Search results

Only because your argument is so muddled and you keep changing the parameters of dialogue.

So you're agreeing with me that Christians have believed this from the start? Really? I think you're on record as stating that the Catholic Church began after Constantine. However, if you have changed your view on this, then answer these two questions: 1. How come then that 'Catholic'...

I believe the Scripture fine; I just have a problem with your particular spin on its alleged meaning. DT has already adequately refuted your 'take' on the meaning of the tenses used, so you're still interpolating the word 'forever'.

You're conflating context with purpose based on just three examples, none of which relate to the relationship between Romans 5 and James 2.

If you think Crabtownboy is 'far left', then you ought to meet this guy

Oh dear! You sound just like my Exclusive Brethren father-in-law, who tries to settle theological arguments with the phrase "Quite clearly, Scripture says...". I dare say you and he could sit down and have hours if not days of fruitless debates over the meaning of many Scriptures, secure in your...

Er...yes, not half! If Christians have always believed this - and they have - then that places a hugely different take on things. The RCC or the Church? You seem to be suggesting that this is the same. If it isn't, when do you say that the RCC and the Church diverged?

More bald opinion restated; all you have done here is roll out your spin on what that verse means. Yet again you are interpolating - in this case the word 'forever' - how many more extra words do you want to add to Scripture?

Teleios, (together with its associated similar words, teleioo, teleiotes, and teleiosis) is used frequently by Paul. You will have noticed by now that I have failed to give translations of these Greek words yet, and therein lies part of the problem: teleios and co have multiple meanings. Just...

The conclusions you have reached at least strongly suggest it. No false accusations here. Mistaken, perhaps, but based on sound evidence. If you wanted me to believe to the contrary then you should have produced different conclusions. Now it's you who is making the incorrect assumption...

I've asked for Scripture to refute what I've posted. So far all I've seen is opinion.

He's declared not guilty for whatever past crime of which he has been accused. Does that mean he's then free to go out and commit more crime?

Indeed (I take it you're referring to Nige).

Oh, I understand it alright; I just don't agree with it. With respect, yes you do. You approach James through your presumption that your sola fide interpretation of Romans 5 is correct. Another presumption; yes, James is about orthopraxis but it is also about orthodoxy. I fail to see how you...

Well, let's follow your train of thought and crucify Nigel; if he rises from the dead three days later, then I'll accept your argument.

DT is bang on the money here: justification is but one part of our salvation, as Augustine clearly showed in Grace and Nature. Justification/ regeneration may be monergist, but salvation is synergist in pathology. I would challenge anyone here to demonstrate to the contrary from Scripture.

In case you are in any doubt as to 'Nige's' rudeness, here's him in action the other day, and here's The Times' verdict on him.

And that fact should reassure us how, exactly?

None of which addresses my point of reading James through the lens of Romans. I believe that Jesus' words, as recorded in the Gospels, carry the highest interpretative weight, since they are the direct words of the Lord Himself. That's not to say that the rest of the Bible eg: the Pauline...

UKIP are a bunch of fruitloops who stand no chance of getting elected in a national election; they've only got MEPs because no-one takes European elections seriously in this country. Have you actually seen Nigel Farage in action: he's the stereotypical swivel-eyed frothing loony; the geeky guy...