Search results

Not sure if I have the ah ha moment here, but I understand you both now: "That tree is not Christ." I need to listen to the rest of the video so I don't ask 'already answered that' questions (why are we then warned verse 21? How are we united to the same vine as Israel as gentiles...

No response, so let me rephrase and put in a little homework: Because Israel is still in God's plan, it'd seem (according to one link from dispensationalism), that Dispensationalists across board would be supportive of the state. In such a question there are two assumptions, 1) that the...

I missed it so thank you again. It is for sure that part of the video linked "That tree is not Christ!" Have to watch the rest of the video now. What I can grasp until I finish the video: 1) No, I have never thought that Christ would cut off His body. 2) As such, I have wrestled in the...

Thank you for reply with constraint. Much appreciated. On point, Wouldn't matter if it was, is what I'm saying (I hope I'm making the right response, am listening to what you are throwing down). I don't think you were making an appeal to popularity, but I took the weight of the suggestion...

It seems v21 is talking about 'don't get prideful as a new member of the body.

I appreciate the answer here too. It seemed to me it has to have such a take. The idea not to 'fear' but rather "'I'm a Baptist! God loves us!' yeah, don't do that. It isn't a group thing these days." Close?

▲I laughed, wife groaned ▲ :D

Thank you so much for taking the time. (uhhhggg) I'm reading as I'm writing and should read a bit more of Romans 11 at this venture but how do you read/take the warning of verse 21? Thank you. -Lon

Could a few of you weigh in on this please: Romans 11: 11-31 Verse 17 specifically. I'm trying to grasp what the dispensationalist means. How were believers grafted in at the time, and how specifically, to / in Israel? I'm not quite there grasping the Mid Acts point and difference.

Depends where it is and I am in the garage! :p (good point, back to the drawing board, it was rather on the precept that I can know 'something' and not the other so likely too superficial to suffice :Z). Actually, if I misread prior, I agree with this. In context of thread (if important to...

How we conceive of cold is the absence of heat, by degrees... If you know one, the other will simply be a point on a number scale and point of interest 'where frostbite sets in.' In this case, cold and heat are relative to 'temperature' and hot OR cold will only be informative to the need...

For instance? Fixed it a bit atf. Will likely change our conversation quite a bit. Er when you say love isn't not love? Double-negative, demonstrably

It goes back to the right/wrong conversation: I said an opposite isn't needed to grasp the meaning of a thing. In this case, specifically, that love, nor will, nor ability, have a need for the contrast 'to do otherwise' for understanding. That was your point of entrance with an example of a...

Well one of us is missing the forest. Let's take forest for instance: What it is "a large number of tree over a large area." What a forest is not: A small number of trees over a small area (about as clear as mud until we know what large actually means, but it should suffice). From here...

Confusing. I think you are saying it is important to say an opposite so someone doesn't get confused that it involves the opposite, but simply saying 'love is patient' already means it isn't impatient. Nobody is saying love is not impatient (simply moving a negative into definition)...

Oops, sorry missed this and needed to edit. I missed, what was the question (still missing it)? Ah, I thought you said it was not part of love's definition. Do you see how you logically mean it 'must be' here? You guys are insisting that it is necessary, thus 'part' of the definition at...

On page. I believe you, but I've several open theists tell me love cannot exist without 'ability to do otherwise' (see even Derf's 'want to do otherwise" above) thus making it at least part of their definition and their understanding of love. I very much appreciate you agree with me on point...

Yes, true. Yet, you have to adequately define at least one, without the other. Wrong for instance: "not right." Right "no wrong." Anyone unfamiliar with English (i.e.ESL), is going to be rightly confused and cannot, by the defined limitation, ever grasp either meaning, just that one...

One, in definition, necessarily has to not have a contrast, however. It is a must, THEN you can use the definition to discuss the other by opposite, meaning, not before. I have to be able to have a concept of one without the other, to escape circular reasoning: When I was six, my grandpa was...

It was to be able to look it up. I'll have to check if your mind is loaned to my local library :X Yes, but for the need of clarity. O.o I don't see them as analogy? It'll take much longer conversation nevertheless. We disagree out of the gate and I believe upon a 'plain reading' of the...