Recent Posts

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
91
Please, all that is required is one short sentence. Thank you.
And then you complain we're being disrespectful?

Am I being disrespectful when I promise you that ...
I can easily summarize in one short sentence why Paul wrote Romans 6?

Disrespectful, maybe. Silly, definitely.
92
Please, all that is required is one short sentence. Thank you.
And then you complain we're being disrespectful?

Am I being disrespectful when I promise you that ...
I can easily summarize in one short sentence why Paul wrote Romans 6?

Then you're not looking for a discussion.  You're simply coming to teach us while getting a survey of our beliefs.
93
Other Topics / Re: The Sports Thread
« Last post by Arachne on Yesterday at 06:50:49 PM »
Kenya and Ethiopia swept the field in the London Marathon, grabbing ranks 1-4 in both men and women. It was glorious.
94
Please, all that is required is one short sentence. Thank you.
And then you complain we're being disrespectful?

Am I being disrespectful when I promise you that ...
I can easily summarize in one short sentence why Paul wrote Romans 6?
95
The Evangelical version of solo scriptura Still fails ... 

Great post, thank you!
IMO, sola scriptura reveals that NT water baptism was by full immersion,
with the immersee knowing full well what was goin' on.
(And here's hopin' that's a word.)
I recommend:
Quote
John Calvin: Infant Baptism
by Rev. Bryn MacPhail

Calvin declares that "infants cannot be deprived of it[baptism] without open violation of the will of God"(Inst.4, 16, 8). He reasons this primarily through paralleling circumcision and baptism, asserting that Scripture testifies to the fact that baptism is for the Christians what circumcision was previously for the Jews(Inst.4, 16, 11). This essay will undertake the task of manifesting the coherence, profundity, and thoroughness of Calvin's reasoning, while illuminating the congruence of his arguments with Scripture.
http://www.reformedtheology.ca/baptism.html
It's a longer essay.

Calvin of course is the foundational thinker on Calvinism's Sola Scriptura and on Calvinism's teaching on infant baptism.

In your version of Sola Scriptura, correct Bible interpretation means that you follow the Holy Spirit as you believe you and Calvin are so led while disregarding the early Christian teachings passed down, and then as a result you achieve the correct interpretation.

Since you have an opposite conclusion from Calvin, a conclusion that he considers to be from Satan, the absolute contradiction in your two conclusions proves to anyone who is objective that your method is severely flawed and not reliable.
96
Please provide a concrete explanation of how you and / or your denomination determine the person has been "called" by God. 
How do you know for certain that they are no longer "spiritually blind"? 
How do you know for certain if their sudden revelatory understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is in anyway accurate?

There is no concrete explanation.
It was 6 months before I realized what had happened to me!
Years later, I was blessed to hear Billy Graham say on TV the same thing: 6 months!
FYI, we both have been born again from above with the indwelling Holy Spirit.

Every believer is spiritually blind to some extent ... no one knows everything.
When one all of a sudden one no longer considers Jesus and His Gospel as foolishness,
then one "knows" they believe ... spiritual revelation is like a light bulb going on.

Ever hear the phrase, "You know that you know that you know!"?

Problem is ... many cultists feel the same way.

Ever hear that Satan is the Great Counterfeiter?
Not to mention the greatest liar and deceiver ever!!!
97
Please, all that is required is one short sentence. Thank you.

And then you complain we're being disrespectful?
98
The Evangelical version of solo scriptura Still fails ... 

Great post, thank you!
IMO, sola scriptura reveals that NT water baptism was by full immersion,
with the immersee knowing full well what was goin' on.
(And here's hopin' that's a word.)

Good for you!  Now go tell that to the thousands of Protestant sects who disagree with your version of Sola Scriptura
99
Sounds like you're trying to change the subject here. Was the challenge of repentance from pride too uncomfortable?

And your "repentance from pride" is a big part of the current subject?
Gee, I didn't realize that.
100
Other Topics / Re: Random Postings
« Last post by rakovsky on Yesterday at 06:31:02 PM »
The A to Z of the Orthodox Church By Michael Prokurat, Alexander Golitzin, Michael D. Peterson
lists three main 1st c. Christian heretic groups: Judaizers, Docetists, and Dualists, on p. 12. For the 2nd c., it lists gnostics, modalists, and montanists.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10