Search results

I'm not talking about possibilities. I wouldn't have any problem with them receiving it right there and then - but the Spirit hadn't been given. So this appears to me as a command to receive the Holy Spirit without regard to time.

No...that fits perfectly. If there were something about the command that required it be done immediately, that would be different. But that's exactly what I'm describing. Whether you call it a request or a command (in my analogy) doesn't change the essence of the way I read it. It is intended...

I see it just as though someone were with a group of people (use the analogy of a visitor at a household) and were the guest of honor. That guest has a limited time to stay but wants to send someone back to those remaining at the household. Before the guest leaves, he gives notice that he will...

Only 2 comments immediately : 1. I have never read John 20:22 as though the apostles were given the Holy Spirit at that time. I have always read that as their being prepared to receive the Holy Spirit. 2. At the very least you would have to believe that no one was baptized until after...

Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. Romans 3:30 While listening to the Book of Romans, this verse stuck out to me. The two prepositions "by" and "through" are not exactly the same - and when I checked the underlying Greek...

I Cor 12:4 seems to be clear that there is no reason to think "Holy Spirit" and "the Holy Spirit" refer to different entities. It seems to me like a distinction without a difference.

I can't say the argument seems very compelling. Are there many Holy Spirits? Thomas Constable notes this in his commentary on John 20:22 and the use of Holy Spirit : The absence of an article before a noun often has the effect of stressing the quality of the noun. In this case that would be the...

I do. I think anything that disallows the possibility either requires sinless perfection or the utter abolition of the idea that there is any such thing as sin. It sounds like OZOS defines sin as either against someone else (i.e. God has forgiven sin so the standard of the Law doesn't apply to...

We aren't justified by the Law. With that I agree. But our faith is justified by our works. Christ speaks of those who love Him obeying Him. Revelation says that the works of those who die in the Lord follow them. James says our faith will produce works if it is true. That's why sanctification...

Seems like there was a rehearsal for this in January : Happy Food But were the MI National Guard specifically targeted? There's nothing from any of the other 4,000 National Guardsmen (or their officers) that are currently deployed in DC. Was the same caterer for the MI troops feeding other...

I hadn't heard about this. I did a search and all I could find was Michigan complaining about the food issue. Yet - to my knowledge - they are not the only state with National Guard troops in DC. I There are over 5000 troops deployed - 983 of them are from MI. Why are there not complaints from...

So if someone who is walking by faith (not trying to justify themselves by the Law) falls (steals a piece of gum or commits adultery and murder) they were never really walking by faith? Or does the Law just disappear for that individual so that sin just doesn't exist? The way I read what you are...

But that's the point. Those that are redefining identity are being utterly inconsistent.

Often, when someone says "X should have said Y", it's a sign they are trying to shape the text after their own ideas - not what was actually meant. It's very easy to do - and only in cases where you are forced (without remedy) into an irresolvable inconsistency by doing so can you then start...

Stumbled over an older (2018) article in The Atlantic about using the term "guys" generically : Okay to Say "Hey Guys"? Honestly, that's just a segue into my question - everyone is aware of the postmodern push to redefine and relabel according to someone's feelings (though many would say the...

Then they are doing the public a service by calling it "science" when they make claims that can't be corroborated and/or change their tune multiple times on a single issue. That's not science....that's arbitrary exercise of power.

How, specifically, do you say His comprehension was limited?

I Timothy 6:16 says that Christ alone has immortality. Can God be separated from God? Maybe this is just a difference of semantics, but if Christ is dead, how does He defeat death? That's why He could say He has the keys to death, hell and the grave. He triumphed over it because He defeated it...

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. Colossians 2:8-9 {Sorry about the formatting....it doesn't work like it used to...

Point taken...but the fact remains that admittedly unreliable testing is being used as the basis for policy (and being called "science") when normal review of data takes months (and at least 4 weeks based on the CDC VAERS statement). It's assuming the conclusion and then trying to figure out how...