Search results

What are you talking about? I assume you meant Stanford rather than Sanderson but you asked whether I thought he was in error and I said "No" not even knowing exactly what it was you were referring to. In other words, I was being flippant because your question is unanswerable with any substance...

It would be nice if there were a place where you could put a note that explains why you've put someone on ignore. I took Hoping off ignore and it lasted less than 48 hours before he said something that reminded me of his cult teaching nonsense about believing that he is sinless. What degree of...

WAIT! You're the idiot that believes he doesn't ever sin! What the Hell am I doing even talking to you at all? Do not respond to any of my other posts. I won't read it. You aren't a Christian at all. You belong to a cult. You will go to Hell if you do not repent. Every breath you take...

No. Unsubstantial questions, get unsubstantial answers.

This post was mostly an unresponsive waste of time. I'll respond to two points mostly for the sake a clarity as the other posts I've responded to already covers most of this anyway.... Context is everything! Who was Peter's audience? Be specific. (Chances are the question will go...

Only one of us is right. Salvation and sanctification are achieved the same way, by faith. (Galatians 3:3) I see legalism as any good deed done for the purpose of improving one's relationship with God. Not consciously. Jesus, Peter, James, at al. All of the disciples, apostles and biblical...

You are the one making the distinction. Paul makes no such distinction. The only ones who do, teach law - by definition! If you think that you can do things that facilitate, augment, enrich or otherwise improve your relationship with God, you're wrong and what you've done is taken a bite from...

This is probably going to sound evasive and I don't mean it to be but I really don't think in these kinds of terms and so I'm not sure what you're asking me. The time I spent writing those posts this morning is one thing that I think might qualify but, like I said, I'm not sure exactly what sort...

What do you mean by "honoring the words of Jesus Christ"? Jesus was born under the law, obeyed the law and taught others to do the same! Then why bother with them? Says who? You? This is the most false thing I've ever seen you type, Hoping! Where did you get this from? Romans 7:14 For we...

Only Catholics and cults would have the temerity to teach such a thing outright. Even the most legalistic sects of Protestant Christianity don't typically teach such thing outright. It isn't that they teach it verbatim its that they imply it, its that they live their lives as though that's what...

It isn't true, Jefferson not in the way he means it. Connecting your work to salvation is legalism - period. Confirming or questioning a man's salvation based on his works is legalism. A man is saved by faith - period. Works do NOT come into it. "Things Which Gracious Souls Discover: "To...

Legalistic double talk. Romans 4:5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,

Is there nothing you'd add or edit?

I disagree. In fact, it seems to me that you are mixing a bit of law in with grace. If you love God or your neighbor because there's a list of rules on the wall that says to do so, you've missed the entire point of Paul's gospel of grace. Jesus was teaching the law. He was born under the law...

@JudgeRightly is correct, I did have a thread on this basic question. I called it, "The Gospel Proper". I was surprised by two things, I was persuaded to change my mind on one important point and I was surprised at where the disagreements manifested themselves. In the end I landed on the...

It is truly baffling what Catholics count as sound reason. If this is what you count as logical then why bother? Why not just believe whatever the Hell you want to believe and stop pretending to be rational about it?! Simply idiotic! Your pretend rebuttal of the real refutation of your silly...

IF we're talking about a biblically based criminal justice system (i.e God's criminal justice system) then there would be no jury, just a judge who would held responsible for his judgments. Regardless, your point holds. There are certain "ingredients", if you will, to the crime of murder.

No, it would be an accident. It is not a crime for a child to shove someone across a bedroom and a person with sever retardation would not be able to think through the possible consequences of his actions in a manner where it would be reasonable to think he had any idea that such consequences...

Yes, accidental murder is a contradiction. God did not command the death penalty when someone died because of an accident. Where there is no intent, there is no guilt. (Deuteronomy 19 and Numbers 35). There is also the issue of self-defense where someone dies and there is no blood guilt...

Well, that's just the whole point. Murder is an intentional act. If a person is not capable of understanding what murder is then he can't commit the crime. There is an argument that can be made that it isn't up to us to make such determinations and that someone who takes another person's life...