Search results

Hey John of Japan, you must have missed my post to you about Acts 10:36. Would you care to comment on its (what seems to me) clear implications for the LS concept in Acts?

I deflect everything you say??? You were the one that completely ignored other statements I made, like my comment about Mark 8:34ff. All you did was give me a compliment about using context. However, that context refuted your premise about these presentations only being directed towards...

I find it interesting that the language of those against LS mimics so closely Calvinistic soteriology. I.e. HankD

So the "great crowds" in Lk 14 were "already saved"??? Is that why there were only a handful of people following Jesus at the crucifixion??? Plus, the text does not indicate a status of salvation. So the most likely option is to assume that they followed Jesus b/c of his miracles...

Since we are on context (and the Sermon on the Mount), I think it would do you well to see how most scholars divide up chapter 7:13-27. It is typically seen as a unit. That means you can't remove the concept of fruit bearing from vv. 13-14. Not to mention that it is still a stated proverbial...

The lack of acknowledging the lordship of Christ as a part of the content of the gospel is a result of the pandemic disease of diminishing the pist- root in our understanding of its semantic meaning. It has 2 primary meanings: (a) to be convinced of something so much so that it affects...

Mark 8:34ff. refutes that: Then Jesus called the crowd to himself along with his disciples and said to them, "If anyone wants to follow me, he must deny himself, pick up his cross, and follow me continually. Mar 8:35 For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life...

My point in mentioning Carson was because he sees the purpose behind the gospel according to John as wider than simply Jesus the Saviour. He argues that there is a great emphasis on discipleship which would thus equate salvation with discipleship. So while there is growth in that process (LS...

Here is a good thought from Carson's first article on Jn 20:31 (the context is about the place and use of chpts 14-17 as it pertains to an evangelistic intent to the account)... "[W]e must not think of this Gospel as 'evangelistic' merely in the sense that it was written to produce superficial...

Ok... which ινα clause are you referring? The first is the purpose, the second is the result. However, the purpose statement is not limited to simply believe. Otherwise that would be the end of the statement. But the content to which his audience was supposed to believe or be convinced of...

I'm talking about THE purpose statement of John 20:31 (read D.A. Carson on the statement, it might help). The purpose statement was constructed carefully. So carefully in fact that it would detract from abuse as you have done above. The statement says nothing about teaching people to believe...

I think it is easily defended from Acts. The theme of repentance makes that clear (both repentance w/ faith Acts 20:21 and repentance by itself as in Acts 11:18). Not to mention that is it unwise to separate Acts from the Lukan narrative. It is volume 2 of a 2 volume work. So what was said...

Actually, I think you missed the entire soteriological point as to why Peter would quote as much of Joel 2 as he did. The last verse is the most likely of reasons. So I think your illustration and reason for why Peter chose to quote more is completely lacking. In fact, most of the time the OT...

I get the flow of the text. I really do. This is one of the passages I was published about defending the same view as you are right now. The problem is, you are not allowing a figural interpretation for the sun and moon. And Joel was not written in order to be fulfilled in stages. So either...

It is not ignored, it was figural. Peter says that what was happening in Acts 2 ("this" going back to the coming of the Spirit and speaking in tongues) Joel wrote about in Joel 2 ("is that"). So the burden of proof is on you to prove that either Peter was mistaken or there is more yet to...

Because you restrict the meaning to literal when it very likely is figural. If "this is that" which was prophesied in Joel 2, then Acts 2 is saying that the sun did turn to darkness and so on. It is figural language saying that an universe shattering event has just happened, the Spirit...

Ok... I am certain I am not mis-characterizing the dispo camp b/c I just recently left it. I was the uber-dispo. I even have a few articles published in a dispo theology journal. And academic dispos hold to stable meaning and single meaning. Your view of prophetic fulfillments is not the...

Did anyone read all of that???

So the Jews knew something that we Christians cannot agree on? This is your perspicuity of Scripture? Also, you think it is ok to have an interpretation that has 3 meanings? What happened to single meaning and stable meaning??? THat is the hallmark of dispo hermeneutics. This is why...