Search results

You're simply uninterested in engaging in the conversation, then, as always--ie, you want to come and vomit your ignorance, change the topic to what ever you please, not honor the topic, but be disorderly, per your usual. There is no "discussing" anything with you. The video, and the thread...

Yes, the Gnostics also taught "licentiousness" (which 1 John was, in part, written to refute), and, yes, the two (license and OSAS) may, on one hand, be related; however, for the purposes of this thread, the topic is OSAS, and how, in its history, we see that the Church fought against OSAS as...

You present ZERO refutation to the claims about church history made in the video--if you wanted to disagree with the historical claims, you would have to present historical counterevidence. However, surprise of all surprises, you have nothing at all of substance to say on the topic--per your...

It's a discussion on the history of the Church; the history is shared in the video presentation shared in the OP.

Have you availed yourself of the presentation, which expounds upon the topic of the discussion? If so, which of its historical claims (eg, OSAS is Gnosticism) do you contend--and on what basis? Again, this is a discussion about HISTORY, so you don't need to go into your views on how the Bible...

So, do you at all contest the claim that, early on, OSAS was a teaching recognized as having been unique to the Gnostics, but was foreign to the Church, which fought Gnostics and their OSAS?

Guys, please try to stay on topic, which is the idea that the early Church recognized OSAS as a heresy, and fought to debunk OSAS as a regular part of their fighting against the Gnostic heresy, because OSAS was only believed on by Gnostics. You're turning tangentials into the main topic. Please...

I think not a few of them actually get something out of what they believe, but when they try to explain what they believe, to try to help others get what ever they got, it's completely incoherent indefensible nonsense. I know Dr. Wright loves God (I wouldn't compare him to a Pharisee), I just...

Idk how it is controversial. He's a professor lol

I emailed Dr. Wright about this. He answers anyone's emails. He seemed genuinely shocked when I reminded him that Jesus's Name is "God Is Our Righteousness" (Jer 23:6), and that that is what passages like Romans 3 are talking about. Like, "My whole career... ", since his whole career has been...

Unfortunately for you, I'm not Reformed, and, again, unfortunately for you, since you seem to parrot all of Wright, I am not seeing it as a "mysterious gas that can be transmitted across the court room"--if that's what you got from what I said, you missed what I said. What I am describing is...

Yeah, I know the typical N.T. Wright gobbledygook--the issue with Wright is he ignores the fact that "works of the Law" includes "do not covet" (Ro 7:7), it's not just "Jewish-people-specific-commands". He doesn't get to the heart of the issue. The heart of the issue is who is performing the...

What is the issue Paul has with Torah? It's that it is a form of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. That was the first act of idolatry--and, lo and behold, what does the righteousness from the Law result in? Flesh boasting. Self-idolatry. Self-centeredness. That is why Paul has an issue...

Yeah, again, it boils down to whose righteousness--"a righteousness of my own from the Law" or "God's righteousness from faith to faith". Why "from faith to faith"? Because we both "begin" and "seek perfection" (Gal 3), and both are by faith.

Paul is not against righteousness, he is against being "under Law", or having "a righteousness of my own"--he insists believers must walk righteously, and says the Lord even strikes believers who do not do so with illness and death (1 Co 5, 11), but he also insists that believers walk...

Obeying unrighteousness, doing evil, is the opposite of obeying the truth, and that was already defined as persisting in doing good. My speculation is that it describes the eternal life "repaid' with the language "give", because we have the "gift" of righteousness, whereby the eternal life is...

1 John was written to counter Gnosticism, and Valentinus came later, so, no, he was not the origin of Gnosticism. Maybe it was Simon Magus, or Cerinthus, but, no, it wasn't Valentinus.

It is a concession that the OP is correct, but one distinction is it seems you want to say that the good things that lead to justification happen on their own, automatically, naturally, without a person making decisions, whereas others will want to argue that, no, we're accountable for our...

1. This is actually a concession that the OP is correct--that only doers of good will be saved/justified and raised to eternal life. 2. We do not see your purport in Scripture. What we see is the Corinthians living in sin, and then Paul warning them that the unrighteous will not inherit God's...

IF being "in Christ" were an unchanging static reality, THEN no one would need to be told "remain in Him" (Jn 15; 1 Jn 2:28)--thus clearly not all branches do remain--and anyway this objection does nothing to address the fact that only DOERS OF GOOD will be raised to life, not merely someone who...