Search results

Obviously not. I never used those words, never referred to that verse, and am not going to play that game.

I have already quoted other commentaries that hold the same view that I hold to. So perhaps you should face up to what your own corrupt imagination is falsely accusing me of.

From Vine's Word Studies:

Yes, that is fairly accurate. It is sometimes good just to agree to disagree. :)

You might not accept my arguments, but that is fine. The evidence of a believer's faith in God ought to be seen in the fruit he bears, the fruit of the Spirit. Have you ever had some one ask you: "What makes your life different from others'" I have. A great opportunity to witness! Every...

I don't know what you are talking about. I posted those quotes quite some time ago. I copy and pasted them word for word, the full quotes. I am not sure what you are referring to or what your problem is.

Neither did I.

The word despot is used, and it refers to the Lord Jesus Christ. I don't consider Christ to be a wicked despot. The implication of that English word certainly isn't implied or applied to Christ. The word, as I understand it, has more the sense of Master, and we his servants. That doesn't change...

The chapter also refers to "just Lot" in its overall context of false teachers. I am not avoiding the context of either false teachers or false teaching.

Wesley and Whitefield were best of friends but differed greatly in their theology. It has been that way throughout much of history.

No, I am not going to bother to answer someone who simply posts innuendos and demonstrates openly he has no use for the Bible.

The statement made in 2Pet.2:1 is a simple statement to understand. The refusal of most Calvinists to understand it is one of belief. It is very telling that almost all non-Cal commentaries agree with what I have said. My view is not novel of course. It is simply reiterating what the verse says.

You certainly added to 2Pet.2:1 which was the only verse I used. When you add to like you did you make it mean something I didn't say it meant. That is being dishonest.

What have I misstated? I have never strayed from using this passage as a definition for "faith." I have been very consistent in this. I have nothing to be ashamed of.

I take my meaning from the clear teaching of Scripture. Paul, through Abraham, gives us a definition of faith. I used that definition of faith. You disagree.

Why are you adding to the scriptures? 2 Peter 2:1 And there did come also false prophets among the people, as also among you there shall be false teachers, who shall bring in besides destructive sects, and the Master who bought them denying, bringing to themselves quick destruction, First it...

I understand what TULIP means and says. Bro. Joseph did not take the time to listen to what I had to say concerning that particular doctrine.

I made my statement very clear. I said that the definition of faith is when one is fully persuaded that what a person has said that that person will accomplish. Whether that is in the world of being a suicide bomber, or being a wife, or a politician it matters not. It is still in the arena of...

I didn't use the word "damnable heretic." You are the one throwing around false accusations and lying. Is this your fourth or fifth straight post without referring to the Bible. It is about time someone else sees your posts, void of the Bible but full of insults. Why are you here? Can't you...

No, I haven't. If I have then so has the Bible Knowledge Commentary, The Believer's Bible Commentary, and a host of others. You detest anything that is not Calvinistic. That is your problem.