Search results

Van, you’ve made some important statements, but you’ve given a fair amount of commentary without sufficient scripture proofs. I ask the same of you as I did of @Dave G: please do both commentary and scripture proofs as much as you can. Thanks a bunch! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are certainly welcome to join the conversation! And thanks for your other post, too, especially with the scripture proofs. As I said to @AustinC, I wanted to consider well any posts you write and not just react (which many of us have a tendency to do). But that means my responses will be...

Hi @AustinC You and I were having a conversation in another thread that closed before I could get back to answer your last post. It can be found here in context. But here’s The part I wanted to focus on: This is a pretty good question, and it made me want to answer it well, and to have time...

Maybe Paul didn’t know about Job?! Since your references are couched as absolutes, it only takes one example to refute your take on them. Job 1:1 (KJV) There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name [was] Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil...

Citation please, so we can discuss. Just appealing to the Bible as a while shuts down useful conversations. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I never said your question was complicated, just irrelevant to my post, which was an answer to @atpollard’s question. Rereading hasn’t changed that. Maybe you should reread AT’s post to find the context of mine. But going back to your question, it isn’t related to the scripture I posted...

What does that have to do with my post? All are resurrected. All. And it’s by Jesus’ power. So there’s at least salvation from death at the hand of Jesus. That was my point. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Which is the same thing as pitting scripture against scripture. You use scripture to interpret scripture, right? John 5:21 (KJV) For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth [them]; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. John 5:28-29 (KJV) 28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is...

Well, your answer was easy, I suppose. The question, not so much. If Jesus raises all at the last day, and He is the resurrection, how can you say that those people aren't saved from death?

This was disappointing, Dave. None of these verses give examples of God calling a sheep's name before the sheep existed, much less before the beginning of the world. Kudos to @atpollard, who found this one: You're right! only one--God--could do such a thing. And so Jesus' illustration of a...

All the dead will be raised up in the last day. And it must be Jesus that raises them up, as He is the resurrection and the life. Are you saying all are saved?

I guess the difference is that the good shepherd in Jesus’ illustration didn’t know all his sheep’s names before the sheep existed. He only calls his sheep by name that exist and have been given a name. And he (the shepherd) is the one that gives them names, after they are born. How many...

Lol! That works fine until the missus finds it!

Occam's is pretty straightforward!

The Westminster divines knew they had entered into contradictory territory. That's why they included the part about "yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but...

Hmmm. I think your explanation made it worse. If God protects the faith of His chosen ones, why Rom 10? Especially Romans 10:1 (KJV) Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I understand. However, if we are elected based on a belief in a particular thing, it makes sense to me that the particular thing ought to be included. Otherwise it just becomes another useless doctrinal point. Another thing is the focus on depravity. I think you ought to focus on salvation...

I understand. However, if we are elected based on a belief in a particular thing, it makes sense to me that the particular thing ought to be included. You mention it in every point as "faith in Christ", but what is it we're suppose to have faith in Him for? Election? It seems to be tautological.

That's pretty cool! I would like to suggest that somewhere in there you include the actual facts of the gospel: including Jesus being born of man, dying on the cross, being raised from the dead, etc.

Lol. Maybe I misread your previous post. You’re saying we come back to the new earth with Jesus, right? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk