Search results

Not that just anything the early church did or did not practice (especially later accretions--eg, Orthodoxy's icon veneration is brought into practice within the first few hundred years) is automatically the gold standard; but, when you add these facts to the innumerable Scriptural refutations...

According to this documentary, OSAS originated with the Gnostics, was constantly being refuted by the early church, and was unknown in the Church until the 5th century when Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, a former Gnostic, brought it into the church. 00:01:36 "Believers in OSAS invariably take the...

Well, the documentary does cover Scriptural arguments against OSAS, but it also speaks of the beliefs of the early church--how it was not until the 5th century that anyone believed in OSAS, and the guy who brought it into the Church was Augustine, who used to be a Gnostic, and the Gnostics...

00:01:36 "Believers in OSAS invariably take the high ground historically as though they're defending the historic faith. This is incredibly dishonest. That's because before Augustine's novel teachings in the early 5th century, absolutely no one in the early church believed in once saved always...

So what? Peter kept thinking only Jews could be saved, and sticking to the dietary law, not understanding the New Covenant, until God gave him that vision, and he ate with Gentiles, for which thing the Jewish Christians found fault with him. He didn't defend himself, saying, "No, guys, I kept...

John 15 1“I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. 2Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He [a]prunes it so that it may bear more fruit. 3You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. 4Remain in Me...

(I know this isn't the topic, it is tangential.) I think this was because Peter always boasted of his great love for God (in contrast to how John always had himself as being loved by God, not having the focal point be his love for God), and, now, after having denied the Lord those three times...

Guys, please stay on topic. If you're going to reply, then really reply--quote the OP, and agree or disagree, and explain why. Don't treat the thread like a garbage dump for your random thoughts.

I've asked you over and over and over to post on topic. You've admitted that you're not on topic. Quit doing things that are inappropriate so that your brother will not have a reason to grudge.

You just admitted you're not on topic--you're not disagreeing, and you're definitely not agreeing, you're just posting another point. Do not share your unrelated thoughts here. To do that, go publish your own thread. When you reply to a thread, you engage with topic which was raised by the OP...

Yeah, and?

1. When Jesus does that with one law (eg, Vows), how do you know you're actually doing God's will in the case of another law? Only if you know Jesus do you know what God wants from you. 2. The Gentile believers who don't have or know the Law were deemed "doers of the Law" by dint of the law...

The guy just got here, and has already disqualified himself by consistently being underhanded and dishonest in his approach to conversing, because he wants to "correct" someone out of carnal desire, to be above by placing someone beneath, not because he wants to actually help anyone, build...

I just noticed that, as well--the guy just joined, and is spouting all kinds of nonsense, like Universalism.

In the context of the conversation, where bro.tan is promulgating the heresy that Christians are to serve by Torah and be circumcised, yes, it is perfectly fine to state that he is teaching contrary to sound doctrine which says anyone who is under Torah and is circumcised in connection to being...

My intention was obviously not to say "I will present the exact grammar of Paul's statements found in Gal 5--here you can see he uses the word 'anyone'", only that the doctrine that Paul put forth condemns what bro.tan was saying. I'm sure you already know this, and, yet, you decided to...

Everything I said was 100% sound. You either decided not to read the conversation you were responding to, or you did read, but either didn't understand or pretended not to understand the meaning of "circumcision" in the context of the conversation you were responding to, so that you baselessly...

So far, it seems you and I are. Not sure why you even chimed in to agree by sounding as if you were disagreeing (unless you sincerely didn't understand the issue being addressed in the conversation--which I'd find hard to believe).

In the context of this conversation (ie, @bro.tan saying we must be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses, and thr "circumcision" in Galatians 5), "circumcision" referred to physical circumcision.

1. The entire issue of Galatians was their being under Law (Gal 4:21)--seeking to be justified by the Law. 2. Circumcision is the act that enters a man into the Sinai Covenant, and you need to do every act in the Law without failure or you're cursed (not blessed with the blessing of Abraham, the...