Search results

Inferences from silence -- "if such a notorious event had already happened, surely it would have been mentioned" -- have never sat well with me. Such inferences discount the possibility that the writers just had other agendas. Example: If Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, why don't the...

Well, whatever their meaning, Matt 18:8 makes clear that all the disciples had the power of loosing and binding -- it wasn't unique to Peter, and thus offers little support for the papacy argument. But in fairness, the verses leading up to Matt. 18:18 do smack of dealing with sin. Anyway, as...

If "binding" and "loosing" in this verse were intended by Matthew to refer to forgiveness and retention of sins, well, that same authority was reportedly given to all of the disciples, not just to Peter (and hence Matt. 16:19 will not support institution of the papacy quite as robustly as the...

Then Luke 22:19, where Jesus is recorded as saying to "Do this," must have been instituting a "work of the law" in your book.

I generally agree with Augustin56 on this. Where I differ with the Roman Catholic view is at the point of its insistence on transubstantiation (the essence/substance of bread and wine are displaced by the essence/substance of Christ) over consubstantiation (the elements retain a dual...

It's impossible to tell whether Abraham observed the Sabbath. Gen. 26:5 suggests that Abraham kept God’s laws, statutes, and commandments -- but we aren't given a list of them, so we don't know if Sabbath observance was among them. It's certainly possible. Ex. 20:8-11 uses the word "remember"...

It is not only John 6:55 but the evidence from the early Church Fathers which should be considered here. Within the first two centuries after Calvary, we find the testimony of Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrnians ch. 7 (“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the...

So, a true Christian can't hep but repent? It is impossible for a true Christian NOT to repent? Fair enough. I'm not trying to trap anybody here.

OK, I will take that as a "No" answer. Good explanation. But definitely a "No" answer to my question.

But my question stands: if the sinner does not repent, will he or she be forgiven? It's a yes or no question. I'm happy to entertain a lengthy explanation of any Yes or No answer, but please lead with that "Yes" or "No" answer.

Are you suggesting that unrepentant sinners will not be forgiven their sins?

Nope. I have no need to further quantify anything here. "Betting" on my words in some kind of thought experiment furthers no goal I strive toward. I am moving on.

What is the point of such a "scientific" measure of strength? I believe what I believe for the reasons stated, and hold to that belief fairly strongly. Let's just leave it there.

I'm not a betting man. But since we cannot interview Paul, there is no logical way to determine whether the bet is won or lost -- not today anyway. (Maybe some day I'll get to ask him!) When I look at verses 8 through 14 together, I see that "silence" is not commanded upon women generally...

I can't scale it with that much accuracy, but I'm pretty firmly in the "wife" camp for this one. Let's say 8.

I grant you that γυναικὶ can be translated either as “woman” or as “wife” – the proper meaning being a matter of the passage’s context. No one would doubt that γυναικὶ should be translated as “wife” in Matt. 19:5, or in 1 Cor. 7:3, 14, 27 and 33. So should it be here, according to Luther: “Here...

Is there any serious doubt that 1 Timothy 2:11-14 is addressing wives, not women in general?

I definitely don't belong here. Thanks to everyone who has put up with my musings.

I'm guilty as charged!

Absolutely true. (Nor, for example, did Jesus teach "justification through faith alone" as Paul taught it -- nor lots of other things taught elsewhere in the NT.) It's certainly not explicit, but one can find traces . . . (admittedly, both for and against). I don't agree that the Trinity...