Search results

It seems Paul hits upon this when he says both "there is no condemnation for those in Christ" (Ro 8:1), but, also, "the one who eats without faith is condemned, for what ever does not proceed from faith is sin" (Ro 14:23), because that is breaking the rule "each man must be fully convinced in...

They object to the idea that we can fall away, because, they say, it would throw into question God's ability, because God is the Savior, not ourselves, and if we say we can lose salvation, then we would be saying He is not really good at being a Savior. It would tend to make people trust God...

I think they meant that before we were saved we didn't have free will, because the will was bound by the power of sin--I think I agree with that, but, beyond that bondage and inability to do good, we CAN, it seems, admit that we are slaves in need of salvation or deny that we are slaves in need...

In a sense, we don't have free will, as espoused by Apostle Paul in Romans 7 ("I do what I hate, I am a captive to the Law of Sin"), but, it seems, we may have the freedom to recognize that we are slaves to Sin, and clamor for salvation... but even that is questionable, because, to clamor for...

I have already explained in the OP.

I have read or heard that courts acknowledge that some Christians religiously object to "swearing an oath", and they do not force those Christians to do so.

Cite what you agree or disagree with in the OP, and respond to it. What you have done is you have ADDED to what I have said, as if I meant "faith alone", and then argued against that as if you were arguing against something I'd said--I have unremittingly argued against "faith alone". I'm sure...

If they are being taken as "vows", they are traditions of men that are unbiblical.

Men engaging in sexual relationships with men is condemned when, in Romans 1, Paul gets at the root of the matter : to be inflamed with these unnatural desires is caused by idolatry, for which reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions (they dishonor God, so God pays them in kind by giving...

When Paul says the Law was made for the lawless and disobedient, for ungodly and sinners, etc, and then mentions "arsenokoites", we should look at what the Law says, and when we do that, we see that it condemns men laying with men, and, since the Law gives no context justifying men sleeping with...

Supposedly, Dr. N.T. Wright has some good ones.

I know Christ said He spoke in parables so as to prevent people from being saved, so there's an admitted precedent for Him doing that. It's kind of troubling that we're left to "fill in the blank" on crucial matters. Christ says God's will is "believe" (John 6), but, also, many leaders did...

They're pointing out the simple reality that OSAS was only known among Gnostic heretics until former Gnostic Augustine Christianized it. Do you recognize that or no?

OSAS was only known among Gnostics, and the Church fought it until a former Gnostic Christianized it.

Yep, He saves us. I never disputed that.

I am more convinced of the arguments presented in the OP.

Well aren't we born with "the body of sin" (Ro 6:6) Christ destroys?

The presentation says it was Gnostic, so came much earlier than the Reformation.

This is the type of unsound argument used by Orthodox and Catholics to justify their "traditions"--you find a hole where you think you can stealth your idea in. No, I'd rather go with what seems clear and what the earliest Church believed.

I'm getting a message : go away, you have nothing of substance to add to the conversation, just running to mods when the truth hurts your feelings.