Search results

Then may I ask you to explain just how they do? Just to make sure you have the same texts, they are Rom 5:10 and II Cor 5:18-19.

Rom 5:10 which you cite repeatedly is referencing two distinct events. You assume they are one and the same. The first is the reconcilement of sinners to God (which is all men, since all men are sinners) from death. In other words the opposite of death is life. All men are held under the...

OK, it seems brightfame52 has someone to assist him. Maybe you can help him find texts in scripture that support limited atonement. He seems unable to find any.

You made assertions, then quoted two texts that have nothing to do with what you asserted. You cannot change the meaning of words in scripture to fit a particular theory. In this case you actually reversed the meaning of the texts. If you are going to support limited atonement, you need to...

You've made two comments basically and base them on the two texts Rom 5:10, II Cor 5:18-19. At issue is the fact that your comments don't align with the texts. Which is why I have been asking you to corroborate your comments with texts that actually support your comments. You don't seem to...

So explain it so I get it. I'll never understand if all you say, "your not getting it"'. So, where are the texts that support what you assert.

Your comments, assertions have nothing to do with the texts you cite, which is only two, Rom 5:10, II Cor 5:18-19. You don't seem to find any other texts that might support what you are asserting. You show no understanding of the texts I cited since you have never addressed them. If I am not...

What don't I get? If you think I don't get it, why can't you explain it so that anyone can understand it? Why can't you give reasoned rebuttal to the texts I cited. After all, they are in the Bible, at least the Bible I have. You make it seem as if your Bible is void of the texts I cited.

You finally got something correct. The reconciliation of Col `1:20 is salvation. You still have not explained just what is being reconciled. The text says world, you keep saying believers. What dictionary do you have that says this? Rom 10:15 has nothing to do with Col 1:20. This is why your...

You use a text, use the word reconcile, give the definitions but cannot state what was out of balance or at variance. Not surprised you have such a difficult time with your assertions. You don't even understand them. In the analogy what is at variance is money. In your citations it is life. Rom...

You cite the several meanings of reconcile. Great. But do you know what was reconciled. Ill give you an analogy: when we check our checkbook with the bank statement, we are reconciling the two things. Make them right with each other, End any variance if there was one. My question to you...

If you mean that you wrote a comment like the one above, so it has been. However, that means nothing when in reality you have not. Your comment is neither a discussion, nor an answer to my questions. To write the comments you do, not addressed to anyone and then unable to defend them make...

That' the problem. You didn't address them before and now again you cannot address them My only assumption has to be that you do not understand the Incarnation or don't believe Christ was Incarnated. As well as you don't understand the fall of man. All your comments to this point do not...

How does this comment address Rom 5:6? How does it address Rom 5:18? How does it address I Cor 15:21-22? How does it explain your understanding of the incarnation? How is your view of salvation related to the fall of man?

Hardly. You make assertions on texts that you take out of context. Give your view on Rom 5:6. The context you have never addressed. You simply dismiss the context. At best you can argue that Calvin believed the same. I have my doubts that Calvin even used the same explanation you do for the...

But you have no argument against what I stated. If you cannot defend it or refute my comments with scripture then it means nothing. You post gibberish comments using isolated texts, but no substantiation.

You keep using Rom 5:10 as an isolated texts, you grab it out of context to force your view upon it. Go back to vs 6 where it states that Christ died for the UNGODLY. If your theory holds true then the ONLY people that were ungodly were those you call believers. All others o mankind were...

It appears I am the ONLY one that does see. I will continue to point out the errors of your interpretation so others can see not only the contrast but the Truth of scripture.

You have never used the word, Harmony, before. Scripture does not use it, so in your theology what does it actually mean? I understand scripture, but I don't understand how you arrive at your explanations based on scripture. It seems you are actually unable to discuss any point of theology...

Do you actually know what that harmony might be? Explain this harmony between Adam and Christ?