Search results

I don't see where you answered what do you believe? I believe that you did answer I just want to make it clear here because I have missed where you answered, so here I number the sentences repeated again, tell me which one is wrong. 1) If you are elect, there is nothing you can do to not be in...

Obviously, not exclusively. That doesn't speak to my point. I find Peter's preaching being faulted in Galatians 2: 14 " But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of...

But isn't that different from the Great Commission at the end of that same book of Matthew? Do you agree that Jesus preached the 'DBR' to the future Apostles before the 'DBR' happened?

And Gentiles. Disagreed, the Church is New Covenant. Not without knowledge, but without apprehension and without understanding for sure, which even extended to after the 'DBR' and Ascension, until Old Paul came around to save the day. Or the bacon. Then Jesus preached the Gospel of the grace...

Nope! I'm just not IGNORING morals! And when you don't ignore morals, you see that the whole New Testament is consistent with not ignoring them, Paul, Peter, MML&J, Revelation, etc. And morals is where Calvinism and Reformed theology has fallen! And it CAN'T GET UP. Because in order to...

Which is consistent with John being written after Peter had already died, and he died in like AD 66.

That's our condition of "Original Sin", the idea to sin comes from this condition, but we retain the power to thwart the ideas that seemingly 'pop' into our head. Adam didn't have such a thought 'pop' into his head, to eat the forbidden fruit. He consciously chose to do it. That's the type of...

I oppose MAD because it's inconsistent just like every other Noncatholic ism. But I answered this question in a prior post. It's evident that God needed Paul to 'finish the job' for Jesus, Who began preaching the 'DBR' to the other future Apostles before the 'DBR' happened. As was mentioned...

There is no danger for us in God our Father being in complete control though.

That's all I was sayin.

If you're predestined to heaven there's nothing you can do to change it----nothing. Same goes for the alternative, if you're 'reprobate' and basically predestined to hell----nothing you can do. This is the true foundation of Calvinist (AKA 'Reformed') morals. You can see it's nothing. This is...

By the way. Almost forgot. It's recorded in MY Dispenasationalism's Gospel (John) exactly why Jesus preached the 'DBR' to the future Apostles, even though they didn't understand Him: John 14:27 " Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let...

You set that out very succinctly, thank you.

If the rate of infection among the unvaccinated is equal to the infection rate among the vaccinated, then that statistic should be compelling enough all by itself, but the reality could be that the rate of infection among the unvaccinated is substantially lower than it is among the vaccinated...

I think it will too. So I'm going to delay it a bit. Christ preached the 'DBR' all right, that much is clear as a bell, and the most important part of this record, in all the 'synoptics', is that he was preaching it to all His future Apostles except one, the mighty Paul. All of them heard Him...

It's certainly clear that His disciples didn't understand, believe, 'get it', but that doesn't mean 'different Gospel' which is what you're attempting to demonstrate.

That's an interesting point. What part of the Gospel of the Kingdom or the Kingdom Gospel has Him as NOT its KING? Maybe there's even ANOTHER Gospel that not even the DISPIES have dreamed up.

Because whether or not someone believes you when you preach the Gospel to them has no bearing on whether you actually preached it to them! Why are you even asking this question?! SCRIPTURE SAYS they didn't. I didn't think you were kidding. I just noticed in the next sentence out of your...

It kind of hinges on what Paul means in Romans 15:16 " That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable" I don't think that he means that the Gentiles are the offering, I think he means that...

Yeah, OK. But my point was that this apparently novel idea about how to get 'fresh eyes' on the truths of Scripture and God has been 'done to death' already, and that's why we all have these different theoretical understandings of Scripture. The time is come to have these different...