Search results

Jesus is also recorded as stating only those who have done good will be raised to eternal life (John 5) : again, manifestly, the two are a singular command. They exist on a continuum, with the result that failure to love is also failure to believe, just as the verse I cited (and many others)...

Correction : what this teaches is that believing and loving are a singular command ("Command", not "commands"), so that instances of a believer failing to love are also instances of that believer denying Christ ("He who does not provide for his family... has denied the faith.", etc, etc, etc)...

God's command is that you believe in the Name of God's Son and love others (1 Jn 3:23); John teaches that by doing this command we will abide in Him and be supplied with His Spirit / eternal life (1 Jn 3:24) that is "in His Son (1 Jn 5:10, 11). You're telling me John is incorrect, and this is...

Christ is the Word; it is logical, then, that He states, "He who feeds on Me abides in Me and I in him", "If you abide in Me, and My Words abide in you... If you keep my commandments, you will abide in My love... This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you", and, "And...

Sound advice.

John 15 says if we don't abide we will be cut off and thrown in the fire--1 Jn 2:28 says this warning applies to the "little children" (immature believers) he writes to.

That is a good question. If we believe in Jesus, what do we believe? Wouldn't we, of necessity, believe He will lose none but give them eternal life and raise them up on the last Day? If so, how would you say that people fail to abide in Him and are cut off--and how would you reconcile that...

Oops, Paul tells the Gentile believers (Ro 11) "the Jews were cut off for unbelief, and you stand by faith", then tells them they also can be "cut off" if they don't continue in the faith... so, did the Gentile believers Paul is addressing "trick" God into grafting them in (obviously, being...

Well, we do have the example of the Galatians who had been "bewitched" (Gal 3:1) by a "persuasion" that did "not come from Him Who" called them (Gal 5:8), with the result that they were "so quickly deserting [God]" (Gal 1:6). To be clear, in that the persuasion they had come under had not issued...

Eschatology is hard, maybe we all "understand in part" "as through a mirror dimly"?

For your consideration : the more general categories of "Monergistic" and "Synergistic" may be more convenient, because they cover broader swathes, because "Arminian" is a subset of "Synergist", but the Orthodox and Roman Catholics are also "Synergists", but I don't think they would call...

It seems you would agree with the notion that judgment/justification is not something that happens just once (I ask bc the topic seemingly probes this question)?

I like this question--justification or condemnation follow judgment. When judgment, assessment, occurs, justification or condemnation, the adjudication, follows--when we believe, we are justified and at peace (Ro 5:1), so we must have been judged at that time, yet, also, we are justified or...

Why does John have no problem calling both Annas and Caiaphas, father and son, "high priest"? There can only be one high priest, right? So, is this not a case establishing that two men may be called after a certain title ("high priest"), even though the nature of the title is such that only one...

Idk why we can't have a simple discussion. Not many are capable of it. Why? Auntie Jane, you were able. Idk why others can't. There has to be drama. Half of the thread is drama , not substantive. Think of what we're missing out on. Sad.

Thanks for interacting!

1. Just spitballing, examining possible believable arguments that could be raised against what I've proposed/asked about. 2. More than there not being a moral law forbidding incest, the law, at least at the very start, was that they commit incest ("Be fruitful and multiply"). This, to me, is an...

A good argument (I think--at least from one perspective) against the inevitability of our return to our original diet has come into my mind : the original order was also incest ("Be fruitful and multiply"), and there is no expectation that we will return to that. 1. On the other hand, the...

On my phone now, so I'll be brief. I agreed with a number of the things you said. Did you have any thoughts on reconciling Christ as an agent of restoration to the original order and the warning against men forbidding the eating of certain foods? I'd like to hear if so. Were you meaning to...

Now it makes sense why I had placed you on ignore--there's no point in even discussing anything with you. Au revoir!