Search results

Alright, I give in. After having it on the backburner in my mind since I last posted in this thread, and now watching this sermon, I've been convinced that the age of accountability is a set age.

Secular origin of life researchers don't have a clue. https://www.icr.org/article/renowned-chemist-on-origin-of-life

Or, you realize that Jesus is one Person of the Triune Godhead, and that Jesus existed PRIOR to being born of Mary, which means that she is not the mother of God, but only of Jesus' human body. Meaning that you've made an association fallacy, "A is a subset of B. A is also a subset of C." The...

Wrong. Also, even if he was, so what?

Then it's not a will, period. If it's not free, it's not a will. It's just a robot. Robots don't have wills. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. If what the person wants is predetermined by God, then the person does not have a will.

Correct, because that's what the Bible teaches: “If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the bride-price of virgins...

Again, irrelevant to the topic of prostitution being a crime. You do not have the right to sell someone's body, including your own, for sex, for sex is to be between one man and one woman, in a committed marriage relationship. Any other time, it's sexual immorality. You cannot rightly...

Love of guns has nothing to do with this. God is the one who instituted flogging as punishment for certain crimes, Idolater. Not me. Not Bob Enyart (who is the one who wrote the above). God. He's also the one who came up with the "eye for eye, hand for hand, tooth for tooth" punishments. In...

Prostitution should be a criminal offense, punishable by flogging. From America's Criminal Code: You shall not commit adultery. - Judges will execute those convicted of bestiality (Ex. 22:19; Lev. 20:15-16); those convicted of incest including with in-laws (Lev. 11-12, 14-15, 17, 19-21); of...

I want to. But I'd want to do it the right way, which would require a few resources that I don't have at the moment.

Educate yourself, please. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man What I "insist" has nothing to do with it. "Free will" IS redundant, because there is no such thing as a non-free will. A will is by definition free. 'A' cannot equal '!A.' As I stated before, repeating something for emphasis...

Straw man. I refer you to this post: Again: "free will" is redundant, because a will is, by definition, free. What emphasis do you think you're adding by saying "free will" instead of just "will"? There's a purpose to God repeating a word twice (ie, adding emphasis). There's no need to be...

Translation: "You won't accept what I believe so you must think you have a superior intellect to God." Translation: "I've run completely out of anything substantive to say so I'm going to resort to ad hominems." Oatmeal, if you can't answer the question, just say so! "I don't know" is a...

Irrelevant. Is there such a thing as a will that is not free? If not, then "free will" is redundant, because you're essentially just saying "free [will that is free]." If so, then please provide an example of a will that is not, by definition, free. You cannot, because a will is, by...

You still made the decision, did you not? You could have decided otherwise. That makes the decision done a free choice. You exercised your will. Let's not rely on one's personal definitions. Let's look at what the word ACTUALLY means: Free means not under the control or in the power of...

No, my point was that it COULD be translated to include "lamb." Not that it SHOULD be translated that way. If it SHOULD be translated that way, then what RD said was true, that it would be the only instance where Paul uses it and meant "lamb," and wouldn't much affect our position. If it...

Agreed. "Can" != "Should" I was simply pointing out that he's not necessarily adding to Scripture by using "lamb."

Being redundant is quite different than repeating something for added emphasis. In fact, doing so is, by definition, NOT redundant.

It can be translated as "Passover Lamb."

Because it inherently informs the rest of one's position on the matter, especially when it comes to the topic of God's sovereignty.