Search results

The Jews WERE trying to bind the law of Moses upon the Gentiles claiming Gentiles could not be saved unless they were circumcised (Acts of the Apostles 15:1-2). Therefore Paul used Abraham to show the absurdity of those Jews requiring Gentiles to be circumcised/obey the OT law to be justified...

--Again, Paul was proving to the Jews that justification does NOT come by the OT law that required the work perfect, flawless law keeping to be justified. --Paul used Abraham to prove that justification does not come by the work of flawless, perfect law keeping. Romans 4:1 Abraham found...

In Rom chapters 1 and 2 Paul proves all, Jew and Gentile, have sinned are in need of justification. Paul spends the first half or Rom 3 telling us the OT law given to the Jew does not provide the justification sinners are in need of for that law required the work of perfect, flawless law...

In Romans 4 Paul used 2 men well known to the Jews and proved to the Jews those men were NOT justified by the law of Moses but by an obedient faith. Thereby proving that keeping that OT law does not justify, justification is apart from circumcision. At that time, Jews had become Christian...

The word "only" is not in the verse, "belief" and "belief only" are two completely different things. From the context, the "works" Paul speaks of that do not justify is the work of flawless law keeping NOT obedience to God's will. When comparing John 3:16 with Luke 13:3 we can easily see all...

1) Rom 4:5 does not teach justification by 'belief only', men assume the word "only" into the verse. 2) Nor can it be assumed God unconditionally justifies the ungodly. Paul goes on to say in v6 "blessing upon the man, unto whom God reckoneth righteousness apart from works". In the context...

"The New Testament was written in a form of Koine Greek, which was the common language of the Eastern Mediterranean" Language of the New Testament - Wikipedia). So when the NT is translated from this Koine Greek, it must be translated accurately from these original Greek texts and give the...

I posted translations of the Bible are not inspired and that is fact. If they were inspired of God they would be completely perfect, no errors whatsoever but that is not the case. Therefore a translation is only as good as the translator's loyalty was to original text/language. If a person...

Aside from your false, vile personal attacks that are against forum rules, God's word as given by the Holy Spirit to inspired men is inspired but translations as the NIV are not inspired. The translators of the KJV or the NIV were not inspired as no one on this forum is inspired.

---I'm not a KJV only person. No version is inspired by God. ---What are YOUR qualifications for the claims you are making? ---the copy and paste was simply to save me time from typing in all the information. I provided proof the NIV made changes to the Bible to introduce Calvinistic ideas...

The Bible does not contradict itself. When one verse says one must believe and another verse says one must repent and be baptized then the obvious conclusion is one must believe repent and be baptized. There is no one verse theology when it comes to salvation, all salvific verses MUST be...

It's long been known the NIV contains errors in it's attempt to force total depravity, faith only, original sin among other doctrinal errors: https://www.spiritualperspectives.org/articles/documents/nivreview2.html "Calvinism" Part of this doctrine teaches that men are born sinners. They...

Just plain reading skills is all that is required to see that the NIV changed Jn 3:16. John 3:16—Ever Wondered Why It Says "should not perish" Instead of "will not perish"? - POCKETSERMONS.org "In the Greek the word scholars have accurately translated as SHOULD is in the SUBJUNCTIVE MOOD...

Hi, I partly agree for the NIV does a very good job with, for example, Psalms making it easier to understand over more archaic English. But it's the doctrinal error the NIV introduces whereby the bad far outweighs any good by it's attempt to force Calvinistic ideas into the text. There was no...

Christ died on the cross for every man (Hebrews 2:9) yet every man will not be saved for every man will not take advantage of the benefits (forgiveness of sins) provided by Christ's death by obeying Christ to be saved (Hebrews 5:9). Those who will not obey are letting the benefits of the cross...

Men have also been commanded to repent and be baptized Acts 2:38. Jn 3:16 KJV whosoever believeth in him should not perish Jn 3:16 NIV whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life The KJV renders Jn 3:16 correctly, the NIV does not. The verb 'believeth" being present...

legalism is not there for obedience to God was never called legalism but righteousness....obedience unto righteousness..not obedience unto legalism. I see you conveniently passed over the verses that I cited that prove the Christian has a role in his own salvation of failing to keep that role...

The term legalism is not found in the Bible in the Greek or Hebrew, so you are defining the word as you choose to define it. There are many examples in the Bible of men obeying God in order to receive God's free gift yet their obedience is never termed "legalism". To refer to obedience to...

--Jesus does not save men unconditionally but saves those who conditionally obey Him (Hebrews 5:9) and obeying Christ includes conditionally submitting to water baptism as Christ has said (Mark 16:16), to conditionally continue to walk in the light and continue to confess sins in order to have...

Not obeying God's commands is transgression and transgression is sin (1 John 3:4) and transgression/sin is the reason people are lost, dead spiritually (Ephesians 2:1). Therefore if one does not have to obey, that means one can be saved while dead in sin, while in transgression to God's...