Search results

"Eternal Security" is not mentioned in this video, nor is it the topic of this thread. Why bring it up?

It isn't that I don't want to be helpfulll It's just that I don't like to speak for other people. I want to let the video speak for itself. But, I don't think you watched the video, so, no, you really didn't catch his own words did you? His "own words" were in the video, that is what I...

Again... for anyone who wants some informative food for thought for themselves: [Video deleted. Same video as post #1.]

That's also true........the issue of "Eternal Security" is sorta a trick-box....I think. God is, of course, always faithful. The real question is whether it is possible for man to choose to "fall away". There's no questioning God's faithfulness, there's only questioning whether man's possible...

John....let's dissect your Scripture carefully: John 10:27-28 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. ? Read the Scripture closely............his sheep "follow...

Then, this isn't your thread and your comments aren't particularly helpful . No. If you had that hour, you might know. I thought that I've heard every accusation about Augustine there is....."rationalism" was never one of them. Only if you don't know crap about him....as is the case with...

O.K..... Sure.... and 30 years' worth of presupposition couldn't possibly have worked it's way into his subconscious thinking and effected his presuppositions when interpreting Scripture...............Yes, Augustine was a complete "Tabula Rasa"..... (aren't we all)??? Just like happens to all...

ok............ But, it still has nothing to do with Conditionality. The debate over "Eternal Security" has to do with Conditions........not duration, or frankly, anything temporal. John suggested that the statement I critiqued was "oxymoronic? That's not possible inasmuch as well, my review...

I'm curious..... Why is it that this board accepts people who publicly call Christ a "liar"...why are they allowed to post? Didn't one of the Administrators of this site just testify that someone called our Lord and Saviour a "liar"? Didn't that just happen? Who then is this person? Why...

They don't deny the "gospel message"... They reject your Manichean Augustinian spin on it. They don't call Christ a "liar"....they suggest your Augustinianism is mistaken doctrine....that's hardly calling the Son of God a "liar".... Had they called Christ a liar...you would have banned them...

No, it's not "oxymoronic"... "lose" would be a statement of conditionality............ "eternal" would be a temporal statement of duration. It's so simple... But no Calvinist preacher wants to teach you the difference. (if they even know it). There's no oxymoron there...but far be it from...

I agree with you that it is not without the Holy Spirit that we are able to believe....I just don't think that particular passage does much to prove it. That's all I was saying. I don't particularly disagree with your conclusions.

But....not for Peter. I'm not the only one here who understands that Christ was habitually cryptic and flat-out hid his identity to a great many or even the majority of people. Christ was deliberately ambiguous....Collectively, his teaching along with the Holy Spirit were necessary for Peter to...

Well....that's the point isn't it? Peter did not have sufficient information until Christ specially taught him, and the Holy Spirit specially revealed the truth of Jesus to him. Jesus was deliberately ambiguous throughout much of his ministry. Simply knowing and even believing the Old...

As for Peter.... It's simple and two words: "Messianic Secret". We don't suffer from it.... The fullness of Christ's revelation was given to us.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/9925/liberty-university-students-reject-hank-berrien

Just in case you, like "Roby-cop" didn't know...... There's no direct translation for the word "it".....in Hebrew either ditto French (I know that much).....the closest thing would be "HIM'S" (a pluralization of the Masculine Singular "him".) ditto Spanish (I think) ditto Italian...

It is a "HIM" in Hebrew you idiot..... duh:BangHead: Dr. J. tried to explain this to you earlier........ You must understand how to inflect Hebrew for masculine and feminine...........there's a LOT of languages that work that way.....a LOT of them. This is elementary information that...

Dude............you seriously think he was talking about YOU!!!:laugh::laugh::laugh: Ummmmmmmm...........No...... This is for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6UAYGxiRwU