Search results

I need your help, Bible scholars. My hyper-dispensationalist brethren falsely (IMO) appeal to: Gal 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; whereby the preposition of is taken to...

Paul's reference to the one baptism is to the spiritual baptism that places a church-age believer into the body of Christ. Water baptism, of course, is something else. Hebrews speaks of many baptisms. Once again, dispensationalism is the methodology of interpretation that promises to clear up...

V.39 is a reference to the Jews of the diaspora afar off, as can be readily proven. But note that I did not comment on forgiveness. I only pointed out that receiving the Holy Ghost was conditional on water baptism, according to Peter in Acts 2:38.

Of course not. Peter taught correct doctrine, by the Holy Ghost, for his dispensational context. But the dispensational (and therefore soteriological) context changed after Acts 2. When Paul comes on the scene, he has the revelation/teaching that water baptism is no longer a condition for...

That depends. The apostles' doctrine in the early chapters of the book of Acts is certainly not church-age Pauline doctrine in many respects. For instance, we certainly would not (I hope) get out and preach Acts 2:38 (whereby receiving the Holy Ghost is conditional on water baptism) as a...

Ok Jon.

The issue is that the Bible says plainly that (as I have quoted and could quote more), and it's the notion that those statements refer to IDEAL-NON-LITERAL realities which is PLATONIC (I read half the man's works), a notion injected into Christianity thanks to Origen. Plato would have never...

Just because I believe the Bible that there is a literal manifestation of things in the spiritual world does not mean I don't acknowledge figures of speech in the Bible. And yes, I would not be surprised one bit if, given enough zooming out, and given eyes to behold the spiritual world, we end...

If the Bible says sin is a thing that can be bagged, then sin is a thing. The end.

Sin is not a metaphor. I have a dozen times said "literal" and "thing" and "tangible".

I already quoted the verses. This is a false dichotomy arising from our almost-zero knowledge of the realities of the spiritual world. Your speeding action, if sinful, produces a literal manifestation in the spiritual world that must be contained, like nuclear waste. It's a like an aberration...

Again, for the 3rd and last time dear brother, he became a serpent and a worm on the cross once he became the physical embodiment of sin. That (serpent, worm) illustrates what Paul meant by "sin".

No need to assume when I stated that "sin" is a reference to a tangible manifestation of sin; that sin exists as a "thing", literally, in the spiritual world.

The verse says "sin"; not "sin offering".

You said it: "sin".

I was talking about sin having a tangible manifestation in the spiritual world.

Paul intended to say what Paul said: Christ was made sin. He said what he meant and he meant what he said. Christ's sinlessness is precisely what allowed him to embody the sin of others. There is no contradiction.

Verse. And how does "transcendent" conflict with "tangible"? I literally quoted your definition. Either way, replace it as you wish, the question stands. You're the one quoting the Greek, I'm the one quoting Job and Hosea.

How in the world does that conflict with the scriptural notion that "missing the mark" creates a tangible manifestation in the spiritual world? Bible verses are not to be dismissed.

It did not say "evil". It said "sin". Sin has a literal metaphysical manifestation; it is a tangible "thing" in the spiritual world: Job 14:17 My transgression is sealed up in a bag, and thou sewest up mine iniquity. Mic 7:19 He will turn again, he will have compassion upon us; he will...