Search results

Many of us hold firmly to what we were initially taught, and exhibit hostility to those presenting alternate views. The SBC has a Calvinist wing, and a larger Non-Calvinist wing. These folks , which includes yours truly, sometimes disparage others. On the other hand, if you have an open...

No of course not! Two verses say Christ paid the ransom for many, and one verse says Christ paid the ransom for all. Because He paid the ransom for all, that includes the many. On the other hand, if He paid the ransom for many but not all, then that interpretation nullifies scripture. A no-no.

1) Yes, the New Covenant is foreshadowed in the Old Testament. The Old Covenant does not provide reconciliation, only the New Covenant accomplishes that promised blessing. 2) PSA is false doctrine. When an individual is transferred into Christ, they undergo the washing of regeneration, and...

When the same word is used to indicate two very different results, confusion arises.

1) “Then Aaron shall offer the bull as the sin offering, which is for himself, so that he may make atonement for himself and for his household. Should be translated as "may make a temporary covering for himself and for his household. Kaphar does NOT provide "atonement" as described in Romans...

1) Yes, I meant G2643, as used in Romans 5:11. 2) No, the New Covenant is not in the Old Covenant. That is why the OT saints were made perfect only under the New Covenant, and NOT under the Old Covenant. 3) No, nothing is scripture is in "favor" of false doctrine, certainly not PSA...

Our Word, frequently translated as "atonement" needs to well understood if we are to understand the gospel of Christ. The Hebrew word appears about 103 times in the Old Testament, so its meaning is confined to the Old Covenant, not the New Covenant. That is why translating the Old Covenant word...

An interesting opinion piece, containing some valid assertions, and a boat load of false ones. 1) The Greek word translated as Propitiation in Romans 3:25 is hilastērion (G2435) and refers to the means by which a sinner might be reconciled to God. Christ's sacrifice of His physical life...

The deflection defense. They cannot defend their additions to scripture to pour their dark ages doctrine into the text, so they change the subject and imply an ad homenim. Spiritual Solid Foods are the things of the Spirit of God that the natural, non-indwelt person, cannot understand...

God is a spiritual being, therefore to understand the "invisible attributes of God" is to understand some spiritual things. Romans 1:20 Therefore, when Paul says the natural man cannot understand "the things of the Spirit of God" he is referring to "the spiritual solid food (meat) things,"...

Yet another deflection question, avoiding any stated position. Here, the unstated claim from the dark ages is that "the things" must mean all the things. Nonsense. The context clearly teaches the natural man cannot understand the spiritual solid food things, but men of flesh can understand...

Anthony, you just smuggled my position into your position. But to what purpose?

Here we have the unstated claim the things must mean all the things. Nonsense. The context clearly teaches the natural man cannot understand the spiritual solid food things, but men of flesh can understand spiritual milk. Next, we have since one point teaches this, then another point cannot...

The deflection and absurdity defense. They cannot defend their additions to scripture to pour their dark ages doctrine into the text.

Let me repeat, the claim that to stick with the least that is being said might "shrink" the scope is false. In their Natural, unregenerate sate, is not in dispute. 1 Cor. 2:14 does NOT say the natural person cannot understand any of the things of the Spirit God. That is an expansion...

It is a blatantly false claim that "the things" refers to "all the things!" It could mean "all the things" or could refer to some of the things. Thus the least God is saying is "some of the things. Your theology repeatedly adds to scripture, the things becomes all the things, no one seeks...

One of us certainly missed something! :) When Jesus got out of the boat, the possessed man had already seen Him, and had ran up to the place where Jesus would disembark, so the possessed man "met Him" when Jesus got out of the boat. See verse Mark 5:2 and 6. But then the possessed man...

I disagree. People expand the scope of scripture to pour man-made conjecture into it. I could not think of an example where the plain meaning was denied and something less was read into the text. Perhaps you could provide an example. Here are a few examples of expansion: 1 Cor. 2:14...

I have yet to find a person who rewrites scripture to fit his or her doctrine to deny they seek the plain meaning of the text. No one seeks after God plainly means No one ever seeks after God, even though scripture is full of examples of people seeking after God. We all sin, and "no one seeks...

You did not answer the question, but changed the subject to my behavior. It was your conjecture as to why the demon(s) possessed man ran to Jesus, and we should stick with what scripture actually says. I said Jesus confronted the man, since He commanded the demon(s) to leave him. You...