Search results

Ok, so again, who decides N.T. Wright's views are wrong and yours or MacArthur's are correct? Who is the arbitrator?

He's Protestant and does not deny the Reformation. He denies the forensic justification, which another Protestant scholar admitted was a "theological novum", something completely invented out of thin air. Righteousness can only be properly understood in the context of relationship. Thus...

It's Pauline Justification according to Wright. Back to my original question to you. Who gets to decide? Wright, MacArthur, Rome or you?

What are you calling Pauline Justification?

As N.T. Wright articulates? "Paul, in company with mainstream second-Temple Judaism, affirms that God’s final judgment will be in accordance with the entirety of a life led — in accordance, in other words, with works.” N.T. Wright, Pauline Perspectives: Essays on Paul, 1978–2013, 281

But who says MacArthur is right? Same with Ackerburg? MacArthur taught a quasi-Arianism for years before he recanted. Why should he be believed now? Reexamining the Eternal Sonship of Christ

I just found it odd he posts large swaths of text about how pagan Catholics are, and in the next post talks about how we must keep the commandments, which is a basic Catholic belief.

What is your Gospel? What is Rome's Gospel? Again, how do we know whose Gospel is the correct one?

Keeping the commandments? I thought commandment keeping is Catholic / Orthodox? What happened to faith alone? Just what are you selling here???

Emerging from my hiding? Where have I been hiding? Perhaps I have been busy reincarnating into some historical figure you accused me of last time! Seriously, this stuff is hilarious. If only you had illustrations, you could be the new Jack Chick! Or we could use your creativity over at...

Who decides what is or is not heresy? Rome? Athens? London? Geneva? Kirkwood? Nashville? Who decides whether a Catholic can be saved? Last I checked I thought God is the judge. Do we not teach that anymore? Also, there are lots of good arguments against Catholicism. The stuff posted...

"This is the simplest way to put it: the power, effect, benefit, fruit, and purpose of baptism is that it saves. For no one is baptized in order to become a prince, but as the words say, ‘to be saved.’ To be saved, as everyone knows, is nothing else than to be delivered from sin, death and the...

@Protestant, are you a fiction writer? This stuff is amazing! Jack Chick tracts had nothing on you!

Unless you believe the command to eat was itself symbolic, and not literal, you are advocating symbolic cannibalism. Commanding someone to eat something that symbolizes a body would be commanding symbolic cannibalism. To refute this, can you demonstrate anywhere in salvation history (via the...

Sorry to disappoint you, but there is no such thing as reincarnation. I can assure you I am not a 16th century martyred saint. Yes, here are my comments. God is the first and ultimate iconographer by virtue of the Incarnation... "[Christ]Who is the image of the invisible God..." (Col 1:15)...

No false accusations. You seemed to initially condemn them. Your posts are there to see. This is why I asked you directly, which seemingly contradicts your previous views on nativity sets. See below for a refresher of what you previously posted... Asked to directly answer whether...

Glad to see you changed your mind... Nativity sets always seem to throw a wrench into the iconoclast's condemnation of others.

Let me try and make this easier for you since you seem to be really struggling with what I thought was a rather simple question. Please select the correct answer. Are nativity sets violations of the second commandment's prohibition of images? _____ Yes _____ No

Bingo...Exactly right!

There is nothing new under the Sun. Calvin’s theology was refuted from its genesis. There is a reason they are the outliers in the word of Protestantism.