Search results

I've been to places like that.

Hey Gary, good to hear from you. Sorry about the laptop. Please don't feel bad about being passionate for your view of something, just turn that passion into rational arguments, and follow up with scripture. I don't remember where we were with the Jesus/Judas conversation. If you can find it...

I agree with both of you...the miracle topic is interesting, and it should be a different thread.

Or at least identifiable. Whether anyone notices or not, we still should put faith into practice.

Which is another rabbit trail.

Which is a rabbit trail.

I like how the sign under KFC says "There back", when it should be "They're back".

This is well-stated, Hoping, and seems to be the crux of James' letter.

Did you read it? What do you think about his points on the use of the "bapto" word family in the OT? The rest is more of a rabbit trail?

What I'm getting at is that works are NEVER helpful in gaining salvation. You can never add anything to Christ's death to make it more efficacious. Any human who ever was, is, or will be requires Christ's death to save them from death, because all have sinned. If James is preaching a gospel of...

So Christ's sacrifice is not sufficient for them? They needed, and will need, to add works to His death on the cross? Even though Peter (one following the kingdom gospel) said, Acts 15:11 KJV — But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. And...

I appreciate your answer, but I'd like to see @way 2 go's answer. In the meantime, you are agreeing with James that at least in the past, and at some future time, some people will be saved by their works along with faith, right?

Then you agree or disagree with James that some people are really and truly saved by a combination of faith and works?

It was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but if you are requiring non-Catholics (those not part of YOUR group of Christians) to stop taking communion, i.e. not be allowed to be part of the catholic (universal) church, then you aren't being very universal in your Roman Catholicism. Maybe so. But you had...

But it was posted in response to @Hoping's post about baptism not being in the old testament. Context, context, context, they say.

I don't disagree with that aspect of the word's usage, but my point was to show that baptisms occurred in the old testament, even using the Greek word root once it was translated into Greek.

https://christiancourier.com/articles/the-bapto-word-family-in-the-septuagint

I don't know that I have a dog in this fight, but I was reading Ez 36 the other day, and it seems like the return of the people to the land and their return to God are sequential: Ezekiel 36:24-27 KJV — For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will...

My concern over faulty or poor reasoning is that you say God gave it to us. He also gives us information. And if what God gave us is not sufficient to come to the right conclusion, then we aren't culpable, because with chosen, as you say, without all the means necessary to choose correctly...

Hi steko. I missed your post--a good one--for awhile, because it wasn't directly quoting a post of mine or tagging me ("@" followed by my username). If you'll do either in the future, I get notified. I'm ok with most all of that, except that the "gospel of the earthly kingdom" is intimately...