Search results

It isn't knee jerk, Lon. This isn't the first time I've seen this sort of thing. It isn't even the first time I've seen it from you. The problem you have is that the phrase you want to retranslate isn't the point in and of itself. That phrase happens to be part of a whole chapter, all of which...

Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility: An Examination of Reformed Theology's Terminology One of the central debates in Christian theology, particularly in regard to the Reformed tradition, is the relationship between God's sovereignty and human responsibility. Reformed theology, as...

You are a lunatic and a liar who thinks he knows how to translate Hebrew better than every Hebrew scholar that has ever been employed to translate the bible into English. I actually started to post all of the various English translation that testify against you but I reminded myself not to waste...

You're quazi-pantheism is unconvincing in the extreme. Not only is it heresy to start with but it ignores not only the point RD was making but what Open Theism actually teaches, not to mention what feels like countless passages of scripture. Not that you care about such things. I don't...

To state it clearly, the word "sovereign" means "supreme authority" or "highest authority". From ChatGPT.... There are Hebrew and Greek words that convey the concept of sovereignty, even if the English word "sovereign" isn't directly used. These words emphasize God's ultimate authority...

I don't know about you but I listen to a lot of hymns. We used to sing them at church when I was kid and the further modern churches have gotten from singing them, the more they lost me as even an attendee, never mind an active member. I particularly enjoy watching the Bill Gaither videos. The...

This nonsense doesn't hold together for two seconds, even by the lowest of rational standards! What sort of insidious stupidity has to eat away at a man's mind and for how long before they could read any of this and take it the least bit seriously, never mind being it's author!! This makes Billy...

Death (and decay of our body) is a consequence of sin. Levin is a symbol of sin precisely because it is a decay process (See I Corinthians 5). Further, I think I just did back it up with scripture. Was Jesus not dead for three days? Lazarus had been dead for just four and no one wanted to open...

Christ had no sin, no sin nature, no "leaven", thus, no, I don't think His body would have ever decayed. Being three days dead is more than long enough to stink up the place. If He hadn't started by then, He wasn't going to start at all. This depends on what you means by "death happened" to...

I can live with that. Please understand that it was not my intention to "tag you with believing Calvinist doctrine", as you put it. I was merely presenting the rational behind the two separate natures doctrine. I would never suggest that you agreed with that rational, quite the opposite, which...

All kidding aside, I think speculating about the layout and functionality of Heaven is a perfectly fine thing to do, but I'm always reminded of I Corinthians 2:9 I Corinthians 2:9 But as it is written: “Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, Nor have entered into the heart of man The things which God...

Well, perhaps. I can't put my finger on it, but, intuitively (and I'm the opposite of a strong intuitive), there's something about the notion that Jesus was weak and subject to corruption that doesn't sit well in my brain.

October 2nd. Sam Adam's birthday and "Make up your own doctrine out of whole clothe!" day. Who knew?!

I can detect no difference between what you are arguing and the Calvinist hypostatic union doctrine. I have no problem at all believing that you reject the Calvinist rational for this doctrine, which is the reason I brought it up. The point being that if you reject the rational for the doctrine...

You guys are arguing in favor of a Calvinist doctrine called the Hypostatic Union. I assure you there is no need for the doctrine! Their reasoning for the doctrine is based on the same notions that I deal with in the opening post. Calvinists (and other Augustinians) argue that if Jesus’...

You're reading too much into those three words. Acts13:33 God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm: ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.’ 34 And that He raised Him from the dead, no more to return to...

Yes. I didn't expect that you would disagree with my comment. I was just being technical and precise.

No one would be stupid enough to say it but that isn't the point. It is what this idea implies. A singular person has a singular nature. A person's nature is the person. You are what you are. God is what God is. Jesus is what Jesus is. Jesus isn't two bifurcated things, He's one unified thing...

Two. The first Adam and the last Adam. The first started "very good" but became weak and corrupted because sin overcame him and killed him. The last was never weak nor subject to corruption and defeated both sin and death.

If Jesus was not both, we are all fools and Christianity is false. If you do not believe that Jesus was both, you will die in your sin.