Search results

It's akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the sinking Titanic. Get your kids out of the Godless government schools. Don't threaten them that you won't return if they don't comply, just don't return, period. Yes, teaching one's children oneself requires making sacrifices. So which do you...

Agreed. I doubt it.

Question: Can God work with individuals?

This is an argument from silence. You are the one making the claim that God gave Lazarus life, therefore YOU are the one that has to establish that claim. I claim that God gave Lazarus a command to "Come forth." I do not go beyond that, because scripture does not go beyond that. Also: If...

There's a difference between a dictator and a king. Please do not conflate the two. If you're going to make the argument that God opposes monarchies, then you also make the argument that God opposes representative forms of governments even more so, as He KILLED the people who such a...

I think to say A) that God wants other nations ruled by an earthly king, and B) that there is clear instruction for it, would be overstating our position, if not simply false (in the case of B). That being said, it would not be wrong to say that the idea that any nation, let alone America...

You have yet to show that Jesus gave Lazarus anything other than a command to come forth. Stop begging the question. Also: If you're going to continue to use Lazarus as your defence for calvinism, I'm going to point out that if you're right, then Jesus saying what He said in John 11:14-15...

The counterargument is that God put the laws concerning the actions of earthly kings ruling over the nation of Israel into the Mosaic law LONG before the Israelites' desire to have an earthly king, rather than God reigning over them directly. Which raises the question, why put those laws there...

You should consider the possibility that it's not a stupid question, but rather that there's a point to it that you seem to be completely missing...

I don't care about your opinion unless you can back it up with facts and strong reasoning, and most importantly, with Scripture! What I care about are the facts, namely, the fact that you have yet to make a compelling argument FOR your opinions, especially one that hasn't already been addressed.

No one has argued otherwise. Again:

https://kgov.com/bel/20050601

thatsthejoke.jpg

Objectively, it's quite clear who's unwilling to be convinced. I'm not the one using phrases like "I still believe..." after being rebutted, however soundly, in the previous post They were rejecting God's timing for a king. Such is, inherently, a rejection of God as their King. Pay attention...

You still aren't getting it. There is no "that world." There is only "the world." You keep reading your beliefs into the text as if that makes them correct, but it doesn't. The world was dead. God gave His life, His own received Him not. Those are the facts. Saying it doesn't make it so...

In other words, you're not willing to be convinced otherwise. God wanted them to have a king. Thus, their desire for a king wasn't wrong, but their impatience and unwillingness to wait on God was what was wrong.

Marke, I apologize. I mistakenly referred you to the criminal justice system seminar, which has very little to do with the structure of government, and more to do with just the justice system of a just government. (It's still worth every penny, though, and honestly, I don't know why they don't...

I strongly recommend that, before you continue in this thread, that you listen to/watch Bob Enyart's "God's Criminal Justice System" seminar or even just read through his syllabus. In both of those, Bob responds to the very argument you just tried to make.

YES. No. "His own" are part of the world. "His own" RECEIVED HIM NOT. You CANNOT get around that, which is why you're wrong.

Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. Jesus came unto His own, and His own, received Him not. Your argument has been disproven. "He came unto His own, and His own received Him not." :yawn: Not always, as I've already shown, which you refuse to acknowledge. Nope, you're reading...