Search results

I agree. But you believe that we cannot even 'give it away', which is something else, where you believe that we lose the freedom to choose to not believe the Gospel, once we believe the Gospel. Again, we've see where the idea of enduring to the end is told to the Body as well, in Paul...

Curious how you're reconciling the above with the below.

Nonresponsive.

He held Peter to the standard of "the" Gospel, not "gospels".

Nonresponsive. "I'm looking for the words 'only' or 'not anybody else' or something delimiting like that, I can't find that." Also "just Israel and Judah" would be good. Anything along those lines. I can't find that in your excerpt, or anywhere else. I can find lots of cryptic references to...

We're going in circles. We've already seen where future tense is used for the Body also.

Where's it say that? I can't find that. I'm looking for the words 'only' or 'not anybody else' or something delimiting like that, I can't find that. Well isn't that point? He just got done saying that any other Gospel than the one he preaches (which we all agree is the 'DBR') is not a Gospel...

RD answered it. And then he proceeded to tell me that it doesn't mean what it seems to mean, because Dispensationalism (which is begging the question; it would be like me saying, No you're wrong, because Catholicism; we're not here to do that). I know. Like, not fully until PAUL persuaded...

Predestination occurred at the foundation of the world, not after the Fall.

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...