Search results

The fact that dealing with sin vs dealing with crime are two separate issues is very clearly true but I'm fairly sure that you missed my point, which was to implicitly employ the fact that they are two separate issues as the basis for my question. In other words, if dealing with sin doesn't...

And so, once again, why do we put professing believers to death when they've committed a capital crime? This gets circular is the point I'm making here and so I'm not convinced that this is the whole answer. I think I have another part of it but I'm still mulling it over.

And so, if justice demands the death penalty, in what way then is God not unjust?

The biblical fact of the matter is that He did so and that it did not come to pass. Except that isn't what He said, Derf. That's the way you want to interpret what He said but that simply isn't what He actually said. I didn't say anything about mankind. There won't be a single human being...

Playing devil's advocate.... Then, we should not be in favor of the death penalty for those who publicly profess repentance toward God and who accept Christ as their savior? (I have no doubt that this is the tack that the person I was discussing this with would take.)

Killing a man's child for the crimes the father committed is very evil! So much so that God wrote a whole chapter of the bible on that precise topic. (Ezekiel 18) So did Peter and James and most all the other apostles. Are you suggesting that they were all guilty of capital crimes? Clearly...

I was recently discussing the justice of the death penalty when the person I was talking with brought up the fact that God didn't have David executed for murdering Uriah the Hittite, nor did He let Saul's involvement in Stephen's stoning, which if it wasn't murder, it was certainly an unjust...

No prophecy God ever gives that is contingent on what regular human beings do is a "sure thing". The only prophecies that are "sure things" are those that have to do with what God has said the He is going to do Himself regardless of what any fallen man does or doesn't do. God is going to destroy...

This was as stupid thing to say. Smacks of desperation, really. You're intentionally ignoring the roll of the Holy Spirit. It isn't even remotely close to being a "main point" of Open Theism, especially considering the way in which you've presented it. It's the blasphemous Calvinists who...

I'm not saying that any of them say anything different. I'm saying that you can read and understand practically any other translation more easily. If your goal is to communicate what the bible says, you'll use something other that a 400+ year old translation that uses a form of English that no...

Niether did I. As indicated by Matthew's gospel. I'm sorry, Derf but there just isn't any way that Jesus was referring to anything other than His second coming. That's the sense you get from simply reading the text and there isn't anything other than someone's doctrine that would necessitate...

My comments were based on the passage in Matthew which reads.... Matthew 16:24 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. 25 For whoever wants to save their life[f] will lose it, but whoever loses their life for...

The time line was set in place prophetically centuries before.

Of all the issues related to the dispensational differences between the Body of Christ and Israel, water baptism has to be the one where I give people on either side of the debate the widest tolerance for whichever position they happen to hold. When I was new to Mid-Acts Dispensationalism I was...

We do not know that Jesus is talking about Pentecost. It has the same problem as the theory you've presented concerning the transfiguration. Pentecost was only week or two away. Pentecost occurred 50 days after the resurrection which was only a week to ten days after the transfiguration which...

I still see no correlation between Peter's comment and Christ's prophecy! And you're right 6 days makes it far worse than if it had been six weeks! (I really don't know what's happening with my reading comprehension!!) Why would I ask Peter? Peter didn't give the prophesy, Jesus did. Why...

Okay, I was clearly not on my best footing yesterday! For some reason, I had it in my head that the "some standing here" prophecy was in Matthew 18, not Matthew 16 and I just forgot completely that God made the same "This is my beloved Son..." comment at the transfiguration that He had made in...

Peter was not making any reference to Jesus' statement. The transfiguration happened before Jesus' prophecy and it had nothing to do with Jesus coming in His Kingdom. Peter was talking about God the Son's coming in the flesh, (i.e. the incarnation) and more specifically, Peter is making direct...

Jesus didn't merely say that "the end was near", He explicitly stated that "there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." This was recorded in three of the four gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke. I'm curious, how do you deal with that...

I think the forward most horizontal piece is the key. Hard to say for sure though.