Search results

Yes, he was. Go back to verse 7 and you can see Jesus is with the twelve. "And in the evening he cometh with the twelve...And Jesus saith unto them, 'All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered.'" (Mark 14:7, 27)

"These TWELVE Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, 'Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not.'... 'Behold, I send you [the twelve] forth AS SHEEP in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.'" (Matthew...

Scripture refers to the saved as "sheep". Jesus explicitly referred to Judas as a sheep (Mt. 10:16 and Mk. 14:27). Furthermore, you cannot fall away from that which you never belonged. (Acts 1:25) Remember Judas was destined to reign and rule with Christ as well... "So Jesus said to them...

"Scripture interprets Scripture" is a popular axiom. I quoted Jesus saying ONE given him by the father DID get away. One cannot get away if one was not possessed. Judas was called a "sheep" (Mt. 10:16), a "disciple" (Mt. 10:1), an "Apostle" (Mt. 10:2-4), one of "the twelve" (Luke 22:47) ...

I thought my quotations of Jesus made it clear. Telling you can't see it. So yes, per the words of Jesus Christ in the Scripture, everyone is free to come to Christ.

RE: John 6:37-39, we know one Jesus personally chose did get away though: "While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost EXCEPT the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled. (John 17:12) You cannot be lost unless...

Ha ha!

Are you saying the early Church's vestments were not actually polyester???

FYI, words bracketed by these " " contain the words of Kelly, which represent the majority of the commentary posted. Do keep up.

The commentary was written by the renowned late Protestant scholar, J.N.D. Kelly. Who's not keeping up?

You called the writings of the Didache, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origin, Cyprian, Aphraahat, Cyril and Ambrose... "Catholic material." Go figure...

Oh brother, a Calvinist conceding the early Church was Catholic. MacArthur et al would be ashamed.

I think you are presuming that it is others who twist or torture a text. Again, how can we know if you are right or others are right? How do we know who is twisting or torturing a text and who is not?

I gave it to you in the thread you accused me of using "silly word games." Again, in antiquity, "world" did not necessarily mean all men for all time throughout all of history, encompassing all of existence. In other words, it meant a specific group. (e.g. John 1:10) Given this understanding...

Again, who decides? If both are using the same Scripture, how are we to resolve exegetical and doctrinal disagreements to determine who is correct and who is in error?

What context do you think precludes "world" from meaning the elect according to the Calvinist understand of the elect? My posts are hardly silly word games. If you are looking for a convenient excuse to exit the discussion, just say so and don't resort to ad hominems. I put forth a reasonable...

You are making my point. Who decides what is the truth? Again, if both are using the same Scripture, how are we to resolve exegetical and doctrinal disagreements to determine who is correct and who is in error?

But everyone who is reading and interpreting the text read it and interpret it according to the tradition of their denomination. This is my point and this thread is a perfect example. Another example is a thread in which I am also participating, where the topic of baptism is being discussed...

In antiquity, the word "world" meant the known world, with inhabitants of that part of the known "world". It did not necessarily mean all men for all time throughout all of history, encompassing all of existence. In other words, it meant a specific group. For example, John 1:10 says, "He was...

I've never understood the exegetical approach which states the opposite of what the text says is the true meaning. For example, in 1 Peter 3:21 it explicitly states baptism "now saves you." I don't quite understand how this can be interpreted to be baptism "DOES NOT actually save you." But...