Search results

Yep, just an ordinance not a sacrament and there is a huge difference as a sacrament is something that actually imparts something salvational. 4000 years of saints prior to John the Baptist had their sins remitted without sacraments. Paul explicitly denies that circumcision (which was first...

This is your MO when you cannot directly address the evidence placed in front of you - you simply repeat disproven errors and all substantive debate ends. I did not respond this way to you? I did not respond with summary talking points but pointed out explicit statements in the text that...

Yeah, that is a very handy function as I use it regularly.

Inability is based upon fallen predisposition, notice "hateth" precedes "will not come to the light." Notice "enmity" precedes "neither indeed can be." Strike three your out. He said first, "it is not given unto them to understand" as this the foundational truth that all the rest is built...

I am not sorry, but greatly rejoice that I not only feel that way but believe that way as that is the only belief that obtains justification for which I am thankful. I feel sorry for those who are blind to this glorious truth preached since the foundation of the world, just as Christ was slain...

1 John 2:19 tells you in plain clear language what God's viewpoint is toward all who end up repudiating Christ or turn "anti-Christ." The translation above is erroneous as the Greek text uses the subjunctive mode properly translated in the KJV as "if they have fallen away". The text is saying...

You have just proved my point! You sought to be baptized because you did not believe that justificaton is obtained by faith in the gospel as preached by "all the prophets" (Acts 10:43) but because you reject that gospel as it has no baptism and because you CHOOSE to read into acts 2:38 "for" to...

I gave you scriptures that explicitly state inability of will but you give a text that says nothing explicitly to the point. They preached a gospel of works and that shuts the door to all who hear it and shuts the door to them as they obviously believe what they preach. Saddly, I thought by...

"merely necessary or essential" FOR WHAT? Not for justification or gospel conversion as the theif on the cross was not baptized and NO ONE prior to John the Baptist was baptized. But it is essential and necessary for CHURCH MEMBERSHIP and church membership was the NT norm. Not essential for...

This is not a cut and paste, ok? The balance is between free will and free agency. total Humanity existed as one person (Adam) who exerised free will. That free will choice introduced free agency or freedom to express what is consistent with a depraved nature. This limitation is expressed by...

Anyone who rejects OSAS embraces the reality that a true born again child of God can do something to lose salvation and ANYTHING you can do is what the Bible defines as "works." Jesus defines "works" as inclusive of all internal determining activity in the human soul (emotions, intellect, will)...

This is just not an issue between SBC and COC but between evangelicals and sacramentals in general. Indeed, the issue of the gospel is at stake here. The real issue is the difference between symbolism and literalism. Here is the problem for CoC as I see it with baptism. Peter says that...

You got to hear from God and know his will before you can disobey him! His commandments/law reveals right and wrong - so easy, so simple!

Only because there was no response to the original post. Both humas and soterian are found in the accusative case showing that both indicate termination of the action of the verb eileto. One is the direct object and the other is the indirect object. The preposition eis is a...

I have never argued otherwise and I have no idea why you would even think I believe any different than that? I have never believed/stated or taught that we are to keep the law for justification or sanctification or any aspect of salvation. However, neither do I repudiate the divine purpose for...

You place the human condition over the spiritual. This law complied from the characteristics of God is man made No, I just accept the plain and explicit teaching of scripture. The law originates with God and that is why Paul says the law is "holy" and "good" and "just" as nothing can...

You need to correct Paul, James and John then, as they defy the very point you are making. The New Testament is full of exhortation not to lie, steal, kill, etc. Need to Correct Jesus then as he is the one that said that the whole law is summed up in love your neigbor as yourself. "Moral"...

Yes, the did know the Messiah's name because it is God's name - Yahweh! Yes, they trusted in Yahweh as Savior. Yes he did know the Messiah. Jesus said that Abraham saw him and knew him because the gospel was preached to him (Jn. 10; Gal.3:6-9). Remember, in Galatians chapter one Paul curses...

The moral law is merely a revelation (imperfect) of the moral character of God and is thus the law/principle that characterizes God as a moral being. That is why the law can be reduced to one principle "love" for God IS LOVE. You thoughts and application are ..... wait for it...

I am not looking at the text from a HUMAN perspective, but from the DIVINE perspective as Peter is giving us the DIVINE perspective. It does not matter if the Jews or "his disciples" or even you or I understand it fully, it does not rest upon HUMAN acceptance or understanding but on the DIVINE...