Search results

I find this to be contradictory. You agreed that true love will last, then you conclude that true love may end with a 'bad choice.' Isn't that a contradiction? If a bad choice ends it, then IT isn't love. Same is true of salvation. Salvation, by definition, does not end...it perseveres...

I agree, the parable does support your perspective, but like said, I believe that is the human perspective, not the divine perspective. The 1 John passages spells that difference out very clearly to me. But that is a pretty insignificant difference given the fact that for all practical...

Bob, another point... Love, by definition, does not end. It perseveres. Agreed? If so, can you call something "love" that doesn't meet that definition? If it ends can you call it 'love?" I don't believe so. Call it 'infatuation,' call it 'caring,' call it 'lust,' but if it ends you can't...

I must point by to 1 Jn because I think that one principle alone answers all other objections you raised. And all the biblical language in my opinion is speaking of the perception from man's perspective. They were 'of us' and partaking with us in the fruits, they were among the saints, etc...

You're a good guy and I like you but you are way off on this one... What do you think believers are predestined to? We may believe in post faith regeneration, but we still affirm the power of regeneration. Eph. 1 is all about God's predetermination of those who are in Christ. Whosoever...

I affirm the concept of 'spiritual death' as interpreted in the prodigal son story where the father concludes, "He was dead but now is alive," meaning he was separated or cut off from fellowship with me, but now has come home to be reconciled. I also affirm that man cannot save himself and...

Roger Olson wrote one called "Against Calvinism" and Horton wrote one called, "For Calvinism" with the same publisher. They also have some debates on youtube that are interesting. They are good examples of cordial debates among brothers and I have to say Horton is a good balance to the 'young...

Depends on if you consider the gospel (and all that it speaks of) to be a gracious work of God or not.

I did cite the author and it was all that was needed to adequately demonstrate that your statement was an erroneous straw man. Which, no doubt is why you shift the attention from that fact to ad hominem by implying I'm not being scholarly enough to cite the full source or actually read...

Can you provide proof that they 'could not believe even what they saw,' because Jesus said to them, " But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." And in Matt. 11, Jesus taught: "Then...

Ok, last time...seriously I can't keep saying the same thing over and over. I'm not upset or anything, but one of us has to step off the merry-go-round eventually. I agreed a long time ago that the letter is addressed to all types everywhere. I mean we, Gentiles in North America, are...

But it doesn't appear Christ has a problem with the motive of their faith... In John 10 for example Jesus even states, " Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father...

Again, that is beside the point as the use of a diatribe argument wouldn't affect the manner it which it was presented to the congregation. It only speaks to the intent of the author. Well, we know that Paul goes on to speak of the Jews who have stumbled, been cut off and are being hardened...

It's too late to edit this but instead of saying 'Anyone' in the second sentence it would be better to have said, 'any approach' as it wasn't intended to be personal...sorry about that. :love2:

As I've explained a few times now, I didn't mean to suggest the hardened jew was the ONLY reader, but that he would have been the reader with this particular diatribe objection. Now, can we deal with that instead of saying the same thing over and over as if it hasn't been addressed?

This reveals the weakness of your hermeneutic. Anyone unwilling to objectively understand the context of the words being spoken cannot be trusted with the mechanics of those words. Why? Because it reveals that their aim is to make the mechanics fit their presumed context and systematic, which...

Biblicist, look up the term 'diatribe.' It is about anticipating a objection of one of your readers...and in this case the person who would be making this objection would be a hardened Jew who had stumbled and been 'cut off.' I'm NOT saying that a hardened Jew was the only intended audience...

You didn't correctly understand. Paul is using a diatribe by which he anticipates an objection from his reader. That objection would be one coming from a hardened jew, one being 'cut off', one who has stumbled. That is not to say that no one else was reading the letter, or that Paul wasn't...

It still amazes me that a historical context where these facts are true doesn't play any role in how some here choose to interpret these texts: 1. Israel has grown calloused to the revelation of God over the generations. (John 12:39, Acts 28, etc) 2. God has 'given them over' to their...

Ok, I have to admit I really did laugh out loud at that one...:laugh: