Search results

But you don't find it odd that it's everyone else who's wrong, not you?

No, you're confusing the matter (and it's understandable why--you have to try to save your argument): Paul never said "their arguments are weak", he said "the brother is weak in his faith", and he explicitly talks about someone who has a "weak conscience". But if the issue was about "make sure...

@Behold Regarding your non-answer to the OP, I think the benefit of believing in the error that "the only condemnation you experience as a Christian is your own self-condemnation--it's not real, it's not God condemning you, so just ignore it and trust that God doesn't condemn you" is (though...

@Behold It is commendable that people trust in what Christ accomplished for us, and it is good to teach people to trust God about those things, affirming things that are true of us in Christ, appropriating what Christ accomplished on the Cross, and it is a potential error to, having begun by the...

1. Here's your argument: "I'm right, and when ever you disagree, it proves you're carnal, and I'm sure you'll disagree with me again, proving that I'm right and you're carnal." If I make that same argument, will it be as valid as when you make it? Let me try: "I'm right, and when ever you...

1. You claimed people who were children of God weren't the "doulos" of Luke 12, but Paul said he was a "doulos", so was he not a child of God, or were you wrong? By your own rule, you're "carnal": you're saying "nah you didn't prove it" when I did, and you haven't even begun to respond. 2...

@CadyandZoe Not that finding respected people who agree with us conclusively proves anything (I stand on my own, and my arguments don't need help), but I'm curious: are there any NT scholars, any commentaries, any teachers, etc, (Monergist or Synergist), that actually disagree with my view and...

Oh, sorry, it just happened to coincide with your ignorance being debunked. My mistake.

Yes, you are free to walk in your convictions "as unto the Lord", and to "give thanks" as you glorify the Lord.

@CadyandZoe Dr. Douglas Moo, Reformed (Calvinist) New Testament Scholar, on Romans 14: Paul here asserts a general theological principle. But it is necessary to describe accurately just what that principle is. Most important is to realize that “faith” here almost certainly has the same meaning...

It seems like we should focus on Romans 14:23. Romans 14 23But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. 1. Does Paul describe a sin? 2a. If so, is the reasoning given for it being a sin "what ever does...

Here's just one that happened recently: you said... I said... ...you retorted... ...but... You stopped engaging because you had no way of defending your indefensible incoherence--but, it seems, you didn't want admit you were in error. If you can't be trusted to admit error in such a small...

@CadyandZoe The rule is "let each man be fully convinced in his own mind": this is a rule for individuals to walk by. Logically, if God has a rule for individuals, what is it called if an individual breaks it? "Sin"! "Incidentally", Ro 14:23 says exactly that--"what ever does not proceed from...

Yeah, he is: διεκρίθη is contrasted against πίστεως. Romans 4:20 V-AIP-3S GRK: θεοῦ οὐ διεκρίθη τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ NAS: of God, he did not waver in unbelief KJV: He staggered not at INT: of God not he doubted through unbelief Romans 14:23 V-PPM-NMS GRK: ὁ δὲ διακρινόμενος ἐὰν φάγῃ NAS: But he who...

How is your personal opinion about the matter (ie, that eating foods is a "religious" question) relevant to the text, which says the one who "wavers" is condemned if he eats "because", it explains, "whatever does not proceed from faith is sin"? The eating is sin because it is not done in faith...

1. No, I would find it hard to believe if you were not knowingly contorting the text, trying to make it pronounce the most unlikely of things, to protect your view--it really is that clear what the text is saying, and it really would take that much effort to try to cover it up and deny it. 2...

No, Calvin hit the nail on the head: it describes a person who doesn't believe he should eat meat offered to idols eats meat offered to idols, or a person who believes he may only eat vegetables going against his conviction and eating meat, or a person who really believes there is a special day...

Incorrect. Each person is to do what they are fully persuaded is correct. This means the issue is not about correct and incorrect belief (and, again, you introduce your concession that men DO eat with faith), but about whether each is fully convinced about the correctness of what the are doing...

But they "will speak negatively"? Why did Paul give the rule? What were they doing that made him give the rule before he gave the rule? Nope, the rule Paul lays down is not "make sure you get your beliefs correct", it's "you are bound to the freedom of living out your convictions, even if your...

Think of it: when God demotes Israel (Hos 1), He first calls them "No Mercy", then calls them "Not My People": God's people are those upon whom God has mercy. Becoming part of that people also means partaking in God's mercy. No, the sins were not forgiven 2000 years ago--the atonement was...