, you're not being consistent with your definition of death. Death = separation God said that if man eats of the fruit, he will die. Adam ate of the fruit. And OUR POSITION is consistent with scripture: Adam died to God the moment he ate of the fruit. Thus...

"The soul that sins shall die." "The soul that sins shall [be cut off/separated from God]." Souls don't cease to exist. But they can die. This is what I'm talking about in post 292.

https://theologyonline.com/help/bb-codes/

Irrelevant to the discussion. I already did, you dope! https://theologyonline.com/threads/on-the-omniscience-of-god.55271/post-1831913 For example: Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them...

God the Father prior to the incarnation was the Father of God the Son who had ONE nature. God the Father after the incarnation was and forevermore will be the Father of God the Son who has TWO natures. That's a change, Leatherneck, whether you're willing to admit it or not.

Again, I am giving you many verses that show that God DOES IN FACT CHANGE in some ways. https://theologyonline.com/threads/on-the-omniscience-of-god.55271/post-1831913 You, however, are ignoring them, in favor of a single verse that says more than you want it to, but you ignore that part...

Someone was attempting to derail the thread with flat earth nonsense.

Did you forget about the incarnation of Christ, which we discussed earlier in this thread? Did you forget to read post #388? Post in thread 'On the omniscience of God' https://theologyonline.com/threads/on-the-omniscience-of-god.55271/post-1831913 Are you ignoring the fact that Jesus, God...

Cleaned up the thread.