Search results

It's literally the post right above you. Acts 20:16-18; 28

https://theologyonline.com/threads/idolatry.59717/

So don't feel so bad.

Remember that authority and power are synonyms. It's easy to confuse "authoritative" with authority or having authority in terms of power, but this is a category error if you get confused in the ambiguity. Power is something a president or a court or a legislature has and wields, the written...

[Pulled from another thread, I think this is the better location:] Great. Catholicism requires a lifelong commitment, people should know that in case they don't. You are committing like you commit when you get married, it's for life, you're making a promise. It is a promise to change your...

Seth Moulton is a Marine, like JD Vance. The one branch of the military which focuses exclusively on administering God's wrath. The United States Marine Corps is small enough to do this, the other branches are just so big that they do have a lot more administrative work to be done, which is...

You all think it matters what you think but it doesn't, and I'm not saying this because you haven't even attempted to prove this implied claim of yours that it needs to make sense to you or else you're not converting, that's never ever been any part of the faith, and I'll prove it: Show me one...

It's like Nick says, "Free will" is redundant. Also, this is still (trivially) true:

Non-responsive.

It ... addresses the OP, like you asked for. And that's just begging the question. In contrast, I could say, I have no reason to reject Paul as the author of Hebrews, because Hebrews and all of Paul's undisputed letters lines up with Catholicism. You see that's just begging the question.

That is the claim, yes. Absolutely, and I'm claiming the language does NOT seem all that different me. How do you figure out whose READING of the Bible is correct? What's your test?

Again, non-responsive. What makes "RCC" or Arianism anti-Biblical, according to you? You can't and won't say, because you're going to rule out MAD too. Fact.

It's all about Paul and whether he wrote Hebrews, and using evidence internal to the New Testament, and whether the undisputed Pauline letters corroborate the content of the book of Hebrews. Such as when Paul says he received, in 1st Corinthians chapter 11 and 15. He received. That's like...

We're not discussing Arianism. We're discussing anti-Biblicalism, which was YOUR idea to discuss it. Why, according to you, are Arianism and "RCC" anti-Biblical? Let's see if MAD passes your own test? for what is anti-Biblical? If you can.

You'll forgive people then for being confused about good works for the Christian and how important they are. Right? Because Paul, who you all constantly remind us is our only Apostle, constantly reminds us over and over again, just like all the whole rest of the Bible, to watch what we do, to...

Many problems with this, but I've addressed some of them already in earlier posts. The final point I'll make is that Leighton Flowers' primary defeater for the Real Presence would work just as well to prove Christ's Resurrection was only spiritual or metaphorical or symbolic, or that Christ is...

That has nothing at all to do with whether or not Arianism is anti-Biblical. You're not even addressing the question.

We didn't set this up. We just received from the Apostles. You'll have to take it up with them I guess.

But Paul does say, "I pray to God that ye do no evil" 2nd Corinthians 13:7, plus Colossians chapter 3, so it's not like Paul isn't concerned with our objective behaviors, it's one of his themes to care about what we do.

But why is it anti-Biblical? Because it's not because Arians don't prove Arianism from the Bible. It's something else that they fail. Not the Sola Scriptura test. Every single Arian, both historically and modern day (JWs), always use the Bible to prove Arianism. So if it's anti-Biblical...