Search results

Allow me to remind you: Ephesians 2:8-10 and Romans 4:5 were the scriptures provided. Here's the contradiction you're ignoring: both of those contrast faith and works as opposites. One says we are saved by grace through faith, not of works; the other says that to him who worketh not, but...

And especially your comments here.

Perception does not equal truth.

For this to be true, scripture must contradict itself. This has been pointed out to you multiple times, but you refuse to discuss this fact. You refuse to see anything except your own misinterpretation of scripture. You are caught up in a misunderstanding, and you're willingly ignoring anything...

It might be an invention of the one who posted it; but kyredneck is doing his best to support/defend it....

I believe I mentioned that God permitted; but savedbymercy's claim is that God is a doer of evil. Your claims here support that God permits; that it's even according to His plan; but your claims do not support savedbymercy's claim that God is a doer of evil.

Since all savedbymercy's posts here are foundations for the same premise, let's show one of them to be false: the discourse about Job. When Job referenced receiving evil from God, one has to consider ALL of scripture. At the beginning of Job, we read and therefore know that Satan was the actual...

When is the ACLU gonna jump on this stuff? Where are the freedom from religion yokels?

Tapatalk isn't showing something I wrote on the preview, and it was too long ago to edit....

Tony - the only thing he could be saying at this point, for him to continue, is this: "For by grace are we saved through [Christ's] faith...." (See post #38) Which means we have to read Romans 4:5 as our faith in His faith, and His justification.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/just-dump-man-haron-monis-body-at-sea-muslim-leaders-say/story-fnl2dlu7-1227161221594?nk=a8d9d271cd4ba4eaeac7d9e26bdc6c9f (please note; some unnecessary language in this article) Well, at least some muslims somewhere are finally publicly speaking...

Which doesn't change the essence of our discussion one whit, because the point of contention is exactly what you wrote: "is believing." Saying that someone can see heaven without believing because they are elect is what I take issue with.

This belief about Matthew 23:23 can only be held if one denies other scripture (namely, Romans 4:5 and, as Tony pointed out, Ephesians 2).

It's impossible for me to understand how one can read His words -- "whosever believeth" -- without seeing "and all these others, too" -- and reconcile with what is proposed here (that unbelievers have a place in heaven). It is extreme hyper-calvinism.

Well, that's calling the kettle black. You ask questions, demand we answer a particular way, but won't answer the questions of others -- and then have the audacity to imply that I'm doing the same thing and wrong for doing so?!? All I expect is for you to tell me that I'm not misrepresenting...

It's obvious that you've read something from Matt 23:23 and focused on wording rather than meaning. For example, using the same principle you've apparently applied to this verse, you must obviously believe that 1 Peter 3:20 means we must be baptized to be saved. Regarding Romans 4:5 -- But to...

An unbeliever that belongs to God, who dies in unbelief, yet has a place in heaven -- is a completely unimaginable thing for me.

Then you're ignoring scripture (please look at the verse reference I provided, and explain why that verse doesn't mean what it says, or explain how I've misunderstood it).

Your question was to get me to agree or disagree with you, which I can't do until I know I've correctly understood you. My question was to ensure that I understand you. Do you not understand the difference?

I've answered your question by asking you one to make sure I understand your position. Please answer my question, and then we can continue to reason together.