Search results

You keep committing logical fallacies in your illustrations. The illustration of a blind man is that he is born with the nature of blindness and did not choose to have that nature. Then you apply that illustration to humans and sin and say that humans are born spiritually dead (his nature) and...

Caps was for emphasis... I actually wrote it w/ a smile on my face. No yelling... I promise :D

IN a sense, the gospel has been extended to all. The problem is not the gospel extension. The problem is man's incessant proclivity to avoid God and never believe. The problem is your concept of "all people to freely accept His gift of salvation" b/c they are not free to accept. They are...

Not sure if it has been mentioned since we are on page 12, but I think Phil 1:29 is pretty clear: For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake,

It is unjust to punish people for their sin caused by their sinful nature??? The only way around that terrible truth is that people did not exist or not born in the race of Adam... a terrible thought to be sure. I would say your illustration is lacking b/c these infirmities are effects of sin...

What would you have God do??? Override their sinful inclination of perpetual unbelief? Oh wait... that's what he does!!!! So for God to be "mericful", he must be merciful to everyone??? You sure you have the correct understanding and definition of mercy???

The Bible never says that. In fact, I would argue that Hebrews 3:6 puts the church in the same "house" as Israel - i.e. the people of God. You further need to prove that "kingdom" is the best translation of basileia. Because its primary meaning is simply reign or rulership. In this case...

Calvinist would NOT say that (not intelligent ones). They would say that those not elect would never believe. Remember, that TULIP starts w/ total depravity (total inability to believe). So your statement is completely false.

Pause for a sec... I am not talking about the church fathers. I am talking about the parishioners of Jerusalem Church circa AD45. And that is what Acts 15 demonstrates. Consider the situation... the issue was all about the CHristian Jews acknowledging the Christian Gentiles as part of the...

Hearers only are not necessarily deluded but disobedient. That is at least what James says. To see deluded as part of the picture is something you are taking from other places in Scripture (2 Cor. 2:14 etc.).

I would say you are partially correct in using this to help define your hermeneutic. But how is one supposed to understand what they are hearing in order to do? Don't want the cart before the horse.

Of course non-dispies would dispute your interpretation. But that's not my biggest problem here. You pontificate. You don't give any Scripture. I would at least expect a proof-text or two. First where did Jesus say that the kindgom would be restored to her? He said it would be taken...

All that and you said nothing of Acts 15:16 or Amos 9:9ff. :BangHead:

And my argument from Acts 15 is that it was not just the apostles who were doing this. Luke records the early church reading the OT in this way. So it is not apostolic in the sense of miraculous. It is orthodox.

Not sure what that was all about... but the acid test is Acts 15:16 quoting Amos 9:9. Basically, Amos 9:9ff. tell about the restoration of Israel. The early church says that the restoration of Israel has begun b/c the prophecy of the ingathering of the nations has begun. That is a figural...

Perhaps I should define plain and literal. But I would imagine it is the similar meaning as you. I think both words are self explanatory. But Acts 15 is not just about the apostles but the entire church at Jerusalem. It is the way the early church interpreted the OT. They looked at things...

Forgive the way I respond here... it is just easier. I'm not sure I read anywhere someone who claimed to know more than Paul. Nevertheless, Dt. 29:29 tells us that we can understand what is revealed in Scripture. My question is how do we understand it? As best I can tell, the Biblical...

That's my point... their practice was not inspired. It was the norm however for interpreting Scripture. Luke records in Acts the early church's understanding of the OT. And it was figural/messianic/fulfilled in Jesus.