Search results

Some popcorn is always good too. LOL

As difficult as it is for many to accept, sovereign election is a Biblical concept. There are many Scripture passages that I could bring to bear on this subject, but here is one of the most clear and succinct and it comes directly from our Lord himself: Joh 6:64 But there are some of you who...

Your proof text equates lying to the Holy Spirit with lying to God. It says noting about "cheating" Peter.

I'm beginning to see that. Thanks for the heads up.

I'm afraid that you've misunderstood Calvin's argument. Calvin in no way shape or form believed in Transubstantiation, (RCC view), or Consubstantiation, (Lutheran view). As a matter of fact, he argued extensively against both. Calvin was assuming his opponent's view in order to make his point...

Yes I am a Calvinist, but what needs to be understood is that no so called Calvinist is actually a "follower" of Calvin. John Calvin is revered because he recovered and articulated Biblical doctrine that had been lost under the rule of Rome. Scripture is paramount in matters of faith and...

The notion that Calvin did not believe in Limited Atonement or Particular Redemption is easily refuted. Not only does he stress the particular intent of Christ's death in his New Testament commentaries, he makes a very clear statement to that effect in his response to Lutheran theologian...

Where did you come up with such utter nonsense?

I know this isn't the entire quote. This is an abbreviated version: There are a few words translated using this phrase in the KJV. To "give up the ghost" means that one's soul or spirit is released from the body. It's simply a metaphorical way of saying that someone has "died."

What is "galvanist?" Do you mean "Calvinist"?

Where exactly is this irreconcilable issue? I find no "Trinitarian heartache" in Heb. 2:14 nor Leon Morris' comments. You need to be more specific.

No sir. He is asking for the glory that he had with the Father before the world existed. I see no reference to the Holy Spirit or any request for power of any sort in John 17:5 or its immediate context. You sir are engaging in pure eisogesis. That is, you are reading something into that text...

Isa 42:8 I am the LORD; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols. Isa 48:11 For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it, for how should my name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another. God says here very clearly that he will not give his glory to...

Actually Nothead Paul says it 4 times. Observe: Col 1:18 1. And he is the head of the body, the church. 2. He is the beginning, 3. the firstborn from the dead, 4. that in everything he might be preeminent. So you're right it's possible, possible, possible, possible.

"Firstborn" when applied to Christ denotes his "preeminence." Colossians 1:18 makes this abundantly clear. Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. Christ was not the first to be raised...

I agree. This is sad. Those who promulgate error will never allow for any Greek or Hebrew word to have a semantic range. They usually cling to the meaning that seems to support their argument and context is irrelevant to them. Of course Christ's humanity was created. I haven't admitted anything...

No worries. I'll try to summarize. The following comes from the middle of the devotional posted above. Indeed, he may resolve to save you, not from affliction and persecution, but in it, and by it! But in all these things you will—‘Overwhelmingly conquer through him who loved us’ (Rom 8:37)...

This is incorrect. "Having been made" would indicate the perfect tense of "ginomai." That's not what we find in John 1:14. We find "egeneto" which is the 2 aorist or middle deponent form of "ginomai" meaning "was made" or "became." Either way, your argument falls flat. Scripture is clear that...

This is true. But it's like this on every message board. Insults and bad behavior begin to fly when error is exposed. I'm used to it. lol

I'm late to this thread and there's too many posts to look at so forgive me if someone has already said what I'm about to say. The proof text in question has been horribly misread and says absolutely nothing regarding the possibility or impossibility of God becoming flesh, (hypostatic union)...